What rail lines should be converted into tram lines ?

[Neptune]

Perhaps "least-worst" case would have been the better phrase. Simply because as a relatively short branch there's no freight or long-distance traffic to worry about. I only really mentioned it because it seems to be mentioned by those who think "tram-train" is a magic bullet, or those who think the only way to do trams is to find a railway route to convert.
Not sure where the A65 from Guiseley would come into it, as any conversion would probably use tram-trains and not leave the current railway alignment until much closer to Leeds city centre. I did acknowledge that such a plan would be seen as a downgrade, including by myself. If it were to happen the Bradford would probably have to terminate at Guiseley, so that's another reason not to do it. Again, in no way was I suggesting it was a good idea- just that it would be easier (on paper) than any other routes in the area.

I’ve got you now. It was mentioned in the past but I believe the consensus was that it would be an appalling idea as it would be a huge downgrade for the route as a whole. I believe the phrase was ‘solution looking for a problem’. The Ilkley line is already a fully electrified route with fast modern stock.

Like you I don’t personally understand why almost every tramway/light rail scheme idea has to revolve around old or current rail alignments. It’s feels like someone mentioned the words ‘Tram Train’ and everyone went off and immediately decided that all former railway alignments must immediately be re-opened for this even at the cost of every house, office, factory, school and even hospital that was built over it.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I’ve got you now. It was mentioned in the past but I believe the consensus was that it would be an appalling idea as it would be a huge downgrade for the route as a whole. I believe the phrase was ‘solution looking for a problem’. The Ilkley line is already a fully electrified route with fast modern stock.

Like you I don’t personally understand why almost every tramway/light rail scheme idea has to revolve around old or current rail alignments. It’s feels like someone mentioned the words ‘Tram Train’ and everyone went off and immediately decided that all former railway alignments must immediately be re-opened for this even at the cost of every house, office, factory, school and even hospital that was built over it.

Glossop and Hadfield is also a fully electrified route with fast modern stock, but that keeps being (wrongly IMO) suggested (see posts upthread) for Metrolink conversion.

What gets my goat is the idea that street-running tramways are a non-starter. Plenty of cities across Europe and beyond manage tram networks with large sections of in-traffic running without completely collapsing*. Even Sheffield and Nottingham do okay with their non-segregated sections without major issues, but apparently everything has to be a gold-plated, elevated or in tunnel, and with massive flyovers to avoid crossing a minor backroad on the level. Sure if you CAN segregate then do so, but not being able to for the entire route isn't a show-stopper.

*=the only "traffic jam" I encountered on a tram in Prague wasn't caused by regular road vehicles anyway- there were just too many trams at an intersection at once! Took about 5 mins to be resolved.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Umm, Metrolink has a fair whack of street running, e.g. on the (horribly slow) Eccles line and the Ashton line which is very much a classic street tramway. And Sheffield is almost all street or central reservation running - a proper classic setup.

 

[Ken H]

Glossop and Hadfield is also a fully electrified route with fast modern stock, but that keeps being (wrongly IMO) suggested (see posts upthread) for Metrolink conversion.

What gets my goat is the idea that street-running tramways are a non-starter. Plenty of cities across Europe and beyond manage tram networks with large sections of in-traffic running without completely collapsing*. Even Sheffield and Nottingham do okay with their non-segregated sections without major issues, but apparently everything has to be a gold-plated, elevated or in tunnel, and with massive flyovers to avoid crossing a minor backroad on the level. Sure if you CAN segregate then do so, but not being able to for the entire route isn't a show-stopper.

*=the only "traffic jam" I encountered on a tram in Prague wasn't caused by regular road vehicles anyway- there were just too many trams at an intersection at once! Took about 5 mins to be resolved.

Many European mainland cities have wider streets than we do in the UK. So plenty of central reservations to convert

One candidate for tramway is the A660 Woodhouse Lane/Headingley lane/Otley Road in Leeds. Yes its extremely busy with buses and other traffic. But is not that wide and no real room for a tramway except for street running mixing it with other traffic.

This is Woodhouse Lane outside the University. https://goo.gl/maps/PXUdKKwyi3dH7RKF9

(There were trams up there till the 1950's. But far far less road traffic then)

 

[Neptune]

Glossop and Hadfield is also a fully electrified route with fast modern stock, but that keeps being (wrongly IMO) suggested (see posts upthread) for Metrolink conversion.

What gets my goat is the idea that street-running tramways are a non-starter. Plenty of cities across Europe and beyond manage tram networks with large sections of in-traffic running without completely collapsing*. Even Sheffield and Nottingham do okay with their non-segregated sections without major issues, but apparently everything has to be a gold-plated, elevated or in tunnel, and with massive flyovers to avoid crossing a minor backroad on the level. Sure if you CAN segregate then do so, but not being able to for the entire route isn't a show-stopper.

*=the only "traffic jam" I encountered on a tram in Prague wasn't caused by regular road vehicles anyway- there were just too many trams at an intersection at once! Took about 5 mins to be resolved.

Agree 100%.

Obviously the ‘must be on an old or even current railway alignment with hugely expensive flyovers, tunnels etc…’ brigade have never seen a European tramway such as Budapest. An amazingly huge, complex yet, highly reliable system. I absolutely adore the Metro in Budapest too, especially line 1.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Umm, Metrolink has a fair whack of street running, e.g. on the (horribly slow) Eccles line and the Ashton line which is very much a classic street tramway. And Sheffield is almost all street or central reservation running - a proper classic setup.

You write that as if you're refuting what I said. You're mostly agreeing with my post, apart from mentioning Eccles.

My point was that many members of this site seem to think that trams running non-segregated simply can't work. Sheffield proves this isn't the case, as does the Ashton line of Metrolink. Eccles could be improved with signal priorities, and the alignment was a bit of a compromise. If you were building it now you'd use the lessons learned from the "Big Bang" expansions and avoid some of the issues.

 

[daodao]

Eccles could be improved with signal priorities, and the alignment was a bit of a compromise.

The slowness of the Eccles line is mainly due to the extremely tight curves where the line winds its way through the Salford Docks redevelopment from Pomona to Media City, not the street-running section at the Eccles end of the line.

 

[javelin]

The street-running parts of Metrolink are the worst performing in terms of patronage for a reason.

In Europe you'll notice most of the better tram systems have a been developed to have a good degree of on-street segregation. This doesn't happen here as the roads aren't wide enough.

The only reason we seem have this obsession to stuff light rail down unsegregated roadway is because we call them trams as if they're the same as old traditional trams.

What Manchester, and other cities, need is rapid transit, not traditional tram networks, whose function is now better served by buses.

If you can't give light rail its own space, it shouldn't be light rail.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The only reason we seem have this obsession to stuff light rail down unsegregated roadway is because we call them trams as if they're the same as old traditional trams.

If we had an "obsession" with it, one would hope we would have been successful in implementing it more than a handful of times.

Again, go to Prague. They have plenty of shared running including down narrow streets without major issue.

If we have a problematic "obsession" with anything it's that we view differing modes as competing with each other, rather than as a united competition against the private car.

As for terminology, arguments about whether a system is "light rail" or "rapid transit" or "pre-metro" et cetera is just about the second most tedious discussion that takes place on this website, beaten only by the endless seat debate. It also doesn't help that none of these terms are clearly defined.