Midland Metro Expansion

[Batman]

Just had a look on the Centro website, and the only Metro expansion projects which it says are currently being developed are 3 relatively small city centre expansion:

New Street - Centenary Square

Bull Street - Adderley Street (Eastside park and ride)

St Georges - Wolverhampton railway station.

So is it safe to assume that all other expansion projects (Wednesbury to Dudley, 5 W's, Birmingham airport etc) have been called off for the foreseeable future?

I can't help but thinking that the Midland Metro would benefit from a big bang expansion like what's happened with the Manchester Metrolink. Expanding it bit by bit is dependent of future political will existing before a full network can be delivered. It's worked in Greater Manchester, so why not in the West Midlands. We can only hope that the government will be willing to commit funds to this as the economy improves.

 

[Tom2521]

I think like any major transport infrastructure project similar to the Midland Metro there's been a lot of proposals and talk at varying times I read somewhere not so long back that an extension to Wednesbury was the next proposed expansion after that to New Street station.

Personally I think the old formation of the Snow Hill to Wolverhampton Low Level station should have been returned to heavy rail rather than the Metro, it perhaps wouldn't have offered an equal or better local service between the two cities but it would have been more useful in a national sense (a repeat of the 1960's use of the ex GW lines as an alternative route during the WCRM springs to mind).

But as it is it is used for the Metro and as such I think to get the best use out of that line a rapid expansion as you've suggested would be a good option. I do think however that some of the schemes at the Birmingham end that have been talked about, to Five Ways, the airport etc... would cost too much and cause too much disruption to begin straight away. There's plenty of abandoned formations around the Black Country that could be more easily (and cheaply?) turned back to (light) rail use. The south staffs line towards both Dudley/Stourbridge and Walsall seem the most obvious candidates, though I'm not sure if these have been included in past proposals or not.

Good to see the city centre expansion moving on at a good pace though, they'd started laying tracks in Bull Street last I saw I believe.

 

[edwin_m]

I think like any major transport infrastructure project similar to the Midland Metro there's been a lot of proposals and talk at varying times I read somewhere not so long back that an extension to Wednesbury was the next proposed expansion after that to New Street station....

There's plenty of abandoned formations around the Black Country that could be more easily (and cheaply?) turned back to (light) rail use. The south staffs line towards both Dudley/Stourbridge and Walsall seem the most obvious candidates, though I'm not sure if these have been included in past proposals or not.

I was involved in a feasibility study into shared use of Wednesbury to Brierley Hill by tram-trains and NE-SW freight trains on a reopened route between Walsall and Stoubridge in 1997. And again in 2008. At some point in between a scheme was drawn up for a single track freight line alongside a (mostly) double track Metro route. None of these has attracted enough funding to go ahead.

 

[Batman]

I was involved in a feasibility study into shared use of Wednesbury to Brierley Hill by tram-trains and NE-SW freight trains on a reopened route between Walsall and Stoubridge in 1997. And again in 2008. At some point in between a scheme was drawn up for a single track freight line alongside a (mostly) double track Metro route. None of these has attracted enough funding to go ahead.

One of the main reasons why Centro and Network Rail were so keen to reopen the South Staffs line to freight traffic is that it (along with the Sutton Park Line) would free up capacity on the Camp Hill line to allow a passenger service to be re-introduced between King's Norton and Birmingham Moor Street. But last I heard is that Centro have practically given up on this project because they've sold the land on which the Bordesley cord was to be built. So therefore I can't now see any reason why they shouldn't just go ahead and build a standard double track Metro line on the old British Rail alignment between Wednesbury and Dudley with street running onwards to Brierley Hill.

Centro have recently announced that they're conducting a study into the possibility of using the Metro as a way of improving the connectability of the Birmingham city centre HS2 station. A draft map I found on the BBC News website shows no fewer than 3 new lines being considered alongside the smaller projects which are already listed on Centro's website as being in development.

These lines are:

Wednesbury to Brierley Hill.

Centenary Square to Hangley Road (terminates at a park and ride site next to junction 3 of the M5).

Adderley Street to Birmingham Airport (a loop line with two routes to the airport, one running along the Coventry Road, another via Chelmsley Wood.

There's no mention of new lines running to the Walsall area, something which Centro have had detailed plans for for about 10 years now. So no route from Birmingham City Centre to Walsall via Great Barr and no route from Wolverhampton to Wednesbury via Wednesfield, Willenhall, Walsall and Darlaston. I think we can now assume these plans have been scrapped.

But even for the lines they're still committed to, if they have business cases of over 1.5 and Centro insist they'll improve HS2 connectivity, then there's no reason why the government shouldn't commit funding and get all 3 lines built ready for when HS2 opens, if not before. If a big bang expansion has worked in Manchester, I can't see why the same success story can't be repeated in Birmingham.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I'd also like to add that I think the Wednesbury to Brierley Hill lines should be built in two stages with the line being opened as far as Dudley town centre before construction starts on the extension to to Brierley Hill. Brierley Hill may have to wait two years longer to get it's Metro service, but the priority needs to be getting the Metro to the main population centre in a part of the conurbation which is currently very badly served by public transport.

And secondly, regardless of the business case for the major expansion projects I've mentioned, Centro need to revisit their plans for the Birmingham and Wolverhampton city centre extensions. They need to go back and resurrect the more ambitious plans for a Wolverhampton city loop tacking trams deeper into the city centre and then onto the bus and railway stations. Not only would it better serve the city centre but it would also not create a situation whereby there are two tram termini in Wolverhampton city centre, and all trams can run onto the railway station.

Secondly, the New Street to Centenary Square extension needs to run through to Five Ways, even if the Hagley Road extension to Junction 3 is never built. Extending it to the other end of Broad Street would allow it to better serve the Bridley Place and Five Ways business and entertainment areas. After all, that's why the Metro is being extended on to city streets in the first place, to take it to places where people actually want to go in the city centre instead of just terminating at Snow Hill.

 

[Old Hill Bank]

Investment priorities for public transport in and around the West Midlands are an issue and are worthy of debate, I thank the OP for raising the issue.

We at the Stourbridge Line User Group have been campaigning for many years for the re-opening of the rail route from Stourbridge Junction through Dudley and on to Walsall and beyond to to connect the Heart of the Black Country with the North East. We have a particular problem on our route with our services running into Snow Hill as opposed the the well connected New Street.

Centro tell us that investment needs to be triggered by an increase in freight up the Lickey Incline. We disagree, BR Closed the route at the time the Merry Hill shopping complex opened and the roads have been gridlocked ever since.

With capacity on the Lickey soon to be taken up by the much needed Bromsgrove project it must be to do this now, give us all the benefits as opposed to wait for the ensuing mess.

 

[edwin_m]

And (without having a dig at either of you) perhaps the last two posts sum it up quite nicely. One of the reasons nothing has happened on this route is that people can't agree whether it should be light or heavy rail or both!

 

[Old Hill Bank]

And (without having a dig at either of you) perhaps the last two posts sum it up quite nicely. One of the reasons nothing has happened on this route is that people can't agree whether it should be light or heavy rail or both!

I have no issue with that, my opinion is that it must be heavy rail for the reasons I have stated above. It's a case of convincing the funding authorities, we need some support.

 

[The Planner]

Unless Intermodal has an explosion from Bristol the predictions for freight along the Bristol Birmingham corridor is predicted to pretty much flatline. Worcester signalling is likely to be life extended rather than re-done in the short to medium term and it is said that one of the viaducts at the Stourbridge end needs serious work. Don't expect any services to go back to New St either. The Metro is likely to be built long before a through route for heavy rail is IMO.

 

[Old Hill Bank]

Unless Intermodal has an explosion from Bristol the predictions for freight along the Bristol Birmingham corridor is predicted to pretty much flatline. Worcester signalling is likely to be life extended rather than re-done in the short to medium term and it is said that one of the viaducts at the Stourbridge end needs serious work. Don't expect any services to go back to New St either. The Metro is likely to be built long before a through route for heavy rail is IMO.

There is talk about a deep port investment around Bristol which would sort that issue. Worcester does not need a coat of paint, it needs a total re-work to give the operators more flexibility and us passengers a proper service. LM currently run stuff into Shrub Hill that passengers want into Foregate Street because it's the only way they can shuffle units around in the middle of the day.
There remains a social and economic need to re-open regardless of the above.

Please stop looking at the computer and start looking and what is real on the ground NR.

 

[The Planner]

Would be interesting to see where any flow from Bristol would go, as the issues in terms of getting a freight path up the Lickey diminishes when it is Intermodal as the trailing weight is lower. I doubt you will see a sniff of anything before CP7.

 

[Old Hill Bank]

Would be interesting to see where any flow from Bristol would go, as the issues in terms of getting a freight path up the Lickey diminishes when it is Intermodal as the trailing weight is lower. I doubt you will see a sniff of anything before CP7.

Bromsgrove will put 7tph up the Lickey any more will push it over any performance risk assessment even Railtrack could have come up with, Some need banking, some fail on the bank.

"Worcester does not need a coat of paint, it needs a total re-work to give the operators more flexibility and us passengers a proper service. LM currently run stuff into Shrub Hill that passengers want into Foregate Street because it's the only way they can shuffle units around in the middle of the day.
There remains a social and economic need to re-open regardless of the above.

Please stop looking at the computer and start looking and what is real on the ground NR."

My earlier point not answered Mr Planner or others.

 

[The Planner]

How do you expect me to answer it? Im not an economist who deals with the price and cost benefit of any scheme, im just stating what I know which is that Worcester wont get resignalled any time soon and that the cost of reinstating the South Staffs also means it isnt going to happen any time soon. I presume Centro arent pushing it very hard either. As for 7tph up the Lickey I dont forsee that as an issue as there is no requirement to bank a train every hour and the Bromsgrove scheme resignals it anyway taking a chunk of Gloucester panel.

 

[Batman]

So is it official that Centro have now abandoned Camp Hill line reopening as a project they support?

 

[Class 170101]

In respect of lickey incline is it not now likely to see more freight since the Class 70s arrived. I understood one of the purposes of the 70s was for them to haul freight trains via Lickey that currently travel on longer routes using 66s avoiding Lickey but of course are more expensive.

As for Stourbridge to Walsall I think its more likely to be tram train with freight than straight forward heavy rail.

It should also be pointed out that services via Stourbridge were routed into New Street between 1968 and 1994 (approx) when Snow Hill Station was closed. The re-opening was due to capacity being needed at New Street so I would suggest you cannot have both.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

I still can't see any strong arguments to divert anything from Stourbridge to New Street, it creates more problems than it solves. If you live along that line then you have a ten minute service into the city and ridiculously good connections to New Street at Smethwick if you don't want to cross the city centre (which will soon be possible on the tram) to meet a longer distance train from New Street.

 

[HSTEd]

This is the part where I jump in and suggest Swiss style total electrification would drastically reduce the problems on the Lickey Incline since the higher general transit speeds of electrics would reduce the need to have bankers in place of simply using more locomotives on certain trains. Trains that currently need banking primarily because they can only just make it up the slope thanks to the power limitations of diesels would be able to ascend at far closer to line speed - whilst the reduce transit times of trains would reduce the disadvantage of double heading heavier trains.


But either way, I think Midland Metro does indeed cry out for expansion - it seems unreasonable for an area with the population of the West Midlands not to at least match the Metrolink in the light rail arena.

 

[Old Hill Bank]

I still can't see any strong arguments to divert anything from Stourbridge to New Street, it creates more problems than it solves. If you live along that line then you have a ten minute service into the city and ridiculously good connections to New Street at Smethwick if you don't want to cross the city centre (which will soon be possible on the tram) to meet a longer distance train from New Street.

I think everyone accepts the good reasons why Stourbridge line services are routed through Snow Hill and not New Street, our group certainly do.

 

[Batman]

This is the part where I jump in and suggest Swiss style total electrification would drastically reduce the problems on the Lickey Incline since the higher general transit speeds of electrics would reduce the need to have bankers in place of simply using more locomotives on certain trains. Trains that currently need banking primarily because they can only just make it up the slope thanks to the power limitations of diesels would be able to ascend at far closer to line speed - whilst the reduce transit times of trains would reduce the disadvantage of double heading heavier trains.

So if Derby to Bristol was electrified as across country infill project, do you think that would also have big benefits for freight?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
And wouldn't that be another reason why the South Staffs line isn't needed for freight and could (and should) be reopened to Midland Metro standard?

 

[Class 170101]

I still can't see any strong arguments to divert anything from Stourbridge to New Street, it creates more problems than it solves. If you live along that line then you have a ten minute service into the city and ridiculously good connections to New Street at Smethwick if you don't want to cross the city centre (which will soon be possible on the tram) to meet a longer distance train from New Street.

It is also on a short ten minute walk between Moor Street and New Street even with the entrances to New Street Station having moved slightly further away from Moor Street due to New Street refurbishment.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So if Derby to Bristol was electrified as across country infill project, do you think that would also have big benefits for freight?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
And wouldn't that be another reason why the South Staffs line isn't needed for freight and could (and should) be reopened to Midland Metro standard?

Why not wire to 25kv principle for use by tram-trains and freights?

 

[Muzer]

Will the Midland Metro have some sort of integrated ticketing, I wonder, for through journeys that previously involved a walk between the two stations?

 

[Batman]

Why not wire to 25kv principle for use by tram-trains and freights?

Because the Midland Metro would then have to use 2 different types of rolling stock and you wouldn't be able to have through running between Dudley and Birmingham.

 

[Class 170101]

Why won't through running be possible? Isn't the tram train trial between Meadowhall and Rotherham going to use two different voltages of OLE?

 

[edwin_m]

I think the point here is that wiring at 25kV would require Metro to buy tram-trains instead of more trams, which would cost more and reduce operating flexibility because of the mixed fleet.

It would be possible to build the route basically to rail standards but electrify at 750V and build platforms to tram dimensions, but make them easily adaptable to 25kV and tram-train platforms should the need arise to run trains on the route. The risk then is that the trams originally bought for the route might be redundant if there isn't another route they could run on.

 

[Batman]

Why won't through running be possible? Isn't the tram train trial between Meadowhall and Rotherham going to use two different voltages of OLE?

It's mainly to do with platform hight. I doubt health and safety regs would allow you to run heavy freight services on a line with Midland Metro platforms.

A solution would be to convert the existing line one to the same standard as the Manchester Metrolink with 900mm platforms. But that would be expensive, would require a long closure of the line for the work to be carried out and entirely new rolling stock.

IMHO it would also be a total waste since I'm now of the opinion that there's no need to re-open Stourbridge to Walsall to freight services. This is because Centro have effectively abandoned their plans to re-open the Camp Hill line to local passenger services and capacity issues regarding heavy freight trains on the Lickey incline can be eased by electrification as part of a wider cross county infill electrification project which I'm in favour of.

Therefore there is no reason why part of the South Staffs line between Wednesbury and Dudley can't be reopened to Midland Metro standard.

 

[edwin_m]

It's mainly to do with platform hight. I doubt health and safety regs would allow you to run heavy freight services on a line with Midland Metro platforms.

The platforms for the tram-trains on the shared section are being built at the same height as the Supertram platforms - otherwise you couldn't have level boarding. Various measures have been discussed in the past to deter people from stepping onto the track but I'm not sure which if any will actually be installed.

 

[Chris125]

It's mainly to do with platform hight. I doubt health and safety regs would allow you to run heavy freight services on a line with Midland Metro platforms.

The tram-trains to Rotherham will be low floor, and low level platforms are normal in the rest of Europe, so I'd be surprised if that was a major issue.

Chris

 

[Batman]

The platforms for the tram-trains on the shared section are being built at the same height as the Supertram platforms - otherwise you couldn't have level boarding. Various measures have been discussed in the past to deter people from stepping onto the track but I'm not sure which if any will actually be installed.

OK, I didn't realise that. So that no opens us up to a number of new possibilities for the Metro.

Maybe metal fences on platform edges with electronic sliding grates could be an idea. A variation of what's used on part of the Jubilee line.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
But you still have to ask the question: is there really a need to re-open the South Staffs line for freight services at all, especially since it doesn't look like regular passenger services won't be using the Camp Hill Line any time soon and it's already been mentioned how Cross Country infill electrification from Bristol and Derby can alleviate some of the capacity issues regarding slow moving heavy freight trains on the Lickey Incline.

 

[NotATrainspott]

When the Rotherham trial proves to be a success I can see Metrolink being interested in a high-floor tram-train design that would end up being used all across the country:

• Branch lines which could be cheaply electrified at 750V DC could be served by them to help free up Pacers/153s for the scrapheap before the TSI-PRM compliance deadline.
• If there are any branch lines which would be marginally uneconomical to reopen as heavy rail due to level crossings or built-over alignments then these could be made possible as well.
• If made to run under 1500V DC, they would be suitable replacements for the Tyne and Wear Metro rolling stock as well and would enable 25kV AC electrification of the line to Sunderland.
• As they would be able to run along heavy rail lines, the heavy maintenance depots might be able to be shared between multiple geographically separated tram-train lines, making additional mostly-tram schemes feasible as well.

Overall they are an excellent idea and would be an ideal stopgap for many current Pacer services to prove the merits of better National Rail services.

 

[edwin_m]

Tram-trains are unlikely to be cheaper per seat than trains. They are only going to be worthwhile if they can attract extra passengers, which probably means going off the railway to serve somewhere people want to go.

A tram-train is not a general-purpose Pacer replacement.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Tram-trains are unlikely to be cheaper per seat than trains. They are only going to be worthwhile if they can attract extra passengers, which probably means going off the railway to serve somewhere people want to go.

A tram-train is not a general-purpose Pacer replacement.

The Rotherham trial is to test out the economics of tram-train running as well as the technical issues. If the running costs are significantly lower, and patronage could be increased through higher frequency services, then I can see them being used as Pacer/153 replacements on some lines. The minimum length of a single new EMU will be 3x20m and would be merely a short Desiro City or Aventra product, which will likely be too long and expensive for some of the more marginal branch lines in the country in the short term.

Tram-trains would reduce the expenditure needed to increase services as heavy rail infrastructure is now so expensive. Extra heavy rail services might need expensive new loops, 25kV AC electrification and for level crossings to be replaced with more expensive versions or bridges. Tram-trains don't require this, and as I said they could be used to reopen lines which have been closed and their alignments partly built over which would be uneconomical to reopen to heavy rail standard on a segregated alignment without level crossings. Tram lines themselves don't require the same clearances or weight requirements as a new heavy rail line so there might not need to be any expensive tunnel or bridge works required to reopen these lines.