Manchester City Center Rail Tunnel Ideas/Speculation

[Jozhua]

Hi all,

So recently TGFM published their transport plan for the short to long term going forward from 2019 recently and one of the long term suggestions was a tunnel to relieve congestion under the city center.

Currently Metrolink and the crowded Castlefield Corridor traverse Manchester's City Center, however, the Castlefield Corridor has serious capacity issues and the City Center Metrolink lines will be constrained somewhat by how many trams can be reasonably fit on the streets of Manchester.

The Picc Vic tunnel had some initial work begin but was then cancelled shortly after.

I'd like to get a conversation of thoughts/opinions/ideas going on the forum surrounding the 3 following areas:
-How high is the need and likelihood of a tunnel.
-Potential routes for the tunnel.
-What would run through it. E.g. Would it be its own dedicated metro system or would it connect to the existing Metrolink, acting as an express line through the city center?

Thanks for reading and I would really like to get your thoughts and ideas on what a Manchester City Center Rail Tunnel might look like!

 

[Jozhua]

To start the ball rolling, I'd probably not create one single tunnel, but rather two that intersect and allow for trains to go to multiple different destinations.

Initially create a tunnel linking Picadilly to Victoria and one from Deansgate that would allow for trains to travel to either Picadilly for Victoria station, via a central stop around Piccadilly Gardens/Market Street.

I would probably build the tunnel about a mile or so outside of the city center, perhaps into Salford on one side (even to mediacity?) and down through Ardwick to Oxford Road on the other, from Picadilly, as this area isn't really connected much by rail.

The system's rolling stock would be similar to HS2 in having captive and non captive vehicles Use heavy rail metro trains for the tunnel only services, but also run express Metrolink trains through the city center tunnel to help people get across the city faster!

The great thing is, Metrolink trams already use platform height doors, making them ideal for running alongside more traditional heavy rail trains.

 

[The Ham]

Hi all,

So recently TGFM published their transport plan for the short to long term going forward from 2019 recently and one of the long term suggestions was a tunnel to relieve congestion under the city center.

Currently Metrolink and the crowded Castlefield Corridor traverse Manchester's City Center, however, the Castlefield Corridor has serious capacity issues and the City Center Metrolink lines will be constrained somewhat by how many trams can be reasonably fit on the streets of Manchester.

The Picc Vic tunnel had some initial work begin but was then cancelled shortly after.

I'd like to get a conversation of thoughts/opinions/ideas going on the forum surrounding the 3 following areas:
-How high is the need and likelihood of a tunnel.
-Potential routes for the tunnel.
-What would run through it. E.g. Would it be its own dedicated metro system or would it connect to the existing Metrolink, acting as an express line through the city center?

Thanks for reading and I would really like to get your thoughts and ideas on what a Manchester City Center Rail Tunnel might look like!

Personally I don't know Manchester, however what others have said on here before about the limited number of East West rail services which can run through Piccadilly would appear to make having a regional metro service (think Crossrail 2 which serves places quite a way out from the main city whist allowing extra medium/long distance services into the existing city centre station) quite a sensible solution.

I would hope that it could also benefit the Metrolink trams by relieving capacity by making the journey times faster for heavy rail services for some journeys.

However what that looks like in practice, or even if it is as good an idea add it looks like to me I'll leave up to those with a better knowledge of the area.

 

[edwin_m]

A southwest to northeast Metrolink tunnel could connect the Altrincham and Bury lines, former railways where train length is only limited by street running in the city centre. These routes could then run much longer trains to relieve overcrowding, but still remain technically compatile so other Metrolink routes could use the same tracks. The southwestern portal could be near Cornbrook and the northeastern one would have to emerge from the hillside somewhere near the southern portal of Collyhurst tunnel or perhaps on the old loop line near Red Bank.

NPR, if it happens, provides another east-west route across Manchester by taking North Transpennine trains off the classic network, freeing some capacity for shorter-distance workings although some of these would have to replace local links that NPR wouldn't provide. The problem with a tunnel for heavy rail local services is that a portal to heavy rail standards takes up a lot of space and it would be difficult to locate one close enough to the centre to tap into more than one line on each side. Thus it would most likely have to be a complicated arrangement with multiple portals further out and underground junctions.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think there is a good case for something like the Den Haag Tramtunnel, which basically just took a single trunk tramline underground.

More info:
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haagse_tramtunnel

...sorry, in Dutch, but the pictures should give you an idea! In particular it is a good example of how to make a buried concrete carbuncle (see New St/Manc Vic) look *actually good*.

 

[Jozhua]

Looks like a light rail based Metro system would be the best option for building an underground tunnel in Manchester then, similar to Newcastle!

Perhaps a tram in a permanent 4 car configuration, perhaps in a similar style to the Newcastle Metro stock could work well to serve a tunnel and the previously heavy rail lines?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Looks like a light rail based Metro system would be the best option for building an underground tunnel in Manchester then, similar to Newcastle!

Perhaps a tram in a permanent 4 car configuration, perhaps in a similar style to the Newcastle Metro stock could work well to serve a tunnel and the previously heavy rail lines?

I think they would do well to switch to 4-car units generally, to be honest. They are quite short compared with trams in other cities anyway. Or maybe a Sheffield-like design with high density, mostly standing areas in the end coaches with two sets of doors, and a central section with no doors and a seating arrangement intended for longer trips.

 

[Jozhua]

I think they would do well to switch to 4-car units generally, to be honest. They are quite short compared with trams in other cities anyway. Or maybe a Sheffield-like design with high density, mostly standing areas in the end coaches with two sets of doors, and a central section with no doors and a seating arrangement intended for longer trips.

Would be quite a good thing! Sat on the Metro North towards NY at the moment (unrelated) and the idea of sitting on a metrolink seat for an extended period of time is giving me shivers! (More related)

The Metrolink system has got quite good in coverage over the last few years, however speed and comfort could do with some improvement. A Sheffield style system onboard would work quite well.

From what I've heard, as well as the ride quality being poor the M5000's are pigs to drive as well...

Perhaps a underground tunnel, connecting the Altrincham and Bury lines, with 4 car light rail vehicles perhaps with standing room and doors prioritised in the central cars and no doors, but increased seats in the front and rear?

 

[Bevan Price]

Any tunnel is going to be very expensive, and there could be long term problems keeping it waterproof.
The River Medlock passes beneath the railway just outside Manchester Piccadilly.
The Rochdale Canal (fed by other small rivers) is on the opposite side of Manchester Piccadilly.
The Rivers Irk & Irwell meet near Manchester Victoria, and partly pass beneath the station.
All those need to be avoided, so some fairly deep tunnels would be required, possibly involving some steep gradients - so probably more suitable for trams than for heavy rail

 

[billio]

I think there is a good case for something like the Den Haag Tramtunnel, which basically just took a single trunk tramline underground.

More info:
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haagse_tramtunnel

...sorry, in Dutch, but the pictures should give you an idea! In particular it is a good example of how to make a buried concrete carbuncle (see New St/Manc Vic) look *actually good*.

The Den Haag tunnel is almost a cut and cover scheme under a main city street along which the trams once ran. This line is also unusual in that passes through the middle of an office block when rising up to a high level above the platform level at Centraale station.

The HTM Network
The tunnel is on the Blue Line in the middle. Building underground in the centre of Den Haag has to deal with the water table being a matter of inches below street level. It is quite interesting watching how they do it.

 

[billio]

Would be quite a good thing! Sat on the Metro North towards NY at the moment (unrelated) and the idea of sitting on a metrolink seat for an extended period of time is giving me shivers! (More related)

The Metrolink system has got quite good in coverage over the last few years, however speed and comfort could do with some improvement. A Sheffield style system onboard would work quite well.

From what I've heard, as well as the ride quality being poor the M5000's are pigs to drive as well...

Perhaps a underground tunnel, connecting the Altrincham and Bury lines, with 4 car light rail vehicles perhaps with standing room and doors prioritised in the central cars and no doors, but increased seats in the front and rear?

I would thought that if you were going to have a tunnel from the Altrincham line to the Bury line it would be better for these services to revert to heavy rail.

 

[edwin_m]

I would thought that if you were going to have a tunnel from the Altrincham line to the Bury line it would be better for these services to revert to heavy rail.

There's no real reason to do that. Once the length restriction is removed (by not running on street) light rail can have just the same capacity as heavy rail. And if it became heavy rail then alternative routes would be needed between Trafford and Cornbrook for the Airport/Didsbury trams and to divert the Oldham/Rochdale route away from the Irk Valley viaduct.

 

[Jozhua]

Does anyone on this forum know what kind of cost a section of tunnel running say a couple of miles across the city center would come in at?

My guess would be around £1/2 to 1 billion, with a couple of stations and thrown into the mix and some steeper grades here and there.

Obviously, if there were enough funding for such a project, perhaps extensions would be prioritised rather than city center capacity increases.

However, as the system grows outwards and lines are given more frequent service, there is a limit to how many trams will be able to fit through the city streets and perhaps there will come a point when a 3rd city crossing is needed. I think having a system with the appearance of an underground metro could also be quite attractive, as above ground areas can become less congested and there is a certain cosmopolitan feel given to a city when it has one!

 

[edwin_m]

Does anyone on this forum know what kind of cost a section of tunnel running say a couple of miles across the city center would come in at?

My guess would be around £1/2 to 1 billion, with a couple of stations and thrown into the mix and some steeper grades here and there.

Obviously, if there were enough funding for such a project, perhaps extensions would be prioritised rather than city center capacity increases.

However, as the system grows outwards and lines are given more frequent service, there is a limit to how many trams will be able to fit through the city streets and perhaps there will come a point when a 3rd city crossing is needed. I think having a system with the appearance of an underground metro could also be quite attractive, as above ground areas can become less congested and there is a certain cosmopolitan feel given to a city when it has one!

I think the city centre is close to full capacity now, or will be when Trafford opens. There is probably a bit of scope to replace single vehicles by doubles (or by new vehicles about 60m long that would have more capacity than a double) and there are terminators at Piccadilly that could be replaced by tram-trains working onto the Marple or other lines in that direction.

 

[_toommm_]

Would be quite a good thing! Sat on the Metro North towards NY at the moment (unrelated) and the idea of sitting on a metrolink seat for an extended period of time is giving me shivers! (More related)

The Metrolink system has got quite good in coverage over the last few years, however speed and comfort could do with some improvement. A Sheffield style system onboard would work quite well.

From what I've heard, as well as the ride quality being poor the M5000's are pigs to drive as well...

Perhaps a underground tunnel, connecting the Altrincham and Bury lines, with 4 car light rail vehicles perhaps with standing room and doors prioritised in the central cars and no doors, but increased seats in the front and rear?

Having gone back to Sheffield and been on a Siemens-Duaweg for the first time in a year or so yesterday, the power they've got still amazes me compared to the M5000s.

The Metrolink is massive compared to the Supertram, but the rolling stock is vastly inferior in Manchester IMO. Longer stock is needed, with more comfortable seats and higher speeds.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Having gone back to Sheffield and been on a Siemens-Duaweg for the first time in a year or so yesterday, the power they've got still amazes me compared to the M5000s

Makes sense, as Sheffield is very hilly and Manchester (at least the parts where Metrolink runs) is as flat as a pancake.

The Metrolink is massive compared to the Supertram, but the rolling stock is vastly inferior in Manchester IMO. Longer stock is needed, with more comfortable seats and higher speeds.

I agree. The Sheffield layout, with low-floor sections at the ends with wide doors and wheelchair space but a central section with lots of seats for longer-distance travel, would be better for Manchester. You could either make the vehicles a bit longer or do a 4-car version.

What I really wouldn't want to see is Edinburgh-style "long snake" type trams. The short sections mean the layout isn't optimal for anything at all.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Easy one for me.

Tunnel just east of Eccles, station at Salford Crescent, station at Piccadilly, emerge at Ashburys.

Used for Intercity traffic (electric) on the Liverpool - Leeds TransPennine axis (so half-hourly), also for the Hadfield / Glossop services (joined up to Liverpool via Earlestown) and some additional electric services.

Free up capacity on the Castlefield corridor and allow all Liverpool trains to go to Piccadilly (and Salford Crescent for Deansgate / Victoria) for connections to Man Airport.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Free up capacity on the Castlefield corridor and allow all Liverpool trains to go to Piccadilly (and Salford Crescent for Deansgate / Victoria) for connections to Man Airport.

I see no reason to send all Liverpool trains to Picc. Some people do want to go to the north side of the city centre - probably a lot more than ever go to the airport by train despite it being rather of the tail wagging the dog like you get nowhere else. A split is sensible.

 

[Chester1]

I see no reason to send all Liverpool trains to Picc. Some people do want to go to the north side of the city centre - probably a lot more than ever go to the airport by train despite it being rather of the tail wagging the dog like you get nowhere else. A split is sensible.

Certainly any Liverpool-Leeds traffic needs to go via Victoria. Removing Liverpool-Scarbrough services from Piccadilly was long overdue. The area around Victoria is being developed very fast, and was already best station for the Arndale Centre.

I don't think Manchester needs a tunnel for local services, it just needs the Castlefield corridor to be primarily for local services. Few Metrolink services run as double sets on a normal day since the second city crossing opened. Purpose built 60m sets would more than double capacity on most routes. 10tph terminate at Piccadilly which is sufficient to extend for one tram train line. It would be possible to 4 track most of Piccadilly to Piccadilly Gardens, adding 2 platforms at both and an extra one at Victoria to allow another 10tph to run through the city centre. I find Metrolink more convienent that underground systems elsewhere because it means more stops to choose from and not needing to go up or down to platforms. Its also much faster than a traditional tram system. I support a tunnel for a Northern Powerhouse Rail line from HS2 at Piccadilly across the Pennines. The geology of the areas means it would have to be a deep tunnel.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

I see no reason to send all Liverpool trains to Picc. Some people do want to go to the north side of the city centre - probably a lot more than ever go to the airport by train despite it being rather of the tail wagging the dog like you get nowhere else. A split is sensible.

But if they all stopped at Salford Crescent for interchange onto trains to Victoria as well as having Metrolink connections...

 

[LOL The Irony]

Any tunnel should be heavy rail and follow the castlefield corridor with new underground stations at Piccadilly and Oxford Road, entering somewhere around Longsight and surfacing before Salford Cresent. Electric trains can use the tunnel and diesel/other fuel trains as well as services to Victoria and via the CLC to Liverpool can use the current viaduct. Onto Metrolink, Cornbrook to St Peters Square can be four tracked and all services that go to Victoria bar Altrincham - Bury can use the 2CC to ease congestion around Piccadilly Gardens. And if it isn't already in operation, moving block signaling can be installed. Rolling Stock can be another thread.

 

[fowler9]

Isn't the problem in Manchester all of the waterways running through it inhibiting a lot of tunnelling.