Tram lines should be built to replace local rail stations in a major city...

[Sweetjesus]

... instead of building new tram lines to destinations, etc that are not served by heavy rail.

One of major problems with British railways is that local trains and express trains use the same line, eating up a large portion of available capacity.

More effort should be spent looking at major cities and identifying where local stations can be closed down and tram lines to be built nearby (or even better, closer to places where people congregate).

For example, Manchester Piccadilly and Stockport has 2 local stations. These two stations can be closed if a tram line is built nearby.

Other example is Birmingham New St to Birmingham International. This line has 3 local stations.

Result? A Large increase in capacity for rail lines and large number of people moving from car usage to public transport since trams are likely to offer a higher frequency service at lower cost.

 

[jon0844]

Tram lines are all very good, but is the service protected? Are first and last tram times strictly regulated?

My fear is that if we replace heavy rail with light rail, trams or buses, it is very easy to run the service down on a whim. Even 56 days notice for buses is meaningless, as an operator can just shut down and who can force them to carry on?

 

[30907]

I can see attractions from removing stopping trains on the Woverhampton-coventry corridor, less so to Stockport as it's quadruple track anyway.

However, it doesn't solve the greater problem of capacity at our biggest stations because the great majority of the trains involved would continue to run as they serve stations further out and inner suburban stations typically don't contribute huge amounts of passengers or revenue.
Birmingham might lose its Wolverhampton stoppers but they run through from Walsall so the benefit is limited (even with a rejig of the timetable ....); Manchester might lose its limited Hazel Grove service and there would be a modest but useful saving in rolling stock.

As for frequency and cost - the former is a tradeoff against speed; the latter a matter of policy - a properly integrated fares system wouldn't distinguish between transport mode.

There is another possibility: building new tracks alongside existing lines: the Central Line to West Ruislip is a classic example, and Germany is full of S-bahns that do just that (having started sharing tracks in some cases), and combine speed and (mostly) frequency. Much more expensive than a tramway, of course!

 

[PartyOperator]

I can see attractions from removing stopping trains on the Woverhampton-coventry corridor, less so to Stockport as it's quadruple track anyway.

However, it doesn't solve the greater problem of capacity at our biggest stations because the great majority of the trains involved would continue to run as they serve stations further out and inner suburban stations typically don't contribute huge amounts of passengers or revenue.
Birmingham might lose its Wolverhampton stoppers but they run through from Walsall so the benefit is limited (even with a rejig of the timetable ....); Manchester might lose its limited Hazel Grove service and there would be a modest but useful saving in rolling stock.

As for frequency and cost - the former is a tradeoff against speed; the latter a matter of policy - a properly integrated fares system wouldn't distinguish between transport mode.

There is another possibility: building new tracks alongside existing lines: the Central Line to West Ruislip is a classic example, and Germany is full of S-bahns that do just that (having started sharing tracks in some cases), and combine speed and (mostly) frequency. Much more expensive than a tramway, of course!

There might not be space for new tracks alongside existing lines, but there's no need for the non-stop trains to go along the same route as long as they start and end in the right places. Building new lines and stations through the most densely populated parts of cities is especially expensive and disruptive. Much better to build new lines for the non-stop trains through less populated areas with tunneled approaches where needed, then you only have to build a few new central stations/new platforms and free up the existing lines for a more consistent stopping pattern.

There are already plans in Birmingham for a new tram from the centre to a hub near the airport (Birmingham Eastside Metro Extension and East Birmingham to Solihull Metro Extension) and for new fast lines between the same locations (HS2). Likewise Manchester should be getting new fast lines into the centre.

 

[Ianno87]

Basically that's what's been done in Manchester with the Bury, Altrincham and Rochdale lines (and, very historically, the East Didsbury route too). A very successful model.

 

[yorksrob]

Surely we should be getting decent public transport to areas that don't already have it.

The Manchester model has brought rail to a lot of new areas, rather than just replacing railways.

 

[The Planner]

Other example is Birmingham New St to Birmingham International. This line has 3 local stations.

Result? A Large increase in capacity for rail lines and large number of people moving from car usage to public transport since trams are likely to offer a higher frequency service at lower cost.

Four actually. What would the journey time be like for these tram lines? by their very nature they will stop at more places as it is easier to, but if you lived at Lea Hall or Marston Green on the Coventry corridor, why would you want to use the tram if it takes twice as long. In those situations you are likely to shift people away from that mode.

 

[Bald Rick]

The premise of this thread assumes that is cheaper to build a tram system than a new railway. For info the costs of the current midland metro extensions, and the Metrolink extension to the Trafford Centre, are both around £100m/mile. The Edinburgh tram extension is £70m/mile.

 

[edwin_m]

The premise of this thread assumes that is cheaper to build a tram system than a new railway. For info the costs of the current midland metro extensions, and the Metrolink extension to the Trafford Centre, are both around £100m/mile. The Edinburgh tram extension is £70m/mile.

If anyone was building a new railway in an urban area it might be a lot more than that.

It's probably going to be difficult to make a business case to replace a local train service with a parallel tramway, while keeping the railway open for non-stop trains. An entirely new tramway is more expensive than converting a railway to tramway, and as mentioned those for whom the current stations are convenient will have as slower journey (though probably more frequent and perhaps going closer to their destination) so will count as disbenefits. The benefit of being able to run more fast trains would have to be considerable to get to a decent benefit-cost ratio. Many years ago I did suggest a tramway along Kingsway in Manchester to replace the stopping Airport service, but of course it didn't come to anything.

 

[PartyOperator]

If anyone was building a new railway in an urban area it might be a lot more than that.

It's probably going to be difficult to make a business case to replace a local train service with a parallel tramway, while keeping the railway open for non-stop trains. An entirely new tramway is more expensive than converting a railway to tramway, and as mentioned those for whom the current stations are convenient will have as slower journey (though probably more frequent and perhaps going closer to their destination) so will count as disbenefits. The benefit of being able to run more fast trains would have to be considerable to get to a decent benefit-cost ratio. Many years ago I did suggest a tramway along Kingsway in Manchester to replace the stopping Airport service, but of course it didn't come to anything.

The current plan for Birmingham airport to central Birmingham is to build a new railway for non-stop trains and build a tramway and keep the current railway. They serve different markets, with the tram mainly being a higher capacity, more reliable alternative to buses for local journeys (connecting with both existing and new railways), the new high-speed line being for journeys between large cities while the current railway will keep its role of connecting cities via medium-sized population centres. The tramway is expected to cost £140m for the first mile in central Birmingham then £740m for the 10 miles out to Solihull, which I would assume is a lot less than the high-speed line, at least once stations are included.

Edit: off by a factor of a million...

 

[Clip]

Tram lines are all very good, but is the service protected? Are first and last tram times strictly regulated?

My fear is that if we replace heavy rail with light rail, trams or buses, it is very easy to run the service down on a whim. Even 56 days notice for buses is meaningless, as an operator can just shut down and who can force them to carry on?

Why would anyone want to run a tram service down?

 

[30907]

The current plan for Birmingham airport to central Birmingham is to build a new railway for non-stop trains and build a tramway and keep the current railway. They serve different markets, with the tram mainly being a higher capacity, more reliable alternative to buses for local journeys (connecting with both existing and new railways), the new high-speed line being for journeys between large cities while the current railway will keep its role of connecting cities via medium-sized population centres. The tramway is expected to cost £140m for the first mile in central Birmingham then £740m for the 10 miles out to Solihull, which I would assume is a lot less than the high-speed line, at least once stations are included.

Think you left some zeroes off! Corrected
I agree with you (and the planners) though that trams work as an upgrade to buses and/or to overcome poorly located rail termini (Manchester, Chemnitz, Karlsruhe, Kassel, Zwickau...). Ditto Newcastle Metro, though that's more what the Germans call a Stadtbahn.
As to HS2, it obviously isn't there for Airport-Curzon Street traffic, and it will at best free up one path an hour in from Coventry.

 

[JonathanH]

I'm not sure this works - there are well publicised issues about the line from Manchester to Warrington and Liverpool not being able to accommodate passengers at its intermediate stations - especially those in west Manchester. Yet people still turn up for the trains at Urmston, Flixton, Irlam etc every day because they offer a quicker journey into the city than a bus or light rail ever could. Would they appreciate the trains being removed in favour of travellers from Warrington and where is the alignment to be able to run trams?

Mind you, it does seem that TfGM are interested in converting this route to light rail - not sure what happens to people from Widnes and Warrington who want to travel to Manchester.
https://confidentials.com/manchester/what-will-metrolink-look-like-in-2040

 

[PartyOperator]

Think you left some zeroes off! Corrected
I agree with you (and the planners) though that trams work as an upgrade to buses and/or to overcome poorly located rail termini (Manchester, Chemnitz, Karlsruhe, Kassel, Zwickau...). Ditto Newcastle Metro, though that's more what the Germans call a Stadtbahn.
As to HS2, it obviously isn't there for Airport-Curzon Street traffic, and it will at best free up one path an hour in from Coventry.

Good spot.

HS2 obviously isn't an airport express, but once there's a quicker option from London and Reading to Birmingham it feels like it should be possible to converge on a timetable with more stops on the existing services. Perhaps the smaller stations don't justify extra stops in the way Watford, Milton Keynes and Rugby probably will, but much of the rationale behind the current XC and VT services will no longer apply once HS2 exists so I would expect significant changes to these.

I do think it's an issue that local service into Birmingham (including on the cross-city line) are limited by the fast trains - the relative lack of frequent, reasonably quick, high-capacity commuter rail options across much of the city is one of the reasons the majority of people who commute to work in Birmingham still travel by car (62%) and only 5% commute by train. Once HS2 provides a viable alternative for the long-distance rail trips, there really should be an effort to transfer more paths over to efficient local stopping services, even if it means taking a bit longer to get into Birmingham from Coventry.

Maybe a sufficiently frequent tram would negate some of the argument for this. I suppose 10tph and a 20 minute journey would be more appealing than 2tph taking 10 minutes. If the tram takes significantly more than twice as long as the train, it's less attractive.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Mind you, it does seem that TfGM are interested in converting this route to light rail - not sure what happens to people from Widnes and Warrington who want to travel to Manchester.
https://confidentials.com/manchester/what-will-metrolink-look-like-in-2040

There is an argument for the CLC that says the best thing to do with it would be to move all the expresses off and instead run Merseyrail to Warrington C from the Liverpool side, and Metrolink from the Manchester side. The advantage of this would be much higher frequencies on both - probably 4tph on the Merseyrail side and 5 on the Metrolink side - so it might be more use than an infrequent and often very unpunctual train service for what aren't exceptionally long journeys.

With regard to Warrington itself, anyone really wanting a heavy rail train can always use the hourly TfW service from Bank Quay.

 

[JonathanH]

There is an argument for the CLC that says the best thing to do with it would be to move all the expresses off and instead run Merseyrail to Warrington C from the Liverpool side, and Metrolink from the Manchester side. The advantage of this would be much higher frequencies on both - probably 4tph on the Merseyrail side and 5 on the Metrolink side - so it might be more use than an infrequent and often very unpunctual train service for what aren't exceptionally long journeys.

With regard to Warrington itself, anyone really wanting a heavy rail train can always use the hourly TfW service from Bank Quay.

Yes, there is that argument and it is valid, not to mention that it would remove some traffic from the Castlefield Corridor. It isn't just people from Warrington though is it? Birchwood and Widnes also get fast calls and they are building a brand new station at Warrington West.

Which is going to provide the greater good? A commuter priorities led framework might favour twelve minute frequency Metrolink services (but the Eccles route can't probably take more express services).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, there is that argument and it is valid, not to mention that it would remove some traffic from the Castlefield Corridor. It isn't just people from Warrington though is it? Birchwood and Widnes also get fast calls and they are building a brand new station at Warrington West.

They might well be willing to trade a much more frequent service (including a change in Widnes' case) for their present 1tph fast service?

 

[PR1Berske]

As someone from a city (Preston) where trams are very much....never going to happen, it's been interesting listening to those who are so passionately in favour bigging up the possibility of bringing old rail into use as tram tracks. Trams need to offer an expansion of journey potential beyond the start-middle-end of existing track-bed. Where Preston's TramPower proposal has gone wrong is focusing entirely on a stretch of former railway in a built-up area with numerous existing bus routes.

Across the country, trams only work in very limited areas anyway. Broadly speaking Britain's roads aren't, well, broad. We can't offer trams running along almost any A-road you care to mention. Dual carriageways are built with the car in mind. Anything smaller is not feasible.

I like using trams in Manchester and elsewhere with credible, expanded networks which compliment the railways. Attempting to fit trams anywhere, a sort of tram version of crayonista-ism, does the format no good.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Preston could work with street trams, to be honest - a comparable European city probably would have them and it's small enough for them. Trampower is trams on the cheap, though, and that's what's primary wrong with it.

 

[PR1Berske]

Preston could work with street trams, to be honest - a comparable European city probably would have them and it's small enough for them. Trampower is trams on the cheap, though, and that's what's primary wrong with it.

I'm not convinced. I've been against TramPower from the start, and not just because their entire model seems to have been based on building a scheme using Weetabix and hot-glue.

A comparable European city has wider roads than Preston. We're a small, squat, traditional Northern town. Our suburban roads clog with street parking as it is, there's no realistic way at all to fit trams down the middle.

 

[Bevan Price]

They might well be willing to trade a much more frequent service (including a change in Widnes' case) for their present 1tph fast service?

Not when best journey times between Warrington & Manchester are likely to be increased from under 20 minutes to something approaching 40 - 45 minutes. And with a need to change at Warrington, the best Widnes to Manchester times would be likely to exceed one hour. No local MP would support proposals like that because of the probable adverse comments - and lost votes - from many constituents.

And remember that Warrington Central is far more convenient than Bank Quay for much of the town centre - and the bus station.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A comparable European city has wider roads than Preston. We're a small, squat, traditional Northern town. Our suburban roads clog with street parking as it is, there's no realistic way at all to fit trams down the middle.

Nottingham, however, is very similar to Preston, and seems to have made a very good success of trams even with very similar constraints.

 

[PR1Berske]

Nottingham, however, is very similar to Preston, and seems to have made a very good success of trams even with very similar constraints.

Fair dos. I've not set foot in Nottingham(or -shire) in my nearly-not-quite 40 years; I will fill a gap in my knowledge about them at some point.

 

[option]

Birmingham New St - International; 4 stations, but not all trains stop at them.
With a bit of track work, it would be possible to bypass Stechford, as there's 3 tracks through the station. The station is also where the shops & buses are, so it wouldn't be one for closing. It's also nowhere near an out-of-city main road, which is where you could run a tram.
Lea Hall, that might be best moved to the Meadway. Though that could be served by tram along that road, so you may as well keep the station to allow interchange.
Marston Green, you can't get a tram anywhere near it.
International is 5track through the station, so easy to pass trains.
Adderley Park is a strange one. That could easily be replaced with a nearby tram stop, which would also be better located for the shops etc.