Hypotheticals - if tunnelling was “cheap”

[Meerkat]

As I was bored I was pondering what could be built if tunnelling somehow became much cheaper.
But however “cheap” basic tunnelling became I can’t see how underground stations will stop being frighteningly expensive so that leaves short cuts and fast lines.
The obvious ones are Pennine base tunnels ie NPR.
After that I was thinking it would be unravelling long distance trains from metro systems in the cities, but are there really any such possibilities that have feasible portal sites and available terminal capacity for an increase in services?
I like the look of the Battersea to Dulwich concept as that takes Southeastern outers away from Brixton and Herne Hill.
Could also do with Lewisham to Dartford, but don’t know where you put the inner portal or whether there is terminal capacity.
If Crossrail 2 frees up Waterloo capacity then Clapham Junction to Staines and Clapham Junction to Surbiton (Berrylands for portal)? If those lines were in place could the stabling at the Junction be further out to allow for portals?
Can’t see any point on GW as you would need to go beyond Maidenhead to add anything?
Chiltern has no terminal capacity, Euston has HS2, St Pancras needs fast to/from slow flyovers rather than tunnelling? Unless you Tunnel under Welwyn viaduct nothing that way, and Liverpool St will have Crossrail 2 and fill up again immediately?
Anything outside London that doesn’t need stations?

 

[Dr Hoo]

A dead straight base tunnel under Dartmoor between Exeter and Plymouth would be handy.

A direct run from Edinburgh under the Firth of Forth and then to Perth would be another candidate.

 

[class26]

Tain to Dornoch

 

[SouthCentral10]

Esher to Clapham Junction. Could handle all the South Western Fasts, freeing up capacity for more Inner and Outer Suburbans?

 

[randyrippley]

Southport-Lytham-Blackpool-Fleetwood-Heysham/Morecambe-Barrow

linking the Lancashire coastal towns and giving a commute into Liverpool

 

[gazthomas]

Holyhead to Dublin, road and rail

 

[swt_passenger]

Esher to Clapham Junction. Could handle all the South Western Fasts, freeing up capacity for more Inner and Outer Suburbans?

Crossrail 2 basically does that by a mixture of 6 tracking New Malden to Wimbledon, and a tunnel from Wimbledon to Clapham Jn and then onwards.

But the overall aim of Crossrail 2 is to provide more long distance fast line paths by transferring some existing trains onto the slow lines (those that shouldn’t really be on the fasts). Just providing fast line tunnels doesn’t add terminal capacity at Waterloo, so wouldn’t be done independently.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Proper U-Bahnen in all small and medium-sized British towns/cities and a Den Haag-like Tramtunnel in the smaller ones.

 

[Meerkat]

Proper U-Bahnen in all small and medium-sized British towns/cities and a Den Haag-like Tramtunnel in the smaller ones.

I did say stations would still be too expensive....
How many cities have the passenger numbers and density to support a U Bahn?
Crossrail Type efforts maybe....but then still only a few of the biggest.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I did say stations would still be too expensive....
How many cities have the passenger numbers and density to support a U Bahn?
Crossrail Type efforts maybe....but then still only a few of the biggest.

The larger ones certainly do. Liverpool sort of had one - the Overhead (it was as much of an U-Bahn as the Hamburg U3 ). Manchester would support one, Birmingham too. There are vast swathes of all three cities that sit between gaps in the "S-Bahnen" they already have.

 

[Meerkat]

The larger ones certainly do. Liverpool sort of had one - the Overhead (it was as much of an U-Bahn as the Hamburg U3 ). Manchester would support one, Birmingham too. There are vast swathes of all three cities that sit between gaps in the "S-Bahnen" they already have.

I just can’t envisage where they would go. Are you talking loop types or spokes?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I just can’t envisage where they would go. Are you talking loop types or spokes?

U-Bahnen tend in Germany just to be random straight lines or circle lines. If you look at Liverpool, you can see where the gaps are (think where Merseytram was going to go). For Manchester, similarly - you could run one down the Oxford/Wilmslow Road, for one! Birmingham I know less well but there are certainly gaps in the local rail network.

 

[HSTEd]

If tunnel bores are cheap (and I would argue they are fairly cheap now) but underground stations are expensive, then you can build railways where the stations are the only infrastructure above ground.
So you end up with stations that look like Stratford International, or the new St Anton Am Arlberg station in Austria.

Train leaves tunnel directly into the station, then leaves the station directly into a tunnel again.
The lines can proceed in near straight lines between stations.

Such lines have far fewer problems with local complainants, because anyone close to a station and being affected by construction gets a station out of it.

 

[LOL The Irony]

The Manchester S-Bahn everyone goes on about in regards with the Castlefield Corridor. I'll not only be useful, but mean we won't have to hear the words "Manchester S-Bahn" again.

 

[Meerkat]

U-Bahnen tend in Germany just to be random straight lines or circle lines. If you look at Liverpool, you can see where the gaps are (think where Merseytram was going to go). For Manchester, similarly - you could run one down the Oxford/Wilmslow Road, for one! Birmingham I know less well but there are certainly gaps in the local rail network.

The impression I have (from limited visits) is that few UK cities have enough density, in enough area, to justify an underground. They quickly get suburban, the busy suburbs have already got trains/trams, and there isn’t the density of employment in the centre - too many people are driving from suburb to industrial/business park on the fringes. What is the smallest an underground can be and still be viable - one short line must surely load massive start up and fixed costs onto not much revenue??

 

[Bletchleyite]

The impression I have (from limited visits) is that few UK cities have enough density, in enough area, to justify an underground. They quickly get suburban, the busy suburbs have already got trains/trams, and there isn’t the density of employment in the centre - too many people are driving from suburb to industrial/business park on the fringes. What is the smallest an underground can be and still be viable - one short line must surely load massive start up and fixed costs onto not much revenue??

If you look at the maps of British cities, there are some large gaps, partly caused by Beeching closures. Those are generally served by bus, but the bus is not necessarily the best way of moving lots of people. The Oxford/Wilmslow Road corridor in Manchester, generally seen as the busiest multiple-route[1] bus corridor in the UK, is a great example.

[1] The busiest single-route corridor is, or was, the very similar (suburb-student accommodation-uni-city) Metrobus 5 (formerly 102) in Hamburg, which is a former tram route that could do with being reinstated as one! It's operated as if it was a tram, with the old tram infrastructure such as traffic lights and platforms still in place.

 

[HSTEd]

The impression I have (from limited visits) is that few UK cities have enough density, in enough area, to justify an underground. They quickly get suburban, the busy suburbs have already got trains/trams, and there isn’t the density of employment in the centre - too many people are driving from suburb to industrial/business park on the fringes. What is the smallest an underground can be and still be viable - one short line must surely load massive start up and fixed costs onto not much revenue??

Well Rennes has a VAL type mini metro, albeit rubber tyred.
But line A is 9.4km long, with the new Line B will be 12.4km long, with the second line being at a cost of ~€1.2bn (in 2010).

Lausanne has a metro line built on Paris Metro rubber tyre technology, but that was rebuilt out of random alignments for the most part.

But metros are built in quite small cities in Europe.

Rennes is about the same size as Nottingham in "Built Up Area" terms, and the city itself is the size of Milton Keynes.
And Lausanne is about the size of Grimsby.

The cost of these schemes really depends on the cost of your capital investment.
And our capital investment costs are really really low.

EDIT:

Lausanne is apparently beginning the process to build a newbuild metro line.
So I think its legitimate to say they have a proper metro.

 

[Meerkat]

Well Rennes has a VAL type mini metro, albeit rubber tyred.
But line A is 9.4km long, with the new Line B will be 12.4km long, with the second line being at a cost of ~€1.2bn (in 2010).

Lausanne has a metro line built on Paris Metro rubber tyre technology, but that was rebuilt out of random alignments for the most part.

But metros are built in quite small cities in Europe.

Rennes is about the same size as Nottingham in "Built Up Area" terms, and the city itself is the size of Milton Keynes.
And Lausanne is about the size of Grimsby.

The cost of these schemes really depends on the cost of your capital investment.
And our capital investment costs are really really low.

Are they really undergrounds though?
I generally discount Switzerland as a comparator as they seem to operate in a parallel universe for transport infrastructure that I just don’t understand financially. Their brilliantly over engineered mountain roads are mind bending, it’s almost like they are looking for excuses to build bridges and tunnels!

 

[HSTEd]

Are they really undergrounds though?
I generally discount Switzerland as a comparator as they seem to operate in a parallel universe for transport infrastructure that I just don’t understand financially. Their brilliantly over engineered mountain roads are mind bending, it’s almost like they are looking for excuses to build bridges and tunnels!

Of the 9.4km of Rennes Line A, about ~6.9km is underground.
So its not too bad.

 

[PartyOperator]

The impression I have (from limited visits) is that few UK cities have enough density, in enough area, to justify an underground. They quickly get suburban, the busy suburbs have already got trains/trams, and there isn’t the density of employment in the centre - too many people are driving from suburb to industrial/business park on the fringes. What is the smallest an underground can be and still be viable - one short line must surely load massive start up and fixed costs onto not much revenue??

There’s an element of chicken and egg here in that it may not be possible to build city centre offices etc. until you can get the people in. In any case, we could waste a lot of time arguing about whether mid-sized cities like Bristol and Sheffield need undergrounds when it’s clear that Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds do need greatly improved public transport. We’re not yet anywhere near the point of having to worry about the marginal cases when we have urban areas of 2 million people with huge gaps in rapid transit provision.

Glasgow has a single-line (well, circle) underground of only 10km and it’s pretty popular and useful and works well alongside the extensive suburban rail network and buses. If affordable, I’m sure the city would benefit from a greatly expanded subway system.

 

[SE%Traveller]

As I was bored I was pondering what could be built if tunnelling somehow became much cheaper.
But however “cheap” basic tunnelling became I can’t see how underground stations will stop being frighteningly expensive so that leaves short cuts and fast lines.
The obvious ones are Pennine base tunnels ie NPR.
After that I was thinking it would be unravelling long distance trains from metro systems in the cities, but are there really any such possibilities that have feasible portal sites and available terminal capacity for an increase in services?
I like the look of the Battersea to Dulwich concept as that takes Southeastern outers away from Brixton and Herne Hill.
Could also do with Lewisham to Dartford, but don’t know where you put the inner portal or whether there is terminal capacity.
If Crossrail 2 frees up Waterloo capacity then Clapham Junction to Staines and Clapham Junction to Surbiton (Berrylands for portal)? If those lines were in place could the stabling at the Junction be further out to allow for portals?
Can’t see any point on GW as you would need to go beyond Maidenhead to add anything?
Chiltern has no terminal capacity, Euston has HS2, St Pancras needs fast to/from slow flyovers rather than tunnelling? Unless you Tunnel under Welwyn viaduct nothing that way, and Liverpool St will have Crossrail 2 and fill up again immediately?
Anything outside London that doesn’t need stations?

Running the Chatham mainline 'Fasts' underground from Shortlands to Stewarts Lane would avoid the mix of Fast and Slow Trains on that stretch and also on the Catford Loop particularly if freight could use it too.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If tunnelling was that cheap, you could stop the whiners by putting the entirety of HS2 in tunnel. Though a ride would be rather boring!

 

[Meerkat]

Running the Chatham mainline 'Fasts' underground from Shortlands to Stewarts Lane would avoid the mix of Fast and Slow Trains on that stretch and also on the Catford Loop particularly if freight could use it too.

i did. think that but it looked like creating room for portals would involve demolishing a lot of expensive housing (which tends to mean effective protest campaigning)

If tunnelling was that cheap, you could stop the whiners by putting the entirety of HS2 in tunnel. Though a ride would be rather boring!

it’s going to be anyway isn’t it - most of it in tunnel or between sound bunds??

 

[Bevan Price]

The larger ones certainly do. Liverpool sort of had one - the Overhead (it was as much of an U-Bahn as the Hamburg U3 ). Manchester would support one, Birmingham too. There are vast swathes of all three cities that sit between gaps in the "S-Bahnen" they already have.

In Liverpool, there are gaps between the "main line" railway alignments that could probably support a "light Metro", but some underground stations would be desirable. My thoughts would be:
City Centre - Tuebrook - West Derby - Page Moss - Stockbridge Village, with a branch :
Tuebrook - Norris Green - Croxteth.

and City Centre - Penny Lane - Woolton - Belle Vale - Netherley.
Maybe with a branch from Penny Lane to Garston, Speke and the Airport.

 

[Bald Rick]

If tunnelling was that cheap, you could stop the whiners by putting the entirety of HS2 in tunnel. Though a ride would be rather boring!

It’s goign to be pretty boring anyway. Something like 80% of the journey time LONDON to Birmingham / Crewe is going to be in Tunnel or cutting

 

[Clansman]

A dead straight base tunnel under Dartmoor between Exeter and Plymouth would be handy.

A direct run from Edinburgh under the Firth of Forth and then to Perth would be another candidate.

Imagine the journey time savings by building a 10 mile long tunnel from Edinburgh to Kirkcaldy and upgrading the line through Perth!

 

[Nottingham59]

Littleborough to Huddersfield. I understand there is still space to quadruple the track from Manchester Victoria to Littleborough, and with the four-tracking already planned to Huddersfield, this gives you a four-track railway almost all the way from Manchester to Leeds

 

[adamedwards]

Salford Crescent/Ordsall Lane to Manchester Piccadilly direct with a new underground station in the basement of the HS2 station. Use it to take pressure of the Castlefield Corridor.
Local to me, a bridge and tunnel to remove the Digswell 2 track section of the ECML. Needed irrespective of HS2 to expand local services.

 

[ComUtoR]

Could also do with Lewisham to Dartford, but don’t know where you put the inner portal or whether there is terminal capacity.

Come out of Lewisham and drop into Black'eaf tunnel. Keep going downwards and pop out at the O2. then loop back round to Dartford and swing up to Bluewater and Ebbsfleet.

 

[Bald Rick]

Local to me, a bridge and tunnel to remove the Digswell 2 track section of the ECML. Needed irrespective of HS2 to expand local services.

How would that expand local services?