Light Rail v Heavy Rail

[LOL The Irony]

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

Because you're blinkered by the metrolink everything mantra?

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?

I'm going to put my head above the parapet here and say a 150 can be quieter on the inside and offers a better ride than a M5000. In town, sure, the M5000 is beating the 150. On the higher speed stuff, not a chance.

 

[tbtc]

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

Yet another thread where you are suggesting cutting long established links in north west England (e.g. Widnes having all of it's services to Manchester cut)...

...but we must keep the direct trains from Southport to Castlefield because they've been in operation for twenty five years (unlike the newfangled CLC?)

I appreciate that you've suggested potentially accepting switching all Southport services to Victoria as long as the entire timetable is based around a very short connection at Salford every half hour... fair enough... but what connections are you going to have between an "every fifteen minute" Merseyrail service and an "every twelve minute" Metrolink service at Warrington Central? It'd give a good connection just once an hour

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...

Feel free to set up your own thread asking questions like "would you rather have two trains per hour or five trains per hour, in a situation where everything else is equal"

I don't think it'll generate much debate though (unlike this thread, where people have different preferences over the "two trains" or "five trams" and we've generated a number of discussions - some people value frequency over comfort, some people prefer speed over having more "local" stops, some people want wider connectivity to other heavy rail services whilst others prefer a service that penetrates the city centre better than a train station on the edge of town

I'd guess that that's why this thread has had over a hundred comments, there's some jeopardy, improvements in one respect come at a price in other areas

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.

Good points - I think that most people appreciate that there's a trade off here, and it's interesting to see which side people come down on - just asking "would you rather have two trains per hour or five trains per hour, in a situation where everything else is equal" doesn't really lead to much debate

 

[cle]

Another factor is future growth. What future growth in paths is there for heavy rail in these places (CLC, Guide Bridge lines etc) ? We know Met conversion would see 5tph typically on a route.

But the additional benefit of unlocked paths/platforms, in this case at Piccadilly on the smaller numbers. What else could fit in to platforms 1-3 at Piccadilly instead?

Assuming the Metrolink to Rose Hill Marple run via Hyde and the Bredbury line remains NR (to give higher frequency out to Guide Bridge, and remove all slow trains) - could we see a 4tph stopping service to New Mills or Chinley (with all Sheffields running via Stockport) - and aim to metro-ize even more of South Manchester/Tameside to attract higher rates of commuting. And more out to Stalybridge too, I'd expect, if it could be turned anywhere.

 

[LOL The Irony]

I don't think it'll generate much debate though (unlike this thread, where people have different preferences over the "two trains" or "five trams" and we've generated a number of discussions

We already established that the answer would be yes, stop with your pointless repeating conjecture.

 

[Purple Orange]

We already established that the answer would be yes, stop with your pointless repeating conjecture.

You seem rattled.

 

[LOL The Irony]

You seem rattled.

No I'm incredibly tired of repeating myself. I've done it so many times I'm running out of unique replies.

 

[Purple Orange]

But the additional benefit of unlocked paths/platforms, in this case at Piccadilly on the smaller numbers. What else could fit in to platforms 1-3 at Piccadilly instead?

I was at Piccadilly yesterday and this question popped in to my head. Fast forward 15 years and Piccadilly P1-12 should have 5 Avanti & XC services taking up platforms for 20 minutes, 4 Northern and 2 TPE services (both from Guide Bridge) removed. At least one Avanti and one XC could be reinstated, but that means that conversion of Glossop & Rose Hill lines may release as much capacity in to Piccadilly as HS2!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Oct 2021 ==

No I'm incredibly tired of repeating myself. I've done it so many times I'm running out of unique replies.

Yes you have, but to be honest I’ve not seen a post that has made me think “ah perhaps I posed the wrong question”. The question is based on set circumstances.

 

[LOL The Irony]

but to be honest I’ve not seen a post that has made me think “ah perhaps I posed the wrong question”. The question is based on set circumstances.

Well I believe I have now adequately answered all interpretations of any question asked (most of which were the same question repackaged a dozen times).

 

[cle]

I was at Piccadilly yesterday and this question popped in to my head. Fast forward 15 years and Piccadilly P1-12 should have 5 Avanti & XC services taking up platforms for 20 minutes, 4 Northern and 2 TPE services (both from Guide Bridge) removed. At least one Avanti and one XC could be reinstated, but that means that conversion of Glossop & Rose Hill lines may release as much capacity in to Piccadilly as HS2!

I could see 2tph Avanti - one via Wilmslow and one via Stoke. You might also see the 'Macclesfield' HS2 terminator running classic into Piccadilly - and divert the Avanti via Wilmslow. But at least 1tph for Watford and MKC.

Birmingham likely to be 2tph as today, but more regional (per the Liverpools) with a few more stops.

It does really open up a lot of paths. It has to be metro routes out to Romiley, and some turnbacks built. As further into the Hope Valley is sadly constrained (imagine being able to run 6tph via Dore/ to Sheffield) - as is Stockport somewhat and more for the higher platforms in the throat - the Bredbury route springs to mind. Hardly a major draw.

Otherwise, up to Stalybridge but again, layout and turning might need a boost and I'd assume only Guide Bridge would remain as an NR station in between, so something of an Ashton dynamic again. Or more TPE, offering a metro service beyond Staly to Hudds - if NPR is in place. So many what-ifs and dependencies. NPR might even just become a spur to Leeds only, for HS2 purposes.

 

[Purple Orange]

I could see 2tph Avanti - one via Wilmslow and one via Stoke. You might also see the 'Macclesfield' HS2 terminator running classic into Piccadilly - and divert the Avanti via Wilmslow. But at least 1tph for Watford and MKC.

Birmingham likely to be 2tph as today, but more regional (per the Liverpools) with a few more stops.

It does really open up a lot of paths. It has to be metro routes out to Romiley, and some turnbacks built. As further into the Hope Valley is sadly constrained (imagine being able to run 6tph via Dore/ to Sheffield) - as is Stockport somewhat and more for the higher platforms in the throat - the Bredbury route springs to mind. Hardly a major draw.

Otherwise, up to Stalybridge but again, layout and turning might need a boost and I'd assume only Guide Bridge would remain as an NR station in between, so something of an Ashton dynamic again. Or more TPE, offering a metro service beyond Staly to Hudds - if NPR is in place. So many what-ifs and dependencies. NPR might even just become a spur to Leeds only, for HS2 purposes.

I doubt the via Wilmslow Avanti will stay - there is no incentive for enough people to use it. 1 tph for Watford & MK, but that may as well go via Stafford, Stoke & Macclesfield given that HS2 does little for those towns.

Anyway that’s another debate. I’d be interested to see if more services can run through Stockport as a result of metrolink conversion via guide bridge.

 

[cle]

Anyway that’s another debate. I’d be interested to see if more services can run through Stockport as a result of metrolink conversion via guide bridge.

I don't get how those open up capacity for Stockport, other than at Piccadilly itself - but the northern end. i'd love it if it were so - 4tph to Alderley Edge, Macc/Stoke, Hazel Grove etc.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Anyway that’s another debate. I’d be interested to see if more services can run through Stockport as a result of metrolink conversion via guide bridge.

2tpw use Guide Bridge and the rest of the time, it's a freight link. I don't see what doing so would achieve at Stockport except making the freight traffic someone else's problem.

 

[Purple Orange]

I don't get how those open up capacity for Stockport, other than at Piccadilly itself - but the northern end. i'd love it if it were so - 4tph to Alderley Edge, Macc/Stoke, Hazel Grove etc.

4 tph would be good, but I doubt that will happen. HS2 did model a service frequency of 3 tph to Macclesfield & Alderley Edge (with two going on to Stoke & Crewe respectively).

 

[py_megapixel]

No I'm incredibly tired of repeating myself. I've done it so many times I'm running out of unique replies.

Usually when I become exasperated with a thread or I feel I'm repeating myself, it probably means I have added all I can to it or there is a flaw in my reasoning, and as such I should stop engaging in the argument...

That's not to say you aren't welcome to participate in this thread (and it wouldn't be my place to say that anyway), but I do think you should consider why you might be repeating yourself.

 

[Purple Orange]

Perhaps one for a different thread, but of those who are opposed to light rail, would they accept conversion of their local line to heavy rail underground? That could mean plastic seating.

(I also take it to mean that be not wanting light rail, they would not want the Tyne & Wear metro or something similar).

 

[Grumpy]

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.

I said "on lines only carrying a local passenger service". In other words no mixed traffic, local passenger only.
(As an aside there are plenty of instances overseas where it is considered safe to run mixed traffic with barrow crossings eg the USA and Russia).
I am not sure it is always true that light rail is always slower, or need be. Thus if trains on the Ilkley Branch or east of Guide Bridge were restricted to 50 mph max would that really lead to a significant reduction in journey times?
With regard to "can be stopped in a shorter distance" I did mention beefed up brakes.

 

[miklcct]

I said "on lines only carrying a local passenger service". In other words no mixed traffic, local passenger only.
(As an aside there are plenty of instances overseas where it is considered safe to run mixed traffic with barrow crossings eg the USA and Russia).
I am not sure it is always true that light rail is always slower, or need be. Thus if trains on the Ilkley Branch or east of Guide Bridge were restricted to 50 mph max would that really lead to a significant reduction in journey times?
With regard to "can be stopped in a shorter distance" I did mention beefed up brakes.

I have seen barrow crossings in a heavy passenger rail system overseas, but it is on an archaic line leftover from the Soviet era, where only diesel locomotives are used running at most 80 km/h.

It's simply not safe to have such crossing on any modern electrified heavy railways with train running as fast as 120 km/h or above.

Perhaps one for a different thread, but of those who are opposed to light rail, would they accept conversion of their local line to heavy rail underground? That could mean plastic seating.

(I also take it to mean that be not wanting light rail, they would not want the Tyne & Wear metro or something similar).

What do you mean here? Exactly what conversion is done? There is no difference in terms of infrastructure if it is an underground or not.

Also, I have found that the poll has changed. Initially it said "light rail" but now it says "light rail metro". This distinction is very important, as the former means queuing for traffic lights at intersections and the latter means fully segregated. Therefore I am changing my vote. London Trams is the former "light rail" category but DLR is the latter "light rail metro" category. A "light rail metro" offers the same efficiency as a "heavy rail underground" with less peak capacity, which is a completely different beast to a real "light rail", which is akin to traditional trams and compete with buses, despite using similar technology.

 

[Purple Orange]

Also, I have found that the poll has changed. Initially it said "light rail" but now it says "light rail metro". This distinction is very important, as the former means queuing for traffic lights at intersections and the latter means fully segregated. Therefore I am changing my vote. London Trams is the former "light rail" category but DLR is the latter "light rail metro" category. A "light rail metro" offers the same efficiency as a "heavy rail underground" with less peak capacity, which is a completely different beast to a real "light rail", which is akin to traditional trams and compete with buses, despite using similar technology.

I haven’t changed the poll. It’s fairly simple - do you prefer A) 2 tph on heavy rail or B) 5 tph on light rail (either metro train or metro tram).

What do you mean here? Exactly what conversion is done? There is no difference in terms of infrastructure if it is an underground or not.

I am wondering about conversion of a line from heavy rail in the conventional National Rail sense to a line like Merseyrail With 5 tph. A difference is that the capacity on a merseyrail line is higher for stopping services than most national rail lines. An underground line would need to be built in a city centre rather than have trains run in to a terminus.

 

[daodao]

The poll is ambiguous as it doesn't specify location. In my opinion:

• Within densely populated conurbations (such as Greater Manchester) to serve places generally within 10 miles of the city centre, 5 tph tram is preferable.
• For urban settlements in semi-rural areas situated at a greater distance from their nearest metropolis (e.g. Alderley Edge and Knutsford in eastern Cheshire), 2 tph train is preferable, to provide greater comfort/speed; high frequency is less important.
• It is inappropriate to extend Metrolink beyond the formal boundaries of Greater Manchester, which are generally over 10 miles from the city centre, with the possible exception of Glossop/Hadfield.

 

[tbtc]

What do you mean here? Exactly what conversion is done? There is no difference in terms of infrastructure if it is an underground or not

Maybe the point is that some "rail" enthusiasts are perfectly fine with London Underground services, seeing them as good and right and proper, but get a bit snobby about trams (even though most of the arguments are the same)

The poll is ambiguous as it doesn't specify location

It's a general thread about people's priorities - there have been plenty of threads about specific lines, where some people have shown that they prefer a couple of trains per hour and others would prefer a more frequent light rail service on that particular line - there would be far too many variables to consider, but as a rough rule of thumb I've suggested that light rail would be my preference for lines of up to ten miles from the nearest big city centre - other people will draw the line elsewhere - but I'd see the "ten miles" in terms of distance and journey time rather than fixating about whether it crosses a council boundary (e.g. the Sheffield Supertram between the city centre and Halfway crosses the boundary between "Yorkshire & The Humber" and "East Midlands" and then crosses back again - it's no big deal to most people)

 

[Purple Orange]

Maybe the point is that some "rail" enthusiasts are perfectly fine with London Underground services, seeing them as good and right and proper, but get a bit snobby about trams (even though most of the arguments are the same)



It's a general thread about people's priorities - there have been plenty of threads about specific lines, where some people have shown that they prefer a couple of trains per hour and others would prefer a more frequent light rail service on that particular line - there would be far too many variables to consider, but as a rough rule of thumb I've suggested that light rail would be my preference for lines of up to ten miles from the nearest big city centre - other people will draw the line elsewhere - but I'd see the "ten miles" in terms of distance and journey time rather than fixating about whether it crosses a council boundary (e.g. the Sheffield Supertram between the city centre and Halfway crosses the boundary between "Yorkshire & The Humber" and "East Midlands" and then crosses back again - it's no big deal to most people)

This.

As for 2 tph on services outside of a city region, in many cases there would be downgrades if that happened to be the rule of thumb (the Birmingham cross-city line outside the West Midlands , various Merseyrail stations on route to Chester, plenty of stations outside the Glasgow urban area such as the Argyle Line where many get 4 tph and countless stations outside Greater London). However those lines wouldn’t be candidates for light rail anyway.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Oct 2021 ==

Anyhow, I do find it very intriguing as to the staunch opposition to light rail from some quarters, which often seems to be running against the grain of how the public adopts to the usage of such networks.

I can’t think of any light rail network in the UK that has failed to improve public transport for the areas they serve.

 

[miklcct]

I haven’t changed the poll. It’s fairly simple - do you prefer A) 2 tph on heavy rail or B) 5 tph on light rail (either metro train or metro tram).

A metro train (e.g. London Underground or DLR) is not a light rail. I support 5 tph metro over a heavy national rail but I don't support 5 tph light rail.

 

[yorkie]

A metro train (e.g. London Underground or DLR) is not a light rail. I support 5 tph metro over a heavy national rail but I don't support 5 tph light rail.

DLR is considered to be light rail.

 

[Mag_seven]

A metro train (e.g. London Underground or DLR) is not a light rail.

What does the "LR" bit stand for in "DLR" then?

 

[Purple Orange]

A metro train (e.g. London Underground or DLR) is not a light rail. I support 5 tph metro over a heavy national rail but I don't support 5 tph light rail.

As others have said, the DLR (Docklands Light Railway) is a light rail metro. The Tyne & Wear Metro is also a light rail metro. There are plenty of other light rail metro networks around the world too.

 

[WestRiding]

Based on where I live, and we only get local trains anyway, I'd prefer a suburban type service. But the line is shared by Cross Country, LNER and loads of freight, so my opinion doesn't matter.

 

[Ken H]

With these plans for 5+ trams/hr where will you get the drivers from? You will be competing with rail, bus and lorry firms for staff. Drivers and technicians.
Maybe 3 train/hr is better than 6 trams when some may be cancelled due to staff shortages.

 

[HSTEd]

With these plans for 5+ trams/hr where will you get the drivers from? You will be competing with rail, bus and lorry firms for staff. Drivers and technicians.
Maybe 3 train/hr is better than 6 trams when some may be cancelled due to staff shortages.

Well since in most cases you will be moving from driver+guard to driver, the number of staff is not dramatically increased?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well since in most cases you will be moving from driver+guard to driver, the number of staff is not dramatically increased?

And those drivers are much cheaper than mainline drivers, so your overall staff cost could well be lower.

 

[HSTEd]

The poll is ambiguous as it doesn't specify location. In my opinion:

• Within densely populated conurbations (such as Greater Manchester) to serve places generally within 10 miles of the city centre, 5 tph tram is preferable.
• For urban settlements in semi-rural areas situated at a greater distance from their nearest metropolis (e.g. Alderley Edge and Knutsford in eastern Cheshire), 2 tph train is preferable, to provide greater comfort/speed; high frequency is less important.
• It is inappropriate to extend Metrolink beyond the formal boundaries of Greater Manchester, which are generally over 10 miles from the city centre, with the possible exception of Glossop/Hadfield.

I'd argue that timetabled speed from station to station on a specific service is unimportant.

Ultimately we are competing with the car, which is a transport mode when people can leave whenever they want without gross delays at arriving at their destination (I mean that delaying your departure by 30 seconds cannot lead to you arriving a half hour late at your destination)

Therefore we should be thinking about a transport mode where the person arrives at the starting station at a random time, and as such the wait time is, on average, half the gap between services.

So the timetabled journey time advantage of a 2tph train over a 5tph tram would have to reach 9 minutes for the modified journey times to be equal.

Given, as an example, that the timetabled journey time from Warrington Central to Manchester central stations is 26-38 minutes. We would be looking at a tram having to travel the ~15.5 miles from the Deansgate-Castlefield station complex in about 35-47 minutes.

That is an average speed of ~20-27mph. Which given that the tram train will be capable of 50-60mph with huge acceleration, seems easily achievable.

We are competing against a turn-up-and-go transport solution, so we must beat them on a turn-up-and-go basis.