Light Rail v Heavy Rail

[LOL The Irony]

My argument, though, is that it is inherently more expensive to provide heavy rail than light rail services, and as such it is necessary to adjust the expectations of each to allow for that if we want a realistic comparison.
Heavy rail trains are more expensive than light rail so surely heavy rail systems will surely have to stick around with old rolling stock for longer.

Trains are more expensive but they're faster, more refined and usually more comfortable than a tram. As for trains having to stick around for longer, that doesn't necessarily have to be the case. Look at Japan for instance. Trains can last just 20 years or over 40 years, it really depends.

I did address this in post 55, quoted above.

I know you did but my previous postings were being ignored so I had to repeat myself in a giant mega reply.

I think that the OP has chosen a reasonable comparison

The question is still packaged wrongly. Why am I repeating myself?

Firstly, given the capacity difference between trams and trains (and the significant difference in operating costs - e.g. cheaper to build, signalling, line of sight, having a "safety" trained conductor operating the doors etc), trams tend to come with a frequency upgrade. Nobody is seriously suggesting replacing a four coach 350 with a single tram (on an equivalent frequency).

I have already explained my reasoning behind the 350 argument. Again, people getting hung up on the same things despite them being explained. The fact that on face value, you only read the quoted posts, yet mention the 350, suggests that you have indeed read the proceeding posts I made, meaning you have also seen my explanation to it. For the last time, it was a throwaway piece of whataboutism in response to a piece of whataboutism. I never at any point suggested that 350s would be replaced with trams.

So there needs to be some differences - I sometimes shop at Lidl/Aldi because it's cheaper than Waitrose - the frantic packing at the tills and the reduced choice of each item is the trade off for the saving in my pocket - if I had to pay the same price in each supermarket then I'm going to take the "bells and whistles" of Waitrose every time - similarly I might prefer a minibus every five minutes to a double decker bus every fifteen minutes, but I'm not going to choose a minibus if the two vehicles ran at the same frequency.

But if the ride on the minibus was a deafening racket with hard seats and the double decker was a virtually silent ride on coach seats, I'm taking the double decker unless I need to be at my destination urgently.

 

[Purple Orange]

I know you did but my previous postings were being ignored so I had to repeat myself in a giant mega reply.

The question is still packaged wrongly. Why am I repeating myself?

As the OP, I can state that the question is packaged exactly as I intended it and @tbtc has articulated the notion of the question very well.

It’s a rather simple premise of two scenarios that are very common. Heavy rail frequencies at local stations are often capped at 2 tph, but light rail frequencies at stations in very similar areas have at least 5 tph and in the case of metrolink the frequency is 10 tph in most cases. The Tyne & Wear metro is another example where 2 tph stopping services on heavy rail in to Newcastle Central was replaced with 5 tph with far better city centre coverage and made cross city travel far easier.

5 tph light rail or 2 tph heavy rail? What do you pick for your local station if you had the power to implement it?

 

[miklcct]

All no doubt true. However I dont understand why some effort cant be made to get the heavy rail costs down towards light rail. For example on lines only carrying a local passenger service, trains stopping at every station (and thus arriving /departing at low speed), why does heavy rail in the UK we need to provide/footbridges and lifts rather than a simple barrow crossing? Light rail passengers happily cross busy roads. Similarly why do such lines need heavy signalling costs rather than line of sight driving (no doubt with beefed up brakes)?

Because it isn't safe to run a heavy rail with a simple barrow crossing. One of the main distinction between heavy rail and light rail is the ability to be driven with mixed traffic.

Such crossing is safe on light rail because they are slower and can be stopped in a shorter distance. If line of sight driving is used and people are allowed to cross the railway basically it's a light rail.

 

[cle]

And so, when engineering works are on, there would be no services between Manchester and Liverpool, that's completely unacceptable in my view and is why the CLC should not be converted at all in my view, and if you are desperate to convert it, then wait until an alternative Mancherster - Liverpool route through NPR is built.

We can't keep a line in place just for the odd weekend of engineering works! Many other places survive with one route between them. And there are a million ways to get between Liverpool and Manchester, by rail or road - if an emergency. Barely 30 miles. Different to crossing the Severn or navigating the hilly lanes of the Borders.

Not least, being able to change at the future Warrington Central. Or at Wigan. Or Crewe. Or Chester. Or Kirkby, WBQ, Runcorn East... it's not enough of a reason to not make a positive change for many 100,000s of people by upgrading their transit to frequent, greener and on average quicker.

Please explain this map then. And the artists impression of Royal Exchange station even shows "Second train Oldham" on the departure board.

And yes, there are 6tph on each route (you made no mention of peak periods in your first post I quoted, so there are 6tph on each route in peak periods)

I had never seen this map, it's a great piece of history, thanks for sharing.

 

[tbtc]

See, the entire Sprinter vs M5000 argument is just a bunch of whataboutism and you admit it yourself via this post. As I and @Bletchleyite said before, if given the choice between LRV or train for a metro service, from a passenger standpoint, any sane person is picking the train.

I did. In a straight up head to head of 5tph, LRV vs train, you're picking the train.

The question and thread title don't fully line up with what's on the poll. Ideally, it should be; "Do you prefer Trains or LRVs?" and "Would you rather have 2tph or 5tph?". If it was split like that, it would be trains and 5tph

The question is still packaged wrongly. Why am I repeating myself?

I have already explained my reasoning behind the 350 argument. Again, people getting hung up on the same things despite them being explained. The fact that on face value, you only read the quoted posts, yet mention the 350, suggests that you have indeed read the proceeding posts I made, meaning you have also seen my explanation to it. For the last time, it was a throwaway piece of whataboutism in response to a piece of whataboutism. I never at any point suggested that 350s would be replaced with trams

You're going for very simplistic comparisons

If the question is "would you prefer two trains per hour or five trains per hour" then of course people are going to prefer five trains per hour - it'd be pointless having a thread with questions like that

Asking whether people prefer frequent services to less frequent services and then asking a separate question about the type of vehicle, as if they are completely separate, is answering a simplistic question with no jeopardy (which nobody is asking)

If everything else is the same then a train beats a tram and a tram beats a bus (and a bus beats a minibus), sure

But you're not going to be able to convert many train lines from a current half hourly service to every twelve minutes - so the trade offs start, which is why we've had an interesting thread of people deciding where they draw the line, what they'd prioritise etc - there's various different things that different people think matter more than others which has spawned a great discussion - but if you're going to pretend that we can increase frequencies to five per hour whilst keeping the quality of heavy rail then there's no dilemma - people would want Aldi prices at Waitrose quality

 

[miklcct]

You may be the exception rather than the rule. Whenever a low frequency train has been replaced by higher frequency tram, passenger numbers have gone up, often very significantly.

For a start many people, particularly women, don't want to be hanging around stations in the middle of nowhere for significant periods of time. And people nowadays don't want to be planning journeys far in advance and worrying about connections.

Although there is no tram in the place I live (it has been replaced by bus) I can make a similar comparison as well, but I believe the reason that the tram / bus has more passengers is simply because it has more stops, i.e. catching more passengers in the flow.

The Pokesdown - Bournemouth - Branksome - Parkstone - Poole corridor has 1 train per hour and up to 16 buses per hour, but the train is much faster. I still ended up using the bus more because a lot of places I want to go are not near the train station, but whenever I need to go to anywhere near the train station I always take the train. For example, last month I needed to go to the Decathlon at Branksome for some swimwear at last-minute, by using the train I can complete my whole shopping trip in just more than half an hour by taking the xx:24 train from Bournemouth, getting off at xx:29 at Branksome, grab my stuff and pay for it, and take the xx:48 train back from Branksome alighting at xx:54. Such timing is barely doable by a car and definitely not possible at a bus despite the bus runs every 3 minutes.

 

[Purple Orange]

We can't keep a line in place just for the odd weekend of engineering works! Many other places survive with one route between them. And there are a million ways to get between Liverpool and Manchester, by rail or road - if an emergency. Barely 30 miles. Different to crossing the Severn or navigating the hilly lanes of the Borders.

Not least, being able to change at the future Warrington Central. Or at Wigan. Or Crewe. Or Chester. Or Kirkby, WBQ, Runcorn East... it's not enough of a reason to not make a positive change for many 100,000s of people by upgrading their transit to frequent, greener and on average quicker.


I had never seen this map, it's a great piece of history, thanks for sharing.

According to Wikipedia, the Pic-Vic was designed for 24 tph, with a max of 40 tph. Apart from the Bury line, none of the southern lines are metrolink lines today and it involves the WCML too. I wonder how a service pattern of 12 tph through Cheadle Hulme was envisaged, but it can’t be countenanced today.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

We can't keep a line in place just for the odd weekend of engineering works! Many other places survive with one route between them. And there are a million ways to get between Liverpool and Manchester, by rail or road - if an emergency. Barely 30 miles. Different to crossing the Severn or navigating the hilly lanes of the Borders.

Not least, being able to change at the future Warrington Central. Or at Wigan. Or Crewe. Or Chester. Or Kirkby, WBQ, Runcorn East... it's not enough of a reason to not make a positive change for many 100,000s of people by upgrading their transit to frequent, greener and on average quicker.


I had never seen this map, it's a great piece of history, thanks for sharing.

And what about all the people at Warrington and Widnes who enjoy long distance services through to Sheffield and places like that. Are we just going to forget about them and cut those.

It very much seems like your only focusing on one type of passenger and not seeing the bigger picture here.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And what about all the people at Warrington and Widnes who enjoy long distance services through to Sheffield and places like that. Are we just going to forget about them and cut those.

It very much seems like your only focusing on one type of passenger and not seeing the bigger picture here.

You can't have through services from everywhere to everywhere, and if it was a choice between 4/5tph to Manchester Piccadilly with all the options that offers, or 2tph direct elsewhere (the stopping service isn't really relevant to the stations you mention), I'd have the former any day.

Not to mention that Bank Quay would still offer through services to the destinations that really count - London and Scotland, plus a few others.

 

[cle]

And what about all the people at Warrington and Widnes who enjoy long distance services through to Sheffield and places like that. Are we just going to forget about them and cut those.

Yep, pretty much. It has to be about growth and the most users. And modal shift / other goals. And revenue of course. Always a few eggs cracked when you make changes - I can't see that being a critical flow interrupted. Birchwood to Liverpool is the other one, a shame but greater good.

How would you grow revenue on tickets between Widnes/Warrington and Sheffield? It's incidental, and non-existent. Any connections are personal.

But growing Widnes to Liverpool (likely just to 4tph, Merseyrail's cadence, but regularly spaced and subsidized) - that seems way more realistic - and getting people out of cars.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yep, pretty much. It has to be about growth and the most users. And modal shift / other goals. And revenue of course. Always a few eggs cracked when you make changes - I can't see that being a critical flow interrupted. Birchwood to Liverpool is the other one, a shame but greater good.

If you're talking Merseyrail+Metrolink, that's a considerable frequency upgrade at the cost of a change.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

Yep, pretty much. It has to be about growth and the most users. And modal shift / other goals. And revenue of course. Always a few eggs cracked when you make changes - I can't see that being a critical flow interrupted. Birchwood to Liverpool is the other one, a shame but greater good.

How would you grow revenue on tickets between Widnes/Warrington and Sheffield? It's incidental, and non-existent. Any connections are personal.

But growing Widnes to Liverpool (likely just to 4tph, Merseyrail's cadence, but regularly spaced and subsidized) - that seems way more realistic - and getting people out of cars.

This is the issue with the Metrolink everything crowd. You have decided based on your own opinion that some passengers are more important than others. Now I do get your point about frequency but overall I think that's a very poor way of looking at the network and potential users.

Just my personal opinion. Dont have to agree with me.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is the issue with the Metrolink everything crowd. You have decided based on your own opinion that some passengers are more important than others.

The thing is, they are. Larger flows are more important than smaller flows.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

The thing is, they are. Larger flows are more important than smaller flows.

If the smaller how higher revenue then I don't think that's the case. There are many places on the railway were the smaller flow is considered more important and for good reason.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the smaller how higher revenue then I don't think that's the case.

There is absolutely no chance that the demand or revenue from Warrington to Sheffield or beyond will be higher than the demand/revenue from Warrington to Manchester. None whatsoever.

 

[LOL The Irony]

As the OP, I can state that the question is packaged exactly as I intended it and @tbtc has articulated the notion of the question very well.

The thread is still asking 2 questions at once though. The title asks whether you prefer light rail or heavy rail, where as the poll asks whether you would want less tph on a train or more tph but on a tram. This is where the entire problem originates.

You're going for very simplistic comparisons

It's nice to see that you can reply to all my posts by quoting them this time, albeit ones already justified.

people would want Aldi prices at Waitrose quality

It's almost like I've already said this, but in a slightly different way. Because it's actually what I would want along with most of the population. If this is too simplistic of a view for you, then I apologise for not being more entertaining. If you really want to know, I chose the train as it's more suitable and comfortable (again, like I've already said).

Deja Vu, I've just been in this place before...

 

[daodao]

I wonder how a service pattern of 12 tph through Cheadle Hulme was envisaged, but it can’t be countenanced today.

The high frequency service was only envisaged to be operated in the peak periods Mon-Fri. In the 1970s, there would not have been a conflict with fast trains from further south, none of which were booked to arrive in Piccadilly before 0930 am. There would have been some conflict with southbound services leaving Piccadilly between 1645 and 1810, but only 2 trains would have been affected [by a slight delay/pathing issue], as long-distance trains (to London/Birmingham and beyond) were much less frequent in the 1970s. The evening southbound Pullman left just before 1645.

This is the issue with the Metrolink everything crowd. You have decided based on your own opinion that some passengers are more important than others. Now I do get your point about frequency but overall I think that's a very poor way of looking at the network and potential users.

I agree. Conversion of any heavy rail line to light rail needs very careful consideration due to potential adverse impacts on the provision of other rail services (express/freight). It is the right thing to do in some circumstances (e.g. some of the ex-GC lines south-east of Manchester), but there are only limited situations on the current rail networks around metropolitan areas where it is really feasible.

The CLC line to Liverpool east of Hunt's Cross is probably not one of them, given that it would force all through Liverpool-Manchester traffic onto the Chat Moss line, because the 3rd fast Manchester-Liverpool line (the L&Y route) was closed as a through route many years ago. It also extends well beyond the metropolitan conurbations; the section from Hunt's Cross to Irlam is outwith both Liverpool and Greater Manchester and a high frequency (4-5 tph) stopping service isn't really indicated on this portion of the line.

 

[Purple Orange]

The thread is still asking 2 questions at once though. The title asks whether you prefer light rail or heavy rail, where as the poll asks whether you would want less tph on a train or more tph but on a tram. This is where the entire problem originates.

The title is just a title. Only one question was asked.

 

[HSTEd]

The CLC line to Liverpool east of Hunt's Cross is probably not one of them, given that it would force all through Liverpool-Manchester traffic onto the Chat Moss line, because the 3rd fast Manchester-Liverpool line (the L&Y route) was closed as a through route many years ago. It also extends well beyond the metropolitan conurbations; the section from Hunt's Cross to Irlam is outwith both Liverpool and Greater Manchester and a high frequency (4-5 tph) stopping service isn't really indicated on this portion of the line.

I don't really see an issue with only one normal service Liverpool-Manchester railway, even without a new build NPR line.

In an emergency "get me home" situation, a tram to Warrington and Merseyrail is likely acceptable to the travelling public and far superior to a bus.

I'm not really sure trimming the service to save a small sum of money between Hunts cross and Widnes makes sense compared to having an easy to understand service that simply stops all stations.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't really see an issue with only one normal service Liverpool-Manchester railway, even without a new build NPR line.

In an emergency "get me home" situation, a tram to Warrington and Merseyrail is likely acceptable to the travelling public and far superior to a bus.

I'm not really sure trimming the service to save a small some of money between Hunts cross and Widnes makes sense compared to having an easy to understand service that simply stops all stations.

Some people might even find a quick change at Warrington Central more convenient, particularly if on the Southport line. They might have a slow journey, but they would have only one change at Warrington Central (far less of purgatory than Victoria or Picc 13/14) from Manchester city centre, and that every 15 minutes (with varying waits due to the misaligned frequencies) too, as well as a vastly improved evening and early morning service.

If Warrington Central received a rebuild so it would be cross- or same-platform, bonus. Level boarding on both, too.

This Forum does like "classic" railway operation, which is all very well, but I'd not underestimate the potential popularity of Metrolink meets Merseyrail at Warrington C. I can see it being hugely successful on its own, but add to that it removing 3tph from Castlefield (not just that, but the only 3 that absolutely can't go to Victoria) and it becomes even more compelling.

 

[daodao]

I don't really see an issue with only one normal service Liverpool-Manchester railway, even without a new build NPR line.

In an emergency "get me home" situation, a tram to Warrington and Merseyrail is likely acceptable to the travelling public and far superior to a bus.

I'm not really sure trimming the service to save a small some of money between Hunts cross and Widnes makes sense compared to having an easy to understand service that simply stops all stations.

I would extend the existing Merseyrail service terminating at Hunt's Cross to Gateacre (within Liverpool), as originally intended.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would extend the existing Merseyrail service terminating at Hunt's Cross to Gateacre (within Liverpool), as originally intended.

Given that you've got 8tph terminating at Central (which actually get in the way somewhat by doing so), extending 4 of those to Gateacre might allow both. Or you do 2 to each.

At the risk of complicating Merseyrail, the Warrington ones could miss out stations between Central and South Parkway if 8tph was felt to be overkill there - that would speed things up.

You'd have to serve Mossley Hill, West Allerton and Allerton, but a single EMU could operate a half hourly stopping service from Lime St to South Parkway for those.

 

[BayPaul]

Some people might even find a quick change at Warrington Central more convenient, particularly if on the Southport line. They might have a slow journey, but they would have only one change at Warrington Central (far less of purgatory than Victoria or Picc 13/14) from Manchester city centre, and that every 15 minutes (with varying waits due to the misaligned frequencies) too, as well as a vastly improved evening and early morning service.

If Warrington Central received a rebuild so it would be cross- or same-platform, bonus. Level boarding on both, too.

This Forum does like "classic" railway operation, which is all very well, but I'd not underestimate the potential popularity of Metrolink meets Merseyrail at Warrington C. I can see it being hugely successful on its own, but add to that it removing 3tph from Castlefield (not just that, but the only 3 that absolutely can't go to Victoria) and it becomes even more compelling.

It does seem like a very sensible plan indeed, especially removing trains from Castlefield (probably only actually 2 trains, as I would expect that Sheffield - Liverpool would probably survive, and be routed via Chat Moss). They are also the services which are awkward within Castlefield, as they cross on the flat. Part of me wonders if that answers the regular forum question of why CLC wasn't electrified with the other lines in the area - perhaps there is a long-term plan to do something like this sitting in the books.

 

[cle]

It does seem like a very sensible plan indeed, especially removing trains from Castlefield (probably only actually 2 trains, as I would expect that Sheffield - Liverpool would probably survive, and be routed via Chat Moss). They are also the services which are awkward within Castlefield, as they cross on the flat. Part of me wonders if that answers the regular forum question of why CLC wasn't electrified with the other lines in the area - perhaps there is a long-term plan to do something like this sitting in the books.

It is a great Castlefield intervention. The through paths, but also the stoppers are the residents of the Oxford Road bay which has to go. So it solves that issue too.

But likely the Notts/Cleethorpes (as currently envisaged) would run via Chat Moss and Castlefield anyway. They would probably have to - Victoria to Romiliey/Stockport routings are not popular around here! Then again, we don't want diesel end door services on Castlefield longer term either.

 

[Purple Orange]

It is a great Castlefield intervention. The through paths, but also the stoppers are the residents of the Oxford Road bay which has to go. So it solves that issue too.

But likely the Notts/Cleethorpes (as currently envisaged) would run via Chat Moss and Castlefield anyway. They would probably have to - Victoria to Romiliey/Stockport routings are not popular around here! Then again, we don't want diesel end door services on Castlefield longer term either.

The Liverpool-Sheffield services will need to move to proper commuter stock at some stage. The 158s won’t hang around forever and when they do move on I doubt similar rolling stock would be procured.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Liverpool-Sheffield services will need to move to proper commuter stock at some stage. The 158s won’t hang around forever and when they do move on I doubt similar rolling stock would be procured.

185s or 195s are obvious stock for those, but neither are "commuter" units, unless you just mean the door positions.

 

[Purple Orange]

185s or 195s are obvious stock for those, but neither are "commuter" units, unless you just mean the door positions.

I mean doors thirds and really it should be a train that is similar to a 185.

 

[py_megapixel]

Trains are more expensive but they're faster, more refined and usually more comfortable than a tram.

So the question is "Do you want a cheap, frequent but very basic service, or a less frequent, more expensive service but with a higher quality experience?"
That is a reasonable question, and in general I would choose the former. It sounds like in general you would choose the latter, which is a perfectly valid opinion, though I don't agree with it.

The problem comes when the heavy rail is just less frequent and more expensive (either to the taxpayer or the farepayer) and is no more comfortable, or even less so. Which, let's be honest, is fairly often the case in this country.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problem comes when the heavy rail is just less frequent and more expensive (either to the taxpayer or the farepayer) and is no more comfortable, or even less so. Which, let's be honest, is fairly often the case in this country.

Yes, true. A Class 331, say, is clearly much nicer than a Metrolink tram. But a rattling, fume-spewing, 3+2 seated 150, on the other hand?

 

[cle]

A big part of this is really frequency of travel. An occasional traveller - say going from Widnes to Sheffield once a year - would be happy to follow an hourly timetable and have a comfier journey. A daily traveller wants frequency/flexibility and simplicity. And a better last mile experience with the city in question, vs a terminus, likely with a car pick-up or a cab onwards.

Which one keeps the lights on? Also, hard seats do crop up on both types of rail units