-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Manchester If Only
- Thread starter kleb15
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
DarloRich
Veteran Member
Main reason Manchester will struggle to become world class is because of its lack of underground train. If anyone from the City council figures a way of building one and is reading this, you can use my template if you like for a fee
did you not take your tablets today?
Last time i was in Manchester, which was July mind so it might have changed, Manchester HAD A CHUFFING TRAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(or am i missing some subtle North West humour here?)
BTW - You have forgotten to connect New Mills to the system (or again am i missing some subtle humour)
Ye the trams **** mate, all the new lines basically run along roads, which means they have hardly any speed, its also very unreliable, if you're on twitter and you follow men media there's at least 1 or 2 incidents a day of one of the lines failing, usually the Bury line. And also New Mills isn't connected yet as it may not be feasible and its also in Derbyshire, but at the same time it is a large commuter area
DarloRich
Veteran Member
so you are serious?
Well its never going to happen, but it needs an Underground train system, bearing in mind London also has a tram around Croydon and also has the LDR, as well as the London Underground, if Manchester wants to grow as a city it needs something more than the Met, which as i say is pretty poor
DarloRich
Veteran Member
Sorry but i think you are bordering on the insane. Why does it NEED an underground train system?
I can hardly read the names, but it looks to me like most all of the routes you propose are already served by existing heavy or light rail services (or planned extensions of Metrolink).Main reason Manchester will struggle to become world class is because of its lack of underground train. If anyone from the City council figures a way of building one and is reading this, you can use my template if you like for a fee
I can't see tunnels being built under Manchester. Not when you have Metrolink.
90019
Established Member
Why exactly does it need an underground railway?
What does it offer over the current system? What are the benfits and how do they outweigh the costs?
You can't just go 'London has one, so we should have one too!', because it doesn't work like that.
Until you can come up with a reasoned and viable argument for it, your idea is somewhat pointless.
Drsatan
Established Member
Nice idea mate but I doubt Manchester (or anywhere else in the UK) will receive a comprehensive underground network any time soon.
Funnily enough, there was a plan to build a tunnel between Piccadilly and Victoria which would give Manchester a suburban network similar to the RER in Paris, but was scrapped due to excessive costs. Wikipedia has a comprehensive article about it here
Funnily enough, there was a plan to build a tunnel between Piccadilly and Victoria which would give Manchester a suburban network similar to the RER in Paris, but was scrapped due to excessive costs. Wikipedia has a comprehensive article about it here
MidnightFlyer
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 16 May 2010
- Messages
- 12,856
Indeed, the Metrolink has as good as destroyed any case for a Picc-Vic tunnel.
Well for several reasons, 1st being as I said the metrolink is terrible, the buses not too bad, but during rush hour it can take around 1 hour just to go 4-5 miles to get into the City. Manchester also has the fastest growing population in the UK, and could do with a transport system to support that, also down to that Manchester is also developing a 'City' area just like London and will soon be beginning work on 4-5 new high rise buildings, thus drawing more people to work and live in the area. Manchester has also just started work on its new airport city which will be completed by about 2030, by that time Manchester would have overtaken Gatwick in passenger numbers. So all in all when you consider growing population, growing economy, no real decent mass transport system it doesn't seem like the worst idea. You ask me why Manchester needs an underground train system, well right now similar sized Cities around Europe do, such as Roma, do you question why Roma needs one? Say by 2030 if everything goes to plan Gtr.Manchester could have a population of around 3.5 million at least and you want those people to rely upon buses and a very unreliable tram system? The main reason Manchester needs it is to develop as a city, Madrid, Milan, Barcelona, Glasgow, London, Toronto all have metro/underground systems and trams too, I don't seem why that's such a crazy idea, but clearly to you all the Cities i've just mentioned must be crazy as they have trams and undergrounds
MidnightFlyer
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 16 May 2010
- Messages
- 12,856
I've seen Telford, Milton Keynes and Inverness all claim to be the fastest growing places in the UK (the Inverness one claimed Europe) - do you have a source for such a statement please? I find it very, very dubious.
90019
Established Member
Have you got any sources for all the various things you've posted*, or are they FACTS?
You might want to try breaking up your posts a little too. Just putting a huge wall of text like makes it quite difficult to read it all.
*Not Wikipedia - proper sources.
MidnightFlyer
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 16 May 2010
- Messages
- 12,856
That is false, Glasgow has only the Subway and national rail. A lot of the places you list gained their system in the 19th Century when such engineering projects were common, indeed Glasgow's is the third oldest in the world after London and Budapest. I can't really imagine in a time of such other sustainable transport methods that full underground systems will ever be rife as they were in the late 19th Century again. Also, I believe Leeds, Edinburgh, Liverpool and Birmingham to name but four are all larger than Manchester as a city, where are their proposals?
Yes, several if you need them
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18853714
http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereve...hits-a-high-as-thousands-flock-to-manchester#
http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereve...-more-super-rich-than-anywhere-outside-london
The one below helps back up my argument
http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereve...per-year-made-in-manchester-than-a-decade-ago
http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereve...f-new-homes-to-be-built-in-greater-manchester
Well, that is an incredibly long sentence, however it doesn't actually contain any compelling reasons.
Admittedly the Metrolink isn't as good as an underground railway, but the cost of underground railways is extremely high.
The Northern Hub improvements will increase the number of through services, and electrification will decrease journey times and increase capacity for additional services, all that is taking place in addition to Metrolink extensions, so it's not as if Manchester is losing out.
Also in response to that they may have larger populations within their City council areas, but the CITY of Manchester has about 500'000 people there, it's a tiny area though, like the CITY of London actually has a population of about 7'000 only but London takes in all the other areas around it which forms Greater London, which has a population of about 8 million, it's the same for Manchester, it takes in Stockport, Tameside etc. So has a population of around 2.4 million.
Thats larger than all the other cities mentioned apart from maybe Birmingham, but Manchester has far more going for it than Birmingham, 2nd most visited place by tourists in England after London, busiest airport outside of London, has the largest indoor arena in europe. I could go on.
And you say Underground train networks won't be as rife as they were in the 19th century? What about every City in Canada then, they all have them and most of those cities are no older than 200 years. I also know Malaga are planning on building one linking the City to Marbella centre, so they do still get constructed
Last edited:
DarloRich
Veteran Member
Please do.
This has to be a wind up. Can you provide any ACTUAL evidence, rather than opinion, to explain why Manchester requires an underground system.
Having lots of people isn't actual evidence.
This has to be a wind up. Can you provide any ACTUAL evidence, rather than opinion, to explain why Manchester requires an underground system.
Having lots of people isn't actual evidence.
Not particularly, it more supports my counter-argument that the Northern Hub will help things. There should be longer coaches, and electrification should provide that, with 4-car EMUs replacing 2-coach DMUs I'd hope. So a lot of the problems can be dealt with by existing schemes that are being carried out, without a need for any tunnels to be constructed.
Drsatan
Established Member
The point you're trying to put across is that any city big enough NEEDS an underground system similar to LUL or the Paris Metro. However, each city needs to be judged on its own merits i.e. where the central business district is, existing railway lines, and bodies of water which must be bridged/tunneled under.
In the case of Bristol, I doubt very much that Bristol needs an underground. What Bristol does need though is a tram network, reopening of the Portishead branch, a much more frequent service along the Severn Beach line, reopening of the Henbury Loop and reopening of the intermediate stations between Bristol Temple Meads and Filton Abbey Wood.
Similarly, building an underground network in Pompey would be a non-starter since any tunnel under Portsmouth Harbour would have to be very deep to allow Queen Elizabeth II class aircraft carriers access.
Interestingly enough, Lausanne has its own metro, and is the smallest city in the world to have its own metro. But then in Switzerland, it's been accepted that spending large sums of money on capital projects is a good thing rather than something to be avoided at all costs.
There are plenty of videos of the Lausanne metro which is pretty impressive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBYToUkLr6s&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b_VQ47WA0U&feature=relmfu
In the case of Bristol, I doubt very much that Bristol needs an underground. What Bristol does need though is a tram network, reopening of the Portishead branch, a much more frequent service along the Severn Beach line, reopening of the Henbury Loop and reopening of the intermediate stations between Bristol Temple Meads and Filton Abbey Wood.
Similarly, building an underground network in Pompey would be a non-starter since any tunnel under Portsmouth Harbour would have to be very deep to allow Queen Elizabeth II class aircraft carriers access.
Interestingly enough, Lausanne has its own metro, and is the smallest city in the world to have its own metro. But then in Switzerland, it's been accepted that spending large sums of money on capital projects is a good thing rather than something to be avoided at all costs.
There are plenty of videos of the Lausanne metro which is pretty impressive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBYToUkLr6s&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b_VQ47WA0U&feature=relmfu
Having lots of people isn't a reason for Mass transport like an Underground system? What is then?
telstarbox
Established Member
Metrolink reliability is a problem, but mostly caused by the older T68 (grey) trams which are being withdrawn soon.
You already have mass transport systems which are being extended and upgraded.
Again though have you ever used the Met, to me when its quicker to walk its kind of pointless, it's quicker to walk from Piccadilly station to Market street than get the tram. And like i say the fact it has to go through the centre at about 5mph isn't efficient when you have the London Underground going to stations that are only a short distance away at 40mph
DarloRich
Veteran Member
Well it is quicker to walk from Covent Garden to Charring Cross than get the underground. God my head hurts!
I tihnk, as DrSatan has suggested, each city should be judged on its merits. Manchester has a decent tram network ( that i have never really had any trouble with) good rail systems and decent bus links
I tihnk, as DrSatan has suggested, each city should be judged on its merits. Manchester has a decent tram network ( that i have never really had any trouble with) good rail systems and decent bus links
Yes, I have, and you are exaggerating a bit. It is true the central section is quite slow, it's certainly slower than LU. But then central Manchester is tiny compared to central London, and on a journey across the City you aren't in the slow central bit for that long. For people making a very short journey in London you would walk anyway so short journey comparisons such as Piccadilly to Market Street are dubious. If you had to go up & down escalators to do that journey by rail, you really wouldn't do that!
Are Covent Garden and Charring Cross on the same line though? No. Are Market St and Piccadilly? Yes. That was my point.
And alright let every city be judged on its merits, but that's why we'll just get left behind as a nation. We can't continuously rely upon London to be this major centre when there's other parts that can be developed, i mean within 100 miles you have Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds, 3 important cities which to be honest should be connected with a high speed link takes around 2 hours to get from Leeds to Liverpool, it's embarrassing. Going on about that high speed link from London to Birmingham, at the current rate of growth by the time that would be finished Birmingham would be the 3rd city for population, which to be honest is the only thing it has over Manchester anyway. More people. So why not spend that funding a high speed link connecting Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds?
telstarbox
Established Member
Because the three cities are too close together.
Not really, 100 miles inbetween Brum and London and like i say similarish distance between Liverpool and Leeds, and I reckon Manchester, Liverpool and Leeds combined potentially offer more to the nation than Birmingham will. I mean London will always be the biggest city so i don't see the massive benefit to have Birmingham connected to it, especially as the cost only reduces the travel time by about 25 minutes
John55
Member
Main reason Manchester will struggle to become world class is because of its lack of underground train. If anyone from the City council figures a way of building one and is reading this, you can use my template if you like for a fee
Have you considered the cost of construction of an underground railway? The Jubilee Line Extension cost £350 million per mile and Crossrail is looking at something closer to £1 bn per mile.
How do you expect to find the money for such an enterprise? TfGM (not MCC) struggled to raise the money for the current extensions of Metrolink so the kind of money you are talking about would appear to be way out of reach.
At the other end of the issue how many commuters into central Manchester do you think there are to provide a base load for such a system?
- Status