What rail lines should be converted into tram lines ?

[Halifaxlad]

I don't know if this has been done before and I nearly posted it into the Speculative Ideas forum, but its mainly about trams than rail.

Basically what rail lines do you think would be good to be converted into tram lines ?

Much like how the Oldham Loop line has been converted into Manchester.

Forget about the feasibility for a minute and work on the basis that a new line would be built with rail services transferred over to it!

For me I would convert the Calder Valley Line between Bradford and Leeds via New Pudsey! Its between two major cities through some heavily built up areas and has potential for many more stations along the route which just isn't feasible whilst it is a heavy rail line.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The obvious ones are Manchester ones, some of which are actually proposed:
1. Rose Hill Marple via Bredbury
2. Hadfield
3. Atherton Line to Wigan
4. Possibly the CLC on a "Merseyrail meets Metrolink" basis post-Northern Powerhouse Rail providing a replacement fast Warrington service

These are more outliers:
5. St Albans Abbey (run on street into town and to City station)
6. Stourbridge shuttle (I think is proposed in some way)
7. Windermere branch (to Bowness and/or Ambleside, possibly with some Oldham like street running in Kendal as the station is a bit outlying)

Possibly some of the Thames Valley and/or Cornish branches if the stations are outlying which could be fixed by street running.

If I recall Island Line was also proposed but got more second hand Tube trains instead.

 

[Cricketer8for9]

Tunbridge Wells to Gatwick Airport, with street running at East Grinstead and Three Bridges. May fail the existing railway test, and the cost one, but in a parallel (Swiss) universe…

 

[swt_passenger]

I don't know if this has been done before and I nearly posted it into the Speculative Ideas forum, but its mainly about trams than rail...

Yes, it’s been done many times before, and by convention has always been in the speculation forum.
Here’s an example of such a thread from last November:

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

 

[PTR 444]

Basically what rail lines do you think would be good to be converted into tram lines ?

Severn Beach line? With tram-train technology for the sections shared with freight trains?

 

[Halifaxlad]

Yes, it’s been done many times before, and by convention has always been in the speculation forum.
Here’s an example of such a thread from last November:

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

Thanks

 

[The exile]

I don't know if this has been done before and I nearly posted it into the Speculative Ideas forum, but its mainly about trams than rail.

Basically what rail lines do you think would be good to be converted into tram lines ?

Much like how the Oldham Loop line has been converted into Manchester.

Forget about the feasibility for a minute and work on the basis that a new line would be built with rail services transferred over to it!

For me I would convert the Calder Valley Line between Bradford and Leeds via New Pudsey! Its between two major cities through some heavily built up areas and has potential for many more stations along the route which just isn't feasible whilst it is a heavy rail line.

There’s not much point in just converting heavy rail to tram - unless you’ve got or are going to have a decent “off rail” network to plug it into (I nearly said “street running” but it can of course be dedicated tram routes as well).Emphasis there on “network”.

 

[Ken H]

None. Rail and tram have different purposes. If an area wants a tram they should build it from scratch.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Severn Beach line? With tram-train technology for the sections shared with freight trains?

Thats the entire branch save the very last bit at the Severn Beach end beyond Holesmouth Jn

 

[PTR 444]

Thats the entire branch save the very last bit at the Severn Beach end beyond Holesmouth Jn

Unless you divert all freight to run via Henbury, so none runs east of Avonmouth towards Bristol.

 

[AndrewE]

None. Rail and tram have different purposes. If an area wants a tram they should build it from scratch.

+1 from me. Trams are a (much) better form of bus. Trains give much quicker mid-distance travel in a conurbation and shouldn't be removed, or have their infrastructure stolen to make a tram network on the cheap.

In the discussion about Manchester network (and why it seemed so slow outside the core now) first we had adamant denials, comparing tram times today with very old walk-to-the-station-then-get-a-first-generation-DMU time, then we got people (who actually knew) pointing out that it had slowed down... because to get the capacity they needed they had abandoned the signalling and gone to slower line-of-sight driving!

That proves my point that the railway should have been kept and upgraded, and Manchester's trams should have been restored - but not by stealing railway rights of way.
A

 

[Halifaxlad]

There’s not much point in just converting heavy rail to tram - unless you’ve got or are going to have a decent “off rail” network to plug it into (I nearly said “street running” but it can of course be dedicated tram routes as well).Emphasis there on “network”.

My thoughts regarding the line I cited was certainly to have it running on street to both major rail stations at either end!

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Unless you divert all freight to run via Henbury, so none runs east of Avonmouth towards Bristol.

That was proposed as part of the Metro West operation and the freight operators objected as it requires extra shunt moves - that’s why there’s still some gaps between Avonmouth and Clifton Down in the timetable.

Freight would also likely object to the closure of their diversionary route as would leave a weak point for Port of Bristol only having one way in/out.

Freight is often overlooked in proposals like these, anything which has existing freight flows probably can immediately be discounted.

 

[Mojo]

Severn Beach line? With tram-train technology for the sections shared with freight trains?

I would agree with this. The line was actually rejected for conversion to a Community rail line (the service was instead initially designated rather than the line due to concerns from Freight operators). This could instead allow for better penetration of the city centre. Tramtrain seems the best approach as it would allow heavy rail trains to share the same tracks.

Of course I’ve always been somewhat bemused by the necessity to keep light rail vehicles separate from heavy rail; despite 200+ years of operational, engineering and signalling expertise keeping vehicles apart, it seems that there are very specific circumstances in which this is allowed, yet we allow a G-Wiz car to share the same roads as articulated lorries that rely on the mere attentiveness and skill of both drivers to keep apart.

 

[Ken H]

I would agree with this. The line was actually rejected for conversion to a Community rail line (the service was instead initially designated rather than the line due to concerns from Freight operators). This could instead allow for better penetration of the city centre. Tramtrain seems the best approach as it would allow heavy rail trains to share the same tracks.

Of course I’ve always been somewhat bemused by the necessity to keep light rail vehicles separate from heavy rail; despite 200+ years of operational, engineering and signalling expertise keeping vehicles apart, it seems that there are very specific circumstances in which this is allowed, yet we allow a G-Wiz car to share the same roads as articulated lorries that rely on the mere attentiveness and skill of both drivers to keep apart.

Trams would need far better crash worthiness. Imagine the outcry of a freight were to hit the back of a tram and the tram simply folded.
The tram woukd also need AWS and TPWS to operate aafely on main line.

 

[RT4038]

None. Rail and tram have different purposes. If an area wants a tram they should build it from scratch.

Horses for courses. A rail alignment does not automatically make a good tram alignment, but it will do sometimes. Building tram lines from scratch may well be too expensive, destructive and disruptive.

The rail purpose may well have disappeared, or not be sufficient to be worth continuing with. Every scheme on its merits.

 

[Ken H]

Horses for courses. A rail alignment does not automatically make a good tram alignment, but it will do sometimes. Building tram lines from scratch may well be too expensive, destructive and disruptive.

The rail purpose may well have disappeared, or not be sufficient to be worth continuing with. Every scheme on its merits.

No problem with closed railways. The tramway on the old trackbed between Brum and Wolverhampton is great. But sequestering a live railway isnt the best idea

 

[Neptune]

My thoughts regarding the line I cited was certainly to have it running on street to both major rail stations at either end!

Leeds - Bradford via Pudsey seems a very odd choice.

What happens to the services that run beyond Bradford towards Halifax (ie all of them)?

 

[Ken H]

Leeds - Bradford via Pudsey seems a very odd choice.

What happens to the services that run beyond Bradford towards Halifax (ie all of them)?

If you are going to do Leeds - Bradford as a tram then down the current 72 route would be best. But surely the best route in Leeds for trams would be city - West Park replacing the current 1 bus. But maybe trolleybuses would be better. Headingley Lane is quite narrow so trams would be difficult.

 

[A0]

+1 from me. Trams are a (much) better form of bus. Trains give much quicker mid-distance travel in a conurbation and shouldn't be removed, or have their infrastructure stolen to make a tram network on the cheap.

In the discussion about Manchester network (and why it seemed so slow outside the core now) first we had adamant denials, comparing tram times today with very old walk-to-the-station-then-get-a-first-generation-DMU time, then we got people (who actually knew) pointing out that it had slowed down... because to get the capacity they needed they had abandoned the signalling and gone to slower line-of-sight driving!

That proves my point that the railway should have been kept and upgraded, and Manchester's trams should have been restored - but not by stealing railway rights of way.
A

BIB - bit disingenuous that. Of the Metrolink conversions only one was from a DMU service (Oldham / Rochdale) - the Bury and Altrincham lines were both electrified mainlines and I'm not sure the journey times degraded with the conversion to Metrolink.

AIUI those lines were selected because - in the case of Bury it was using life expired electrical equipment and needed total modernisation (it was using the old L&Y 1200v DC 3rd rail system) and in the case of the Altrincham line removing the local EMU services from there created more capacity through Castlefield for longer distance services. The fact for both it improved direct access to the centre of Manchester and in the case of Bury gave a direct link to Manchester Piccadilly and therefore easier connection onto trains to places like London, Birmingham and the South Coast was an added benefit.

 

[PeterC]

There’s not much point in just converting heavy rail to tram - unless you’ve got or are going to have a decent “off rail” network to plug it into (I nearly said “street running” but it can of course be dedicated tram routes as well).Emphasis there on “network”.

Exactly, converting a "one engine in steam" branch using a unit from a larger fleet to one requiring one or two dedicated vehicles seems a poor use of resources.

But it is fun getting out the crayon box and inventing the proposed network to go with your pet conversion.

 

[Bletchleyite]

+1 from me. Trams are a (much) better form of bus. Trains give much quicker mid-distance travel in a conurbation and shouldn't be removed, or have their infrastructure stolen to make a tram network on the cheap.

In the discussion about Manchester network (and why it seemed so slow outside the core now) first we had adamant denials, comparing tram times today with very old walk-to-the-station-then-get-a-first-generation-DMU time, then we got people (who actually knew) pointing out that it had slowed down... because to get the capacity they needed they had abandoned the signalling and gone to slower line-of-sight driving!

That proves my point that the railway should have been kept and upgraded, and Manchester's trams should have been restored - but not by stealing railway rights of way.

Yet Metrolink is hugely popular. Could that be because people in urban settings don't value simple speed above other factors, such as simplicity, affordability and frequency? I've long had the feeling that "about half an hour from the suburb into the city" is an acceptable journey time and raw speed doesn't so much matter.

Merseyrail, despite not being a tram, is similar. Liverpool-Chester or Southport is quite slow, with good fitness and an expensive, lightweight road bike you could probably beat either of them (subject to, in Chester's case, starting on the correct side of the Mersey). However, people love it. Why? Because it's dead simple, and there's a train every 15 minutes so one will always suit.

You could argue that Metrolink should implement a (more expensive?) form of block signalling (e.g. ETCS) to speed it up and gain capacity, but it's hard to argue against its successes.

 

[jj1314]

Possibly some of the Thames Valley and/or Cornish branches if the stations are outlying which could be fixed by street running.

I've often thought tram trains would suit the St Ives Bay branch. Higher frequencies, reduced carbon emissions, potential to make more pick-ups and drop-offs - what's not to love?!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

There are plenty of routes around Manchester that could be suitable for conversion to Metrolink... however one of the most often suggested is Glossop & Hadfield: one that is currently a high quality electrified route. I'm really not convinced of what the benefits would be to conversion in this case. Bury was an improvement over the rather decrepit 504s, Oldham was an improvement over 142s... Will rattly M5000s be preferred by passengers over the 323s though? I'm not convinced at all.
Then there's the boundary issue. Glossop and Hadfield are in Derbyshire, so there could be issues with expanding a metro system controlled by TfGM (and therefore under the jurisdiction of the GM Mayor, an office that Glossop residents don't get to vote for AIUI) into an area that isn't represented by the body in control.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Then there's the boundary issue. Glossop and Hadfield are in Derbyshire, so there could be issues with expanding a metro system controlled by TfGM (and therefore under the jurisdiction of the GM Mayor, an office that Glossop residents don't get to vote for AIUI) into an area that isn't represented by the body in control.

Literally nobody living near Capenhurst, Bache, Overpool, Little Sutton, Ellesmere Port, Chester, Town Green, Aughton Park or Ormskirk objects to the Merseyside taxpayer providing them with a disproportionately excellent train service, a situation that has existed for many, many years.

People would welcome Metrolink for the simple reason that 5 per hour is better than 2 per hour. This Forum has a curious overriding view that 2tph of heavy rail is always superior to a frequent tram or light rail metro service. In the eyes of the general public, it definitely is not.

 

[Ken H]

Literally nobody living near Capenhurst, Bache, Overpool, Little Sutton, Ellesmere Port, Chester, Town Green, Aughton Park or Ormskirk objects to the Merseyside taxpayer providing them with a disproportionately excellent train service, a situation that has existed for many, many years.

People would welcome Metrolink for the simple reason that 5 per hour is better than 2 per hour. This Forum has a curious overriding view that 2tph of heavy rail is always superior to a frequent tram or light rail metro service. In the eyes of the general public, it definitely is not.

Or maybe the passengers from the old rail service find alternative transport and the trams get a different clientele? The last tram I caught (Vic - Rochdale) there seemed to be a lot of people getting on and off. Unlike a train service where its more people going from and to the major station. Different animals.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Literally nobody living near Capenhurst, Bache, Overpool, Little Sutton, Ellesmere Port, Chester, Town Green, Aughton Park or Ormskirk objects to the Merseyside taxpayer providing them with a disproportionately excellent train service, a situation that has existed for many, many years.

People would welcome Metrolink for the simple reason that 5 per hour is better than 2 per hour. This Forum has a curious overriding view that 2tph of heavy rail is always superior to a frequent tram or light rail metro service. In the eyes of the general public, it definitely is not.

I never mentioned frequency in my post- you make a good point that on paper, the increase in frequency compensates for the increased number of stops and lower-quality accommodation of the trams, but compared to 323s (as opposed to Pacers or rotting 1960s EMUs) that's a higher bar to meet. The Glossop lines aren't a huge capacity problem into Piccadilly, being isolated from almost everything other than the TPE stoppers and the odd later runs that terminate at Picc, so you aren't releasing capacity that can easily be used elsewhere. Hadfield only gets suggested because it looks neat on a map.

Merseyrail unlike Metrolink is basically part of the national network, however much it likes to act as if it isn't. Metrolink on the other hand is very much a Manchester pet project. You could just change the boundaries and add Glossop and Hadfield to Greater Manchester, but adding a prosperous rural market town might threaten Burnham's (aka Labour's) grip on power.

 

[Ken H]

I never mentioned frequency in my post- you make a good point that on paper, the increase in frequency compensates for the increased number of stops and lower-quality accommodation of the trams, but compared to 323s (as opposed to Pacers or rotting 1960s EMUs) that's a higher bar to meet. The Glossop lines aren't a huge capacity problem into Piccadilly, being isolated from almost everything other than the TPE stoppers and the odd later runs that terminate at Picc, so you aren't releasing capacity that can easily be used elsewhere. Hadfield only gets suggested because it looks neat on a map.

Merseyrail unlike Metrolink is basically part of the national network, however much it likes to act as if it isn't. Metrolink on the other hand is very much a Manchester pet project. You could just change the boundaries and add Glossop and Hadfield to Greater Manchester, but adding a prosperous rural market town might threaten Burnham's (aka Labour's) grip on power.

One of the bad moves with Metrolink when it started was removing Bury from the national ticketing. Why they could not retain tickets from the national network to 'Bury line Metro' as a destination I dont know. Now Oldham has suffered the same fate.
On National Rail, Bury isnt a station. Oldham is but I cant buy a ticket to there when I tried from Redditch. That's daft.
People who dont know the railway will assume there is no provision and drive.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Merseyrail unlike Metrolink is basically part of the national network, however much it likes to act as if it isn't.

It's part of the Rail Settlement Plan (much, as you say, like London Overground, it pretends not to be), and its infrastructure is owned and maintained by Network Rail. However it is now a locally managed concession and not a National Rail franchise/contract. As such it's contractually very similar to Metrolink or London Overground.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 May 2022 ==

I never mentioned frequency in my post

I know, but it is (provided it's reliable) probably the single greatest selling point, outweighing less important things like whether you prefer ironing boards or Fainsa Sophias or whether trams (or 195s/331s) ride a bit badly.

 

[A0]

Literally nobody living near Capenhurst, Bache, Overpool, Little Sutton, Ellesmere Port, Chester, Town Green, Aughton Park or Ormskirk objects to the Merseyside taxpayer providing them with a disproportionately excellent train service, a situation that has existed for many, many years.

People would welcome Metrolink for the simple reason that 5 per hour is better than 2 per hour. This Forum has a curious overriding view that 2tph of heavy rail is always superior to a frequent tram or light rail metro service. In the eyes of the general public, it definitely is not.

I think there is an issue you're overlooking though.

If you take the *distance* as the crow flies from the "inner" ring road (A57, Ancoats St etc) - then Bury and Altrincham are about 7 miles, Oldham's about 6 miles, Rochdale's a bit further at about 10 miles but it does have an alternative "fast" route to Victoria.

Glossop by comparison is almost 15 miles - pretty much double the distance Oldham, Bury or Altrincham have to the centre of Manchester - that I think is part of the challenge.

If you look at the Croydon Tramlink, probably the furthest from Croydon is New Addington, again 6-7 miles - and that had the added benefit that previously it had no rail connection so actually was an improvement.

I agree with you there isn't a political issue - but I do think there is a practical issue where Hadfield / Glossop are concerned which is that they are significantly further out than the other lines that Metrolink has taken over. In distance terms your talking about as far as places like Alderley Edge or Littleborough and almost as far as places like Macclesfield.