Light Rail v Heavy Rail

[Purple Orange]

What do you prefer?

 

[HST43257]

It completely depends on what the route is

 

[Peregrine 4903]

It completely depends on what the route is

Yes I would agree. And also where the light rail/metro goes compared to the heavy rail.

Still, I really don't like trams so would always take heavy rail.

 

[The Planner]

Surely this can only apply to densely populated areas? Somehow i doubt you are going to be swapping heavy rail for trams at random places such as Cholsey, Lydney, Ludlow, Tackley etc etc...

 

[HST43257]

Surely this can only apply to densely populated areas? Somehow i doubt you are going to be swapping heavy rail for trams at random places such as Cholsey, Lydney, Ludlow, Tackley etc etc...

Agreed, some specific context would help a lot

 

[Purple Orange]

It completely depends on what the route is

Let’s assume it’s a line running through a city.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Oct 2021 ==

Surely this can only apply to densely populated areas? Somehow i doubt you are going to be swapping heavy rail for trams at random places such as Cholsey, Lydney, Ludlow, Tackley etc etc...

Yes, through densely populated areas. I had assumed folk would be making that leap anyhow and not assuming that the WCML or a rural branch line would be in question.

 

[Irascible]

The Beeching axe swung on three sides of the town I grew up in - I'd have done a lot to be able to take a tram over the old branch to the nearest city vs being subjected to that bus, so don't rule out rural light rail totally if it's an option vs losing everything.

Even in a city it's still "depends" though. Also - the Tube, light or heavy metro?

 

[squizzler]

I disagree that the choice is light or heavy rail, rather I think light rail (LRT) is a competitor to busses, which carry many more people in the UK than does rail.

Perhaps the shortage of commercial drivers is likely to lead to a new wave of LRT schemes to replace urban busses? One LRT driver has the productivity of multiple bus drivers, depending how many vehicles in the tram.

There is also the emerging technology of Ultra-Light Rail, which is cheaper than current LRT. This could really open up the opportunity for new schemes not viable during the last wave of LRT over 20 years ago, also with potential to be a bus killer on the thicker routes.

 

[Purple Orange]

One trend we often see with conversion of a line from heavy rail to light rail is an increase in frequency, hence why I purposely included a 5 tph v 2 tph differential. However it is interesting that at the point I post this comment, 73% of people (albeit on a low total) would prefer a light rail operation over a heavy rail operation at their local station.

 

[Falcon1200]

Perhaps it depends on where the Light Rail service actually went ? The city centre terminus (Glasgow Central) of my local line is extremely well located and IMHO not much would be gained by a Light Rail service penetrating further into the city centre. On the face of it however 5 tph instead of 2 does sound attractive, but what would be the carrying capacity of each tram, and would there not perhaps be severe overcrowding at busier times of the day ?

An interesting speculation however !

 

[swt_passenger]

Isn’t Sunderland to Newcastle a good example of a line with both, and clearly those who use intermediate stations prefer the 5 tph Metro by default, while those doing the end to end journey want more heavy rail services, which without extra infrastructure could only happen by reducing the Metro.

So where there happens to be both, they’re both wanted?

 

[tbtc]

In an urban environment, I'd personally choose five trams per hour over two trains - obviously there will be thresholds at which I'd prefer the toilets/ buffet car/ ambiance of heavy rail but maybe that's more like a distance of around ten miles.

From a trip to Meadowhall yesterday, I'd wager that trams have at least half of the market of rail based "Meadowhall to Sheffield City Centre" journeys, even though there are only five trams per hour off peak and nine trains per hour (with the trams stopping several times and taking longer, whilst the trains are non-stop into Sheffield Midland) - people seem to value the simplicity of Supertram

There are also considerations of "speed" vs "city centre penetration" to consider - e.g. if my journey towards the city if five minutes longer because I'm on a 50mph tram with several more stops, but it means that I don't have to walk the half mile from a station on the edge of the city to the shops/ offices/ bars that I'm heading to then that's a bonus - plus if I'm only waiting a few minutes for a tram rather than having to plan days out around a half hourly train then I can be more flexible - but that doesn't suit everyone

I think that the passenger numbers on the Oldham loop doubled when the initial five trams per hour replaced the four trains per hour that had traditionally run from Oldham into Manchester - the train would have been faster but the trams could actually serve city centres much better (which is more of an issue in somewhere like Bristol /Nottingham/ Leicester with a main station on the edge of the city centre than somewhere like Glasgow/ Leeds where the main train stations are pretty central (as @Falcon1200 pointed out above)

It's hard to know what a fair example is - the best I can think of is Ashton under Lyne into central Manchester. Certainly I'd be very interested to know how the figures for Rotherham into central Sheffield compare (since the TramTrain service started), but with the caveat that the frequencies are the same on both (a lopsided three services per hour, with a half hour gap - so the train wins on journey time and ties on frequency, whilst losing on city centre penetration - normally heavy rail loses on both frequency and city centre penetration)

For future examples, there are a few places where there's a train roughly every half hour that could be replaced by a tram - Atherton.

The Glossop branch looks a fairly simple one for conversion - Rose Hill Marple less so because of the need to accommodate the New Mills/ Hope Valley trains (do you single both lines, like at Altrincham?)

Blyth will be getting proper trains rather than a Metro extension, even though the Metro can cope with proper passenger/freight trains on the Sunderland side of the network -

I wonder if other re-openings had happened at different times if light rail would have won out:

e.g. if you were re-opening the Robin Hood line today rather than in the 1990s then would the NET be extended beyond Bulwell / Hucknall to Mansfield instead of a half hourly train? But I think that all the way to Worksop would have been too far for trams
maybe Portishead would have been easier to get funding for if Bristol already had a light rail network that it could "piggyback" onto?

I'm sure the passengers in south Manchester who only get a couple of trains per hour (because they are on the Airport branch with several long distance services passing by non-stop, thus limiting scope for "local" services) would prefer five trams per hour, but those passengers are at the bottom of the priorities on that line, given the prestige given to long distance Airport passengers

There's a balance though - I've mentioned on other threads that Stocksbridge would be a tough nut to crack for any rail based scheme (given the steepness of the valley, the problems getting heavy rail extended into central Sheffield) - I'd imagine that five trams along the bottom of the valley would be more use than a half hourly train service (but that neither would be easy to do)

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Atherton line is one where this exact choice might come up in the not too distant future.

 

[Purple Orange]

Isn’t Sunderland to Newcastle a good example of a line with both, and clearly those who use intermediate stations prefer the 5 tph Metro by default, while those doing the end to end journey want more heavy rail services, which without extra infrastructure could only happen by reducing the Metro.

So where there happens to be both, they’re both wanted?

Yes Sunderland-Newcastle is such a situation, where there are 5 metro tph and 1 northern tph from Middlesbrough. However that service is mostly beneficial to people travelling south of Sunderland, rather than people travelling to the centre of Sunderland itself.

If you are in Newcastle city centre and are travelling to Sunderland, the 8 minute difference from central station is not much of a competitor for the ease and frequency of just hoping on the metro.

 

[notadriver]

What about tram routes such as Manchester to airport or Rochdale which are vastly faster by heavy rail ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

What about tram routes such as Manchester to airport or Rochdale which are vastly faster by heavy rail ?

Not really a fair comparison as neither is intended for end to end journeys (though some may use them as such because of perceived simplicity).

The comparison would be converting the existing Airport line to Metrolink, say.

 

[py_megapixel]

Still, I really don't like trams so would always take heavy rail.

Is there a current major reason for that, or is it just bad experiences with trams in the past?

 

[Peregrine 4903]

Is there a current major reason for that, or is it just bad experiences with trams in the past?

Nah I just hate trams and think they are a poor substitue for heavy rail. Tram networks should be designed to support heavy rail networks, not replace them.

 

[py_megapixel]

Nah I just hate trams and think they are a poor substitue for heavy rail.

So, that's a no to having an actual reason then?

Look at the Manchester Metrolink East Didsbury line, where the trams have proper platforms with proper passenger information and ticket machines selling reasonably-priced fares. They even have level boarding, which for the most part, heavy rail doesn't! The only perceivable and meaningful differences from a proper train that might serve the same route is that rather than getting one service run by some rattly outdated DMU every hour, you get between 5 and 10 modern electric services per hour, and those services go further into the city centre.

And, for the most part, it's been a success. Rather than being a token service which you only use if you have no alternative, it's a service people actually want to use, and that has huge social and environmental benefits. Trams are well-loaded even at off peak times.

Are you really saying that if you lived in south Manchester and regularly used that line, you would genuinely like to give up all of those benefits, go back at least 20 years in rolling stock quality, and massively reduce the accessibility and usefulness of the service, just for the nominal title of it being a "heavy rail" line?

 

[Peregrine 4903]

So, that's a no to having an actual reason then?

Look at the Manchester Metrolink East Didsbury line, where the trams have proper platforms with proper passenger information and ticket machines selling reasonably-priced fares. They even have level boarding, which for the most part, heavy rail doesn't! The only perceivable and meaningful differences from a proper train that might serve the same route is that rather than getting one service run by some rattly outdated DMU every hour, you get between 5 and 10 modern electric services per hour, and those services go further into the city centre.

And, for the most part, it's been a success. Rather than being a token service which you only use if you have no alternative, it's a service people actually want to use, and that has huge social and environmental benefits. Trams are well-loaded even at off peak times.

Are you really saying that if you lived in south Manchester and regularly used that line, you would genuinely like to give up all of those benefits, go back at least 20 years in rolling stock quality, and reduce the accessibility and usefulness of the service, just for the nominal title of it being a "heavy rail" line?

I guess as someone living in London I have a rather different view to you. I personally think heavy rail could easily be improved to be of an acceptable standard, just requires money sadly.

But yet, I would always take heavy rail over tram, even 1tph but there isn't a logical reason behind that when it comes to a choice between 1tph dmu and 5tph tram.

 

[py_megapixel]

I guess as someone living in London I have a rather different view to you.

If your main experience of trams has been the ones in Croydon, that's understandable. I find that light rail is a rather broad term, and the way the service "feels" generally exists on a spectrum from bus to train. Croydon's are well towards the bus end of that spectrum, but that doesn't mean they all have to be.

I personally think heavy rail could easily be improved to be of an acceptable standard, just requires money sadly.

You are absolutely right, but that money is more than the same standard of light rail service would cost, so where budgets are tight, light rail is an understandably attractive option.

But yet, I would always take heavy rail over tram, even 1tph but there isn't a logical reason behind that when it comes to a choice between 1tph dmu and 5tph tram.

I think if you ever have the time/money you should come and see some of the outer reaches the Metrolink in Manchester, particularly the sections that are like heavy rail lines (often because they were in the past). But try to put out of your mind that it's light rail and view it more as a frequent-stop commuter train service (think along the lines of the German S-bahn) which happens to run on streets in the city centre. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

I've lived in the North, and therefore within reach of Manchester, for some time, and can confidently say that Metrolink is vastly superior to all but the absolute best Northern commuter services. Of course it won't work everywhere, but in a lot of places it works extremely well.

 

[Elecman]

Blackpool South to Kirkham. Poulton to Fleetwood would be good contenders

 

[Ianno87]

Another vote for "it depends"

 

[HSTEd]

Ultimately I am of the opinion that pretty much every diesel railway line with a ruling line speed of 60mph or below should be converted to tram/tram-train operation.

If the Germans really do build a 120km/h tram train, then that boundary would shift up to 75mph.

 

[Skie]

Odd choices, and it's not like heavy rail can't have a high service frequency. Merseyrail is proof of that:
Pre Covid:
All but 1 line operates @ 4tph
Wirral line (Core including loop): 14tph
Wirral lines with overlap 6-8tph

All heavy rail, but at metro frequency.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Odd choices, and it's not like heavy rail can't have a high service frequency. Merseyrail is proof of that:
Pre Covid:
All but 1 line operates @ 4tph
Wirral line (Core including loop): 14tph
Wirral lines with overlap 6-8tph

All heavy rail, but at metro frequency.

London Underground is a heavy rail metro.

 

[Irascible]

maybe Portishead would have been easier to get funding for if Bristol already had a light rail network that it could "piggyback" onto?

I think the entire basis for Portishead is that the congestion to & from Bristol in the rush-hour is horrendous - not sure how much patronage it's going to get the rest of the day. That would seem to me to point to a heavier solution given the peaky nature of the traffic, or certainly at least one that doesn't share a road. I think that might be part of the "it depends" answers, commuter flows vs bus-like all day.

 

[Purple Orange]

Odd choices, and it's not like heavy rail can't have a high service frequency. Merseyrail is proof of that:
Pre Covid:
All but 1 line operates @ 4tph
Wirral line (Core including loop): 14tph
Wirral lines with overlap 6-8tph

All heavy rail, but at metro frequency.

Merseyrail is a rare exception in that it is purely merseyrail services (I don’t count the services run by Northern in to Lime Street that have been badged as Merseyrail on a map). A clock face 4 tph heavy rail service in most cities would be fantastic, but that is rarely the situation. Many commuter stations on heavy rail lines only have 2 tph at best and it has been when they are converted to light rail does the service provision significantly improve.

For example, you’re never going to get 5 tph to Glossop & Hadfield and 5 tph to Rose Hill with heavy rail running in to Manchester Piccadilly. You will get those frequencies if they are converted to tram-train operation.

In order to get those frequencies on heavy rail, you’d need an underground line or a dedicated terminus platforms that do not need to share capacity with other services (London levels of investment).

 

[tbtc]

Odd choices, and it's not like heavy rail can't have a high service frequency. Merseyrail is proof of that:
Pre Covid:
All but 1 line operates @ 4tph
Wirral line (Core including loop): 14tph
Wirral lines with overlap 6-8tph

All heavy rail, but at metro frequency.

Heavy rail *can* do high frequency, but a lot of the time the finite capacity at city centre stations (and junctions etc) means that the only way of improving frequency on a line is to convert it to light rail

For example, if you are on the Glossop line, you are limited to the paths through Guide Bridge, the throat at Piccadilly and the platforms at Piccadilly - those are going to limit the scope for more Glossop services

Whereas, converting it to light rail, you can retain the existing platforms on the line (since Metrolink is "high floor"), but instead of dealing with the congestion during the final half mile into Piccadilly, you'd have a short section of new track onto the Metrolink network, where a Glossop service could run as an extension of a Metrolink service that currently starts/ terminates at Piccadilly - thus allowing Glossop services to be increased in frequency as well as providing a link to Piccadilly Gardens and beyond through central Manchester

To provide the additional capacity need to increase the number of heavy rail services to Glossop, you'd need to build a tunnel underneath central Manchester

Maybe Manchester should have done the same as Liverpool and segregated "local" services through tunnels underneath the city centre - it'd have allowed high frequency heavy rail services - but it'd be incredibly expensive to do that nowadays - whereas Metrolink can be built significantly cheaper than heavy rail lines, can cope with bends/gradients that trains cannot, can penetrate city centres etc

Look at how Leigh got a busway, partly because there's no space in central Manchester to introduce several Leigh trains per hour

So, if you are looking at improving frequencies on an existing line, or open/re-open another line then light rail needs to be considered

I think the entire basis for Portishead is that the congestion to & from Bristol in the rush-hour is horrendous - not sure how much patronage it's going to get the rest of the day. That would seem to me to point to a heavier solution given the peaky nature of the traffic, or certainly at least one that doesn't share a road. I think that might be part of the "it depends" answers, commuter flows vs bus-like all day.

Intersting - cheers

 

[Bletchleyite]

Hadfield was once increased to 3tph but the demand didn't justify it so it went back down to 2. I think it was one of the 1998 North Western Trains service increases, but didn't stick unlike e.g. 2tph to Southport which did.

Increasing it again with Metrolink would be cheaper - drivers are paid less, no guard and less power needed to move a LRV.

It is a pity Metrolink operates using that cack handed 12 minute frequency, because if it operated on a 10 minute base instead 3 to Rose Hill and 3 to Hadfield would probably best fit with demand.