Light Rail v Heavy Rail

[py_megapixel]

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.

I have a vague idea that there was some study conducted a while ago which found that an interval of more than 12 minutes is, for the average person, the point at which they will consult the timetable rather than just turn up. So, since Metrolink wants to market itself as a turn-up-and-go service without running more services than necessary, that's what they went with. I assume when it became apparent that a more frequent service than that was in some cases needed, it was operationally nicer to simply double it to 6 minutes rather than go to 10 or 5.

Don't forget that a 2 150ss (80m) - which the Rose Hill shuttle often is these days - isn't that far off the length of a triple M5000 (84m). So 5 single trams per hour isn't a ridiculous degree of service increase, especially if it brings it in line with the rest of a harmonised system.

As for Glossop/Hadfield, I'd probably actually send separate trams out of Manchester to Glossop and Hadfield, and then just have one tram go back and forth all day between the two as frequently as possible, though I imagine that would require some fairly significant infrastructure works. (Or maybe even just not bother, unless there's significant demand between the two which would be deterred by changing at Dinting)

 

[Ianno87]

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.

On a line of sight system, there's no particular reason why some branches can't have 10 minute frequencies, and others 12 minute frequencies. There's no "headway" as such.

 

[JKF]

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.

Light rail might allow trams to go all the way into Portishead, maybe even to the sea front rather than stopping 15 minutes from the main shopping area, and at the other end could serve the centre of Bristol rather than poorly situated Temple Meads - maybe run to Wapping Wharf and through the centre from there.

Trams on the Severn Beach line could work, but it would need redoubling, and would likely kill off my daft idea of running the occasional London train via Clifton, Avonmouth, Henbury and Parkway.

 

[Dr Day]

Light rail might allow trams to go all the way into Portishead

Indeed, however on t his particular route the single line constraints are still there preventing a 'turn up and go' frequency, and freight trains still need to be accommodated, which seems to be the main reason preventing Bristol's emerging Mass Transit proposals being linked to any conversion of existing suburban route to light(er) rail.

Operating cost is a further consideration on heavy versus light rail - light rail generally doesn't need a complex signalling system to operate and maintain, other elements of infrastructure are also generally simpler, vehicles are generally lighter and cheaper to maintain, wages are closer to bus drivers than train drivers (without historical pension-related costs), DOO with random ticket inspections and many of the overheads on things like ticketing again simpler.

But top speed is likely to be lower on LRT, and if you have very large volumes of passengers to move (say over 6000 passengers per direction per hour on a single corridor) then heavy rail trains may be more efficient.

This is quite useful

Better Value Rail Toolkit – Delivering better outcomes faster

www.bettervaluerail.uk

 

[HSTEd]

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 think in the long run conversion of the Blyth line to Tyne and Wear Metro is almost inevitable.

It's going to be a defacto isolated heavy rail shuttle.

 

[swt_passenger]

I think in the long run conversion of the Blyth line to Tyne and Wear Metro is almost inevitable.

It's going to be a defacto isolated heavy rail shuttle.

They didn’t want it to be Metro as the through timings would be slower than the existing bus.

 

[BayPaul]

Travelling in London shows just how much difference frequency makes to the usefulness of public transport. In Devon, I barely use public transport, as the flexibility just isn't there. In London, I wouldn't even consider getting out the car. That's why I voted for 5tph over 2tph.

 

[Ianno87]

Travelling in London shows just how much difference frequency makes to the usefulness of public transport. In Devon, I barely use public transport, as the flexibility just isn't there. In London, I wouldn't even consider getting out the car. That's why I voted for 5tph over 2tph.

Not always. Frequency makes a greater difference the shorter the journey is....for longer journeys absolute journey time becomes proportionately the most important factor.

 

[BayPaul]

Not always. Frequency makes a greater difference the shorter the journey is....for longer journeys absolute journey time becomes proportionately the most important factor.

True - but for routes where light rail is an option, I think frequency is probably the more critical

 

[Purple Orange]

Not always. Frequency makes a greater difference the shorter the journey is....for longer journeys absolute journey time becomes proportionately the most important factor.

Light rail works best within a city region. 10 miles at most from the centre, as per the best examples of light rail we have. Outside of that I agree, heavy rail works better, yet I am unsure how much better, because our city regions stretch to 10-15 miles from the centre in many cases and a frequent stopper (4 to 6 tph would work very well).

 

[HSTEd]

My slightly controversial opinion about public transport in Grantham (parent's home town) is that an NET tram train operation running out to Grantham would be infinitely preferable to the current service.

Which is "two trains per hour" but with the trains right next to each other in the timetable, so the service is effectively hourly.

 

[Dr_Paul]

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.

The Wimbledon to West Croydon BR run was a half-hour service and I'm pretty sure that it didn't run far into the evenings or on Sundays. Its use was fairly minimal. The tram, on the other hand, has a much more frequent service, runs most of the day and all weekends, and is heavily used. Tramification -- a new term? -- rescued a moribund heavy-rail route and turned it into a going concern.

 

[JKF]

’Tuen up and go’ frequencies can work on heavy rail in some circumstances - the Overground service is probably the best example of this, I used it quite frequently when I lived in London and it was busy throughout the day. It does take substantial investment and needs to be a densely populated area to be viable. Where else would a service like this work?

 

[daodao]

Light rail works best within a city region. 10 miles at most from the centre, as per the best examples of light rail we have. Outside of that I agree, heavy rail works better.

That is why it is inappropriate to propose to extend Metrolink beyond Greater Manchester into semi-rural eastern Cheshire, e.g. the proposed tram-train line from Manchester Airport to Wilmslow. By contrast, conversion of the ex-GC line from Manchester via Reddish to Rose Hill to 5 tph Metrolink is a good idea.

Outside of that I agree, heavy rail works better, yet I am unsure how much better, because our city regions stretch to 10-15 miles from the centre in many cases and a frequent stopper (4 to 6 tph) would work very well.

In semi-rural areas such as eastern Cheshire that are beyond the boundary of the city region (in this case Greater Manchester County), even when they function partly as outer suburbia, 2 tph heavy rail should suffice, as the time saving of faster trains (vs trams with frequent stops and slower routes) outweighs the disadvantage of lesser frequency. In any case, it is impractical to run frequent stopping services (more than 2 tph) on most heavy rail lines, unless they are quadruple track, as capacity needs to be left for fast and freight trains. An example of the problem of attempting to do this is between Malahide (and especially Howth Junction) and Connolly on the ex-GN main line, where the speed and punctuality of the Enterprise intercity service is affected adversely.

 

[Purple Orange]

That is why it is inappropriate to propose to extend Metrolink beyond Greater Manchester into semi-rural eastern Cheshire, e.g. the proposed tram-train line from Manchester Airport to Wilmslow. By contrast, conversion of the ex-GC line from Manchester via Reddish to Rose Hill to 5 tph Metrolink is a good idea.



In semi-rural areas such as eastern Cheshire that are beyond the boundary of the city region (in this case Greater Manchester County), even when they function partly as outer suburbia, 2 tph heavy rail should suffice, as the time saving of faster trains (vs trams with frequent stops and slower routes) outweighs the disadvantage of lesser frequency. In any case, it is impractical to run frequent stopping services (more than 2 tph) on most heavy rail lines, unless they are quadruple track, as capacity needs to be left for fast and freight trains. An example of the problem of attempting to do this is between Malahide (and especially Howth Junction) and Connolly on the ex-GN main line, which affects the Enterprise intercity service.

Trouble is dao, 2 tph often doesn’t suffice, which is why you get a high level of car usage. The demand from these places exist, but so much of that demand goes in the car. Whether it is practically possible to increase service provision is a different, but related, problem. I’m glad you agree with conversion of the Rose Hill line and the Glossop/Hadfield line.

I wouldn’t call Wilmslow semi-rural - it’s continuous with Greater Manchester. I could walk out my front door right now and (if I had the energy, desire & time) find myself in Bury without having walked through a single field.

In fact I’m about to hop on the stopping service to Piccadilly as it happens in about 15 mins or so, which is a far better use of capacity than the semi-fast TfW service. That particular town has 5 tph, but it’s the mix of services that I think is wrong, yet that won’t be addressed until HS2 arrives to Manchester.

 

[JKF]

Wasn’t one of the issues on conversion of the Bury-Altringham route that bikes weren’t allowed on the trams, but had been on the trains? Is that still the case? it Is one of the disadvantages of a tram system.

 

[LOL The Irony]

I find the 2 questions slightly disingenuous. Of course most people are going to pick the greater service pattern. Now if it was a choice between equal service patterns, heavy rail would be miles in the lead.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I find the 2 questions slightly disingenuous. Of course most people are going to pick the greater service pattern. Now if it was a choice between equal service patterns, heavy rail would be miles in the lead.

Yes, I think you'd probably find most people (other than someone counting tax pennies) would choose Merseyrail over Metrolink, assuming both connected the required places to make a fair comparison. They are a very good comparison because they basically do exactly the same thing but with the two technologies.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Yes, I think you'd probably find most people (other than someone counting tax pennies) would choose Merseyrail over Metrolink, assuming both connected the required places to make a fair comparison.

Exactly. If you had to give the people of Altrincham, Didsbury, Bury and Oldham a time machine and a choice between an expanded Picc-Vic or the current Metrolink, with nothing changing but what you travel in*, Picc-Vic would probably come out on top

*Of course things would be slightly different in Manchester city center with fewer stops

 

[Gareth]

Always thought five underground stations in the centre was overkill and probably helped sink Pic-Vic.

Three would've sufficed: Pic, Vic and a station halfway between.

 

[HSTEd]

Trams cost less to build than metro systems - althoug the difference in price is dropping.

If Picc-Vic had happened I very much doubt we would have anything like the system we have today.

 

[daodao]

Exactly. If you had to give the people of Altrincham, Didsbury, Bury and Oldham a time machine and a choice between an expanded Picc-Vic or the current Metrolink, with nothing changing but what you travel in*, Picc-Vic would probably come out on top

*Of course things would be slightly different in Manchester city center with fewer stops

The Picc-Vic network was proposed at 2 tph on each route [except during peak hours], so while the Victoria-Piccadilly section would have had 8 tph, and the Radcliffe-Victoria section 4 tph, the outer sections in south Manchester and into Cheshire would only have been 2 tph.

 

[LOL The Irony]

The Picc-Vic network was proposed at 2 tph on each route, so while the Radcliffe-Piccadilly section would have had 8 tph, the outer sections in south Manchester and into Cheshire would only have been 2 tph.

Well done for missing an important detail that comes just before the word "Metrolink".

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Picc-Vic network was proposed at 2 tph on each route, so while the Radcliffe-Piccadilly section would have had 8 tph, the outer sections in south Manchester and into Cheshire would only have been 2 tph.

I suspect they would have planned capacity to increase it, as Merseyrail did (it was a 20 minute base until the mid 80s, upgraded to 15, and Chester has more recently gone from 2 to 4tph).

 

[Purple Orange]

I find the 2 questions slightly disingenuous. Of course most people are going to pick the greater service pattern. Now if it was a choice between equal service patterns, heavy rail would be miles in the lead.

I picked those options specifically because that tends to be the options at hand. It is never a 5 tph heavy rail service converted to a 5 tph light rail service. Lines are converted to light rail as part of a discreet network because as a heavy rail line there isnt the capacity to operate atvthe frequencies needed. Hence why asking the question of 2 tph heavy rail v 5 tph light rail.

 

[cle]

I picked those options specifically because that tends to be the options at hand. It is never a 5 tph heavy rail service converted to a 5 tph light rail service. Lines are converted to light rail as part of a discreet network because as a heavy rail line there isnt the capacity to operate atvthe frequencies needed. Hence why asking the question of 2 tph heavy rail v 5 tph light rail.

I think the options are fair. LR systems tend to be self-contained and able to offer higher frequencies - no freight, no long distance services sharing track, uniform stopping patterns etc - those lines may become more blurred with tram-trains but that is generally how it is.

The Hadfield triangle is unfortunate, and that is actually a well used electric service - I could see some grumbles from Glossop folks. But objectively, it would be a better service, offering a full 5tph and getting deeper into the city centre. Which has grown massively int he last 10 years. Small cities, the penetration doesn't matter so much - but principle employment locations in Manchester are a lot more diverse and distributed these days. ie. less walkable from Piccadilly. So there are newer benefits to LR.

And nobody has said it yet, but this is absolutely what should happen to the line out to Warrington Central. Far better for the 'west Manchester' (Trafford) suburbs, with far more ridership potential and bus/car modal shift than Warrington usage, or places in between. Urmston, Irlam and Flixton could have similar volumes to Stretford and Sale with the right services. And WBQ is getting far better services to Victoria. Easy. And Merseyrail on the other half (4tph likely, a bit of a disconnect for the very few connecting over).

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you were going to send Merseyrail to Warrington I'd almost be inclined to suggest rebuilding to Gateacre and operating 2tph to there and 2tph to Warrington. I'm not sure the full 4 is justified past Hunts Cross.

 

[HSTEd]

A tram-train with its insane acceleration will probably do quite well compared to the current journey times out to Warrington Central, even running all stops.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A tram-train with its insane acceleration will probably do quite well compared to the current journey times out to Warrington Central, even running all stops.

To be fair so would a Class 331. Even using 195s would be a considerable improvement over slow 15x - while diesel is now rather deprecated the improvement on the Brum Snow Hill lines by upgrading from 150s to 172s was almost "sparks effect".

 

[py_megapixel]

I find the 2 questions slightly disingenuous. Of course most people are going to pick the greater service pattern. Now if it was a choice between equal service patterns, heavy rail would be miles in the lead.

No it wouldn't, not without some substantial upgrades to heavy rail. Almost nobody is going to pick an ancient Sprinter over an M5000.

Also, the question isn't that disingenuous, because light rail is cheaper to operate than heavy rail, so you can provide a greater service frequency with the same funding.