What hope for light rail expansion in the UK?

[Arkeeos]

There aren’t a lot of British cities with the required housing and office density to make trams economically viable. Metrolink's "Big Bang" expansion between 2009 and 2020 has done all the low hanging fruit. None of the remaining proposals have a great business case. The best business case is for Tram Train conversions of heavy rail (Marple Rose Hill being the front runner).

I don't really buy that because there's no correlation between a cities density and its public transport quality. Portsmouth is the densest city in the UK yet it hasn't really got anything, same with Bristol.

 

[Chester1]

Scottish cities generally have a higher population density than those in England but so far they only have the one light rail line in Edinburgh. Not sure what current plans are for Glasgow.

Rose Hill via Bredbury seems the best option for tram-train in Greater Manchester, with heavy rail services rerouted via Guide Bridge. Of course this would mean a small separate fleet, as Sheffield already has. So far only Nottingham has made use of powers to introduce a workplace parking levy, which appears to have been successful but no doubt politicians elsewhere fight shy of it!

Edinburgh would have a whole network by now not one line if it had been competently built. The project was a disaster.

Rose Hill is definitely the most viable route but the section between Piccadilly and Ashburys would be difficult to design until HS2 and NPR plans are finalised.

If the new tramway can connect with the subway north and south of the circle, it would breathe new life into it, at tge moment it's struggling to be relevant as the neighbourhood above ground have changed character and others moved on, some of the subway stations seem to be in the middle of nowhere.

I don't think that would be compatible with the new fleet.

I don't really buy that because there's no correlation between a cities density and its public transport quality. Portsmouth is the densest city in the UK yet it hasn't really got anything, same with Bristol.

Both would be suitable for trams but there are other factors in UK against Trams apart from density. If the UK had a similar number of tram systems to France it would mean not just mean Portsmouth, Bristol, Liverpool and Leeds getting them but much smaller and unsuitable places e.g. Preston or Warrington.

 

[Vespa]

I don't think that would be compatible with the new fleet.

I don't mean the trams going underground, I mean surface interchanges with the subway stations, the new Glasgow tram system could go north-South and West-East route connecting with the subway surface entrances, making a more joined up transport strategy.

It's expected to be standard gauge anyway, the subway is 4ft it would be prohibitively expensive to rebore out to 4ft 8ins loading gauge.

 

[MisterSheeps]

Metrolink's "Big Bang" expansion between 2009 and 2020 has done all the low hanging fruit.

er, no! Run a tram line down, and close to all other traffic, Oxford Road to East Didsbury or Withington ... there are about 100,000 commuters a day who would use it.

 

[Chester1]

er, no! Run a tram line down, and close to all other traffic, Oxford Road to East Didsbury or Withington ... there are about 100,000 commuters a day who would use it.

Yep which is too many. TfGM have looked into and its a non starter because of the scale of disruption building it and unsuitability of trams to handle demand.

 

[HSTEd]

Yep which is too many. TfGM have looked into and its a non starter because of the scale of disruption building it and unsuitability of trams to handle demand.

Bus numbers on the corridor are WAY down on pre-coronavirus.

And an awful lot of the traffic would be handled by shuttles between Fallowfield and All Saints park, no need to run into the centre with the bulk of the trams.

It won't happen however, I doubt anything will be done to make the corridor more usable - as it is it has become a disaster. It's just as useless as it was before the bus priority work, and may even be worse.


Now onto other places - myself I'd think about partial tram train conversion of the Grantham-Nottingham line, with NET tram-trains running out to Grantham.
Would provide Grantham an economic future through better links to Nottingham and with the severing of the Norwich-Liverpool service, timing over a partially converted route will be considerably easier to manage.

Intermediate stations would all be converted to tram stops, and the tram trains either fitted with gap fillers or a step up of a few inches would be tolerated for the tram stops so the platforms can stay out of the heavy rail structure gauge. NET platforms are only 305mm high anyway. 2.4m width tram trains have been historically advertised by Alstom and possibly other manufacturers, although they are rare.

 

[Arkeeos]

Yep which is too many. TfGM have looked into and its a non starter because of the scale of disruption building it and unsuitability of trams to handle demand.

Sounds like a job for some higher order transit like an automated light metro then.

 

[Bald Rick]

Bus numbers on the corridor are WAY down on pre-coronavirus.

And an awful lot of the traffic would be handled by shuttles between Fallowfield and All Saints park, no need to run into the centre with the bulk of the trams.

It won't happen however, I doubt anything will be done to make the corridor more usable - as it is it has become a disaster. It's just as useless as it was before the bus priority work, and may even be worse.


Now onto other places - myself I'd think about partial tram train conversion of the Grantham-Nottingham line, with NET tram-trains running out to Grantham.
Would provide Grantham an economic future through better links to Nottingham and with the severing of the Norwich-Liverpool service, timing over a partially converted route will be considerably easier to manage.

Intermediate stations would all be converted to tram stops, and the tram trains either fitted with gap fillers or a step up of a few inches would be tolerated for the tram stops so the platforms can stay out of the heavy rail structure gauge. NET platforms are only 305mm high anyway. 2.4m width tram trains have been historically advertised by Alstom and possibly other manufacturers, although they are rare.

In my crayoning days I did often ponder whether a decent electric service Grantham to Nottingham would be worth a punt. There’s certainly demand on the corridor, especially from Radcliffe, Bingham and to a lesser extent Bottesford. Elton & Orston can close though.

 

[MisterSheeps]

partial tram train conversion of the Grantham-Nottingham line, with NET tram-trains running out to Grantham

would make sense to run them via West Bridgford to Radcliffe and override the nimbys who rejected it before

 

[takno]

Scottish cities generally have a higher population density than those in England but so far they only have the one light rail line in Edinburgh. Not sure what current plans are for Glasgow.

Rose Hill via Bredbury seems the best option for tram-train in Greater Manchester, with heavy rail services rerouted via Guide Bridge. Of course this would mean a small separate fleet, as Sheffield already has. So far only Nottingham has made use of powers to introduce a workplace parking levy, which appears to have been successful but no doubt politicians elsewhere fight shy of it!

All the expansion plans for Edinburgh seem to be tied to an almost fanatical determination to destroy the extremely good bus service, and simultaneously to ignore the challenges of winding the routes up narrow roads which are hemmed in on either side by world-heritage tenements and shops with no rear access.

The Glasgow plans most revolve around taking over large swathes of well-run and useful heavy rail.

Overall I'm mostly crossing fingers and toes that Transport Scotland hasn't got any money left over after the electrification plans.

 

[HSTEd]

In my crayoning days I did often ponder whether a decent electric service Grantham to Nottingham would be worth a punt. There’s certainly demand on the corridor, especially from Radcliffe, Bingham and to a lesser extent Bottesford. Elton & Orston can close though.

Honestly even before the present trouble the rail service was nothing to write home about - the 2 services per hour were so close (at least in the Grantham-Nottingham direction) to each other as to make the service effectively hourly.

And it manages to be slower now than it was at Sprinterisation.
I'd expect conversion to NET would cause rather large growth in use, especially if you put some sort of major park and ride out by the Saxondale Roundabout

 

[daodao]

There is only limited hope for light rail expansion in the UK. I don't expect any new systems to open, but there is the potential for some extensions to existing systems, where current/former rail corridors can be used with minimal street running.

Conversions of existing rail corridors should be confined to those that are not a strategic part of the national rail network and used by local passenger trains only. Therefore, the Nottingham-Grantham line is not suitable.

Rose Hill is definitely the most viable route but the section between Piccadilly and Ashburys would be difficult to design until HS2 and NPR plans are finalised.

I agree, and it is a pity that the development of HS2 and NPR is delaying the implementation of this heavy rail conversion, which can make use of existing capacity in central Manchester.

 

[HSTEd]

Conversions of existing rail corridors should be confined to those that are not a strategic part of the national rail network and used by local passenger trains only. Therefore, the Nottingham-Grantham line is not suitable

The Grantham-Nottingham line ceases to be a "strategic" part of the wider rail system when Liverpool-Norwich gets the chop.

A relative handful of short and slow trains, none of which go west of Nottingham is hardly a key link in the system. And even partial conversion to NET would allow the vestigial service to operate

 

[daodao]

The Grantham-Nottingham line ceases to be a "strategic" part of the wider rail system when Liverpool-Norwich gets the chop.

A relative handful of short and slow trains, none of which go west of Nottingham is hardly a key link in the system. And even partial conversion to NET would allow the vestigial service to operate

The Liverpool-Norwich service is proposed to be divided at Nottingham, not withdrawn, with the Nottingham-Norwich fast service continuing to operate, and possibly be extended to Derby. The Nottingham-Grantham local trains extend to Boston/Skegness, with some holiday extras bypassing Grantham. There is also some limited freight traffic. At most, a tram-train service could be introduced, but that would not be a straightforward light rail conversion, unlike for example Squires Gate to Kirkham & Wesham.

 

[Lewisham2221]

Always thought the Potteries could benefit from a light rail/tramway system. It could be done, after all Sheffield has its Supertram and shares a similar hilly geography.

While in theory that might be true, and there are some obvious routes where demand might theoretically be high, linking the 6 towns with one another and with Newcastle/Keele and with Kidsgrove, there are a number of other factors to consider:

• there is no "folk" memory of trams in the Potteries (unlike Sheffield) as the first generation privately run Potteries Electric Traction (PET) system closed in 1928
• there are a significant number of low bridges on key routes, which restricted the original system to single deck cars, and under which it may be difficult to fit modern single deck cars with pantographs
• the current bus network is fairly slim and poorly used, so demand may be limited
• the area is economically run down and impoverished. so usage may not be high - it is no longer a major economic hub
• there are greater more deserving needs in the area on which the vast sum required to build a modern tram system could be spent
• there is no single "centre" to/from which it is critical to reduce private motor car use

A map of the original PET system can be found at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potte.../File:Potteries_Electric_Traction_Company.jpg
View attachment 120885

Stoke-on-Trent has recently put forward proposals for a VLR system. There was a public consultation about the initial proposals towards the end of 2022. The proposed routes appeared to pretty much follow existing roads and existing bus routes, so not actually sure what the benefits would be, apart from possibly a few more passengers of the kind who look down their noses at buses but see anything with metal rails beneath it as somehow significantly less "scummy"

 

[Jozhua]

Bus numbers on the corridor are WAY down on pre-coronavirus.

And an awful lot of the traffic would be handled by shuttles between Fallowfield and All Saints park, no need to run into the centre with the bulk of the trams.

It won't happen however, I doubt anything will be done to make the corridor more usable - as it is it has become a disaster. It's just as useless as it was before the bus priority work, and may even be worse.


Now onto other places - myself I'd think about partial tram train conversion of the Grantham-Nottingham line, with NET tram-trains running out to Grantham.
Would provide Grantham an economic future through better links to Nottingham and with the severing of the Norwich-Liverpool service, timing over a partially converted route will be considerably easier to manage.

Intermediate stations would all be converted to tram stops, and the tram trains either fitted with gap fillers or a step up of a few inches would be tolerated for the tram stops so the platforms can stay out of the heavy rail structure gauge. NET platforms are only 305mm high anyway. 2.4m width tram trains have been historically advertised by Alstom and possibly other manufacturers, although they are rare.

My crayoning plan was to create a "tram-train" network using 915mm platform heights like Metrolink does.

Nottinghamshire Rapid Transit – Google My Maps

This network is designed to better utilise under-used rail lines around Nottingham. The Robin-Hood line in particular has wasted potential in terms of poor frequency and the ability to provide better orbital connections for inner-city Nottingham. Lines 1, 2 and 3 would likely operate as...

www.google.com

Turn platforms 1/2 through Nottingham station into "Tram Only". I think the line out to Newark would benefit significantly - not sure if I added my idea to put a loop out from Castle to Northgate as well!

In terms of going out to Grantham, it is quite an important route going via Peterboro and Norwich, so I wouldn't want to axe it entirely, but we know trams can happily co-exist with heavy rail services, no problem!

 

[MisterSheeps]

what happened to the ideas of using the Gedling & Calverton colliery lines for tram train? the formations were reserved, nothing happened. Then there is extending to Long Eaton

 

[mwmbwls]

Christian Wolmar has had a letter published in the Guardian
"Zoë Billingham is right to argue that transport is crucial for improving regional economies (England’s transport system is a creaking misery – and an easy win for Keir Starmer, 3 January). But Labour should be wary of simply endorsing the massively expensive HS2 scheme, which delivers little for deprived areas of the north, as evidenced by its very low benefit-cost ratio. Instead, the party should focus on local improvements to bus services, the lifeblood of many communities, and on tram schemes in urban areas that have demonstrable wider benefits.

Can anybody recall what was on John Prescott's list?

When he was transport secretary, John Prescott drew up plans to build 20 tram schemes in the first decade of the 21st century. Sadly, only one was completed because his efforts were not supported by his New Labour colleagues, but it is time for Keir Starmer to come up with similar visionary ideas – and this time to see them through.
Christian Wolmar
London"

Prescott lets the trams take the strain

The transport secretary, John Prescott, today earmarked a substantial chunk of the massive funds announced in Tuesday's spending review to improve urban rail services, writes Julian Glover

www.theguardian.com

 

[Speed43125]

While I would praise the general highlighting of trams, the point on HS2 BCR seems to be incorrect or at least misleading. I was under the impression it was overall in the region of 10:1? Unless this is somehow a norrowed down figure focussing on the north?

Can anybody recall what was on John Prescott's list?

Leeds and Portsmouth spring to mind.

EDIT: The wiki page for Leeds is here:

Leeds Supertram - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Information on the "Transport 2010" papers around 2000 seem scant online*, I can request the documents from the Bodleian and report back if anyone is interested?

At any rate, there seem to be more proposals for schemes that were treated as possibly legitimate by various papers at the time than firm locations given. I therefore suspect the 20 or 25 proposed schemes (I assume the latter was the original number given) were merely an indication of the possible scale of the intention rather than significant work on evaluating potential schemes - at least those announced to the public.

*This has made rather a good distraction from my revision though!

 

[javelin]

Information on the "Transport 2010" papers around 2000 seem scant online*, I can request the documents from the Bodleian and report back if anyone is interested?

At any rate, there seem to be more proposals for schemes that were treated as possibly legitimate by various papers at the time than firm locations given. I therefore suspect the 20 or 25 proposed schemes (I assume the latter was the original number given) were merely an indication of the possible scale of the intention rather than significant work on evaluating potential schemes - at least those announced to the public.

*This has made rather a good distraction from my revision though!

https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/DTLR_10YearPlan.pdf

It was up to 25 lines, 6 of which would be for Manchester Metrolink extensions. This is the most explicit 'list' in the document;

up to 25 new light rail lines in major cities and conurbations around the country. These will include the six new lines to be added to the Manchester Metrolink (three), the DLR extension to London City Airport, Newcastle to Sunderland, and Nottingham. Proposals for new lines in Leeds, the West Midlands, Bristol/South Gloucestershire, Portsmouth and South Hampshire are all currently under consideration

 

[Jammy Dodger]

Why are we adopting a similar position to those in the US where "if a new metro is needed, we use a tram, but disguise it by calling it light rail"? IMO, trams are only really viable if there is a small, high density, urban area that can be connected by plenty of re-used, formerly disused/under utilized national rail alignments (see Croydon for a good example). For the vast majority of situations where trams are built, the disruption that construction causes is immensely far too high, with trams still being impacted by road traffic, in the same way as a bus.

Instead of this, why don't we look at ACTUAL light rail, such as the DLR, which I personally see as one of - if not - the best metro systems in the world. A DLR style network (automated, medium frequency services with 200-500m stopping distances) with a slightly smaller, deep level tube style profile would work excellently in smaller, mid-to-high density cities, such as Cambridge and Canterbury, and could easily be adapted for larger, higher density cities, like Leeds and Portsmouth. It could also be done much more cheaply than most people would assume, if there was a national standard for the construction specifications, allowing for common parts to be made in larger quantities (which cuts manufacturing costs significantly), and for construction to be continuous (one of the largest costs in construction is mobilizing a workforce/production line).

 

[Chester1]

While I would praise the general highlighting of trams, the point on HS2 BCR seems to be incorrect or at least misleading. I was under the impression it was overall in the region of 10:1? Unless this is somehow a norrowed down figure focussing on the north?

Wolmar will probably be calling for the cancellation of HS2 until the day it opens!

Getting the first line built is always the biggest leap after that the politics and the economies of scale should make things easier.

Without tram trains I think Manchester's system is mature. The studies of proposed extensions have come to nothing. Sheffield seems to be in a similar position with the viable extensions being all or partially tram train.

 

[Jammy Dodger]

I think the DLR expansion to Thamesmead will happen by the end of the decade

While practically very feasible, due to it's comparative simplicity in comparison to XR2 or the BLE, I doubt there is any funding available for any new London routes/rolling stock, thanks to the govt.

 

[Thirteen]

While practically very feasible, due to it's comparative simplicity in comparison to XR2 or the BLE, I doubt there is any funding available for any new London routes/rolling stock, thanks to the govt.

Rolling stock funding is more likely than expansion as the Bakerloo Line stock and Tramlink stock is a TfL priority.

 

[Jammy Dodger]

Rolling stock funding is more likely than expansion as the Bakerloo Line stock and Tramlink stock is a TfL priority.

If Bakerloo Line stock replacement is a priority, why aren't the 72 stock being replaced before the 73 stock? Starting off on a smaller fleet (until both phases of the BLE to Hayes are built), single line, with no branches, and no airport to worry about would have arguably been easier (and possibly cheaper) to start the NTfL program.

Best case scenario would be for the Bakerloo Line to get new stock around the same time construction of the BLE goes ahead, but it looks like BLE and XR2 won't restart basic planning until 2030 at this rate.

 

[Thirteen]

If Bakerloo Line stock replacement is a priority, why aren't the 72 stock being replaced before the 73 stock? Starting off on a smaller fleet (until both phases of the BLE to Hayes are built), single line, with no branches, and no airport to worry about would have arguably been easier (and possibly cheaper) to start the NTfL program.

Best case scenario would be for the Bakerloo Line to get new stock around the same time construction of the BLE goes ahead, but it looks like BLE and XR2 won't restart basic planning until 2030 at this rate.

The Bakerloo Line needs new rolling stock a lot sooner than 2030-2035, I would suspect a new Government would ensure funding for new rolling stock and that will happen within the next two years.

The Trams I think they could push back replacing the CR4000s until the late 2020s. The Trams don't need to be custom built so in theory would be cheaper to buy compared to something bespoke.

 

[Jammy Dodger]

The Bakerloo Line needs new rolling stock a lot sooner than 2030-2035, I would suspect a new Government would ensure funding for new rolling stock and that will happen within the next two years.

Agreed, but would the current govt fund it? If Labour win in 2024 (and based on what they have said over XR2 and HS2), it seems likely that they would push for more investment in rail overall, but we will have to wait for their 2024 manifesto for more details.

The Trams I think they could push back replacing the CR4000s until the late 2020s. The Trams don't need to be custom built so in theory would be cheaper to buy compared to something bespoke.

Most trams these days in the UK/North America are either from Siemens, or derived from Siemens, and they tend to all follow the same standard designs, so an off-the-shelf design could be built and in operation within 18 months of order.

 

[Thirteen]

Most trams these days in the UK/North America are either from Siemens, or derived from Siemens, and they tend to all follow the same standard designs, so an off-the-shelf design could be built and in operation within 18 months of order.

The Variobahns were off the shelf having been cascaded from Bergen IIRC hence why they were in service fairly quickly I'd probably say TfL would go for something that either already exists or in production at the moment that will be on stream by the time they're ready to order new trams.

 

[Jammy Dodger]

The Variobahns were off the shelf having been cascaded from Bergen IIRC hence why they were in service fairly quickly I'd probably say TfL would go for something that either already exists or in production at the moment that will be on stream by the time they're ready to order new trams.

Would definitely be quicker and cheaper than NTfL, so I'd assume that tram replacement is on the back burner for now

 

[Thirteen]

Would definitely be quicker and cheaper than NTfL, so I'd assume that tram replacement is on the back burner for now

TBH I did think that replacing the CR4000s are lower on the list in terms of TfL's priorities although if Croydon were to get Levelling Up Funding, TfL would likely use some of it to pay for new trams.