gg1
Established Member
Really?
Close 10-15 route miles along with a group of stations which collectively see over 400,000 passengers a year?
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Which lines are most suitable for conversion to light rail lines?
- Thread starter willgreen
- Start date
- Status
Really?
Close 10-15 route miles along with a group of stations which collectively see over 400,000 passengers a year?
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Are you working off the normal timetable or the COVID temporary one?
Via Dewsbury we have (each way)
TPE 6tph Liverpool to Scarborough, Liverpool to Edinburgh, Man Air to Newcastle, Man Air to Redcar, Man Pic to Hull, Huddersfield to Leeds
Northern 1tph Wigan to Leeds
And loss of 2tph Halifax to Leeds? Really????? There's a minimum of 4 per hour during the day (Leeds to Chester, Hull to Halifax, Leeds to Man Vic, Blackpool to York)
I'm going off the assumption that you could path 2tph extra Halifax-Leeds through Dewsbury; the other two would be truncated at Bradford. Happy to be corrected by someone who's more knowledgeable, I'm not hugely up to speed with the infrastructure in the area.
Any capacity improvements via Dewsbury would be used for more TP or local services to Huddersfield, I believe the intention in the long term is to run more services between Halifax and Leeds if possible so I think your solution is a complete non starter, it would also be a nonsense for the majority of Calder Valley services to Manchester etc to miss out Bradford and Halifax. If the Spen Valley line was reopened to light rail with a Tram Train solution into Bradford that still allowed the existing heavy rail services to run that might be a possibility.
I'm not suggesting that the majority of Calder Valley services miss out Bradford; they'd still get 2tph and Halifax would get 4tph (only 2tph of those would continue to Leeds though).
The Spen Valley goes in the complete wrong direction between Leeds and Bradford so it's very unlikely that it'll be used for light rail unless it ties into a larger network; I believe the WYCA (West Yorkshire Combined Authority) have some plans in the future to convert it to light rail as part of their very non-detailed plans for a tram network, but there's no guarantees there.
Vespa
Established Member
Some of routes are already built over so you would need a route diversion on to the streets like a tram before returning to train alignments.
For tram train to be successful you need to make it easy for passengers to come to it, if the tram train we're to run into town centres shopping street or retail parks instead of stopping at the original train station terminal then you would have a business case.
Manchester metrolink got it right with their business model, it's easy to use and very popular.
So I believe there a long term intention to look at 10min frequency service between Halifax-Bradford-Leeds so 2tph to Halifax to Leeds would be unsatisfactory for the demand. Spen Valley line wouldn't be reopened on the basis of Leeds-Bradford route, but is probably more likely prospect of any Light Rail scheme which goes anywhere near Bradford than your scheme which is why I mentioned it.
yoyothehobo
Member
- Joined
- 21 Aug 2015
- Messages
- 555
Why tram train a side of Leeds with relatively good transport links? The LEeds-Bradford corridor has good train links and frequent fast and local bus services (X72 and the 72).
The north and north east areas of Leeds are much more in need of a tram or similar.
The north and north east areas of Leeds are much more in need of a tram or similar.
There's no train lines in north and north east Leeds, so it's impossible to convert anything to metro or tram operation.
I agree that these areas need better transport links, but that's probably a question for another thread!
I mean, ideally I'd use the disused curve at Bowling to tie Halifax into the system, which you could do with a 10 minute frequency; giving Bradford a 10 minute frequency as well would give the shared section through New Pudsey a 5 minute frequency, which is pretty good.
Then again we're getting into proper crayonista territory here so probably best to draw a line under this and say that unless there's significant investment made elsewhere in West Yorkshire, the New Pudsey line needs to be retained for through traffic.
London Trains
Member
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 912
Convert to Metrolink:
Convert to Tramlink:
- CLC from Manchester to Warrington (then convert Hunts Cross to Warrington to Merseyrail, call LNWR services at Mossley Hill and close West Allerton)
- Ashburys to Rose Hill Marple (run on road from Ashburys to Manchester Piccadilly tram stop)
Convert to Tramlink:
- Crystal Palace to Beckenham Junction (the Beckenham Junction trains will be diverted to West Croydon with extra terminating platforms there. A Crystal Palace to Beckenham Junction tram will run as well as links from both to Croydon to retain links)
- Sutton to Epsom Downs (join up with Sutton extension, extend from Epsom Downs to the Racecourse and Tattenham Corner. Have a branch at Belmont to the Royal Marsden Hospital)
Fawkes Cat
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 May 2017
- Messages
- 3,015
Coming from that part of the world, these - with the addition of the Henley branch - rather appeal to me. I'm assuming that the upgrade of the main line to 25kV and much longer trains means that working (short, diesel) trains through from the branches to Paddington is in practical terms impossible and will remain that way, so finding ways to make the branches better as more or less free-standing units seems desirable. So maybe overhead electrification at 750V, or whatever trams run on?
The Windsor line could take an extra station at Chalvey;
Marlow could usefully benefit from on-street running to rather nearer the town centre, and some sort of on-street running might make restoring the Bourne End - Wycombe link feasible;
On-street running might be useful at Henley to reach the town centre (although a tram in Regatta week could be interesting);
I don't actually know anything about the Greenford branch.
Passing loops would be useful to allow something more frequent than hourly (I think Slough - Windsor currently does every 20 minutes but it seems desirable to increase that as well).
True, anything other than 25kV electrification on the branches would lead to there being some sort of microfleet - but assuming units that could run (under battery power? towed?) on the GWML to their depot it would be possible to have one microfleet instead of multiple, even smaller microfleets.
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 16,027
Indeed, quite an odd suggestion.
St Albans Abbey always seems to be an obvious candidate. It's never going to get through trains to Euston owing to the lack of paths south of Watford. Though I think extending to St Albans town centre or City station isn't as straightforward as some might believe.
Glenn1969
Established Member
Which route do you use from Ashburys to Rose Hill- via Hyde is shared with other routes as far as Guide Bridge and if you convert the route via Brinnington you have to find a way to serve Marple, New Mills and the Hope Valley
Apart from the slightly lower cost of providing passing loops for trams vs the proposed Penryn style loop at Bricket Wood, there would be little gain from converting the line to light rail. As you have said, routing trams to the city centre or City station would be ridiculously expensive for thhe benefits gained.
You could always run Sheffield/New Mills via Guide Bridge at existing half hourly frequency using existing paths. Journey time isn't that different to via Bredbury. If 331s go on Hadfield the increased acceleration may allow Gorton (and possibly Fairfield) stops to go back on that route. I still have my doubts about putting light rail on that route though as I think Piccadilly to Ashburys would be a lot slower on street (they would probably run up to a junction near Velopark and then join the existing route into Piccadilly).
gg1
Established Member
As we seem to heading off topic anyway with a number of suggestions for converting heavy rail routes to pure light rail/tram rather than tram-trains, I'll throw in a green lit light rail route which should IMO be operated by tram-trains:
The Midland Metro Wednesbury to Merry Hill extension which could then be extended north to Walsall station and south from the point at which the Merry Hill branch diverges from the old trackbed to Stourbridge, southbound services would then alternate between the 2 destinations.
The Midland Metro Wednesbury to Merry Hill extension which could then be extended north to Walsall station and south from the point at which the Merry Hill branch diverges from the old trackbed to Stourbridge, southbound services would then alternate between the 2 destinations.
On street running up Holywell Hill seems most unlikely. Extendng on street to reach the main shopping centre in Watford would be more realistic, or at least less unrealistic. There was a suggestion years ago for guided trolleybuses, which would presumably find the climb from the bottom of the Ver valley to the city centre rather easier.
The Thames Valley branches are promising, with one or two on-street extensions for easier connections they could be operated by a common fleet on tram-trains.
There was a long discussion on the Romford-Upminster line a few years ago, I a not sure if it was here or on another board. Again there is scope for on-street extension to Cranham and Hacton in the west and east towards Becontree or Barking.
I wasn't just talking about tram-trains; if anything, I was talking more about complete conversion to light rail services. IIRC all but two tram networks in the UK have used current or former rail lines as part of their network (the two networks being Blackpool and Edinburgh). Also interested to hear about tram-train suggestions though.
gg1
Established Member
My apologies, not quite sure where I got the idea it was just tram-trains from.
I would suggest that a tram-train solution on the Thames Valley branches would be fine. Wherever along the main line the servicing/maintenance operation was located, the trains could take to the main line themselves under 25kV. 100km/h seems to be the highest speed that most can make so with a bit of local stabling, suitable paths could be found in the quiet hours.
You'd still have a shared section between Romiley Junction and Marple Wharf Junction, including the Marple viaduct. Maybe a Navigation Road-style solution, one track (the present down) for Metrolink and one for heavy rail, might work here; that would mean each system having a bidirectional line across the viaduct. There would be a loss of capacity, because of the single-track section, for Manchester-Marple-Sheffield stoppers. And Romiley station with separate bidirectional platforms for trams and trains would be awkward. Seems to create as many problems as it solves.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Depends what you mean by "light rail".
I think there is a very strong case for moving to a light rail style of operation on rural branch lines which don't (or only do for operational convenience) run through onto the mainline for any considerable distance. This would allow things like the following:
- Low floor platforms with on-the-level foot crossings mean building a new station is much, much cheaper
- Drive on sight simplifies signalling considerably; if there is a passing loop a simple train staff and sprung points could be used, requiring no signalling staff at all
- DC electrification is possible at a much cheaper cost than mainline 25kV kit, and the equipment is typically quite visually attractive so fits well in scenic locations
- If operated locally like the Stourbridge Shuttle, which is effectively light rail, staff may be cheaper
There is the downside that you need a spare vehicle for the route rather than just getting one from a TOC's general pool, though.
Tram-train type vehicles could be used, allowing the odd bit of inter-working with "normal trains" at the main station end. The Sheffield vehicles look quite well-suited, with the standee/accessible bits at the outer ends and seated bit in the middle for longer trips.
There are a few lines this could work for -
- Kirkby (or later Skem) to Wigan
- Ormskirk to Preston (though you'd need batteries or 25kV capability for the WCML bit)
- A number of Manchester suburban branches, though just adding them to the present Metrolink is probably easier
- Were it not for EWR and freight, the Marston Vale
- St Albans Abbey
- Windermere if the through running was removed, you could potentially run it down the road to Bowness instead (Windermere itself is nice enough but isn't much of a destination in itself so you always need an onward bus or taxi)
- Blackpool South, and possibly a Fleetwood branch. Though these may be best as part of the existing tramway
I'm sure there are plenty of others.
Edit: someone mentioned the Thames Valley branches (including Windsor, where it could perhaps run on-street to Riverside and add a couple of stations along the way for Chalvey and Eton North?), and I'm going to take that and raise it with the Cornish branches too. Potentially even the Conwy Valley and Borderlands Lines - the former might for example allow the trackbed to be dropped down in sections to allow the river through which might help in it avoiding being washed away.
I think there is a very strong case for moving to a light rail style of operation on rural branch lines which don't (or only do for operational convenience) run through onto the mainline for any considerable distance. This would allow things like the following:
- Low floor platforms with on-the-level foot crossings mean building a new station is much, much cheaper
- Drive on sight simplifies signalling considerably; if there is a passing loop a simple train staff and sprung points could be used, requiring no signalling staff at all
- DC electrification is possible at a much cheaper cost than mainline 25kV kit, and the equipment is typically quite visually attractive so fits well in scenic locations
- If operated locally like the Stourbridge Shuttle, which is effectively light rail, staff may be cheaper
There is the downside that you need a spare vehicle for the route rather than just getting one from a TOC's general pool, though.
Tram-train type vehicles could be used, allowing the odd bit of inter-working with "normal trains" at the main station end. The Sheffield vehicles look quite well-suited, with the standee/accessible bits at the outer ends and seated bit in the middle for longer trips.
There are a few lines this could work for -
- Kirkby (or later Skem) to Wigan
- Ormskirk to Preston (though you'd need batteries or 25kV capability for the WCML bit)
- A number of Manchester suburban branches, though just adding them to the present Metrolink is probably easier
- Were it not for EWR and freight, the Marston Vale
- St Albans Abbey
- Windermere if the through running was removed, you could potentially run it down the road to Bowness instead (Windermere itself is nice enough but isn't much of a destination in itself so you always need an onward bus or taxi)
- Blackpool South, and possibly a Fleetwood branch. Though these may be best as part of the existing tramway
I'm sure there are plenty of others.
Edit: someone mentioned the Thames Valley branches (including Windsor, where it could perhaps run on-street to Riverside and add a couple of stations along the way for Chalvey and Eton North?), and I'm going to take that and raise it with the Cornish branches too. Potentially even the Conwy Valley and Borderlands Lines - the former might for example allow the trackbed to be dropped down in sections to allow the river through which might help in it avoiding being washed away.
Last edited:
Glenn1969
Established Member
Could you run an extended Windermere service all the way to Ambleside or would Bowness have to be the iimit (I accept Grasmere/Ullswater/Keswick would be too far )
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
The difficulty with Ambleside is where you run it - up the main road would be the only option, and it'd get stuck in traffic just as bad as the buses do, not to mention the huge disruption to build it. Bowness, however, isn't an overly busy road in comparison, and running it down to the boat interchange could make it very, very attractive indeed.
If there was a way to get it to Ambleside, it would do a lot for the Park's congestion issues, though. And while the NIMNPs (sorry, just invented that, "not in my national park") would shout, the quiet hum of an electric tram would be far nicer than the f**ting exhausts of hundreds of cars and minibuses.
I do have a sort of dream (!) of an approach like some Swiss villages where cars are heavily penalised in the Park (unless you live there) and such a tram could connect with buses to provide excellent accessibility, with a large car park built somewhere outside the Park for park and ride. Somewhere near Oxenholme might work for that. Much bigger than just converting the branch, of course.
Last edited:
daodao
Established Member
I hadn't realised that the frequent service now extended beyond Shirley to Whitlock's End; I agree that would now be a more suitable terminus. The rest of the line served just 300k passengers pa in 2018-9.
I agree that the remaining service to New Mills/Sheffield should run as you have suggested; it should be non-stop from Guide Bridge to Piccadilly with electric trains (or ?trams) from Hadfield covering the intermediate stops. The proposed Metrolink from Ashburys could run along street on Ashton Old Road and join the existing Metrolink just east of the Piccadilly Metrolink underground station portal.
daodao
Established Member
No - it's an excellent idea. Minor unstaffed stations are much better served at less cost by light rail, which is often much more frequent. Just look at the current rail service to heavy rail stations like Reddish North or Chassen Road in Greater Manchester.
gg1
Established Member
300k passenger PA is a decent return for a 13 mile stretch of line which only has an hourly service each way, definitely not something we should remotely consider closing.
- Status