Where else in the UK could tramways/light rail be installed?

[renegademaster]

It might be cheaper in capital terms but it will produce a vastly inferior result in terms of usable transport, and it will lock in enormous operating costs in the form of staff forever.

Given the effective prohibition on articulated (bendy) buses in the UK, a bus simply can't carry enough people or load/unload them fast enough to be competitive. Even if it has continuous bus lanes, which bus lane schemes almost never do.

How many places without trams currently would be able to get more than Enviro400 load of passengers worth?

 

[Sly Old Fox]

I’m sure at one point there was a proposal for a Gloucester and Cheltenham tram. I can’t see it ever happening though.

 

[Marton]

The opportunity to use trams in Teesside has been suggested in the past and should be reconsidered.

 

[HSTEd]

How many places without trams currently would be able to get more than Enviro400 load of passengers worth?

Well there are lots of high intensity bus corridors in the UK.

And double deckers are so slow to load and unload that a tram may still have lower operational costs even with fewer people aboard.

 

[The exile]

Which is nonsense as they work in places like Florence which are hardly Texas

Many European cities had broad boulevards built through previously congested areas in the 19th and early 20th centuries (urban improvement while making it difficult for the mob to erect barricades). On the whole, we didn’t. By the time we were building similar roads in the 1950s and 60s trams were on their way out so no provision was made, so we’re largely stuck with mediaeval street plans and feeders which would be difficult to convert to incorporate light rail. Nothing is impossible, of course….

 

[Mgameing123]

West London Trams should be reconcidered. I think there is demand to convert the SL8 to a tram. And maybe consider a coastal tramway around Brighton.

Many European cities had broad boulevards built through previously congested areas in the 19th and early 20th centuries (urban improvement while making it difficult for the mob to erect barricades). On the whole, we didn’t. By the time we were building similar roads in the 1950s and 60s trams were on their way out so no provision was made, so we’re largely stuck with mediaeval street plans and feeders which would be difficult to convert to incorporate light rail. Nothing is impossible, of course….

European cities have the exact same issue. The solution is the get rid of 1 lane of traffic and make the roads next to the tramway one way.

 

[geoffk]

Well there are lots of high intensity bus corridors in the UK.

And double deckers are so slow to load and unload that a tram may still have lower operational costs even with fewer people aboard.

Nearly everywhere outside London, buses are slow, even when not held up in traffic, because of our attachment to vehicles with just a single door for boarding and alighting and the need for all passengers to have some interaction with the driver. A change to dual-door vehicles and 100% off-bus ticketing would bring about improvement in journey times but this could be cancelled out by increasing traffic congestion.

 

[The exile]

West London Trams should be reconcidered. I think there is demand to convert the SL8 to a tram. And maybe consider a coastal tramway around Brighton.


European cities have the exact same issue. The solution is the get rid of 1 lane of traffic and make the roads next to the tramway one way.

I very much doubt it’s “exactly the same issue”. Ignoring urban motorways - were you to measure the average distance from property boundary to property boundary across arterial roads in major European cities (the sort where trams already exist or are potentially viable), I would be fairly certain that the UK (and Ireland) will be amongst the narrowest. Doesn’t make it impossible to squeeze trams in - but many wouldn’t have room for a two track tramway and one way normal traffic - and that’s before you come to the question of where the traffic in the other direction is going to go.

 

[TrainBoy98]

If you put a coastal tram on Brighton, I fear that Volks' Railway will struggle, plus people in better-off Hove may complain about obstructing their sea views

West London Trams should be reconcidered. I think there is demand to convert the SL8 to a tram. And maybe consider a coastal tramway around Brighton.


European cities have the exact same issue. The solution is the get rid of 1 lane of traffic and make the roads next to the tramway one way.

 

[stuu]

Many European cities had broad boulevards built through previously congested areas in the 19th and early 20th centuries (urban improvement while making it difficult for the mob to erect barricades). On the whole, we didn’t. By the time we were building similar roads in the 1950s and 60s trams were on their way out so no provision was made, so we’re largely stuck with mediaeval street plans and feeders which would be difficult to convert to incorporate light rail. Nothing is impossible, of course….

Medieval? Really? What proportion of the UK road network looks the same as it did in 1500?

 

[LUYMun]

Watford to St Albans is feasible for a light rail line, and for maximum crayonista divert it short of the Abbey station to Hatfield. Some may bring up the Croxley Green branch connection, but the difficulty of avoiding both Watford town's narrow streets, dual carriageways and main/DC rail lines would say otherwise.

 

[The exile]

Medieval? Really? What proportion of the UK road network looks the same as it did in 1500?

Look at the street plan of any part of virtually any town (including the City of London - where the plans to modernise after the Great Fire were quickly abandoned) that existed then and you’ll see what I mean. New river crossings have probably been the biggest drivers of significant change. But even outside mediaeval cores our streets / roads tend to be a lot narrower.

 

[rf_ioliver]

I have often thought that trams would work well in Brighton - a route from the universities into the centre and then west into Hove and beyond - lots of dense housing, and mostly unusually wide streets

IIRC there was a plan to actually do this - I'll see if I can find it - but the idea was to run trams up London and Lewes Roads; the latter as far as Coldean and Falmer, and close London Road and Moulsecoomb stations.

 

[stuu]

Look at the street plan of any part of virtually any town (including the City of London - where the plans to modernise after the Great Fire were quickly abandoned) that existed then and you’ll see what I mean. New river crossings have probably been the biggest drivers of significant change. But even outside mediaeval cores our streets / roads tend to be a lot narrower.

Of course, but those are tiny, tiny parts of the road network. The vast majority of our roads are post-1850 or thereabouts, and many of them are perfectly wide enough to run articulated lorries along so they are wide enough for articulated buses too

 

[HullRailMan]

Not forgetting all those cities that had a tram system in the late 19th to early 20th centuries. Hull had an extensive system lasting until 1945, being supplanted by the much loved trolley bus for a couple of decades before they met their demise.

Plus in Hull many of the old track beds were turned into wide central reservations meaning most arterial roads have space for trams to run separately once you get a couple of miles from the city centre. The city being as flat as a pancake and the lack of suburban rail also helps. Perfect!

 

[Jim Jehosofat]

I seem to remember a plan for trams from Norwich railway station to the city centre.

 

[brad465]

Separate idea I've had is medway and Maidstone. So many dual carriageways! Underutilised railway connecting the two areas. So much potential for regeneration. Connections to high speed (and other fast) trains to London.

While the Medway Towns absolutely could do with them, the steep valley sides in Chatham (and to a lesser extent Strood) might limit the scope of where they operate. If it's possible though to have a system go south towards Walderslade and Lordswood to the south, plus St Marys Island to the North, those areas need better connectivity.

 

[MPW]

While the Medway Towns absolutely could do with them, the steep valley sides in Chatham (and to a lesser extent Strood) might limit the scope of where they operate. If it's possible though to have a system go south towards Walderslade and Lordswood to the south, plus St Marys Island to the North, those areas need better connectivity.

Here's my full idea. It's quite long so hesitated to post the 'detailed ' version.

Phase 1
Phase 1 is intended as a fast-to-implement route with high speeds to compete with blue bell hill or other routes for road drivers between Maidstone and Medway. It also gives fast connection to Chatham Docks and links to existing major stations at Strood and Gillingham in north, and uses the maidstone town centre dual carriageway loop for a wide catchment in the south. P&R could be added at Aylesford and where the railway passes under the M2.

Phase 1 key route is the existing railway from Strood to Maidstone via Snodland. That takes 24 minutes currently and has spare capacity. In future perhaps some passing loops at stations could be added to avoid less popular stations, noting some trains on this route go all the way to st pancras

Phase 2: Maidstone end would be a loop around the town centre. Maidstone west station to be slightly north (or new tram-only platforms connecting to existing station), between A20 and Buckland Road. Note this triangle of land also bounded by st peter's street could be redeveloped for mixed uses, as well as other ground-level car parks nearby, to help fund the system. The major roads around the town centre cut it off from the other areas. Radial bus routes into maidstone from the south and east would be able to connect to the new tram-train route without entering the centre itself. The line from Maidstone East also appears lightly-used enough to allow trams to run there before reconnecting near Maidstone Barracks.


3. From Strood, there should be a station somewhere in Medway City Estate. Keeping on periphery reduces the time penalty from going deeper into it. Obviously some trade off there.

a. Medway tunnel looks wide and tall enough to accomodate overhead wires and avoid need to battery-hybrid trams.

b. 3 stations at near Chatham docks are actually ~600m spaced, with is a good distance from a tram route. Note I am not proposing for it to go into Chatham itself. That is because this route is targeting slightly longer-distance travellers so speed is of the essence to compete with cars, and sticking to mostly dual carriageway reduces cost. There's nothing to stop this in future.

c. From Pier road there is a former railway alignment (some still with single track sections) parallel to Rosebery road which could be used to connect to Gillingham station. Admittedly that is pretty overgrown with trees but if there were enough objections then maybe it could be a (costly) cut and cover with new pedestrian/cycle path above the tram route.

d. Note the land to north and east of the existing station is mostly carpark, perfect for development and gives some choice on tram route to the station (or if a loop is needed to avoid need for double-ended trams).

e. That is the end of Phase 1! There are connections to existing railway at Strood and Gillingham. I don't think there is capacity for tram-trains to run between Strood and Gillingham via Rochester and Chatham.

(as an aside, I love the idea of a cable car from Rochester station to the southern end of Medway City estate, which could be redeveloped along the southern riverfront while keeping the industrial businesses in the middle. There could be a 3rd station/stop in The Historic Dockyard. This kind of obstacle with existing quality rail transport is the perfect situation for a cable car to be successful, serving tourists, students, and commuters. Anyway, back to the trams!)

Phase 2
Phase 2 is basically the P&R loop (for M2) making very little use of existing railway alignment. Its purpose to reduce the number of private vehicles entering into the town centres, and should be built with transit-oriented-development in mind, particularly making use of existing car parks. The eastern section (via gillingham business park) is much more straightforward than the Western (blue bell to rochester) end. An alternative could be following the A2 straight through the towncentres, but that does less to keep drivers from driving into Medway and is more duplicative of existing railway. A2 could either be a future phase or a well-connected bus route.

1. Phase 2 either starts at Gillingham station if there is capacity to run part-way to Rainham on existing rail alignment (noting some london services terminate at gillingham). If not then it would branch off from Phase 1 at the Pier Road Asda and follow the dual carriage way around to a station near corner of Yokosuka way and beechings way.
a. station near Gillingham business park, which is big enough that could even warrant have 2 stations at either end!
b. then on intermediate station before serving a P&R off the M2.


2. The next section follows the M2 to Blue bell hill, where there would be another P&R. The M2 median is wide enough to support an elevated bit of track, but I don't know if that would be any cheaper than cutting down some trees, and an intermediate stop at Lordswood would also be useful. Same logic for the P&R in Blue Bell Hill on south side of M2 - going over/under the motorway twice might be more cost than benefit vs staying on north side.

3. The route then follows the A229 into Rochester town centre. A portion of this could be split directionally with St williams way (see arrows below), or just one of those given over more fully to the tram priority (maybe access only?). THere are some greenfields and highway verges to help.
      a. one stop at southern end of rochester high street, and another near the existing station. Note the surface-level car parks should be removed given the P&R opportunities, this allows for transport-oriented development and improves speed + competitiveness of the tram route.
      b. The line shows a crossing on the historic rochester bridge. Perhaps that isn't feasible, in which case a new bridge would be needed. This is a major road bottleneck and I would personally have no misgivings of handing the capacity over to public transport. Tram route could be shared with bus priority lanes. Voters may disagree.

 

[Arkeeos]

and it will lock in enormous operating costs in the form of staff forever.

I'm not sure if there are any concrete numbers on the amount of damage buses do to roads but I'm sure its a lot, as someone else mentioned in this thread the UK has some of the busiest bus routes in Europe (Mainly because every other country would upgrade them to a tram or metro). And with electric buses, with how much they weigh, I imagine that the damage will be even greater.

 

[HSTEd]

Nearly everywhere outside London, buses are slow, even when not held up in traffic, because of our attachment to vehicles with just a single door for boarding and alighting and the need for all passengers to have some interaction with the driver. A change to dual-door vehicles and 100% off-bus ticketing would bring about improvement in journey times but this could be cancelled out by increasing traffic congestion.

It might help but it won't save us from the UK obsession with double deckers with a single narrow staircase.

I'm not convinced any road based public transport solution can ever be truly attractive to the population.

 

[Trainlog]

Here's my full idea. It's quite long so hesitated to post the 'detailed ' version.

Phase 1
Phase 1 is intended as a fast-to-implement route with high speeds to compete with blue bell hill or other routes for road drivers between Maidstone and Medway. It also gives fast connection to Chatham Docks and links to existing major stations at Strood and Gillingham in north, and uses the maidstone town centre dual carriageway loop for a wide catchment in the south. P&R could be added at Aylesford and where the railway passes under the M2.

Phase 1 key route is the existing railway from Strood to Maidstone via Snodland. That takes 24 minutes currently and has spare capacity. In future perhaps some passing loops at stations could be added to avoid less popular stations, noting some trains on this route go all the way to st pancras

Phase 2: Maidstone end would be a loop around the town centre. Maidstone west station to be slightly north (or new tram-only platforms connecting to existing station), between A20 and Buckland Road. Note this triangle of land also bounded by st peter's street could be redeveloped for mixed uses, as well as other ground-level car parks nearby, to help fund the system. The major roads around the town centre cut it off from the other areas. Radial bus routes into maidstone from the south and east would be able to connect to the new tram-train route without entering the centre itself. The line from Maidstone East also appears lightly-used enough to allow trams to run there before reconnecting near Maidstone Barracks.


3. From Strood, there should be a station somewhere in Medway City Estate. Keeping on periphery reduces the time penalty from going deeper into it. Obviously some trade off there.

a. Medway tunnel looks wide and tall enough to accomodate overhead wires and avoid need to battery-hybrid trams.

b. 3 stations at near Chatham docks are actually ~600m spaced, with is a good distance from a tram route. Note I am not proposing for it to go into Chatham itself. That is because this route is targeting slightly longer-distance travellers so speed is of the essence to compete with cars, and sticking to mostly dual carriageway reduces cost. There's nothing to stop this in future.

c. From Pier road there is a former railway alignment (some still with single track sections) parallel to Rosebery road which could be used to connect to Gillingham station. Admittedly that is pretty overgrown with trees but if there were enough objections then maybe it could be a (costly) cut and cover with new pedestrian/cycle path above the tram route.

d. Note the land to north and east of the existing station is mostly carpark, perfect for development and gives some choice on tram route to the station (or if a loop is needed to avoid need for double-ended trams).

e. That is the end of Phase 1! There are connections to existing railway at Strood and Gillingham. I don't think there is capacity for tram-trains to run between Strood and Gillingham via Rochester and Chatham.

(as an aside, I love the idea of a cable car from Rochester station to the southern end of Medway City estate, which could be redeveloped along the southern riverfront while keeping the industrial businesses in the middle. There could be a 3rd station/stop in The Historic Dockyard. This kind of obstacle with existing quality rail transport is the perfect situation for a cable car to be successful, serving tourists, students, and commuters. Anyway, back to the trams!)

Phase 2
Phase 2 is basically the P&R loop (for M2) making very little use of existing railway alignment. Its purpose to reduce the number of private vehicles entering into the town centres, and should be built with transit-oriented-development in mind, particularly making use of existing car parks. The eastern section (via gillingham business park) is much more straightforward than the Western (blue bell to rochester) end. An alternative could be following the A2 straight through the towncentres, but that does less to keep drivers from driving into Medway and is more duplicative of existing railway. A2 could either be a future phase or a well-connected bus route.

1. Phase 2 either starts at Gillingham station if there is capacity to run part-way to Rainham on existing rail alignment (noting some london services terminate at gillingham). If not then it would branch off from Phase 1 at the Pier Road Asda and follow the dual carriage way around to a station near corner of Yokosuka way and beechings way.
a. station near Gillingham business park, which is big enough that could even warrant have 2 stations at either end!
b. then on intermediate station before serving a P&R off the M2.


2. The next section follows the M2 to Blue bell hill, where there would be another P&R. The M2 median is wide enough to support an elevated bit of track, but I don't know if that would be any cheaper than cutting down some trees, and an intermediate stop at Lordswood would also be useful. Same logic for the P&R in Blue Bell Hill on south side of M2 - going over/under the motorway twice might be more cost than benefit vs staying on north side.

3. The route then follows the A229 into Rochester town centre. A portion of this could be split directionally with St williams way (see arrows below), or just one of those given over more fully to the tram priority (maybe access only?). THere are some greenfields and highway verges to help.
      a. one stop at southern end of rochester high street, and another near the existing station. Note the surface-level car parks should be removed given the P&R opportunities, this allows for transport-oriented development and improves speed + competitiveness of the tram route.
      b. The line shows a crossing on the historic rochester bridge. Perhaps that isn't feasible, in which case a new bridge would be needed. This is a major road bottleneck and I would personally have no misgivings of handing the capacity over to public transport. Tram route could be shared with bus priority lanes. Voters may disagree.

I often have to commute between the two areas and alternate between the train and the bus to get to them.

Firstly, for your Maidstone to Medway route. Whilst I see where your coming from for the Medway valley line, and I would definitely be in favour of an hourly off-peak Javelin from Maidstone West,however, for what it's worth, the Medway Valley Line does a good job, especially since Southeastern brought in the half-hourly service on that line. Sure, it has its faults. The timings at Strood aren't great, and there are lots of smaller stations that do slow the journey down between Medway and Maidstone, but it is still a reliable line from my experience.

Sticking with rail, one thing that can be said between Rochester and Rainham is that you aren't left waiting long for a train to turn up. However, it's not cheap to travel between the Medway stations, and if you decide to visit more than one town in the day you have to keep constantly buying tickets between the towns.

As for Maidstone to Chatham, the 101 bus does a good job as well, running every 12mins. However, in rush hour, it has the problem of the 17:15 bus being a single-decker, and the stretch between Chatham rail station and Davis estate ASDA has a lot of bus stops, so any time advantage that the 101 claims to rail have been lost.

My solutions would be

1.) Make a Medway town's day ticket for rail that is affordable and not restricted by peak hour fares and can be used from Strood to Rainham.
2.) In peak hours, make the 101 bus a guaranteed double-decker and run some 101 express buses between Chatham and Maidstone. These buses will only stop at Chatham rail station and Davis estate tiger moth until the Maidstone bus stops.
3.) Enable funding so that the last train on the Medway Valley is at Midnight and the same for the last 101 bus. They both seem to wrap up at 22:30, which is definitely some lost revenue on a Friday or Saturday night for the Maidstone and Medway economies.

As for Kent having trams, the only place I can think of that would find one useful is Folkestone, which is central to the edge of Folkestone harbour as it is a steep hill. However, there has been little progress in implementing the Parry people mover, so I doubt Kent will be getting trams any time soon.

 

[stuu]

I'm not convinced any road based public transport solution can ever be truly attractive to the population.

But they are in London, where all sorts of people use them. Decent frequencies, not too much hanging about at stops, and a straightforward fare structure seems to help

 

[blueberry11]

No one has mentioned Norwich yet. Especially during school time, the buses are quite busy. Clearly a tram is better than a bunch of double deckers. My proposal could run a tram from the hospital to Carrow Road (the football station of Norwich City FC) via the University of East Anglia.. Even with 8 buses per hour, it still gets busy. A tram following Dereham Road is also possible.

 

[HSTEd]

But they are in London, where all sorts of people use them. Decent frequencies, not too much hanging about at stops, and a straightforward fare structure seems to help

Even there patronage has been falling since about 2014 (even ignoring coronavirus).

THere was growth for a few years when the congestion charge briefly reduced traffic in London and allowed increased average speeds, but that effect has now disappeared.

 

[MPW]

I often have to commute between the two areas and alternate between the train and the bus to get to them.

Firstly, for your Maidstone to Medway route. Whilst I see where your coming from for the Medway valley line, and I would definitely be in favour of an hourly off-peak Javelin from Maidstone West,however, for what it's worth, the Medway Valley Line does a good job, especially since Southeastern brought in the half-hourly service on that line. Sure, it has its faults. The timings at Strood aren't great, and there are lots of smaller stations that do slow the journey down between Medway and Maidstone, but it is still a reliable line from my experience.

Sticking with rail, one thing that can be said between Rochester and Rainham is that you aren't left waiting long for a train to turn up. However, it's not cheap to travel between the Medway stations, and if you decide to visit more than one town in the day you have to keep constantly buying tickets between the towns.

As for Maidstone to Chatham, the 101 bus does a good job as well, running every 12mins. However, in rush hour, it has the problem of the 17:15 bus being a single-decker, and the stretch between Chatham rail station and Davis estate ASDA has a lot of bus stops, so any time advantage that the 101 claims to rail have been lost.

My solutions would be

1.) Make a Medway town's day ticket for rail that is affordable and not restricted by peak hour fares and can be used from Strood to Rainham.
2.) In peak hours, make the 101 bus a guaranteed double-decker and run some 101 express buses between Chatham and Maidstone. These buses will only stop at Chatham rail station and Davis estate tiger moth until the Maidstone bus stops.
3.) Enable funding so that the last train on the Medway Valley is at Midnight and the same for the last 101 bus. They both seem to wrap up at 22:30, which is definitely some lost revenue on a Friday or Saturday night for the Maidstone and Medway economies.

As for Kent having trams, the only place I can think of that would find one useful is Folkestone, which is central to the edge of Folkestone harbour as it is a steep hill. However, there has been little progress in implementing the Parry people mover, so I doubt Kent will be getting trams any time soon.

My thinking was that the existing medway valley line stays on wrong side of the river for towncentres and both towns have massive traffic issues.

Extending to Maidstone town centre loop means one seat to get much closer to final destinations on that side.

In Medway the tram would serve the areas which are currently far from stations and take advantage of flatter terrain with wide dual carriageways. The existing train line, while already good, poorly serves much of the area. Also note i havent chosen to duplicate the existing rail line as theres less pount and less room.

I don't always think park and ride is a good idea but in this case I think it is important as M2 has much more capacity in that area than the local roads through the towns. I didn't include a Maidstone P&R but something near Aylesford would probably he helpful. There might be other radial journeys in Maidstone but I didn't see any roads as wide as on the Medway side, so relies on the existing rail lines more. These are currently lower frequency than in Medway Towns and would benefit from enhanced service.

I also haven't tried to duplicate the bus over bluebell hill as that is a big obstacle for a tram and not actually that far of a distance. But for people travelling from deeper in Maidstone to deeper in Medway (or vi versa) the tram would likely be more reliable as it avoids the traffic. The bus could also be integrated with the P&R stations at edges of town.

 

[daodao]

Swansea railway station to Mumbles (Oystermouth), passing close to the University and Singleton Hospital?
,
Fylde Borough, as an extension of Blackpool Tramway from Starr Gate/Squires Gate to Lytham by taking over the existing railway line?

Preston to Longridge?

North Leeds circular: City Square-Scott Hall Road-Moortown Corner-Street Lane-Roundhay Park-Harehills-St.James' Hospital-City Square?

All of the above could have significant stretches of reserved track, which is the key to modern light rail development.

 

[Jim Jehosofat]

No one has mentioned Norwich yet. Especially during school time, the buses are quite busy. Clearly a tram is better than a bunch of double deckers. My proposal could run a tram from the hospital to Carrow Road (the football station of Norwich City FC) via the University of East Anglia.. Even with 8 buses per hour, it still gets busy. A tram following Dereham Road is also possible.

I did in post 46!

 

[anthony263]

Swansea to Oystermouth. Plenty of room to build a line along the seafront.

There's certainly demand for it plus it also have a tourist factor.

 

[Chester1]

Many European cities had broad boulevards built through previously congested areas in the 19th and early 20th centuries (urban improvement while making it difficult for the mob to erect barricades). On the whole, we didn’t. By the time we were building similar roads in the 1950s and 60s trams were on their way out so no provision was made, so we’re largely stuck with mediaeval street plans and feeders which would be difficult to convert to incorporate light rail. Nothing is impossible, of course….

Cities in much of Europe were mostly destroyed in WW2 and it gave an opportunity for better urban planning. They may not have been thinking trams at the time but were thinking wider roads and larger heavy rail gauges.

Trams need to find niches between electric buses and trains. We seem to have two types of trams in the UK. Converted rail lines with some city centre street running and on street lines with enough but not too much demand. Oxford Road in Manchester is frequently suggested by enthusiasts as a possible tram route but the demand on corridor is simply too high for a tram system to cope.

 

[HSTEd]

Oxford Road in Manchester is frequently suggested by enthusiasts as a possible tram route but the demand on corridor is simply too high for a tram system to cope.

That is at the very least debatable.
Manchester type tram infrastructure has proven capable of absorbing 30 trams per hour per direction, and using double (or triple) length trams it could swallow up the majority of the Oxford Road traffic comparatively easily. With standing a double tram formation has ~400 passengers, or about the licenced capacity of four double deck buses. Using triples it would be something like six.

You'd need a turnback at the northern end of the line because through running would be incapable of absorbing them all, but it could be done.

The status quo is hardly good after all.

EDIT:
The new Tyne and Wear Metro stock, whilst not actually a tram, is similar in many respects (width, length, floor height etc) to a double Metrolink tram and is rated for 600 passengers. Albeit that number is almost entirely standees thanks to the pure longitudinal seating arrangement adopted. But in summary I'm not sure its reasonable to say a tram line in Oxford Road could not handle the bus traffic.