Conversion from Heavy Rail to Tram/Light rail or using abandoned routes

[Metro95]

Are there any Heavy rail lines that could be converted to Trams/Light rail or that could use abandoned railway lines like parts of the Croydon Tramlink and parts of the Manchester Metrolink?

 

[ivorytoast28]

The old line from Newcastle to Ferryhill via Washington perhaps could join the tyne and wear metro

 

[Dr Hoo]

The Midland Metro extension to Dudley (and subsequently, hopefully, Brierley Hill) is being built on a disused heavy rail alignment.

 

[javelin]

There's a recent Network Rail report which recommends Tram Train or other light rail for reopening March to Wisbech.

Wisbech Network Rail report

 

[D365]

Unlikely as it is - I’m a keen proponent of a Sheffield Midland to Dore tram-train. Especially if it was combined with the Pond/Sheaf Street tram rerouting.

 

[Bald Rick]

There's a recent Network Rail report which recommends Tram Train or other light rail for reopening March to Wisbech.

Wisbech Network Rail report

Hadn’t seen that report before, it’s a masterpiece of understatement!

 

[swt_passenger]

There were a couple of fairly recent threads about future light rail, or similar.
There’s one in speculation here:

Suitable candidates for conversion to light rail

I've often wondered if there are any obvious candidates for lightly used branch lines to be converted to light rail. We have seem this before with Croydon Tramlink and Manchester Metrolink. Ideally the branch would not have any freight and would see an enhancement in service. The Wimbledon -...

railforums.co.uk

…and another in the light rail sub forum here:

What hope for light rail expansion in the UK?

The UK’s National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) has said that work on plans to develop mass transit systems for the country’s biggest cities “needs to start now” if the country is to live up to its climate change and levelling up commitments. The UK has seen limited development of modern LRT...

railforums.co.uk

 

[daodao]

Are there any Heavy rail lines that could be converted to Trams/Light rail or that could use abandoned railway lines like parts of the Croydon Tramlink and parts of the Manchester Metrolink?

In Blackpool/Fylde/Wyre:

• Squires Gate to Kirkham (with a short on street section from Starr Gate)
• Fleetwood to Poulton

In Greater Manchester:

• Ashburys to Marple Rose Hill via Reddish (with "on street" running from Piccadilly to Ashburys)
• Pendleton to Hindley (with non-heavy rail routes between Wigan and Hindley, and between Pendleton and Central Manchester)

In Tyne and Wear:

• Pelaw-Washington-South Hylton
• East Boldon-Tyne Dock (to enable a South Shields-Sunderland service)

 

[30907]

In Greater Manchester:

• Ashburys to Marple Rose Hill via Reddish (with "on street" running from Piccadilly to Ashburys)
• Pendleton to Hindley (with non-heavy rail routes between Wigan and Hindley, and between Pendleton and Central Manchester)

To which you could add Cornbrook to Warrington C, equally a topic in these forums.

Fairly certain the Bromley North branch has come up as part of a Tramlink extension (or a DLR extension, or a Bakerloo extension...).

 

[daodao]

To which you could add Cornbrook to Warrington C, equally a topic in these forums.

You might, but I wouldn't.

The CLC line from Manchester to Liverpool is a major interurban route and relying on the Chat Moss line alone for through services between these 2 major cities would be unwise. The 3rd main line (ex-LYR) was run down in the 1960s and then closed.

There is no significant capacity for additional trams between Cornbrook and St.Peter's Square.

 

[Purple Orange]

You might, but I wouldn't.

The CLC line from Manchester to Liverpool is a major interurban route and relying on the Chat Moss line alone for through services between these 2 major cities would be unwise. The 3rd main line (ex-LYR) was run down in the 1960s and then closed.

There is no significant capacity for additional trams between Cornbrook and St.Peter's Square.

That isn’t a good enough argument against conversion, because there exists options that would mitigate against those issues.

As always, this line comes up as an option to be championed or dismissed. However the context needs highlighting each and every time. As you say, there is not enough capacity through St. Peter’s Sq, therefore if converted, the line has to run in to a tunnel. It’s absurd to assume that Warrington CLC services will run down the middle of Mosley Street or Cross Street in Manchester. Secondly there is an assumption on the delivery of NPR, making fast Liverpool-Manchester via Warrington services on the CLC redundant of any particular need. The result would be that the CLC would be the ‘third’ line between the two cities and the capacity issue

Therefore to counter the argument in favour of converting the CLC from Warrington to Manchester to what would be a light rail metro underground line (operated by Metrolink), and implicitly the conversion of Warrington-Liverpool to Merseyrail operation, a better argument against needs to be put forward.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You might, but I wouldn't.

The CLC line from Manchester to Liverpool is a major interurban route and relying on the Chat Moss line alone for through services between these 2 major cities would be unwise. The 3rd main line (ex-LYR) was run down in the 1960s and then closed.

There is no significant capacity for additional trams between Cornbrook and St.Peter's Square.

The CLC is no longer the main Liverpool to Manchester route, that is now Chat Moss.

 

[HSTEd]

You might, but I wouldn't.

The CLC line from Manchester to Liverpool is a major interurban route and relying on the Chat Moss line alone for through services between these 2 major cities would be unwise. The 3rd main line (ex-LYR) was run down in the 1960s and then closed.

There is no significant capacity for additional trams between Cornbrook and St.Peter's Square.

Do we really need more than one main line between Manchester and Liverpool?

Especially as the CLC route would still be available for emergency movement of people during disruptions.

(Tram to Warrington and Merseyrail to Liverpool is infinitely better than no route after all)

As it is the Chat Moss route is not near its ultimate passenger capacity and a, comparatively, cheap section of street running tram could relax the capacity issues on metrolink enough for five trams an hour to Warrington

 

[Recessio]

Fairly certain the Bromley North branch has come up as part of a Tramlink extension (or a DLR extension, or a Bakerloo extension...).

Bromley Council proposed a DLR extension from Lewisham-Bromley North, as an alternative to the Bakerloo taking over Lewisham-Hayes branch (which Bromley council opposed, as apparently the vast service improvement isn't worth losing the route serving both the City and West End destination... Despite it being an easy change)

Personally I'd like to see both!

 

[daodao]

That isn’t a good enough argument against conversion, because there exists options that would mitigate against those issues.

As always, this line comes up as an option to be championed or dismissed. However the context needs highlighting each and every time. As you say, there is not enough capacity through St. Peter’s Sq, therefore if converted, the line has to run in to a tunnel. It’s absurd to assume that Warrington CLC services will run down the middle of Mosley Street or Cross Street in Manchester. Secondly there is an assumption on the delivery of NPR, making fast Liverpool-Manchester via Warrington services on the CLC redundant of any particular need. The result would be that the CLC would be the ‘third’ line between the two cities and the capacity issue

Therefore to counter the argument in favour of converting the CLC from Warrington to Manchester to what would be a light rail metro underground line (operated by Metrolink), and implicitly the conversion of Warrington-Liverpool to Merseyrail operation, a better argument against needs to be put forward.

If (and it's a big IF) NPR is eventually built between Manchester and Liverpool via Warrington, I accept that the CLC line would no longer be needed as a fast route between the 2 cities. However, the need for an underground route if more trams fed into Cornbrook from the west from additional lines means that converting the CLC route to Metrolink faces a significant financial hurdle. The economic state of the country means that proposed major infrastructure projects that have not yet started are likely to be put on the back burner for quite some time. There are more suitable routes for Metrolink expansion at somewhat lower cost.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If Leeds ever gets a tram/light rail system, the disused Holbeck viaduct could be used for a line to Morley town centre via Elland Road and the White Rose Centre. There's probably enough space for a segregated alignment once the viaduct ends, and definitely is along Dewsbury Road once you reach the White Rose.

Unfortunately the powers that be have decided to waste a load of money on a station there, which they won't want to undermine with a competing system even though the main line is pretty much full.

Looking at conversions, with hindsight some of the routes Metrolink has taken over were perhaps not the best options. Bury fair enough, as the electrification was life expired and more importantly non-standard. Altrincham on the other hand was only life expired. Likewise Glossop/Hadfield should remain as heavy rail, rather than being downgraded (which it would be, even with a frequency increase) and if TfGM are determined to jump on the tram-train bandwagon Rose Hill would be the only suitable choice in my opinion.

On the CLC route, it amuses me no end that there's so many wanting to turn Warrington Central into a Kirkby/Ormskirk type affair... whilst some (not necessarily the same people, but it wouldn't surprise me) want to extend Merseyrail to Wigan and/or Preston. It's a peculiar tendency to want change for the sake of it.

 

[Iskra]

The Stocksbridge branch is ripe for it now since rail freight is being withdrawn at the end of the month.

 

[Purple Orange]

If (and it's a big IF) NPR is eventually built between Manchester and Liverpool via Warrington, I accept that the CLC line would no longer be needed as a fast route between the 2 cities. However, the need for an underground route if more trams fed into Cornbrook from the west from additional lines means that converting the CLC route to Metrolink faces a significant financial hurdle. The economic state of the country means that proposed major infrastructure projects that have not yet started are likely to be put on the back burner for quite some time. There are more suitable routes for Metrolink expansion at somewhat lower cost.

Yes, a big IF for NPR and an even bigger IF for conversion of the CLC from Warrington to Manchester to Metrolink. We have to view that project based on those infrastructure ‘ingredients’ all coming together. It’ll never be a case of converting to Metrolink and having it feed through to the street running lines in Manchester and no alternative for the fast Liverpool-Manchester services.

 

[HSTEd]

On the CLC route, it amuses me no end that there's so many wanting to turn Warrington Central into a Kirkby/Ormskirk type affair... whilst some (not necessarily the same people, but it wouldn't surprise me) want to extend Merseyrail to Wigan and/or Preston. It's a peculiar tendency to want change for the sake of it.

As one of the people who supports both of those things, I really don't think they are at all comparable.

Splitting the CLC in the middle would allow two high-intensity peri-urban networks to operate on the lines, serving the relevant city-facing areas in each city's urban region. Since segregation is necessary to make the operation practical, and extending Merseyrail to a special platform at Deansgate would be problematic for various reasons, you have to split it somewhere. Warrington is a natural "breakpoint" to make the connection.

By contrast, Ormskirk and Kirkby are not natural connection points between two intensively operated peri-urban networks. They are where a peri-urban network ends, and essentially nothing exists on the other side of them.
The lines between Kirkby and Wigan and especially between Ormskirk and Preston are so lightly served that it almost seems silly to keep them open - they serve no serious transport purpose, certainly compared to even the quietest parts of Merseyrail.

I'd argue that Wigan is a far more natural "breakpoint" between the Liverpool and Manchester facing railway networks than Kirkby ever could be. Wanting to move the breakpoint there is, in my view, entirely consistant with wanting to split the CLC at Warrington. Right now we have a line that stops at Kirkby and then an effective void between Kirkby and Wigan which serves essentially noone, compared to the other parts, but still consumes railway resources.

A slightly different argument applies to Ormskirk-Preston - the line certainly serves no serious transport purpose now, and there is no peri-urban network to go to. So we might as well take over the entire line because otherwise we end up with a worthless stub that serves nothing and noone. It can actually provide some useful journey possibilities if it ran through to Liverpool - it provides none now.

 

[Bletchleyite]

By contrast, Ormskirk and Kirkby are not natural connection points between two intensively operated peri-urban networks. They are where a peri-urban network ends, and essentially nothing exists on the other side of them.

I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. There is a bit of a gap of relative nothingness between Burscough and Croston, but Burscough isn't tiny, and Croston is the highest demand point on the Ormskirk-Preston line. You also have the potential and actual connectivity to Manchester from West Lancashire that can (and even with the walk sometimes does) go that way - it's sometimes quicker than via Liverpool or Preston, and if you split tickets (bizarrely also at Ormskirk) then it's cheaper too. That's why I favour running Merseyrail to Burscough Bridge, and the same with the Preston DMU, giving a connectional hub.

There is considerable commuting from Burscough to Liverpool - it's as much as Scouse suburb as Ormskirk - it just mostly goes down the A59 and parks at Ormskirk station.

As to Kirkby-Wigan, that is somewhat of a backwater, but again there is decent Rainford-Liverpool demand (Rainford is a suburb of Liverpool, de-facto) and the potential to improve Upholland as a P&R for south Skem and for inbound commuting to the considerable industry around Pimbo. (West Skem is probably better driving to Maghull North).

So I think there's a good case for these. The weaker one is Helsby, but I'd probably also do that just to tidy things up a bit, and you could accompany it with housebuilding to create the demand.

The lines between Kirkby and Wigan and especially between Ormskirk and Preston are so lightly served that it almost seems silly to keep them open - they serve no serious transport purpose.

That's abject nonsense. Ormskirk-Preston has recently received an upgrade to hourly clockface from start to end of service plus an earlier first and later last train (from the long running single-unit 1h10ish frequency) and now often operated with a 158, the 153s are long gone, with far higher loadings than it used to have. It's not a bustling metropolis, but are you seriously proposing closure of all routes with an hourly service?

I'd argue that Wigan is a far more natural "breakpoint" between the Liverpool and Manchester facing railway networks than Kirkby ever could be. Wanting to move the breakpoint there is, in my view, entirely consistant with wanting to split the CLC at Warrington. Right now we have a line that stops at Kirkby and then an effective void between Kirkby and Wigan which serves essentially noone but still consumes railway resources.

I probably do agree with that, though if Rainford received a half hourly service (say) to Liverpool plus some housebuilding it'd become more of a popular commuter suburb. I don't doubt plenty of Rainfordians (?) commute to Liverpool by driving to Kirkby or Maghull North at the moment.

A slightly different argument applies to Ormskirk-Preston - the line certainly serves no serious transport purpose now

It absolutely does. Have you ever used it?

, and there is no peri-urban network to go to. So we might as well take over the entire line because otherwise we end up with a worthless stub that serves nothing and noone. It actually make provide some journey possibilities that might be useful if it ran through to Liverpool - it provides none now.

With Liverpool to Preston via Wigan only hourly and quite slow, if the route via Ormskirk was doubled so a half hourly service could run it would once again become the main Liverpool-Preston service, but I'd agree that running it through certainly improves connectivity. I prefer my Burscough proposal for the connectivity it would offer West Lancashire (it'd also be cheaper than doubling to Preston), but I'd happily take an hourly through Liverpool-Preston via Ormskirk as a considerable upgrade to what's there now.

 

[HSTEd]

I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. There is a bit of a gap of relative nothingness between Burscough and Croston, but Burscough isn't tiny, and Croston is the highest demand point on the Ormskirk-Preston line. You also have the potential and actual connectivity to Manchester from West Lancashire that can (and even with the walk sometimes does) go that way - it's sometimes quicker than via Liverpool or Preston, and if you split tickets (bizarrely also at Ormskirk) then it's cheaper too. That's why I favour running Merseyrail to Burscough Bridge, and the same with the Preston DMU, giving a connectional hub.

I mean in railway terms.
Not in terms of the settlements?

Which is why I just proposed running Merseyrail to Preston?

All the stations beyond Ormskirk [excluding Preston] add up to be quieter than the quietest station on Merseyrail by passenger numbers, at least in normal pre coronavirus times. Given that there is significant construction in the area, it seems reasonable that we could get way more traffic out of it.

There is considerable commuting from Burscough to Liverpool - it's as much as Scouse suburb as Ormskirk - it just mostly goes down the A59 and parks at Ormskirk station.

Would this be negatively affected by Merseyrail running to Burscough on its way to Preston?

So I think there's a good case for these. The weaker one is Helsby, but I'd probably also do that just to tidy things up a bit, and you could accompany it with housebuilding to create the demand.

Wait you are saying what I am is abject nonsense, but then supporting my conclusions.

I'm a little confused!

It's not a bustling metropolis, but are you seriously proposing closure of all routes with an hourly service?

I'm suggesting that a route should be half hourly at least or it potentially is not suitable for modern public transport.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would this be negatively affected by Merseyrail running to Burscough on its way to Preston?

Burscough Junction station is less conveniently situated than Burscough Bridge, both for most of the housing and for connectivity with the Southport-Manchester line, which is one reason I prefer my proposal. But it would certainly be used, and house prices in Burscough would rocket. As mentioned if you went 2tph it'd basically become the main Liverpool-Preston(-Scotland) route as it once was, unless TPE put a direct Glasgow on more than a couple of times a day.

I was going to say you could even cut Liverpool-Wigan-Preston-Blackpool back to Wigan and use the stock freed up to increase Liverpool-Wigan via St Helens to 3tph, but there'd be nothing to serve Euxton Balshaw Lane, though that may be solved when whatever is going to happen with Golborne is decided.

Wait you are saying what I am is abject nonsense, but then supporting my conclusions.

I'm a little confused!

I was as well. First you were saying Ormskirk-Preston and Kirkby-Wigan should close, and then that they should get Merseyrail? Never mind

I'm suggesting that a route should be half hourly at least or it probably is not suitable for modern public transport.

That'd be a lot of closures, almost Serpell in fact.

 

[HSTEd]

I was as well. First you were saying Ormskirk-Preston and Kirkby-Wigan should close, and then that they should get Merseyrail? Never mind

I was sort of suggesting that if we are going to be in the business of having railways in these places, we should use them more intensively.

On the Ormskirk line you probably want Merseyrail "proper" to go to Burscough, at which point you might as well just run the extra 20km to Preston for the connectivity options.

Depending on the start location in Liverpool its not even horribly unattractive compared to the "fast" routes - I bet you could use it to move AP fares off busy trains on the normal lines, especially given the decarbonisation objective.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On the Ormskirk line you probably want Merseyrail "proper" to go to Burscough, at which point you might as well just run the extra 20km to Preston for the connectivity options.

There is a considerable connectivity advantage to the Merseyrail service to Burscough going to Burscough Bridge, from which it would be a faff to run to Preston as it'd involve crossing both mainlines - the ideal layout there is two islands, with Merseyrail terminating on 4, Southport 3, Manchester 2 and Preston terminating in 1.

I suppose you could do something like 2 to Burscough Bridge and 2 to Preston though. I did a while back work out how you could do a 2tph to Burscough at Ormskirk without redoubling, but it did require a unit to sit at Ormskirk for about 30 minutes each hour due to the timings, which could allow you to run it to Preston instead of it sitting there. Or you could close both Bridge and Junction and build a new Tamworth like interchange station where the lines cross ("Burscough and West Lancashire Parkway"?), which is a bit out of town at present (still walkable) but could be surrounded by new housebuilding and retail to justify the cost.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Splitting the CLC in the middle would allow two high-intensity peri-urban networks to operate on the lines, serving the relevant city-facing areas in each city's urban region. Since segregation is necessary to make the operation practical, and extending Merseyrail to a special platform at Deansgate would be problematic for various reasons, you have to split it somewhere. Warrington is a natural "breakpoint" to make the connection.

Why bother with the awkward changeover though? What problem does it solve?
To me the obvious solution for the CLC route is to electrify it with standard 25kv OHLE, and run a fairly frequent (say 3/4tph) EMU service between Lime Street and either Oxford Road or Manchester Airport, calling at all stations (apart from the basket-cases like Sankey for Penketh), with all longer distance services terminating in Picc main shed or diverting via Chat Moss. You don't need to mess around with Merseyrail, and the distance between Manchester and Warrington is too great for Metrolink's rough-riding trams in my opinion. The M5000s are unsuitable for an inter-urban journey like Manchester to Warrington. Indeed now that the Pacers have gone, I consider the M5000s to be the worst railed vehicle in public service in the UK- not least because Metrolink is a weird hybrid system that can't seem to decide whether it's an urban tramway or a Poundland S-Bahn.
All I'd do with that end of Merseyrail, is consider curtailing services at Liverpool South Parkway, to remove the crossing move needed to access the bay platform at Hunt's Cross. Any change from Merseyrail to Northern can still be done at LSP, with the added bonus of being mostly under cover. A longer walk for the change at LSP admittedly, but a moving walkway would ease that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why bother with the awkward changeover though? What problem does it solve?
To me the obvious solution for the CLC route is to electrify it with standard 25kv OHLE, and run a fairly frequent (say 3/4tph) EMU service between Lime Street and either Oxford Road or Manchester Airport, calling at all stations (apart from the basket-cases like Sankey for Penketh)

Slight point of order - Sankey for Penketh isn't a basket case, and certainly wouldn't be were it served by a 2 or 4tph Merseyrail style service. The alleged "basket cases" are no different from similar stations on Merseyrail itself - for instance Chassen Road is very similar to Aughton Park - and are only "basket cases" because of the useless service.

I suspect for instance with 1tph nobody would use it to go from Sankey to Warrington, just as I doubt many would go from Town Green to Ormskirk by train if that was hourly. But with 4tph it and Padgate would remove the need for quite a few bus services.

There is one actual basket case on the line - Glazebrook - which literally is in the middle of a field a la Cheddington, having a catchment of about 20 houses if that. However even this could be made useful - one option would be to build an eco-town centred on it, another would be to build a bridge over Glaze Brook with a decent cycle and footpath, at which point it might get reasonable usage from the west side of Cadishead which is a long way from Irlam station. Or do both!

 

[tbtc]

I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. There is a bit of a gap of relative nothingness between Burscough and Croston, but Burscough isn't tiny, and Croston is the highest demand point on the Ormskirk-Preston line

“This lightly used Station is the busiest station on this lightly used line” isn’t the zinger of an argument you think it is

I probably do agree with that, though if Rainford received a half hourly service (say) to Liverpool plus some housebuilding it'd become more of a popular commuter suburb

“If we massively increased the frequency and built lots of new houses by the station then passenger demand would go up” feels like yet another argument that applies to the vast majority of stations, and just looks like you are working backwards to try to justify the massive investment in a childhood like that you’ve clearly set your heart on

With Liverpool to Preston via Wigan only hourly and quite slow, if the route via Ormskirk was doubled so a half hourly service could run it would once again become the main Liverpool-Preston service

You really think you are going to run faster trains via Ormskirk, by extending the Merseyrail stoppers?

Moorfields to Ormskirk takes half an hour, Ormskirk to Preston takes half an hour…

…whereas the service from Lime Street to Preston (that you dismiss as “quite slow”) takes just fifty minutes …

.., please tell me how the Ormskirk route will be the “main” service?

 

[Bletchleyite]

You really think you are going to run faster trains via Ormskirk, by extending the Merseyrail stoppers?

Where did I say that?

Moorfields to Ormskirk takes half an hour, Ormskirk to Preston takes half an hour…

…whereas the service from Lime Street to Preston (that you dismiss as “quite slow”) takes just fifty minutes …

.., please tell me how the Ormskirk route will be the “main” service?

The fact that it's 2tph. That's the success of Merseyrail, and is why (barring the current operational difficulties on the Chester line relating to a unit shortage which are the reason for omitting a few Wirral stations) nobody has ever proposed Chester and Southport fasts rather than the present frequent all stations service.

A 1tph service taking 50 minutes is no use if it means you need to travel half an hour earlier than you otherwise would - that makes it effectively take 80 minutes.

Bonus: if you could bin off the awkward pattern on that route you could up to 3 or 4tph Wigan all stations a la Merseyrail.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Thanks for the correction on Sankey, though isn't that the one that now has a limited service due to Warrington West opening? Or have I got my wires (no pun intended) crossed?

You have it right suggesting a "Merseyrail Style service" rather than specifically Merseyrail, not least because I wouldn't necessarily have Merseyrail operating the service. In my opinion it should remain with Northern (or whatever Northern becomes) though run as a dedicated "Merseyrail-esque" service: 3-4tph, all (or most) stations served. Maybe alternate trains calling at the lighter-used stations.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Thanks for the correction on Sankey, though isn't that the one that now has a limited service due to Warrington West opening?

It is, yes. In that form it's useless, but personally I think Warrington West was a stupid idea - but with 4tph of all stations EMUs you'd just serve both and people would use them for local trips within Warrington.