Should new "branch lines" be built as light rather than heavy rail?

[Bletchleyite]

On the thread about Ashington I have raised:

My inclination is, and has been for some time, that any rebuilds of branch lines (which Ashington I guess is, though EWR isn't even though I euphemistically called it one in another thread) should be as light rail, as it's much cheaper, and allows for the addition of new stations more easily later too, if you go low floor.

I would agree heavy rail has got decidedly (and unnecessarily, for a branch line) expensive.

We've talked of conversions before, such as St Albans (which, barring rebuilding Watford Junction to provide a through service to Euston, I think is a real shame it didn't happen), and it's suggested that as Ashington is a freight line this may not be appropriate as there isn't the build cost. However for any future reopenings that won't run through onto the mainline it seems to have a lot of potential.

Advantages:

• Cheaper to build, and to electrify using tram technology
• Tram OHLE tends to be less visibly intrusive
• Trams are off-the-shelf vehicles and typically narrow enough to fit within UK loading gauge due to road vehicle regs if they need to run on the mainline for a short distance (though if this was awkward it could often be avoided by running down the street and terminating in the car park)
• Trams are cheaper than DMUs and EMUs (though tram trains a bit more expensive, I guess)
• If you go low-floor, stations are cheaper to build, so new ones may be built more often where appropriate
• Much easier to provide level boarding and full accessibility
• Level crossings are not a problem (and aid provision of that accessibility) because you're using street tram technology including more efficient braking
• If a particular line would end up with a station that's a bit out of town, you can run it down the street, which will increase usage (this would work for St Albans)

Any other thoughts? It possibly overlaps a bit with the "ultra light rail" thing, but I'm more thinking "bog standard" trams, but mostly running on segregated lines rather than on-street (like the original Midland Metro). I guess the concept is very similar to the way Swiss narrow gauge lines work, but using standard gauge and off the shelf vehicles.

 

[HST43257]

On the thread about Ashington I have raised:

My inclination is, and has been for some time, that any rebuilds of branch lines (which Ashington I guess is, though EWR isn't even though I euphemistically called it one in another thread) should be as light rail, as it's much cheaper, and allows for the addition of new stations more easily later too, if you go low floor.

I would agree heavy rail has got decidedly (and unnecessarily, for a branch line) expensive.

We've talked of conversions before, such as St Albans (which, barring rebuilding Watford Junction to provide a through service to Euston, I think is a real shame it didn't happen), and it's suggested that as Ashington is a freight line this may not be appropriate as there isn't the build cost. However for any future reopenings that won't run through onto the mainline it seems to have a lot of potential.

Advantages:

• Cheaper to build, and to electrify using tram technology
• Tram OHLE tends to be less visibly intrusive
• Trams are off-the-shelf vehicles and typically narrow enough to fit within UK loading gauge due to road vehicle regs if they need to run on the mainline for a short distance (though if this was awkward it could often be avoided by running down the street and terminating in the car park)
• Trams are cheaper than DMUs and EMUs (though tram trains a bit more expensive, I guess)
• If you go low-floor, stations are cheaper to build, so new ones may be built more often where appropriate
• Much easier to provide level boarding and full accessibility
• Level crossings are not a problem (and aid provision of that accessibility) because you're using street tram technology including more efficient braking
• If a particular line would end up with a station that's a bit out of town, you can run it down the street, which will increase usage (this would work for St Albans)

Any other thoughts? It possibly overlaps a bit with the "ultra light rail" thing, but I'm more thinking "bog standard" trams, but mostly running on segregated lines rather than on-street (like the original Midland Metro). I guess the concept is very similar to the way Swiss narrow gauge lines work, but using standard gauge and off the shelf vehicles.

Not the Ashington route. 20 miles from Ashington to the ECML via Northumberland Park. Too far for a high capacity (mainly standing) tram service. Also, yes, there is still a bit of freight use going up to Lynemouth Power Station and the North Blyth alcan place IIRC.

I agree with Light Rail on the Abbey Line. The Watford Jn to St Albans City direct connection, I’m guessing, is really important.

What about the Truro to Falmouth branch? Might be good to find a way to get a tramlink all the way through the town, reaching the Park and Ride and connecting in the central shops as well.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not the Ashington route. 20 miles from Ashington to the ECML via Northumberland Park. Too far for a high capacity (mainly standing) tram service.

Depends what vehicles you use. Something like the Sheffield tram-train would be good, with plenty of seats (those vehicles are quite similar to what you often see on Swiss narrow gauge routes). It doesn't have to be a standee tram like Metrolink, because it wouldn't have the same capacity pressures.

A run of the Oldham Loop to Rochdale can't be much further than that. I watched a cab view of it earlier, and it's only really an actual tram in Oldham town centre and Manchester city centre, it's mostly a suburban "branch" line.

What about the Truro to Falmouth branch? Might be good to find a way to get a tramlink all the way through the town, reaching the Park and Ride and connecting in the central shops as well.

I think it'd be a great idea to convert all the Cornish branches, to be honest, other than perhaps Newquay due to the through running. Would also be a potential for the Thames Valley branches - do any not use dedicated platforms to allow for the DC OHLE? You could I guess build a dual-voltage tram-train, but it'd push the price and complexity up.

 

[DustyBin]

Depends what vehicles you use. Something like the Sheffield tram-train would be good, with plenty of seats (those vehicles are quite similar to what you often see on Swiss narrow gauge routes). It doesn't have to be a standee tram like Metrolink, because it wouldn't have the same capacity pressures.

Trams don’t make sense at all in this instance. For a start, the route utilises a section of the ECML north of Newcastle, then there’s the length of the route (already addressed above) and then there’s the fact that there is the existing Metro system. You’d have a mix of trams, light and heavy rail which just seems rather messy. It could be integrated into the Metro system if dual voltage rolling stock was ordered but I think heavy rail makes more sense.

 

[Irascible]

For existing lines surely super-lightweight full-size units like the ones we've been discussing recently are the cheapest option - less wear & tear on the track & no need to rebuild any other infrastructure ( I hold out some minimal hope that Falmouth Docks might take traffic again one day - not so for Looe & St Ives for sure ). If it's new build and totally self contained then why not - at that point you could even change the track gauge & it wouldn't matter.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

A run of the Oldham Loop to Rochdale can't be much further than that. I watched a cab view of it earlier, and it's only really an actual tram in Oldham town centre and Manchester city centre, it's mostly a suburban "branch" line.

Isn't that because the line was largely built upon the route of the former heavy rail alignment? (What's there now is new rail though, to be fair, as the ex BR track was in such poor state that it all had to be replaced).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Isn't that because the line was largely built upon the route of the former heavy rail alignment? (What's there now is new rail though, to be fair, as the ex BR track was in such poor state that it all had to be replaced).

It is indeed, but it makes it a reasonable demonstration of the concepts the thread proposes, albeit on a busier line.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

On the thread about Ashington I have raised:

My inclination is, and has been for some time, that any rebuilds of branch lines (which Ashington I guess is, though EWR isn't even though I euphemistically called it one in another thread) should be as light rail, as it's much cheaper, and allows for the addition of new stations more easily later too, if you go low floor.

I would agree heavy rail has got decidedly (and unnecessarily, for a branch line) expensive.

We've talked of conversions before, such as St Albans (which, barring rebuilding Watford Junction to provide a through service to Euston, I think is a real shame it didn't happen), and it's suggested that as Ashington is a freight line this may not be appropriate as there isn't the build cost. However for any future reopenings that won't run through onto the mainline it seems to have a lot of potential.

Advantages:

• Cheaper to build, and to electrify using tram technology
• Tram OHLE tends to be less visibly intrusive
• Trams are off-the-shelf vehicles and typically narrow enough to fit within UK loading gauge due to road vehicle regs if they need to run on the mainline for a short distance (though if this was awkward it could often be avoided by running down the street and terminating in the car park)
• Trams are cheaper than DMUs and EMUs (though tram trains a bit more expensive, I guess)
• If you go low-floor, stations are cheaper to build, so new ones may be built more often where appropriate
• Much easier to provide level boarding and full accessibility
• Level crossings are not a problem (and aid provision of that accessibility) because you're using street tram technology including more efficient braking
• If a particular line would end up with a station that's a bit out of town, you can run it down the street, which will increase usage (this would work for St Albans)

Any other thoughts? It possibly overlaps a bit with the "ultra light rail" thing, but I'm more thinking "bog standard" trams, but mostly running on segregated lines rather than on-street (like the original Midland Metro). I guess the concept is very similar to the way Swiss narrow gauge lines work, but using standard gauge and off the shelf vehicles.

Short branch lines yes maybe even as Very Light Rail. Not the ashington line

 

[tbtc]

In theory, I agree with the OP. Much cheaper, could be built a lot faster - you can understand why GMPTE/TfGM have been so focussed on light rail when you see how much Metrolink they've managed to build in the time it'd take a proposed heavy rail branch to get past the planing stage.

For me, something like a 399 (the TramTrains used to get from Parkgate to Sheffield) is little different to a modern lightweight unit - you could put better quality seats and a toilet on them if needed to cater for any longer distance routes.

My mains problems are as follows (and it really depends on what lines we are talking about):

• Would it be a big enough PVR to justify a small stand alone fleet? I'm reluctant to set up more micro-solutions like the Stourbridge one, which is why I'm instinctively against all of the Blue Sky Thinking ideas for long distance travellators/ cable cars/ monorails that get suggested on this forum to try to bridge small gaps.
• Would it be in an electrified area or a non electrified area? For example, if you convert the Watford - St Albans branch then units could presumably get to a depot away from the branch (since other lines are electrified), but if other local lines weren't electrified then would you have to build a depot on the line?
• Or would it mean self powered units? Battery powered/ duckweed/ whatever?
• Lower station platforms sounds fine but would you end up in a situation like Rotherham Central, where there's one end of the platform "high" for heavy rail services and the far end is "low" for TramTrains? That's okayish at Rotherham (which had a long platform and fairly short Northern units serving it) but not every station can have two heights at a platform like this.
• Would you got for tram-trains or just common-or-garden trams? Are there lines where a token amount of freight would push the costs into the tram-train category (even if it's just theoretical freight that may come back at some stage in the future)? Would you be willing to abandon any through trains from the main line (e.g. this is an issue at Newquay, which is one line mentioned above - much cheaper to have simple trams but do you spend a lot more cash for the sake of running a handful of London trains in the summer holidays? That's some tricky cost/balance calculation to negotiate with the locals...

For example, I can see the attraction of light rail when tacking something like the Portishead branch - which AIUI would have to terminate some way short of the town centre if opened as heavy rail. But would that mean a fairly small number of light rail units for the stand alone branch (rather than using the same units that work other local Bristol services, e.g. Severn Beach), that would potentially mean a depot on the Portishead branch (rather than sharing with other similar heavy rail units)? (I appreciate the Temple Meads is scheduled to be electrified one day, but hopefully you take the point that I'm trying to make). Maybe you could say the same of proposals for places like Aberdeen - Peterhead - would that be enough PVR to warrant bespoke light rail stock?

Converting existing lines is another story - e.g. I could see the logic in lightweight modern units for the Cornish branch lines - and if you're going to order lightweight modern units hen why not consider something light rail based - sure - but the different branches don't link up, so would you be electrifying them whilst incorporating some battery/ duckweed technology to allow units to run light to/from a depot? OR would each branch be operationally isolated with just one or two units on each one - like four rail-based "Oxbow Lakes"?

Good in theory but would really depend on the line - it made perfect sense to have the Trafford Centre branch as Metrolink rather than Northern Rail but coming up with a scheme that only requires two or three units and is far away from existing light rail networks seems unnecessarily complicated.

Could have been interesting if you'd built the Borders line as light rail - it takes an hour to do thirty five miles from Waverley to Tweedbank (so not exactly beyond the top speeds of a light rail unit) - could have been built a bit faster and cheaper as light rail, more flexible in regards to penetrating Dalkeith and actually serving Melrose...

 

[Irascible]

Portishead has to share a route with all the freight from Portbury docks & then the traffic into TM ( without looking at a map I'm not sure where you'd send any new tramway section to avoid the latter, you'd have to go down the docks perhaps ). Where are the major savings in converting a line to light rail vs using a lightweight heavy rail unit & reduced maintenance levels? I'm not really aware of the details of regulations there. Also presumably you'd only bother with an actual tram-train if you wanted to go near a street.

 

[edwin_m]

Horses for courses. Trams are good when the line needs to get to places that aren't easily accessible by heavy rail, such as Oldham and Rochdale town centres. Where it would be difficult to provide fully segregated railway on part of a route then maybe there would be scope for an intermediate type of vehicle that can cope with sharp curves and steep gradients to get round the obstacle, but not sharing roadspace with other traffic. The same might apply if there were lots of level crossings, which would probably have to be closed for a heavy rail restoration but under a light rail or intermediate concept could be treated as road junctions with the rail vehicle having emergency track brakes and protection against road vehicles being carried underneath it.

Per seat (and we're usually talking seated not standing for this sort of route) trams are more expensive than trains, and seating on a low-floor vehicle is probably more suited to short distances as it has to be fitted around and over the wheels. Trams tend to cover their operating cost, but that's largely because they run routes with a lot of passengers, they're DOO and the drivers are paid less, rather than to do with the fact it's a tram as such.

I believe Ashington was looked at as a Metro branch, but Metro line into Newcastle is a longer route with frequent all-stations services, so the journey time would be a lot longer. The only reason I can think for considering a tram-train would be to get to somewhere important that isn't on the rail line. The centre of Blyth might qualify as one of those, and a tram-train could access it by a disused branch line, but it would be difficult to find a route for it to re-join the line towards Ashington and even if that was done the Ashington journey would end up being much slower.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Per seat (and we're usually talking seated not standing for this sort of route) trams are more expensive than trains

That surprises me to the point I have difficulty believing it. Was it worked out using a standee tram vs. something like a 3+2 seated "cram-em-in" 720?

 

[edwin_m]

That surprises me to the point I have difficulty believing it. Was it worked out using a standee tram vs. something like a 3+2 seated "cram-em-in" 720?

I was going by vehicle length, since (subject to the restrictions I mentioned with low floors) an interior space can be fitted with a wide range of seating layouts depending what is wanted. A 30m tram is around £4m, and an EMU is somewhat over £1m for each car of 20-24m length. A DMU would be about £1.5m per car but a diesel tram-train would cost more still.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A 30m tram is around £4m, and an EMU is somewhat over £1m for each car of 20-24m length. A DMU would be about £1.5m per car but a diesel tram-train would cost more still.

Do you have references for these? I remain surprised (to the point of disbelief) that a tram would be more expensive than a heavy-rail EMU of the same length.

 

[A0]

I agree with Light Rail on the Abbey Line. The Watford Jn to St Albans City direct connection, I’m guessing, is really important.

Not this again....

You are never going to get trams through the centre of St Albans - it's a medival town centre with narrow streets.

Add in St Albans Abbey is at the bottom of a hill - a very steep hill (as I can attest having walked it several times).

Lastly, I very much doubt there is any demand to travel from the places on the Abbey line to St Albans City. It's worth noting the bus which shadows the Abbey Flyer (361) terminates at St Peter's Street in St Albans and doesn't run onto St Albans City station.

 

[mark-h]

Having a frequent shuttle service along a branch line can be better than having an infrequent service that continues to more stations. If the shuttle is the only service on the line then it would be possible to use light, or non-standard, rail to operate these services.

The Stourbridge shuttle allows passengers to connect to/from any service at Stourbridge Junction as opposed to a handful of through services. The airport shuttles at Birmingham and Gatwick (North Terminal) and the one under construction at Luton also offer a better service than if a mainline branch was constructed.

Having a shuttle service connecting to an existing station increases the number of potential passengers without using up any mainline paths. One thing that is essential is full through ticketing and the inclusion of services in journey planning and booking systems.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You are never going to get trams through the centre of St Albans - it's a medival town centre with narrow streets.

The obvious route, A5183-B691, looks to be entirely feasible.

 

[Dr Day]

Trams tend to cover their operating cost, but that's largely because they run routes with a lot of passengers, they're DOO and the drivers are paid less, rather than to do with the fact it's a tram as such.

This. A lot less of the ‘baggage’ and overheads associated with National Rail - usually simpler self service ticketing, simpler signalling, simpler time tabling and diagramming etc. But particularly lower staffing costs. Something that tends to get forgotten when talking about conversion of existing lines where many of the savings can’t be realised due to TUPE etc.
Will be interesting to see the operating costs of the Cardiff Valleys per vehicle mile, Pre and post the (limited) conversion to ‘metro’.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Could a light rail route be done with the possibility of upgrading to heavy rail, is that a thing?

New bridge near me is wide enough for two tracks, there is one track now. Saved a bit of fill material, the road embankments are a bit shorter, the bridge is longer

 

[Bletchleyite]

This. A lot less of the ‘baggage’ and overheads associated with National Rail - usually simpler self service ticketing, simpler signalling, simpler time tabling and diagramming etc. But particularly lower staffing costs. Something that tends to get forgotten when talking about conversion of existing lines where many of the savings can’t be realised due to TUPE etc.

Were Oldham Loop Northern drivers TUPEd to Metrolink, or did they just redeploy within the TOC and recruit tram drivers afresh?

 

[edwin_m]

Do you have references for these? I remain surprised (to the point of disbelief) that a tram would be more expensive than a heavy-rail EMU of the same length.

The heavy rail figures were ball-parks quoted in Modern Railways. Apologies, the £4m was a tram-train not a tram, but came from discussions with an authority that had recently ordered trams and was seriously considering tram-trains. I've just found a reference suggesting Metrolink trams were £2.7m each:

First new tram for Manchester Metrolink arrives from Vienna - RailInsider

Manchester Metrolink has taken delivery of the first of 27 new trams from a £72 million contract that was placed in July 2018. The same model of tram that is already operated by Transport for Greater Manchester’s Metrolink, the new M5000 vehicles will increase capacity on the network by around...

www.railinsider.co.uk

Manchester Metrolink has taken delivery of the first of 27 new trams from a £72 million contract that was placed in July 2018.

The expensive bits of trains and trams are the running gear and the traction electronics. The tram has more of those within the same length, so costs more.

 

[A0]

The obvious route, A5183-B691, looks to be entirely feasible.

With respect, have you been to St Albans?

I have and used to work there. It's a non starter regardless of what you think is "entirely feasible".

 

[Gareth]

It could make sense for reopening branch lines where the economic case for reopening as heavy rail isn't quite there.

Light rail does offer benefits. Less track wear and maintenance, less expensive OHLE, units and signalling. No need to fence off everything due to electrification. The allowance for level crossings etc.

I suppose the main drawback would be compatibility with the wider network but on would-be local branches with little to no chance of through services or freight, this wouldn't be such a big issue.

 

[Bevan Price]

Not this again....

You are never going to get trams through the centre of St Albans - it's a medival town centre with narrow streets.

Add in St Albans Abbey is at the bottom of a hill - a very steep hill (as I can attest having walked it several times).

Lastly, I very much doubt there is any demand to travel from the places on the Abbey line to St Albans City. It's worth noting the bus which shadows the Abbey Flyer (361) terminates at St Peter's Street in St Albans and doesn't run onto St Albans City station.

That hill would be no problem for trams (the Sheffield system has sections just as steep), but the narrow streets would be a problem -- as would getting trams into Watford town centre.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The heavy rail figures were ball-parks quoted in Modern Railways. Apologies, the £4m was a tram-train not a tram, but came from discussions with an authority that had recently ordered trams and was seriously considering tram-trains. I've just found a reference suggesting Metrolink trams were £2.7m each:

First new tram for Manchester Metrolink arrives from Vienna - RailInsider

Manchester Metrolink has taken delivery of the first of 27 new trams from a £72 million contract that was placed in July 2018. The same model of tram that is already operated by Transport for Greater Manchester’s Metrolink, the new M5000 vehicles will increase capacity on the network by around...

www.railinsider.co.uk

The expensive bits of trains and trams are the running gear and the traction electronics. The tram has more of those within the same length, so costs more.

Thanks. That might well influence it against - I always thought trams would be a lot cheaper, being sort of half way between a bus and a train.

 

[tbtc]

My mains problems are as follows (and it really depends on what lines we are talking about):

• Would it be a big enough PVR to justify a small stand alone fleet? I'm reluctant to set up more micro-solutions like the Stourbridge one, which is why I'm instinctively against all of the Blue Sky Thinking ideas for long distance travellators/ cable cars/ monorails that get suggested on this forum to try to bridge small gaps.

Having a frequent shuttle service along a branch line can be better than having an infrequent service that continues to more stations. If the shuttle is the only service on the line then it would be possible to use light, or non-standard, rail to operate these services.

The Stourbridge shuttle allows passengers to connect to/from any service at Stourbridge Junction as opposed to a handful of through services. The airport shuttles at Birmingham and Gatwick (North Terminal) and the one under construction at Luton also offer a better service than if a mainline branch was constructed.

Having a shuttle service connecting to an existing station increases the number of potential passengers without using up any mainline paths. One thing that is essential is full through ticketing and the inclusion of services in journey planning and booking systems.

I'm fine with branch lines operated as separate shuttles - e.g. the Falmouth one is much more useful to locals than a handful of long distance services would be - I'm just against the kind of "bespoke" solutions that some people like to suggest which involve stock unable to run beyond its short route - like the way that the 139s can't/don't go beyond Stourbridge Junction - so seem quite expensive - you need two units to maintain a service with a PVR of one - whereas if it ran with a two coach 172 then you might just need one DMU since there might be spare resource in the general "pool" of Tydsley DMUs (e.g. you might only need ten DMUs to maintain a PVR of nine).

Plus staff need to be trained on additional stock, there's the complication of how you get the bespoke stock away from the branch, do you have a depot/ maintenance at the branch?

So, whilst I can see the logic in having light rail on the Valley Lines (given you'd need dozens of units, enough to get critical mass), I'd be against converting a route like the Newquay branch to light rail, since that might mean having two trains for a PVR of one, a separate depot, staff trained on different stock etc.

Hence being in favour of light rail in theory but it really depends on the rail line we are talking about - it'd have to have a high enough frequency to mean enough units required to warrant being "non-standard" from the main network.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suppose it also depends where the spare units are - a spare unit at Tyseley for the Marston Vale wasn't good enough - an outright failure would result in at least 3 cancelled round trips to get another unit down - so you want 3 units at Bletchley whether they are 230s or 172s*. Whereas when they were at Wembley it wasn't as bad.

* I know they don't fit, but had some silly short sighted decisions on platform length and signal positions to save about 75p not been made I'm certain that's what it'd be using now.

 

[A0]

That hill would be no problem for trams (the Sheffield system has sections just as steep), but the narrow streets would be a problem -- as would getting trams into Watford town centre.

The width of that road and also the fact its a main route into / out of St Albans would also be a problem. Is the Sheffield system on-road running where it has such gradients?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The width of that road and also the fact its a main route into / out of St Albans would also be a problem.

Trams can run on main roads. If you can run a full size bus on it you can run a tram on it.

 

[MarkyT]

The width of that road and also the fact its a main route into / out of St Albans would also be a problem. Is the Sheffield system on-road running where it has such gradients?

Trams can run on main roads. If you can run a full size bus on it you can run a tram on it.

Some of Sheffield's steepest gradients are on general traffic roads! Although I'm in favour of using light rail techniques, I advocate as much reserved alignment and as little running among general traffic as possible for reliability, along with very carefully designed traffic prioritisation and signalling. Very quiet roads are not so much of a problem, but then potential obstruction from parking and access to adjacent properties needs to be considered very carefully. All these considerations are common for well designed high-quality bus corridors in urban areas.