Andy Burnham wants to take the Bee Network underground by 2050

[stuu]

I have been to Brussles several times, but long ago (the late 40s early 50s and then "Expo 58"). In 1958 they were talking about putting the trams underground, my host there was enthusiastic about it, digging out newspaper articles and wot-not showing the proposals. But his enthusiasm was really for the new roads, inner city ring road, flyover junctions and so-on and even then, in my youth, I saw that the other side of "Trams underground" was also "More room for cars". And so it has proved to be, it was the thinking of the time, the fashionable thing to do, but no longer.

In my view private cars are a curse! And we are shaping the urban environment in such a way that we can't manage without them. I mean - look at Milton Keynes - Built for the car ! Almost all of us live in car dependent environments one way or another.

Have you seen the "Not Just Bikes" videos?

Yes, and I think more nuance is needed. The answer is "it depends" surely. Where a city has a proper metro then I would agree that trams should stay on the surface, but when the trams/light rail are the only/major form of rail transport then there is definitely a case for speeding trams up by segregation, either on street or elevated/underground. I would suggest there is a case for there to be both a fast subsurface crossing of Manchester as well as an on-street alternative, and one of the benefits of using trams is that they can do both equally well

 

[The Ham]

I have been to Brussles several times, but long ago (the late 40s early 50s and then "Expo 58"). In 1958 they were talking about putting the trams underground, my host there was enthusiastic about it, digging out newspaper articles and wot-not showing the proposals. But his enthusiasm was really for the new roads, inner city ring road, flyover junctions and so-on and even then, in my youth, I saw that the other side of "Trams underground" was also "More room for cars". And so it has proved to be, it was the thinking of the time, the fashionable thing to do, but no longer.

In my view private cars are a curse! And we are shaping the urban environment in such a way that we can't manage without them. I mean - look at Milton Keynes - Built for the car ! Almost all of us live in car dependent environments one way or another.

Have you seen the "Not Just Bikes" videos?

Cars are a useful tool, however, as you point out, when used in the wrong setting they are a problem.

Government is (I want to say, but I maybe slightly optimistic) starting to understand this, the reason I fear that I maybe a bit too optimistic on this is that people do get a bit in the way as there's politicians who are more prone to still think car is king as that's probably more likely to get them votes.

That's not too say that we should be trying to get rid of cars (that's not going to happen), rather there should definitely be provision for other modes of travel.

It's therefore likely to be that if there's a light railway system which creates an underground section (as others have suggested probably a X shaped network) the at street level isn't likely to be used by cars, but rather provide for (at least some, as some teams may well stay as street running) segregation of rail based travel and active travel users.

Arguably, you could even see surface trams running at (say) 70% of current capacity but with a significant uplift of capacity by having the underground light rail.

The latter could also be running significantly longer units. Running an X with 6 or possibly even 8 coaches (the latter being 160m long), whilst surface trams are circa 30m, would allow a significant increase in the number of passengers, even 4 coaches (80m) would provide a significant uplift.

There's plenty more scope for extra passenger usage, a population of 600,000 could more than easily double the number of trips from 42 million. That would still be an average of less than 0.5 trips per person per day, when most people would do closer to an average of 3 trips per day and that doesn't account for people from outside of that population using the network.

That would put Manchester on a par with London (only counting London underground and London overground usage, but counting the full 9 million people who live in London) in terms of trips per person per day, so would be quite a step up, but not beyond what could be possible (especially given a more compact city means that distances to a station aren't necessary as great).

 

[Chester1]

Lots of crayons in this thread! Has Metrolink recovered to pre pandemic passenger numbers and revenue?

There are no new lines with a good business case. The expansion of Metrolink hasn't got past early planning stage since the opening of the Trafford Park line in 2020 because of this. The existing lines still have room to increase capacity by making all units 60m sets (3m longer and no space wasted on two redundant cabs and coupling). There are still plenty of single units and 60m sets should have about 15% more capacity than double 28.5m sets. The Trafford Park service hasn't been extended through city centre after five years and there are also sufficient paths for an additional 5tph service between Piccadilly and Victoria. Spending billions on Metrolink is a bit of a risk when growth could taper off before using up this capacity. Heavy rail would be a better investment.

 

[Topological]

Lots of crayons in this thread! Has Metrolink recovered to pre pandemic passenger numbers and revenue?

There are no new lines with a good business case. The expansion of Metrolink hasn't got past early planning stage since the opening of the Trafford Park line in 2020 because of this. The existing lines still have room to increase capacity by making all units 60m sets (3m longer and no space wasted on two redundant cabs and coupling). There are still plenty of single units and 60m sets should have about 15% more capacity than double 28.5m sets. The Trafford Park service hasn't been extended through city centre after five years and there are also sufficient paths for an additional 5tph service between Piccadilly and Victoria. Spending billions on Metrolink is a bit of a risk when growth could taper off before using up this capacity. Heavy rail would be a better investment.

I am not convinced all those businesses and developers investing in Manchester foresee a tapering off of growth any time soon.

I agree that the solution is not metrolink, that is just not ambitious enough. 15% will be swallowed up before it is even fully implemented.

Manchester, like many UK cities needs a clear plan for population increase and to put the masterplan in place to facilitate such. A heavy rail (Elizabeth Line) type solution with stations on the core development axes seems to be the answer.

Yes, there are a lot of crayons needed for such vision.

 

[The Ham]

Lots of crayons in this thread! Has Metrolink recovered to pre pandemic passenger numbers and revenue?

There are no new lines with a good business case. The expansion of Metrolink hasn't got past early planning stage since the opening of the Trafford Park line in 2020 because of this. The existing lines still have room to increase capacity by making all units 60m sets (3m longer and no space wasted on two redundant cabs and coupling). There are still plenty of single units and 60m sets should have about 15% more capacity than double 28.5m sets. The Trafford Park service hasn't been extended through city centre after five years and there are also sufficient paths for an additional 5tph service between Piccadilly and Victoria. Spending billions on Metrolink is a bit of a risk when growth could taper off before using up this capacity. Heavy rail would be a better investment.

2025 ridership 46 million, pre pandemic peak ridership 44.3 million (year ending March 2020), so yes higher (although it's still possible that the daily average for a period less than a year might still not have reached the peak, but even then basically it's likely to be there or there abouts).

Even at growth of 2.5% per year 15% is only 5 to 6 years of growth.

If we're talking 30+ years then that's more than double the current number and that may well be planning for numbers 30+ years from then (so the potential for a quadrupling of passengers if that rate if growth continues).

However, pre pandemic growth was around 9% per year, so if we assume that was not likely to be sustainable and we look at 28 years of 5% growth a year, then that's still a quadrupling of passengers numbers.

 

[stevieinselby]

Trams belong in the street, not in tunnels. When the tram is in the street, it is part of that street, part of the street furniture, part of the city. It's a facility. Trams shouldn't be thought of as a poor man's underground, an 'Underground' is something else.

In the street you can see a tram coming, and when on board and moving the city-scape slides past - all visual clues and familiarity. You are still 'there' - down town. A tram comes, you get on from the sidewalk, you get off straight onto the sidewalk.

But when trams are in tunnels you first have look for and find a 'station', go into 'The System', down the steps, into a different environment, and there you might become dis-oriented because the visual cues are gone. Then, at last you can get on board a tram. It sets off - into a tunnel. There is no scenery, just the tunnel wall - all those pipes! then, after a while, oops - this is my stop - I think.

Trams are not underground trains - they are a different thing. The idea that tram networks have to be changed into underground networks is a fundamental mistake. Your town will be the worse for it. Don't do it!

The fundamental problem is that Manchester has a metro network that is run with tram vehicles.

Most of Metrolink doesn't function as a tram – there is little on-street running, there are long gaps between stops, and the routes run long distances – with the exception of Manchester city centre, parts of the Ashton, Trafford and Airport lines, and the short sections in Oldham and Rochdale town centres, the operation is run like a metro, but using cheaper tram-style vehicles.

You could very sensibly take the Bury, Altrincham, Oldham and probably East Disbury lines and convert them to a proper metro operation with an underground central section, and new (probably tunnelled) sections serving Oldham and Rochdale town centres, and then run the remaining Trafford, Airport and Ashton services as actual trams.

All the things you have given as downsides to putting trams underground would apply just as much to building a dedicated metro underground. That doesn't mean that underground metros are a bad idea!

 

[Chester1]

I am not convinced all those businesses and developers investing in Manchester foresee a tapering off of growth any time soon.

I agree that the solution is not metrolink, that is just not ambitious enough. 15% will be swallowed up before it is even fully implemented.

Manchester, like many UK cities needs a clear plan for population increase and to put the masterplan in place to facilitate such. A heavy rail (Elizabeth Line) type solution with stations on the core development axes seems to be the answer.

Yes, there are a lot of crayons needed for such vision.

I meant a tapering off of Metrolink ridership not development or public transport ridership. Some of the lines run through fully established neighbourhoods, most notably the Altrincham line. There are some exceptions (around the proposed Sandhills stop and between New Islington and the Etihad Campus) but the areas of future housing development often don't coincide with where Metrolink runs. A lot of the growth in employment in city centre will come from people traveling from places not served by Metrolink.

2025 ridership 46 million, pre pandemic peak ridership 44.3 million (year ending March 2020), so yes higher (although it's still possible that the daily average for a period less than a year might still not have reached the peak, but even then basically it's likely to be there or there abouts).

Even at growth of 2.5% per year 15% is only 5 to 6 years of growth.

If we're talking 30+ years then that's more than double the current number and that may well be planning for numbers 30+ years from then (so the potential for a quadrupling of passengers if that rate if growth continues).

However, pre pandemic growth was around 9% per year, so if we assume that was not likely to be sustainable and we look at 28 years of 5% growth a year, then that's still a quadrupling of passengers numbers.

The Trafford Park line opened 22/03/2020 and will have more than two million passengers per year. That means on a like for like basis the network hasn't quite recovered from the pandemic but probably will in 2026 or 2027. There is more flexibility in office jobs than before the pandemic and I think this is reducing peak demand. My experience as a regular user is that the peak time crush loading is less common than before the pandemic

 

[Topological]

I meant a tapering off of Metrolink ridership not development or public transport ridership. Some of the lines run through fully established neighbourhoods, most notably the Altrincham line. There are some exceptions (around the proposed Sandhills stop and between New Islington and the Etihad Campus) but the areas of future housing development often don't coincide with where Metrolink runs. A lot of the growth in employment in city centre will come from people traveling from places not served by Metrolink.

Thank you for the clarification.

I agree that many of the Metrolink routes are at their developmental capacity. However, the city needs more development to support the growing population. The "bee network underground" is the opportunity to proactively plan for that development.

Manchester is going to see density springing up on axes out of the centre. However, it is not immediately clear that the Metrolink axes are the candidates. Obvious lines are through Regent Retail Park, Ordsall, Salford Quays and west (hence my proposal that the underground go that way rather than the Metrolink route through Cornbrook), through the Etihad (which is where the Metrolink is in the right place but unlikely to give the capacity), towards the airport (though it would be noisy living too closely). I am not sure about North West, but there are already large populations out there through Bolton.

I suspect the proposals that come up will not be that ambitious, will be reactionary and will ultimately be inadequate before they are built.

A big unknown in this is the final form of NPR. An effective NPR may change the commuting landscape of Manchester to something far more spread out.

 

[daodao]

Manchester should just get the chequebook out and build a X-shaped network centred on Piccadilly. ....

Greater Manchester doesn't have enough resources of its own to build an underground railway and the UK Treasury isn't flush with funds at present, nor is it likely to be for the foreseeable future. It is less than 2 years since Sunak was forced to cancel an expensive underground rail line serving Manchester (HS2 Phase 2). Burnham's vision of a new Liverpool-Manchester railway using a similar alignment to reach central Manchester is similarly in the realms of fantasy.

Even if built, any Metrolink underground network really shouldn't be centred on Piccadilly station, which is on the fringe of the city centre and about 1 mile from the actual central point of Albert Square. If resources were ever found, your suggested outer routes are also unrealistic - the most that could be done is to link the existing 4 high frequency Metrolink routes built on old heavy rail corridors, i.e. Altrincham, East Didsbury, Bury and Oldham.

Possible Metrolink extensions to Southeast Manchester along ex-GCR lines can be linked via Piccadilly to the existing on surface central network and joined to existing services that currently terminate there. There is still room for a 3rd on street surface tramway across the city centre from Chapel Street, Salford to Oxford Road if one wished to convert busway routes V1 and V2 from Atherton/Leigh to Manchester Royal Infirmary to Metrolink using part of the Atherton heavy rail line from Walkden to Salford Crescent.

 

[The Ham]

The Trafford Park line opened 22/03/2020 and will have more than two million passengers per year. That means on a like for like basis the network hasn't quite recovered from the pandemic but probably will in 2026 or 2027. There is more flexibility in office jobs than before the pandemic and I think this is reducing peak demand. My experience as a regular user is that the peak time crush loading is less common than before the pandemic

Thanks for the extra information.

Even if the assessment is only conference about peak loadings then they will likely be recovered well before the 2050 timeline of this project.

Greater Manchester doesn't have enough resources of its own to build an underground railway and the UK Treasury isn't flush with funds at present, nor is it likely to be for the foreseeable future. It is less than 2 years since Sunak was forced to cancel an expensive underground line serving Manchester (HS2 Phase 2). Burnham's vision of a new Liverpool-Manchester railway using a similar alignment to reach central Manchester is similarly in the realms of fantasy.

Even if built, the Metrolink underground network really shouldn't be centred on Piccadilly station, which is on the fringe of the city centre and about 1 mile from the actual central point of Albert Square. If resources were ever found, your suggested outer routes are also unrealistic - the most that could be done is to link the existing 4 high frequency Metrolink routes built on old heavy rail corridors, i.e. Altrincham, East Didsbury, Bury and Oldham.

Government spending is a political choice, arguably investment in rail results in a better economy and so it's worth doing, even if finances are tight.

If as an individual someone could get a job 6 miles away which paid then more but they've got significant debt, as long as the numbers worked out, then many would conclude it's worth their while borrowing to buy a car or buy a season ticket for that increase in pay.

It's the same with rail, as long as the economy improves (and even then there'll be secondary benefits too, for example less pollution from less driving) then it's worth the investment.

It's part of the reason people get so upset that London gets more spending on infrastructure than other areas. As they can see that being able to move about means that it's easier to gain employment, that employment means more money being spent, which in turn means more jobs, and repeat. It's just it stops repeating when capacity is reached.

Yes roads do have the same impact, however, in urban areas you can't build enough roads and parking without reducing the land available for other purposes and so the places becomes less attractive to go to.

The reason people go to town centres is because they can walk 500m and visit 5 different shops. With out of town shopping they may walk 500m just to and from their car to visit one shop before potentially having to drive somewhere else. Out of town shops are fine if you want to go to one shop (or if there's two shops right next to each other) and buy certain things, however if you're not sure exactly what you want or wish to compare a few options then towns are where you probably want to go. Emptying towns of buildings to create more roads and more parking make then less attractive. As whilst the centre may remain intact (not always the case, see some American cities for how not to do it), you often lose the fringe of town shops which give a town/city the edge over any other high street.

If you are just a carbon copy of the next town, why would anyone visit that city? If you've got (say) an independent model shop you'll get people visiting for that and whilst that may not attract a lot of people, enough interest shops (which don't always have to be small, if you can get a Decathlon that also works) like that and it can create enough of a draw to be noticeable.

Likewise, you need office space, so people come into the centre.

However the thing which is needed above everything else is the ability to get people in and out and poor investment in that will result in a poorer country if that's not provided.

 

[Topological]

Greater Manchester doesn't have enough resources of its own to build an underground railway and the UK Treasury isn't flush with funds at present, nor is it likely to be for the foreseeable future. It is less than 2 years since Sunak was forced to cancel an expensive underground rail line serving Manchester (HS2 Phase 2). Burnham's vision of a new Liverpool-Manchester railway using a similar alignment to reach central Manchester is similarly in the realms of fantasy.

Even if built, any Metrolink underground network really shouldn't be centred on Piccadilly station, which is on the fringe of the city centre and about 1 mile from the actual central point of Albert Square. If resources were ever found, your suggested outer routes are also unrealistic - the most that could be done is to link the existing 4 high frequency Metrolink routes built on old heavy rail corridors, i.e. Altrincham, East Didsbury, Bury and Oldham.

Possible Metrolink extensions to Southeast Manchester along ex-GCR lines can be linked via Piccadilly to the existing on surface central network and joined to existing services that currently terminate there. There is still room for a 3rd on street surface tramway across the city centre from Chapel Street, Salford to Oxford Road if one wished to convert busway routes V1 and V2 from Atherton/Leigh to Manchester Royal Infirmary to Metrolink using part of the Atherton heavy rail line from Walkden to Salford Crescent.

All the same arguments would preclude large-scale investment anywhere.

@The Ham has already provided numerous compelling arguments for investing in city-focused infrastructure.

I would add that population growth is a major determinant of what will happen in the next decades. If we continue to build car focused suburbia then we will quickly overwhelm our roads and cover our fields. That is not a sustainable way to develop. The government are well aware of this.

There is a very strong argument for density in the suburbs and the way to achieve that is to make places in the suburbs which are rapidly connected to the city centre. Essentially providing all of the connectivity to the city that walking does from clusters like Great Jackson Street (Deansgate Square, Circle, Blade etc). Having stations with regular metro services will bring benefit.

To achieve such connectivity you need underground because Metrolink cannot handle those numbers and is slow in the city centre. Metrolink is a great part of the last mile connectivity and works well as a means of getting people into Manchester on street based routes. Underground in the style of the Elizabeth Line can take over some commuter routes (like via Bolton) and then free other routes to have more services. Metrolink could not.

The costs of such a scheme are very high. The costs of just connecting Bury and Altrincham underground are high enough. However, Manchester needs a vision before the whole North West is covered in suburbia and the growth of Manchester becomes stifled. Andy Burnham will know it and I am sure the UK Government know it too.

 

[daodao]

All the same arguments would preclude large-scale investment anywhere.

@The Ham has already provided numerous compelling arguments for investing in city-focused infrastructure.

I would add that population growth is a major determinant of what will happen in the next decades. If we continue to build car focused suburbia then we will quickly overwhelm our roads and cover our fields. That is not a sustainable way to develop. The government are well aware of this.

There is a very strong argument for density in the suburbs and the way to achieve that is to make places in the suburbs which are rapidly connected to the city centre. Essentially providing all of the connectivity to the city that walking does from clusters like Great Jackson Street (Deansgate Square, Circle, Blade etc). Having stations with regular metro services will bring benefit.

To achieve such connectivity you need underground because Metrolink cannot handle those numbers and is slow in the city centre. Metrolink is a great part of the last mile connectivity and works well as a means of getting people into Manchester on street based routes. Underground in the style of the Elizabeth Line can take over some commuter routes (like via Bolton) and then free other routes to have more services. Metrolink could not.

The costs of such a scheme are very high. The costs of just connecting Bury and Altrincham underground are high enough. However, Manchester needs a vision before the whole North West is covered in suburbia and the growth of Manchester becomes stifled. Andy Burnham will know it and I am sure the UK Government know it too.

British governments in the last 25 years have done little about massive immigration into England, which is the main cause of unsustainable urban population growth. The current administration's prefeŕred solution appears to be a large-scale increase in housebuilding, which seems to be occurring mainly as low density dwellings on edge of town sites such as the former Woodford aerodrome and Carrington Moss, where public transport provision is poor and Metrolink extensions are unrealistic, so will do little to justify taking Metrolink underground.

 

[Chester1]

British governments in the last 25 years have done little about massive immigration into England, which is the main cause of unsustainable urban population growth. The current administration's prefeŕred solution appears to be a large-scale increase in housebuilding, which seems to be occurring mainly as low density dwellings on edge of town sites such as the former Woodford aerodrome and Carrington Moss, where public transport provision is poor and Metrolink extensions are unrealistic, so will do little to justify taking Metrolink underground.

Greater Manchester's spatial plan heavily relies on growth of city centre to reduce demand in the boroughs. The latter are relying on dense redevelopment of their town centres. The two examples you have mentioned are not the norm.

Thanks for the extra information.

Even if the assessment is only conference about peak loadings then they will likely be recovered well before the 2050 timeline of this project.

They will certainly recover before 2050. I doubt they will grow to the extent that a city centre tunnel for Metrolink is necessary. Its good politics but Burnham has failed to get any tunnel plan past the most basic planning stage in 8 years. Its not like Crossrail 2 where we more or less know where it would run because we know the flows it would serve.

Cornbrook-Deansgate-St Peter's Sqaure is the bottleneck but there is plenty of extra capacity to be gained from lengthening units. There is likely to be significant construction around Trafford Park over the next 25 years but 60m units would more than double capacity. The proposed 7000 apartments and rebuilding of Old Trafford would be primarily served by a heavy rail station and buses. Eccles line has less spare capacity being a mixture of single and double sets but there isn't that much development land left after Pomona and anything past Media City / Broadway is not competitive against buses.

The focus on a tunnel seems to reflect an attitude of wanting a big project and then selling it as the capacity solution to future growth in passenger numbers. I like Metrolink but its a mature network. All the low hanging fruit has been taken and what is left are proposals that struggle to have a positive BCR.

The focus on heavy rail in the city centre in the next 10 years should be electrification and longer train lengths. There is no need for anything radical yet. When the average is 6 coaches and full its time to start thinking about what to do when 9 coaches won't suffice.

 

[Topological]

Greater Manchester's spatial plan heavily relies on growth of city centre to reduce demand in the boroughs. The latter are relying on dense redevelopment of their town centres. The two examples you have mentioned are not the norm.



They will certainly recover before 2050. I doubt they will grow to the extent that a city centre tunnel for Metrolink is necessary. Its good politics but Burnham has failed to get any tunnel plan past the most basic planning stage in 8 years. Its not like Crossrail 2 where we more or less know where it would run because we know the flows it would serve.

Cornbrook-Deansgate-St Peter's Sqaure is the bottleneck but there is plenty of extra capacity to be gained from lengthening units. There is likely to be significant construction around Trafford Park over the next 25 years but 60m units would more than double capacity. The proposed 7000 apartments and rebuilding of Old Trafford would be primarily served by a heavy rail station and buses. Eccles line has less spare capacity being a mixture of single and double sets but there isn't that much development land left after Pomona and anything past Media City / Broadway is not competitive against buses.

The focus on a tunnel seems to reflect an attitude of wanting a big project and then selling it as the capacity solution to future growth in passenger numbers. I like Metrolink but its a mature network. All the low hanging fruit has been taken and what is left are proposals that struggle to have a positive BCR.

The focus on heavy rail in the city centre in the next 10 years should be electrification and longer train lengths. There is no need for anything radical yet. When the average is 6 coaches and full its time to start thinking about what to do when 9 coaches won't suffice.

The rail solution sounds neat, but has major obstacles.

Manchester Oxford Road is about to undergo redevelopment to allow 8 car trains. The result will be the loss of a through platform. That will then be the limit for what can be operated through the Castlefield corridor.

NPR will help by moving some trains off the corridor, but there are so many routes out of Manchester that require the corridor that it will very quickly fill again. The chances of producing a turn up and go service for all of the GM towns to the North and West of Manchester hinge on a replacement for Castlefield in the longer term.

Metrolink going underground is something of a distraction since any heavy rail solution would inevitably reduce the Metrolink pressure and allow small capacity increases (such as longer trams). For example my proposal would remove the Eccles trams between Salford Quays and Manchester as people would switch to the "underground".

 

[The Ham]

British governments in the last 25 years have done little about massive immigration into England, which is the main cause of unsustainable urban population growth. The current administration's prefeŕred solution appears to be a large-scale increase in housebuilding, which seems to be occurring mainly as low density dwellings on edge of town sites such as the former Woodford aerodrome and Carrington Moss, where public transport provision is poor and Metrolink extensions are unrealistic, so will do little to justify taking Metrolink underground.

Over the last 25 years national population growth has been about 1% a year.

However in terms of housing need a larger factor since 1980 isn't population growth but rather shrinking household sizes.

Over that timeframe for every 2 homes needed for population growth there's been a need a need for 3 homes due to falling households sizes.

Therefore imagination is not the largest factor over that timeframe.

Between 1971 and 1998 the number of single person households doubled.

With an aging population (as for some reason those over 65 don't have many babies) and falling birthrate is likely to continue that trend going forwards.

High rents/house prices have dented that growth, with far more people house sharing, however with those under 18 only just growing (and definitely falling as a percentage of the total population) that may not help keep household sizes up.

 

[Grimsby town]

I meant a tapering off of Metrolink ridership not development or public transport ridership. Some of the lines run through fully established neighbourhoods, most notably the Altrincham line. There are some exceptions (around the proposed Sandhills stop and between New Islington and the Etihad Campus) but the areas of future housing development often don't coincide with where Metrolink runs. A lot of the growth in employment in city centre will come from people traveling from places not served by Metrolink.

I'm not sure that land near the Altrincham line can be considered fully developed. There's still brownfield and low density devoped land in Altrincham, Sale and Stretford that would be suitable for flats. There's a huge amount of brownfield land around Old Trafford and Trafford Bar that can be developed or already is being developed. I'm not looking forward to trying to get on the tram in the morning after the 600 homes at UA92 (opposite the cricket ground) are completed.

Even without population increases, the number of journeys will increase due to ticket integration making it easier and cheaper to use bus services to connect into trams. TfGMs transport plan is based on buses being used to feed the rapid transit network. I've said this before but pre-covid modelling had demand for Altrincham line services at 140% of capacity even assuming double trams. The only real solution to that is a new line to relieve Cornbrook-St Peters Sq and that is likely going to be underground to at least match current journey times on that corridor

 

[Chester1]

The rail solution sounds neat, but has major obstacles.

Manchester Oxford Road is about to undergo redevelopment to allow 8 car trains. The result will be the loss of a through platform. That will then be the limit for what can be operated through the Castlefield corridor.

NPR will help by moving some trains off the corridor, but there are so many routes out of Manchester that require the corridor that it will very quickly fill again. The chances of producing a turn up and go service for all of the GM towns to the North and West of Manchester hinge on a replacement for Castlefield in the longer term.

Metrolink going underground is something of a distraction since any heavy rail solution would inevitably reduce the Metrolink pressure and allow small capacity increases (such as longer trams). For example my proposal would remove the Eccles trams between Salford Quays and Manchester as people would switch to the "underground".

There lack of any clear route or project indicates it is far too early for TfGM to do more than scope out some vague ideas every five years or so.

12 tph of 6 to 8 coaches will provide more than enough extra capacity for Castlefield for growth unless we return to 4-5% growth for a very long period of time. The ideas people are suggesting will cost billions and there is no clear need for it unless passenger numbers double and the growth may not follow the current pattern.

 

[Brubulus]

Fundamentally, there's 2 key transport challenges in Manchester. First one is heavy rail, both the approach to Piccadilly and Castlefield are at capacity.

The best way for this to be solved is an additional corridor to/through Manchester. Liverpool-Manchester railway should achieve this, though lengthening trains must be the key short term priority, and this can be enabled by Northern's new fleet order.

Second transport challenge is in terms of local transport and ensuring it encourages modal shift and can deal with said modal shift. I suspect that the Cornbrook corridor can cope with around 50 trams an hour, so at least 25% more trams. The key bottleneck on the Altrincham route is Navigation Road, which could be fixed by having trams use both tracks, enabling 15 trams an hour from Altrincham.

Longer single unit trams could also help deliver a substantial capacity boost, with no extra services. Both of these help solve short term constraints. However these do not fundamentally change the dynamics of the system.

In building an underground tunnel, what is to be achieved? Increased connectivity, reduced journey times or increased capacity. Likely a combination of all 3. While taking this into account, there is also an overwhelming desire for costs to be minimised.

In terms of potential routes, there are:
The lines into Piccadilly from the east
The Atherton line
Oxford Road Corridor
Existing Metrolink routes

Before any decision on if Manchester should have an underground, the LMR decision must be made. Since if there is no LMR, there is a clear imperative to supplement Castlefield with a Picc-Vic tunnel that sends 20 suburban trains an hour through the city centre. Otherwise, it then moves towards supplementing Metrolink, in which case a decision has to be made for if it should be a part of Metrolink, or a separate system, and if it should be North-South or East-West.

 

[Chester1]

Fundamentally, there's 2 key transport challenges in Manchester. First one is heavy rail, both the approach to Piccadilly and Castlefield are at capacity.

The best way for this to be solved is an additional corridor to/through Manchester. Liverpool-Manchester railway should achieve this, though lengthening trains must be the key short term priority, and this can be enabled by Northern's new fleet order.

Second transport challenge is in terms of local transport and ensuring it encourages modal shift and can deal with said modal shift. I suspect that the Cornbrook corridor can cope with around 50 trams an hour, so at least 25% more trams. The key bottleneck on the Altrincham route is Navigation Road, which could be fixed by having trams use both tracks, enabling 15 trams an hour from Altrincham.

Longer single unit trams could also help deliver a substantial capacity boost, with no extra services. Both of these help solve short term constraints. However these do not fundamentally change the dynamics of the system.

In building an underground tunnel, what is to be achieved? Increased connectivity, reduced journey times or increased capacity. Likely a combination of all 3. While taking this into account, there is also an overwhelming desire for costs to be minimised.

In terms of potential routes, there are:
The lines into Piccadilly from the east
The Atherton line
Oxford Road Corridor
Existing Metrolink routes

Before any decision on if Manchester should have an underground, the LMR decision must be made. Since if there is no LMR, there is a clear imperative to supplement Castlefield with a Picc-Vic tunnel that sends 20 suburban trains an hour through the city centre. Otherwise, it then moves towards supplementing Metrolink, in which case a decision has to be made for if it should be a part of Metrolink, or a separate system, and if it should be North-South or East-West.

Where do these 20 suburban trains an hour go after Victoria? There isn't one axis that can justify spending billions on. Even a triangle underneath Victoria wouldn't justify 20tph. The only axis that could justify that frequency would be through Castlefield and only including the existing services, not in addition. The best mega project is doing a Thameslink on Castlefield corridor. The project that would have started the process didn't happen because 4 through platforms at Piccadilly and Oxford Road was terrible value vs extending existing services to 6-8 coaches. The Manchester coalition era plan for Castlefield could be revisited in late 2030s if demand continues to grow. Ardwick flyover, grade seperation at Ordsall Lane, fast alignments at Castlefield junction would provide further incremental benefits. The planned 3 platform rebuild of Oxford Road around 2029 is a budget option and wouldn't rule out rebuilding again with 4 through platforms in 2040s if it becomes necessary.

 

[NCT]

Under current GM spatial plans there is no case for an underground.

However, for GM to eliminate its productivity gap (relatively to where the city should be) it needs to have Munich level built densities and Munich level concentration of knowledge sector jobs in the centre, and that kind of economy needs to be supported by a Munich-quality public transport system.

GMCA needs to have a comprehensive densification strategy before it waves a begging bowl at the Treasury for an underground.

 

[BerkshireRails]

I can see Altrincham, East Disbury & Bury lines being linked together by a new tunnel, reconfiguring the Navigation Road section to proper double track and conversion to ETCS L2. Also, I can see something like a 25kV, 90metre, 75mph class 555 being ordered as the new Metro units for Metrolink Metro services.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Manchester (and Birmingham and Leeds) would all have metro systems elsewhere in Europe.

If they are to be built they will 100% need to be done extremely lean like the Victoria Line in London at best (but with lifts for disabled access)

Likely single station entrances make sense.

And yeah in Manchester that likely means bringing the tram in a tunnel/tunnels under the city centre. Perhaps/likely also a north south S Bahn tunnel.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Aug 2025 ==

Where do these 20 suburban trains an hour go after Victoria?

Some can terminate there if they is demand in the south?

 

[BerkshireRails]

Manchester (and Birmingham and Leeds) would all have metro systems elsewhere in Europe.

If they are to be built they will 100% need to be done extremely lean like the Victoria Line in London at best (but with lifts for disabled access)

Likely single station entrances make sense.

And yeah in Manchester that likely means bringing the tram in a tunnel/tunnels under the city centre. Perhaps/likely also a north south S Bahn tunnel.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Aug 2025 ==


Some can terminate there if they is demand in the south?

Don't fire Regulations require two entrances to underground stations.

An S-Bahn style system would work rather well for Manchester as you could divert some Heavy rail lines into it as well since they all share a common platform height and they could be signalled either with colour lights like Altrincham Branch or with ETCS.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Don't fire Regulations require two entrances to underground stations.

Maybe the fire regulations need to be changed. There are tonnes of London Underground stations with only one exit grandfathered in and it isn’t a major issue.

There hasn’t been a major fire for nearly 40 years now.

Ultimately you can escape down the tunnels to another neighbouring station.

 

[BerkshireRails]

Maybe the fire regulations need to be changed. There are tonnes of London Underground stations with only one exit grandfathered in and it isn’t a major issue.

There hasn’t been a major fire for nearly 40 years now.

Ultimately you can escape down the tunnels to another neighbouring station.

Grandfathered into stations when rebuilt have to be upgraded to modern standards. Having two entrances is an important bit of safety. Just because there hasn't been a major fire doesn't mean one won't happen, it is just testament to much we care about following rules. Also two entrances can be as simple as a main entrance and an emergency escape, like what the underground Merseyside stations have.

 

[MarkyT]

Grandfathered into stations when rebuilt have to be upgraded to modern standards. Having two entrances is an important bit of safety. Just because there hasn't been a major fire doesn't mean one won't happen, it is just testament to much we care about following rules. Also two entrances can be as simple as a main entrance and an emergency escape, like what the underground Merseyside stations have.

It's worth considering that two separate full passenger entrances, perhaps 300 to 400m apart at the surface can dramatically increase the walkable catchment area of a station. You can almost get the coverage of two stations for the price of one compared to old deep tube stations in London, sometimes at sub-400 m spacing in the central area. If you need to build shafts and stairs for an emergency access at one end anyway, the incremental costs are for the upgrade to a full public entrance. Where this technique is used on the EL for example, trains have wider stop spacing, so can achieve better average speed between them. I think this approach would be suitable for a Manchester heavy rail tunnel to limit the number of expensive new underground platforms required.

 

[BerkshireRails]

The Manchester Evening News has posted a bit more information on the planned tunnel. Manchester Evening News