Should new "branch lines" be built as light rather than heavy rail?

[ChiefPlanner]

That hill would be no problem for trams (the Sheffield system has sections just as steep), but the narrow streets would be a problem -- as would getting trams into Watford town centre.

Bad enough doing a hill start on that road with a decent car - I dread to think how a tram would cope.

I am very familiar with St Albans , (30+years here) I have run services as a manager on the Abbey line and have equally good credentials for Thameslink. A complete and utter non starter. As is a suggestion for using the Alban Way - the ex GN route to London Road.

Plus the Sheffield tram-train costs came out as about £75m - hardly a crashing success - and one that only just survived being built at that cost.

In good times - the Abbey line just about washed it's face at about a 1000 passengers a day. (or less) It will take a long time to get even that level of business back.

 

[AM9]

Bad enough doing a hill start on that road with a decent car - I dread to think how a tram would cope.

I am very familiar with St Albans , (30+years here) I have run services as a manager on the Abbey line and have equally good credentials for Thameslink. A complete and utter non starter. As is a suggestion for using the Alban Way - the ex GN route to London Road.

Maybe they could re-introduce the ill-fated one way system.

 

[DustyBin]

I believe Ashington was looked at as a Metro branch, but Metro line into Newcastle is a longer route with frequent all-stations services, so the journey time would be a lot longer. The only reason I can think for considering a tram-train would be to get to somewhere important that isn't on the rail line. The centre of Blyth might qualify as one of those, and a tram-train could access it by a disused branch line, but it would be difficult to find a route for it to re-join the line towards Ashington and even if that was done the Ashington journey would end up being much slower.

I believe incorporating it into the Metro system was considered but rejected as you say. The benefit of heavy rail in this instance is that services will call at Northumberland Park interchange then join the ECML north of Newcastle, calling at Manors (ghost station!) and Newcastle Central. That journey will take a few minutes whereas the Metro route via South Gosforth takes 20 minutes or so (ignoring any capacity issues). Metro trains can and do mix with heavy rail (Pelaw to Sunderland) but there is no conflicting electrification; you’d obviously need dual voltage stock for this route. Also bear in mind that trains aren’t hanging around on the section of ECML being utilised (Sprinters are more or less flat out when they pass the junction at Palmersville). Whilst not necessarily prohibitive to light rail it’s just another reason to stick to heavy rail I think.

 

[edwin_m]

I'm fine with branch lines operated as separate shuttles - e.g. the Falmouth one is much more useful to locals than a handful of long distance services would be - I'm just against the kind of "bespoke" solutions that some people like to suggest which involve stock unable to run beyond its short route - like the way that the 139s can't/don't go beyond Stourbridge Junction - so seem quite expensive - you need two units to maintain a service with a PVR of one - whereas if it ran with a two coach 172 then you might just need one DMU since there might be spare resource in the general "pool" of Tydsley DMUs (e.g. you might only need ten DMUs to maintain a PVR of nine).

Plus staff need to be trained on additional stock, there's the complication of how you get the bespoke stock away from the branch, do you have a depot/ maintenance at the branch?

So, whilst I can see the logic in having light rail on the Valley Lines (given you'd need dozens of units, enough to get critical mass), I'd be against converting a route like the Newquay branch to light rail, since that might mean having two trains for a PVR of one, a separate depot, staff trained on different stock etc.

Hence being in favour of light rail in theory but it really depends on the rail line we are talking about - it'd have to have a high enough frequency to mean enough units required to warrant being "non-standard" from the main network.

The Stoubridge branch is a special case. The 139 is about a quarter the capacity of a 153 with a top speed of around 30mph, and being made from mostly automotive components came out a lot cheaper. If I recall correctly the purchase price for a 139 was about that same as the annual lease cost for a 153, so even having to have two of them was good value for money.

However any other route on the national network would need a larger and faster unit, so a lot of those cost savings disappear. There are also very few branch lines that don't share track with other train services even if it's just a loop platform at the junction, as well as the depot access issue. The necessary system integrity and safety paperwork imposes major extra costs. Once you accept that you might as well bite the bullet and develop something that has "go-anywhere" capability or close to that, which can also be used for things like stopping services on the main line.

There may be exceptions where the route needs a larger number of vehicles to run the service, but then it's not really a branch line. The other justification for looking at light rail, as I already mentioned, is if there is an important traffic objective that isn't on the route and connecting to it would be easier using tramway design standards.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The other justification for looking at light rail, as I already mentioned, is if there is an important traffic objective that isn't on the route and connecting to it would be easier using tramway design standards.

To be fair it makes infrastructure a bit cheaper generally - level crossings are OK, often unbarriered and at stations, no lifts or assistance needed to provide disabled accessibility (level boarding and ramps to cross on the level), stations tend to be low-platform and cheaper etc.

 

[HSTEd]

Not the Ashington route. 20 miles from Ashington to the ECML via Northumberland Park. Too far for a high capacity (mainly standing) tram service.

Do trams have to be high capacity and mainly standing?

 

[Bald Rick]

I agree with Light Rail on the Abbey Line. The Watford Jn to St Albans City direct connection, I’m guessing, is really important.

It isn’t.

You are never going to get trams through the centre of St Albans - it's a medival town centre with narrow streets.

Well, actually, it would be possible to get trams on those roads in terms of separation and ‘formation’ width. The route would have to go right through town and then along the Hatfield Road. It would almost certainly need the pedestrianisation of Chequer St and St Peter St from the Peahen to the Cock, and removal of residential on street parking on Holywell Hill. But there is still an issue...

Add in St Albans Abbey is at the bottom of a hill - a very steep hill (as I can attest having walked it several times).

Exactly. My Strava says it’s 5.8% on average from the river to the London Road, which is 500metres. However the first 200 metres or so to Belmont Hill is about 2% according to my legs. The rest averages about 9%, and there’s some elements over 10% given which gear I’m in on the bike. Incidentally I have never got up it without having to stop at the blasted lights, which knocks the personal best somewhat.

Lastly, I very much doubt there is any demand to travel from the places on the Abbey line to St Albans City.

And that’s the other key issue. Also there’s little demand for the people of St Albans to go to Watford - at least the parts of Watford accessible from the Junction.

 

[A0]

It isn’t.



Well, actually, it would be possible to get trams on those roads in terms of separation and ‘formation’ width. The route would have to go right through town and then along the Hatfield Road. It would almost certainly need the pedestrianisation of Chequer St and St Peter St from the Peahen to the Cock, and removal of residential on street parking on Holywell Hill. But there is still an issue...




Exactly. My Strava says it’s 5.8% on average from the river to the London Road, which is 500metres. However the first 200 metres or so to Belmont Hill is about 2% according to my legs. The rest averages about 9%, and there’s some elements over 10% given which gear I’m in on the bike. Incidentally I have never got up it without having to stop at the blasted lights, which knocks the personal best somewhat.



And that’s the other key issue. Also there’s little demand for the people of St Albans to go to Watford - at least the parts of Watford accessible from the Junction.

I'll take your word for it that they'd fit - I reckoned Holywell Hill was probably the killer given it's both a steep hill and not particularly wide. Also isn't the turning from St Peter's St onto Hatfield Rd somewhat tight - particularly if you're going west > south ?

I think you'd also end up having to make Station Approach 1 way as well to aid traffic flow.

Fortunately it's not likely to actually happen in my lifetime - there was a time when HCC seemed almost interested in peddling a 'light rail' from Watford to Hatfield / Welwyn, but they seem to have stopped doing that.

 

[Bald Rick]

Also isn't the turning from St Peter's St onto Hatfield Rd somewhat tight - particularly if you're going west > south ?

Yep, would be ok though by taking out the island and some of the existing pedestrian area by the Beech House.

But as you say, not going to happen!

 

[tavistock]

Trams don’t make sense at all in this instance. For a start, the route utilises a section of the ECML north of Newcastle, then there’s the length of the route (already addressed above) and then there’s the fact that there is the existing Metro system. You’d have a mix of trams, light and heavy rail which just seems rather messy. It could be integrated into the Metro system if dual voltage rolling stock was ordered but I think heavy rail makes more sense.

Heavy rail makes more sense as it would mean easier access to Newcastle Central (high level). This would then, basically, put Ashington and Blyth back on the national rail network. It also means that the service from Ashington could, theoretically run on to Hexham and even beyond, bringing the metro centre into play. A direct link between South East Northumberland and the metro centre, or even the Tyne Valley stations would be most desirable I would have thought

 

[DustyBin]

Heavy rail makes more sense as it would mean easier access to Newcastle Central (high level). This would then, basically, put Ashington and Blyth back on the national rail network. It also means that the service from Ashington could, theoretically run on to Hexham and even beyond, bringing the metro centre into play. A direct link between South East Northumberland and the metro centre, or even the Tyne Valley stations would be most desirable I would have thought

Agreed. Out of interest, is there an existing rail link between Ashington and Morpeth? I think there is which raises the possibility of running a circular service from Newcastle. Maybe one for the speculative ideas thread but it was something that just occurred to me.

Edit: This is the speculative ideas thread!

 

[edwin_m]

Agreed. Out of interest, is there an existing rail link between Ashington and Morpeth? I think there is which raises the possibility of running a circular service from Newcastle. Maybe one for the speculative ideas thread but it was something that just occurred to me.

Edit: This is the speculative ideas thread!

There was a line from Ashington joining the ECML a few miles north of Morpeth but it was only ever a very slow route and I think it's now disappeared. There's a better route from Bedlington joining the ECML at a triangle just north of Morpeth, but trains using that would miss Ashington.

 

[DustyBin]

There was a line from Ashington joining the ECML a few miles north of Morpeth but it was only ever a very slow route and I think it's now disappeared. There's a better route from Bedlington joining the ECML at a triangle just north of Morpeth, but trains using that would miss Ashington.

Ah ok thanks. The latter must be the branch immediately north of Morpeth where the Northern services reverse is it?

 

[Bald Rick]

Still in use, but not often.

 

[swt_passenger]

Ah ok thanks. The latter must be the branch immediately north of Morpeth where the Northern services reverse is it?

It is. There‘s also an additional route of the Bedlington line towards the north which is not that old in railway terms, 1980s or 90s maybe?