Planned light rail networks in the early 2000s

[thenorthern]

The Tyne & Wear Metro extention to MetroCentre was to be a tramway, not replacing any trains. It will run from Newcastle Central to Gateshead first and later run to West Denton. See my map on first page.

Although branded as Metro with integrated ticketing etc, the Metrocentre route if built will have no connection with the existing Metro for vehicles, so could use a different and incompatible technology.

Oh right I get it now cheers.

I still think it would be rather a waste given that there is already a regular service from Newcastle City Center.

 

[Busaholic]

The Preston proposal, using a section of old railway track I think, was a commercial one from a firm similar to Parry People Movers and was to be a demonstration track, but it was turned down out of hand by the local planning department.

 

[edwin_m]

The Preston proposal, using a section of old railway track I think, was a commercial one from a firm similar to Parry People Movers and was to be a demonstration track, but it was turned down out of hand by the local planning department.

Professor Lewis Lesley was behind this one I think. He has originated a number of light rail proposals and claims it is possible to reduce costs sufficiently to achieve fully commercial funding, but it's fair to say he doesn't have much credibility in the industry. The most tangible result of his activities was his "City Class" prototype that went up in flames in Blackpool a few years ago.

 

[Strathclyder]

Few know this, but something similar to the the late 2000s 'East End Circle' proposal had already been proposed in 1944, as per this map:

Looking at it in 2015, the 1944 proposal makes the most sense out of all of those shown above, providing the rail-deprived East End with the rest of the city, interchanging with the 1896 circle at Bridge Street, St. Enoch & Buchanan Street and heavy-rail interchanges at Carntyne (North Clyde Line) & Dalmarnock (Argyle Line).

Sadly, due to the unique dimensions of the track/tunnel (4 ft (1,219 mm)/11 feet (3.35 m) respectively) and the costs that would be associated with it, extensions of any length to the Glasgow Subway system are out of the question for the foreseeable future.

 

[Mojo]

Before the Bristol Supertram proposals of the early 2000s which were scrapped by Labour in part due to the pathetic bickering between South Gloucestershire & Bristol City, there was a really interesting project called "Advanced Transport for Avon" which was to be entirely privately financed. http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Free-gift-people-Bristol-goes-rails/story-18979208-detail/story.html. And even before that there was talk of a Tyne/Wear Metro style operation with a tunnel underneath the city centre.

Perhaps we are lucky somewhat that the Bristol Supertram didn't go ahead as it was to run alongside the mainline from Temple Meads to Filton and Parkway, utilising the redundant trackbed which Network Rail are reinstating to provide 4 tracks between Dr Days and Filton.

 

[edwin_m]

Perhaps we are lucky somewhat that the Bristol Supertram didn't go ahead as it was to run alongside the mainline from Temple Meads to Filton and Parkway, utilising the redundant trackbed which Network Rail are reinstating to provide 4 tracks between Dr Days and Filton.

It would have been a tram-train, reinstating the four tracks and sharing the western pair with the Severn Beach service and possibly some other trains. All trains would have been able to use the tram-train tracks at quiet times to allow engineering access to the eastern pair.

 

[MarkyT]

It would have been a tram-train, reinstating the four tracks and sharing the western pair with the Severn Beach service and possibly some other trains. All trains would have been able to use the tram-train tracks at quiet times to allow engineering access to the eastern pair.

I did some early development work on those ideas for Railtrack back in the mid-1990s. There were to be split level platforms at the south end of the line for specially cleared lightweight Severn Beach DMU services interoperating with the trams (read - 'pacers'!) although the rest of the light rail section up the bank to Filton would have only been used by other heavy rail traffic on a 'time-segregated' basis, when trams were not running. That could have allowed slightly longer and more frequent night time maintenance possessions on the heavy pair up the bank, but would have limited operating hours on the trams. Beyond Filton the light rail would have branched off along the Abbey Wood station access road then taken a sharp right under the main line to follow a new route through the commercial areas to Parkway station where it would have flown right over the top of the existing complex and taken a route through the housing north thereof, terminating somewhere in Bradley Stoke. A branch to Henbury along the rail route from Filton was also considered.

 

[dave12435]

Interesting about the idea of an Underground system in Birmingham as that is a large urban area that is actually lacking in rail transport provision
I had never heard of such a proposal before but then I found this article that suggests an initial proposal in 1950s was merely a cover story for construction of reinforced underground telephone exchanges

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_in_Birmingham

 

[edwin_m]

Part of the reason Midland Metro has taken so long to get beyond Snow Hill was that Birmingham city council wanted it to go into tunnel. Presumably to avoid spoiling their beautiful city centre or disrupting their important roads. Never mind that a cut and cover tunnel would be far more disruptive than building a street track.

 

[MCR247]

Part of the reason Midland Metro has taken so long to get beyond Snow Hill was that Birmingham city council wanted it to go into tunnel. Presumably to avoid spoiling their beautiful city centre or disrupting their important roads. Never mind that a cut and cover tunnel would be far more disruptive than building a street track.

 

[dave12435]

Part of the reason Midland Metro has taken so long to get beyond Snow Hill was that Birmingham city council wanted it to go into tunnel. Presumably to avoid spoiling their beautiful city centre or disrupting their important roads. Never mind that a cut and cover tunnel would be far more disruptive than building a street track.

I really laughed at this post

This discussion could spin off into another thread knocking about right now about larger cities/towns or conurbations that could warrant metro/underground/light rail/trams systems that don't currently already have them.
The mentality we should have with building these systems ought to be if we build it they will come rather than nobody will use it so we won't build it.
If these schemes are done correctly then they can act as a catalyst for regeneration and other urban improvements

 

[thenorthern]

I think the geology of Birmingham made tunneling difficult which is why an underground was never built.

 

[Haydn1971]

Not the 2000's, but the 1970's - a friend of mine posted this on Facebook tonight

http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/08/06/23ea551ecf5454ec85c3ad3baa5b0334.jpg

Sheffield's Monorail - I've known of plans since I was a kid, never seen a route though

 

[nerd]

I really laughed at this post

This discussion could spin off into another thread knocking about right now about larger cities/towns or conurbations that could warrant metro/underground/light rail/trams systems that don't currently already have them.
The mentality we should have with building these systems ought to be if we build it they will come rather than nobody will use it so we won't build it.
If these schemes are done correctly then they can act as a catalyst for regeneration and other urban improvements

Not alas true.

There are cities across the world with underperforming (or never opened) underground/elevated light rail or metro lines. This is especially the case for systems that were projected primarily for regeneration or urban improvement (Detroit, Charleroi).

I would be interested to hear of any contrary examples you might offer. Posssibly the DLR; but their the regeneration investment preceded the transport system (which was also totally reconfigured in use to a form very different from that planned). I don't know of any examples where a transport scheme has successfully reversed urban decline, or triggered urban regeneration that would not otherwise have happened. Maybe you do?

 

[edwin_m]

For a transit route to stimulate development there needs to be a political commitment to get it in place early, accept that it will run nearly empty for a while, and encourage building in the areas served - which must also be in areas where there is a actual demand for whatever is being built.

In the early 2000s our newest light rail systems were Croydon Tramlink, Midland Metro, Sheffield Supertram, Metrolink Eccles and DLR Lewisham. At that time three of these five had very poor patronage and could easily be dismissed as failures. This was probably a big factor in the Government's attitude to light rail then, along with major cost increases on schemes being put forward for funding.

A successful tramway opening in Nottingham in 2004 tipped the balance somewhat. Sheffield and Eccles have largely redeemed themselves since with Midland Metro hopefully now doing the same with reliable vehicles and extension into city centres.

 

[Robertj21a]

For a transit route to stimulate development there needs to be a political commitment to get it in place early, accept that it will run nearly empty for a while, and encourage building in the areas served - which must also be in areas where there is a actual demand for whatever is being built.

In the early 2000s our newest light rail systems were Croydon Tramlink, Midland Metro, Sheffield Supertram, Metrolink Eccles and DLR Lewisham. At that time three of these five had very poor patronage and could easily be dismissed as failures. This was probably a big factor in the Government's attitude to light rail then, along with major cost increases on schemes being put forward for funding.

A successful tramway opening in Nottingham in 2004 tipped the balance somewhat. Sheffield and Eccles have largely redeemed themselves since with Midland Metro hopefully now doing the same with reliable vehicles and extension into city centres.

I haven't been on the Eccles line for some time but it always struck me as being unbearably slow, and probably quicker by bus. Has it improved nowadays ?

 

[edwin_m]

I haven't been on the Eccles line for some time but it always struck me as being unbearably slow, and probably quicker by bus. Has it improved nowadays ?

I don't think it's any quicker than it was. The difference is that the Salford Quays area has developed in the meantime, this providing more passengers.

 

[Busaholic]

Not alas true.

There are cities across the world with underperforming (or never opened) underground/elevated light rail or metro lines. This is especially the case for systems that were projected primarily for regeneration or urban improvement (Detroit, Charleroi).

I would be interested to hear of any contrary examples you might offer. Posssibly the DLR; but their the regeneration investment preceded the transport system (which was also totally reconfigured in use to a form very different from that planned). I don't know of any examples where a transport scheme has successfully reversed urban decline, or triggered urban regeneration that would not otherwise have happened. Maybe you do?

London Docklands had so much skewed in its favour, with the creation of the London Docklands Development Corporation, the freezing and abolition of some business rates in the area, the planning permissions for both commercial and residential property without the usual constraints, etc, and STILL it almost foundered! Probably without the DLR Canary Wharf would now be a colossal, looming white elephant. I hope one day an unexpurgated account of what went on in the LDDC will be published - suspect it won't be before the last major 'player', still alive and well-connected, dies.

 

[fgwrich]

The Fareham to Gosport tram (South Hampshire LRT) scheme was intended to address the chronic road congestion and limited route options between the towns and for getting in or out of Gosport in general.
It was also proposed to continue on from Gosport, through a deep tunnel under Portsmouth Harbour into the city of Portsmouth and envisioned to ultimately form part of a wider network around the whole Portsmouth Harbour hinterland..

The route started with a short distance of street running in Fareham, before joining the disused Fareham - Gosport railway line at a point near Fareham railway station.
Then the route followed the trackbed of the disused railway all the way to Gosport town centre, before resuming street running to the Quayside and entry into the tunnel portal.

It was cancelled due to the vast cost of the proposed tunnel and I've no idea if due consideration was given to terminating the scheme at Gosport and simply dropping the proposed tunnel under the harbour.

http://www.lrta.org/southhants.html

After the scheme was cancelled, they wasted no time in planning and building a Rapid Bus Transit Route, between Fareham and Gosport, which uses the disused railway trackbed, but only for half the distance from Fareham to Gosport, reverting to the busy, not so "Rapid" local roads for the remainder of the journey.

https://firmank.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/busway_41.png
https://www.transportxtra.com/files/12030-l.jpg
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-17787398
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/966...e_that_doesn_t_live_up_to_its_name/r/?ref=rss

Widely considered a complete waste of money, but at least it wasn't built as a guided busway.

I'm fairly close to this and have just got back from this area today. One of the reasons why the whole scheme ended up collapsing was down to the tunnel and the endless arguing over the depth of it. This was in part, caused by my friends (not literally!) in the Navy who with the new Aircraft Carrier program in development would have meant bigger Ship = Bigger Bow = Deeper Channel required = Deeper tunnel required. Indeed only now are they about to start the dredging for the new Queen Elizabeth Class now.

A long time ago I did produce a letter to the leader of Hampshire County Council that at least keeping the first part - Fareham to Gosport did make more sense than the busway idea, allowing for further tram expansion out at either ends. But the, nice but admittedly pointless busway was built instead. Pointless because although built as a road than a busway in the traditional sense, it currently as you point out goes only halfway along the trackbed of the former BR lines and because the E1 and E2 go around the houses to get to the busway, doesn't actually produce any time saving than going down the main road into Gosport. The buses - the Eclipse operated by First - is a well run service. It's just a pity that what could have once been a tram connecting Fareham to Gosport to Portsmouth and Southsea ended up as a much shorter rapid bus route.