Why did Manchester Never Get an Underground?

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 3 лют 2025

КОМЕНТАРІ • 184

  • @BeeHereNowuk
    @BeeHereNowuk  2 дні тому +22

    There's more to the Picc-Vic line failure that didn't make it into the video. Thanks for watching, please like and comment below with your thoughts. :)

  • @kevinoconnor2754
    @kevinoconnor2754 15 годин тому +49

    Selling the tunnel on the idea of speed falls down the same trap as those who think HS2 is just about speed, neither are. Historically, this may have been the selling point, but any modern-day proposals like those in the TFGM 2040 vision are about capacity.
    Look across the Greater Manchester rail network, and you will see key junctions that are full to their current capacity. This includes Stockport, Slade Lane junction, and the Castlefield corridor.
    The problem is a lack of throughput. The Ordsall Chord was intended to allow more trains to pass through but not terminate at Piccadilly or Victoria; however, it only moves the problem because the junctions at either end of the chord are on the flat, so trains have to pass over other lines, thus restricting capacity on those lines.
    The capacity problem isn’t going away, and while some short-term solutions, like the third platform at Rochdale and the Collyhurst turnback, are being completed, they won’t provide solutions for longer-term growth. This only gets worse when you consider HS2’s cancellation.

    • @Alan_GA
      @Alan_GA 2 години тому +1

      You come across as quite informed in this matter.
      If I may, briefly what would you propose as a longer term solution in tandem with increased capacity?

  • @import_xlsxwriter
    @import_xlsxwriter 16 годин тому +43

    As a transport planner, the failure of Picc-Vic to be built in the 70s is gutting, as if it had gone ahead I have no doubt it would've got the ball rolling and we'd have a half-decent underground network in Manchester by now. It's impressive how much they've managed to build Metrolink out on a fairly low budget in the last 30 years, but sadly the UK government hasn't taken rail infrastructure investment seriously for the last 100 years now and is all too keen to put long-term projects on the chopping block to save a few £s. Hope to see at least one tunnel across the city in my lifetime, think it'll be necessary at some point.

    • @ethyhayes
      @ethyhayes 15 годин тому +4

      Absolutely zero chance GM could have, or indeed could today, delivery an underground network on par with metrolink.
      As a transport planner myself - while TfGMs delivery of metrolink has certainly been above and beyond - you vastly overestimate the efficiencies found with metrolink and the low budgets;
      1) the current network was, for most part, delivered on preexisting land which had already served rail use. Indeed the Bury line was a heavy rail network quite literally until metrolink took it over. Much is said about metrolinks ability to deliver projects at good value - reality is rarely do these projects reflect build costs of an entirely new rail corridor; especially not where land purchase becomes necessary.
      It is fanciful that GM would have been in a position to operate a wide underground network at any point since the picc-vic tunnel was dreamt up.
      2) the metrolink system, and TfGM in general, has been hemorrhaging money at an alarming rate. The metrolink network remains far from commercially viable, even with significant public funding input.
      I'm not slating what has been achieved; but I am fed up of the constant smoke and mirrors crap said about metrolink in the transport planning profession 😂

    • @TrainPlaneFan123
      @TrainPlaneFan123 5 годин тому

      always the uk being idiots.

    • @thomasohare8552
      @thomasohare8552 2 години тому

      I don't enjoy focusing on commercial viability, and that's because the roads don't make a profit. As soon as the roads become profitable, then the rail industry can be expected to do the same. From this perspective, the purpose of the tram is to provide accessibility across the city for those who can't drive, to shift as many cars off the road as possible, and to move people between commercial centres to relieve congestion.
      If it does these in any capacity, then the success criteria is: does it cost more to run than total driving/taxiing/walking hours it saves + the hours less mobile people would sit at home. (You charge each hour of time at minimum wage for example).
      I explained this poorly, but commercial viability is only a factor when nobody uses it. The roads haemorrhage money, while still covered in potholes and generating minimal kickback besides a greater logistical nightmare, they are commercially unviable but perceived as vital to the city movement (they are, as is quality transport to get as few people on the roads as possible).

    • @harounk8849
      @harounk8849 Годину тому

      One day it will come to you guys for sure. Manchester is growing. It’s a city of opportunity and it cannot be ignored for just how much potential there is. As a Londoner I’m rooting for you and the rest of the north !!

  • @mattevans4377
    @mattevans4377 15 годин тому +43

    Another type of Underground I think could work, would be an Elizabeth line type system. If you actually look at how long the Elizabeth line is, putting it up North would mean reaching places like Liverpool, Leeds and Sheffield, as well as all the places in-between.
    It would then create a true Northern powerhouse, to rival London

    • @A380Concord
      @A380Concord 13 годин тому +3

      The new part of the Elizabeth line is only about 10 miles long, it connected two existing lines that were built in the Victorian era. Not that Manchester shouldn't get a good underground metro or network rail mainline underground through system like the Elizabeth line, but Liverpool, Leeds and Sheffield are all 30+ miles away, so this is just hyperbole.

    • @mattevans4377
      @mattevans4377 13 годин тому +2

      @A380Concord Reading and Shenfield are roughly that far from central London, and those 4 cities combined, and the surrounding areas, would be about the same population as London. You could even throw in Preston if you wanted even more people

    • @LolBot720
      @LolBot720 12 годин тому +5

      the Elizabeth line didn't actually create that length, it only really connected Paddington and Liverpool Street. it's not another type of Underground at all, it's exactly the same type of scheme as the Picc-Vic tunnel

    • @lazrseagull54
      @lazrseagull54 12 годин тому +2

      The Picc-Vic tunnel would have been an Elizabeth line style system as is Merseyrail. These are local/suburban rail systems with numerous subway stations under the city centre, stopping once or more in each part of town, while northern powerhouse would be intercity high speed rail, stopping once in each city and at airports.

    • @Croz89
      @Croz89 11 годин тому

      That would be more like a high speed express commuter line, which is what NPR is supposed to be.

  • @saramoor3133
    @saramoor3133 18 годин тому +7

    Thankyou for making this. So interesting

  • @leopold7562
    @leopold7562 2 години тому +1

    Now we have the trams, an underground isn't really something we need any more. The issue isn't that there's too many passengers, it's that there's too many who don't need to be there. This is the key issue with a star layout like we have - everybody going from one suburb to another HAS to go through the centre, which means there's more people than necessary using them in the centre. So instead of making ever more elaborate plans to move people across the city, how about building a circular route instead? It would remove these additional passengers, would be cheaper and less disruptive to the city itself and would potentially improve travel times for everybody. Imagine that - going from Oldham to Bury (almost) directly instead of having to pick your way through town...

  • @watcherzero5256
    @watcherzero5256 14 годин тому +12

    Metrolinks surface crossing of the city centre is reaching its capacity limit. We already have double trams but to meet demand on the lines going forward we need quadruple trams which is impractical for street stops. So planning is going in to burying some of the tram city crossings, notably the Bury-Altrincham and Bury-East Didsbury service, so that the lines have enough capacity to meet future demand which would also free up the streetscape for more services on the other lines (its also being considered whether additional Warrington services could piggyback on this allowing more commuter services on the CLC line and more stations for example at Old Trafford). At the same time we have the capacity crunch of the Castlefield corridor and in a back to Picc-Vic style arrangement there is consideration being given to a tunnel to allow Wigan/Bolton to Stockport/Airport services to pass under the city leaving room on the existing viaduct lines for the intercity services.
    You can read about it in the Draft Rapid Transit Strategy.

    • @bh_92-k4t
      @bh_92-k4t 12 годин тому

      I was wondering whether some of those tram lines could be converted to underground lines in the future, given most of them like the ones you mentioned used to be national rail lines (like a lot of the London Underground). The Bury - Altrincham and Rochdale via Oldham lines would be obvious candidates
      Shouldn’t there also be some new lines not served by any rail transport to speed up bus journeys, such as the Wilmslow and Stockport roads? Also towards Bolton and Wigan (not sure which alignments though). Maybe you could get rid of the tram to Ashton, and have a tube line follow its route to Stalybridge?

    • @Tonydjjokerit
      @Tonydjjokerit 2 години тому

      @@bh_92-k4t Far too expensive!

    • @davidemmott6225
      @davidemmott6225 43 хвилини тому

      The idea of Metrolink was to link up suburban lines and enable them to cross the city centre.Unfortunately street running, and the limited size of the trams, restricts capacity and adds to delay. Replacing the city centre tramways with an underground section makes a lot of sense. We've done it in Liverpool (well, built the underground section - trams went a long time ago).

  • @1258-Eckhart
    @1258-Eckhart 15 годин тому +14

    The Ordsall Chord bridge is a white elephant, because it can only work properly after you have quadrupled the lines through the Castlefield corridor and provided two extra platforms at Piccadilly. Those lines are curently working at full capacity so there are no available slots to feed trans-city services in via the Ordsall Chord. The trams are an excellent improvement 👍👍👍 but what is missing is a through mainline corridor from Crewe, serving the airport, Piccadilly, Victoria then on to Bolton and the WCML via Chorley. This would enable through London - Glasgow trains to stop in Manchester rather than as now Warrington. So I'm still in favour of a Picc-Vic tunnel.

    • @davidowen2396
      @davidowen2396 7 годин тому

      London-Glasgow trains stopping at Warrington is great. It makes for easy connections to Liverpool and Manchester and is a real leveller for the North West.

    • @Cowman9791
      @Cowman9791 4 години тому

      Something like that would not work at all for intercity trains, because in part you would get longer journey times, but a cross-city route is more often than not better suited for regional and/or commuter trains, not intercity trains, given that would maximise the number of trains running through the tunnel, provided they are not vastly different types of trains because that is what causes the absolute bottleneck situation on the Castlefield corridor where there is a mix of commuter (Manchester to Liverpool stoppers), Regional (Norwich to Liverpool) and intercity trains all sharing the same section, creating a very uneven balance. You would also lose benefits, because more likely than not, they would need to subject Manchester Piccadilly or Manchester Victoria to pick up/drop off only rules to avoid cross city commuters from filling up intercity services bound to Scotland.

    • @ADAMEDWARDS17
      @ADAMEDWARDS17 3 години тому

      Famously Chris Grayling was the Tory transport secretary who cancelled platforms 15 and 16 at Piccadilly, the 4 tracks west to almost Oxford Road and the rebuilind of Oxford Road to save money. That's why the Ordsall Chord doesn't work.

    • @1258-Eckhart
      @1258-Eckhart 3 години тому +1

      @@ADAMEDWARDS17 That guy has displaced Beeching in the damage he did to the UK's rail industry. With Beeching, it was at least country lines which were taking one little old lady to work and back each day, with Grayling it was the transpennine upgrade, the electrification of EastWest Rail and the scrapping of the urgent capacity upgrade in Manchester - all critical projects which will all have to be realised anyway, and now at four times the cost which Grayling saved.

    • @ADAMEDWARDS17
      @ADAMEDWARDS17 Годину тому +1

      @@1258-Eckhart Totally agree. And then compounded by the utterly stupid decision to cancel most of HS2, with the result that when Phase 1 reaches Lichfield the extra trains will reduce capacity on the WCML north to Crewe, not increase it. There's also the hypocrasy that when road schemes go massively overbudget and are late, no one seems to care.

  • @AtoZbyLocalBus
    @AtoZbyLocalBus 17 годин тому +10

    Manchester next Underground project, is the tram and train Undergroud 2035 project. This will put the 3 tram lines underground, and it will also built an underground tunnel for mainline trains, double the number of tracks along the Manchester Piccadiley, Oxford Road and Deansgate route, by building 2 underground train lines.

    • @Millennial_Manc
      @Millennial_Manc 16 годин тому +4

      They explored that as an alternative to the Ordsall Chord but the Chord was chosen as the preferred option because of the long gradual incline needed into Piccadilly Station and where that slope would have to begin for trains to be able to climb up it.
      That cost / benefit analysis claimed that the Chord would relive a significant amount of congestion at Piccadilly which we all know it hasn’t. Barely anything goes over it. Plus there was already a Piccadilly to Victoria direct line going the other way towards Ardwick, but it’s only used to move rolling stock as it needs some upgrades to make it suitable for passengers. Outrageous waste of public money on that Chord that should have prompted an inquiry.
      The original problem at Piccadilly remains. I think the issues of the incline can be overcome. This is the city that made water run uphill with the invention of canal locks so I’m sure we can figure out how to get a train under Piccadilly.
      Failing that, they ought to build two new lines directly above 13/14. This has been dismissed as very disruptive to those two lines during construction but i don’t think anyone’s considered clearing some land around Piccadilly / Mayfield, creating a construction site, and building the new infrastructure at ground level in a modular format that would be picked up and lowered into position, instead of constructed up in the air.
      Manchester will never make it as a major city because you can’t get to it. The war on motorists now takes the form of perpetual roadworks and road closures with absolutely no work being carried out most days.
      You can’t even get a train or tram from the airport during the night, when planes continuously land, which is staggering for a city that wants us out of our cars.

    • @MikeWillSee
      @MikeWillSee 10 годин тому

      Had a quick google but couldn't find the proposals you speak of. Where would one get more information?

  • @CarlSmith-bs4qx
    @CarlSmith-bs4qx 41 хвилина тому +1

    The lack of transport planning in the UK outside of London is very evident when studying other countries. The Picc-Vic could have worked and driven growth.

  • @iamjoestafford
    @iamjoestafford 12 годин тому

    Another fantastic video from my favourite UA-cam channel 😃 Great to see a shoutout for Martin Dodge - as the university's Humanities press officer I have publicised a number of his projects with my press releases. He has done a great service for the city with his efforts to piece together old documents and maps!

    • @BeeHereNowuk
      @BeeHereNowuk  7 годин тому

      Aw amazing thanks! Yeah I've seen Martin Dodge's name so many times when I research these videos over the years I thought it was high time I gave him some credit. Would be good to chat with him and pick his brain 😄

  • @ReeseofEastAnglia
    @ReeseofEastAnglia 13 годин тому +6

    The issue I have here is that there is an overemphasis on the city centre and particularly connecting Victoria and Piccadilly. Whereas a Heavy Metro line would work best connecting over a longer distance. I would personnaly recommend building a line that connects; Stockport, The University of Manchester, Central Manchester (including national rail stations) and ending at Salford. It would be a good way to connect parts of the city that doesnt have good rapid transport while offering other improvements over trams such as not being affected by traffic, faster speeds as it isn't restrained to the street network and a higher capacity. Los Angeles could definintely be a point of comparison showing how a system can run mainly light rail with a few key heavy rail corridors.

  • @Embur
    @Embur 11 годин тому +1

    Incredible video!! I'm definitely of the belief that almost all Northern cities have been cheated out of underground and other light rail systems like this quite heavily, especially in my own native city of Leeds. Perhaps the future calls for an inter-regional system, perhaps with Merseyside, Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire getting their own underground/light rail networks connected by high speed rail over the Pennines could be one of the greatest projects in the history of the North.
    Either way, really glad to have found this channel. 💛🐝

  • @leventebito
    @leventebito 15 годин тому +6

    Manchester absolutely needs an underground section in the city centre. The tram services are incredibly good, but the foot traffic is so much around Piccadilly gardens/Market street that throwing trams in the mix us downright dangerous. If you ever walked through market street on a Saturday you know what I'm talking about.
    There should be a grade separation either underground, like the cute small cut and cover Budapest metro line 1 OR above ground, something like the DLR in London. Both of these would be a relatively cheap way to future proof the Metrolink

    • @lazrseagull54
      @lazrseagull54 11 годин тому +1

      I dream of a single-bore 4-track tunnel with a diameter similar to the one used on L9/L10 in Barcelona on an upside-down U shaped alignment with tunnel ramps from the suburban tracks and tram tracks from the southeast of Picadilly at one end, 4-platform stations at Piccadilly station, Piccadilly Gardens and Northern Quarter, then a 6-platform station at Victoria with the 2 tracks carrying the lines from south of Piccadilly exiting the tunnel here via a ramp onto suburban tracks west of Victoria (and maybe one day taking over the busway corridor) with the 2 tracks they just used now carrying the trams from east of Victoria alongside the other 2 tracks from east of Piccadilly through the remainder of the tunnel, calling at 4-platform stations at Exchange square and St. Peter's Square, with the trams from Piccadilly exiting via a ramp onto the Cornbrook viaduct and the trams from Victoria via another ramp south of St. Peter's Square onto the once planned tram corridor on the central reservation of Princess Street, for the airport line to use alongside new services from the Fallowfield line. It would probably help if all the suburban lines used tram train vehicles. If this tunnel looped back round to Piccadilly after St. Peter's Square, this part could carry mainline trains, freeing up the current railway viaduct to Picadilly as a further local rail core route.

  • @kevanhubbard9673
    @kevanhubbard9673 14 годин тому +4

    That Pic/Vic system looks like it would have been a bit like the Merseyrail system in and around nearby Liverpool.Probably like Merseyrail it would have been run by British Rail.The Newcastle system is run by the local authority although based mainly on the electric system that BR inherited from the LNER.

  • @GJMarshy
    @GJMarshy 15 годин тому +3

    Excellent video as always! You manage to make what's fairly abstract stuff to most people tangible! On the last question of why people are still campaigning or an "underground" it's actually a "relief tunnel" which is talked about. Ie the Ordsall Chord which you pointed out, only sees 1 train per hour! Castlefield is a notorious bottleneck affecting the whole North, and so a fast point-point east-west "relief" tunnel with a station at Piccadilly, and perhaps one in the west in Salford would be an absolute gamechanger! Then Oxford Rd, Deansgate, Salford Central, Victoria etc could all see metro-frequency trains all over the region. Essentially an inverted version of the tube. ;)

    • @BeeHereNowuk
      @BeeHereNowuk  14 годин тому +1

      Thank you. Yes totally agree. I didn't articulate the inadequacies of the Ordsall chord very well in the video

    • @GJMarshy
      @GJMarshy 14 годин тому

      @@BeeHereNowuk Tbf the Ordsall Chord is probably an entire topic on its own, as is Castlefield! You'd need a separate video to cover that, but man I'd rather fewer high quality videos like this than trying to shoehorn everything in. In a way that's the great thing about this city, you never run out of stuff to unpack!

  • @LancashireLass
    @LancashireLass 13 годин тому +2

    I can't imagine anyone ponying up the money to build the thing, sadly. Great video as always.

    • @LancashireLass
      @LancashireLass 13 годин тому

      Tho' I did spit my tea out at that, erm, jazz tune...

  • @georgeedwards4807
    @georgeedwards4807 2 години тому

    Excellent video again. I read about The Picc-Vic line as the building I live in (Whitworth House) was apparently going to be demolished to create the Whitworth Station!
    I had no idea of the previous underground plans, very interesting tha ks for sharing 👍

  • @r.markclayton4821
    @r.markclayton4821 Годину тому +1

    Two main reasons.
    1. Manchester already had numerous railway lines on viaducts.
    2. Top secret Guardian telephone exchange and nuclear bunker was already there and in the way.
    Of course there was a cheaper solution, the Windsor link and Castlefield curve, the latter delayed decades and finally implemented as the Ordsall chord.

  • @davestarkie9977
    @davestarkie9977 3 години тому +1

    Another great video!!! As other say the Ordsall Chord is underused... main reason is the massive congestion around Oxford Road.... only two lines for so many trains! If it was made 4 track it would solve a lot of capacity issues around the city centre. The proposed rebuild of Oxford Road won't resolve the real issue. One day it will happen but that'll be after London gets about 5 new lines first.

  • @andrewnelson4057
    @andrewnelson4057 16 годин тому +6

    London, Glasgow, Newcastle and LIVERPOOL...

    • @BeeHereNowuk
      @BeeHereNowuk  16 годин тому

      Haha yes sorry I had to prioritise 😉

  • @mikeclarke3882
    @mikeclarke3882 6 годин тому

    Nice one Ollie...personally, I'm not a fan of underground rail, anywhere, and I've travelled on a few. Great look at the situation though, and delivered with your usual down to earth, yet 'know what you're talking about' style. Cheers!

  • @Croz89
    @Croz89 11 годин тому +2

    In theory the Metrolink can cross the city in 13 minutes, but in practice it's often slower than that if there's congestion, I've spent over 20 minutes going from Victoria to Piccadilly, slower than walking pace, and half of that was stuck behind a queue of trams outside Shudehill. That's part of the problem of street running, it's not just slower, it's not as consistent as full grade seperation. If you've not got luggage you're better off getting a bee bike and cycling between the two nowadays.

  • @modelflugzuegsamlung
    @modelflugzuegsamlung 15 годин тому +2

    More than anything we need more trains at existing stations! Manchester has a great rail network, but at many suburban stations, the trains are ao infrequent it's not worth bothering with.

  • @inspirationalaries
    @inspirationalaries 16 годин тому +3

    Really interesting film and loved the history side of the planning visions. The SELNEC interactive machine footage from the Manchester Museum of Transport brought back memories of my childhood. On another note, the reason London has an underground/tube system is due to its scale and density. Try walking from Kings Cross on one corner of the Central Line to Gloucester Road/Earls Court in the opposite corner and you'll certainly hit your daily step count. Manchester and London are 2 completely different beasts and their mass transit systems do not compare with one another for many different factors. The walkability of Manchester city centre negates the need for an underground system. Capping the number of residential building developments might be needed based on the density of inhabitants that has increased noticeably since the 80s.

    • @BeeHereNowuk
      @BeeHereNowuk  16 годин тому

      Thanks very much! 😊 Yeah London was crying out for mass transit from early on. Manchester got by because it could for so long

    • @Millennial_Manc
      @Millennial_Manc 16 годин тому +1

      Manchester’s city centre is expanding with great rapidity, both in area and population. That small area we think of as the city centre needs to be broadened out now to Chapel St, Spinningfields, Regent Road, the Green Quarter etc.

    • @lazrseagull54
      @lazrseagull54 9 годин тому

      Many cities that have an underground network have a smaller city centre than Manchester and the underground parts are normally only under the city centre with only about 5 - 8 tube stations because it's the slowest part of the network for public transport to pass through at street level, but where the speed is most needed as the demand is at its highest there. The lines from Altrincham, Bury, East Didsbury and Rochdale are almost metro lines, with a key missing element being a central tunnel through the busy part of town.
      Manchester is actually the 3rd largest city in Europe with no form of underground local rail and when the Belgrade metro opens its first 2 lines at the end of this decade, it will be the 2nd largest after Birmingham.

  • @ADAMEDWARDS17
    @ADAMEDWARDS17 3 години тому

    The best comparison to Picc Vic is what happened in Liverpool where all the local lines were joined up and big old station sites released for development. It made a huge difference to travel across the whole of Merseyside.
    One project not included I can remember my Grandad having a book about was a victorian era plan for a line direct from London Road station to Victoria which would then have been rebuilt as a massive T shaped station giving Manchester one big central station. I suspect this fell foul of construction costs and because it didn't servce anywhere useful on that straight line, so didn't add ease of access to the city centre.

  • @T1n0.m
    @T1n0.m 17 годин тому +1

    I’ve been thinking about this since my conception. I even got a lot of attention for my hypothetical ‘Greater Manchester underground metro system’ on Reddit. I’ll put the link under

  • @Eric_Hunt194
    @Eric_Hunt194 17 годин тому +2

    I was not prepared for your choice of closing music... 😱💀

    • @BeeHereNowuk
      @BeeHereNowuk  16 годин тому +1

      Hahahaha it just makes me laugh when I hear it 😂

  • @richardzimmermann9372
    @richardzimmermann9372 16 годин тому +2

    It certainly makes sense to me to put the tram / lightrail between Piccadilly Gardens and St Peter's Square underground. It's only 1000 feet, so might not be too expensive. Traffic along Mosley Street is horribly crowded slow - you walk faster than the tram there - and the area could get some trees and a boulevard feel. In addition, it would be an economically rational way to start the dream of a Manchester underground and it might expand from there.

    • @BeeHereNowuk
      @BeeHereNowuk  16 годин тому +2

      Taking the trams underground at piccadilly gardens would also allow it to open up a bit more as a public space.

    • @MrMWRMWR
      @MrMWRMWR 12 годин тому

      ​@@BeeHereNowuk ...back to the 1970s when the gardens were looked after - reasonably safe in daytime iirc🤔

    • @lazrseagull54
      @lazrseagull54 10 годин тому

      If you only put the stops between Victoria and St. Peter's Square underground, then the lines to Rochdale, Bury, East Didsbury and Altrincham, which are mostly on former railway corridors almost become metro lines. Maybe also include a branch to Piccadilly so that tram-train vehicles can continue onto the suburban railways into southeast Manchester.

    • @Croz89
      @Croz89 4 години тому +1

      @lazrseagull54 I think a pre-metro tunnel between Piccadilly, Deansgate and Victoria would really help. It would fully grade separate the Bury and Altrincham lines from road traffic, the Rochdale line would only need a couple of extra tunnels in Oldham and Rochdale to be the same (which could be implemented later), and Trafford could probably be elevated (though it doesn't have that many road crossings to begin with). That only leaves Ashton, Eccles and Airport lines with significant street running that can't really be engineered away without redoing most of the track. Manchester could be like Stuttgart, start off with surface trams and gradually grade separate sections at strategic locations until eventually most of the street running is either gone or in dedicated lanes.

  • @Leonardo_Congeni
    @Leonardo_Congeni 11 годин тому +2

    "the toxic gossip train" lol

  • @Stephen.Gordon87
    @Stephen.Gordon87 16 годин тому +1

    I would agree that the city centre as a whole doesn’t need a rapid transit tunnel from Victoria to Piccadilly, especially to save a few mins, I’d be much in favour of ensuring all 10 boroughs are better connected either through Metrolink or some form of rapid transit. Things like the Leigh Guided Busway were such a missed opportunity to put some light rail into the Wigan borough for instance.
    One would hope that Bee Network Rail is a step in the right direction, but we’re decades away on any real change in the rail infrastructure.

  • @watcherzero5256
    @watcherzero5256 14 годин тому

    That 1902 proposal was very Glasgow Metro, a circle line not actually covering anywhere beyond the city centre. It would be useful for connecting between the different rail termini which was essential as the radiating lines weren't linked back then, but wouldn't be much use for getting into or around the city centre.

  • @MisterAshbrook
    @MisterAshbrook 4 хвилини тому

    A very informative video, thankyou.
    I have a copy of the 1945 plan, and often wonder what the city would look like had it been implemented at the time.
    It may well have been easier to build Pic-Vic or similar, following the ring road route.
    One can understand, though, there being no overground rail connection. We’d effectively have two city centres, with claims of businesses and homes being “on the wrong side of the tracks”.

  • @markthomas2577
    @markthomas2577 14 годин тому +1

    I remember travelling Bury to London and London to Bury in the 70s .... having to walk between Victoria and Piccadilly

  • @dangermouse2235
    @dangermouse2235 11 годин тому +1

    I dont know if there are any more but there is apparently an already built underground station under the Arndale Centre. Built, Im told, when the AC was built in the 70s in anticipation of the PiccVic line. Maybe you could wangle your way in there so we could see it ?

    • @BeeHereNowuk
      @BeeHereNowuk  7 годин тому

      Yeah it's an empty void they found which they think might have been left in anticipation of a link to the nearby Royal Exchange underground station. I didn't include it because I don't think they really proved what it was for. But yeah it'll be good to get inside there.

  • @DavidShepheard
    @DavidShepheard 8 годин тому +1

    I have to call BS on the entire thing of "The railway line will not pay for itself" nonsense. What Manchester needs, in order to be on a par with Transport for London, Merseytravel and Tyne and Wear Metro is to be able to move workers between their homes and workplaces effectively.
    On the local level, reducing car dependency will reduce car pollution, decrease road related deaths, decrease the number of people going to the NHS with breathing problems, decrease pot hole maintenance costs and decrease delays to the remaining motorists. The social benefits, outside of the actual rail system, have all sorts of savings. Those social savings can be added to any initial costs and long term costs of a metro system.
    However, the bottom line is that we can only make the cities of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland more effective, by having good public transport. The focus should not be on finding a way to do stuff for Manchester as cheaply as possible. The focus should be on getting the maximum benefit for any investment. A small circle line would not get the maximum benefit. The Union Jack is a good idea on how to plan the minimum sort of rail lines needed for any UK city that isn't on the edge of a cliff. One line north-to-south, one line east-to-west. One line north west-to-south east. And one line north east-to-south west. It does not have to be that exact thing. Manchester's specific needs need to be taken into account. But to avoid the insanity of London Underground (which only really serves half of London) Manchester needs a long term plan that covers all parts of Greater Manchester.
    On the larger scale what England and the UK needs is to move people and freight through Manchester effectively. Local commuter trains and freight trains are the enemy of InterCity trains. Our InterCity network dominates the mainlines of Great Britain. Big gaps need to be put between stopping trains and InterCity trains, so the InterCity trains do not catch up the slower trains and get slowed down. The entire point of HS2 was to bin-off all the InterCity trains going through cities in the Midlands, so that the mainlines could be handed over to provide additional local trains and could allow more freight to get from Europe and the South of England to the Midlands, North and Scotland.
    We should be also looking at special use cases. Imagine the semi-final of the FA Cup and list out every English football club. Check the capacity of Manchester United's Football Club and imagine half the people are coming from all across Manchester and the other half are coming from every individual place in England that has it's own football club. All those people need to get to the football ground before kickoff. And we know from the Hillsborough disaster that poor crowd control can easily create a crush disaster. It's not enough for the Manchester trams to be able to cross Manchester reasonably quickly. They also need to have the capacity to cope with the major spikes in demand caused by a football match, pop concert or anything else.
    And in order to solve the problem of people coming to Manchester on the national network competing with the public transport that needs to get people from the mainline stations to actual venues in Manchester, the UK needs to have a balanced system, where the UK InterCity network and Transport for Greater Manchester can both put on additional capacity at the same time! A proper metro system wins, in that you can take it off the streets and pedestrianise Central Manchester and have longer vehicles - much longer vehicles.
    I've seen people describe the railway line across Manchester as Northern Powerhouse Rail (that's a rubbish vague name that allows for descoping) and HS3. I would argue that Manchester needs both a Crossrail-like solution (to tie into the existing slower mainlines) and a high-speed solution (that bypasses all the small places) so that the InterCity trains from Manchester to Liverpool are replaced by high-speed rail that will connect up to something that replaces HS2 on both legs and the people not going all the way to Liverpool can get slower (but electrified) trains that give people between Manchester and it's neibouring cities more trains per hour.
    So the main question for Manchester is this: "Would a plan like High Speed 3 for express trains east-to-west through Manchester and the conversion of railways either side of Manchester into a Crossrail-like system that takes over the slow trains, but speeds them up, be better than an isolated railway line similar to London Underground or Merseyrail?" Forget the costs - they will eventually be paid back. Concentrate on the capacity. How many trains, trams, buses or National Express coaches does it take to empty out the football grounds? How many hours does it take to safely fill or empty those grounds? What else in Manchester has high capacity? How much throughput does Manchester need to have people from other regions getting in and out of those places?
    Forget the money. It took about 80 years for London to get Crossrail and then it was carrying 1/6th of the passengers of the GB rail network. So all the kicking the can down the road and all the whinging about Bond Street being railway construction geology hell that delayed things was just a bunch of nonsense. Manchester needs whatever Manchester needs. And the sooner we figure out what is best for Manchester (not what is cheapest - what is best) the sooner we get that stuff up and running and start to pay back carbon cost and fight climate change.
    Manchester is not the only place that needs this sort of stuff, so we need to stop fannying about and put a bunch of similar projects into a queue and have continuous transport improvement across the UK. If Crossrail 2 had not been cancelled, the project would have been ending and there would have been an entire trained workforce that could have migrated around the UK Crossrailing any city that needed it with modern TBMs and tunnels that are far superior to anything London Underground has.

    • @DavidShepheard
      @DavidShepheard 8 годин тому

      Awesome video, by the way! (I'm not calling BS on you - just the naysayers holding Manchester back.)

  • @stevejones4275
    @stevejones4275 17 годин тому +9

    Liverpool ran underground trains from 1836, did you forget?

    • @Millennial_Manc
      @Millennial_Manc 16 годин тому +2

      Aren’t they below-ground and above-ground ordinary rail lines rather than a dedicated underground network?

    • @NellyCelephant-f7e
      @NellyCelephant-f7e 14 годин тому +1

      It goes under the Mersey and connects them with Birkenhead so I'd call it at least an honourable mention.

    • @ajfrostx
      @ajfrostx 13 годин тому +1

      1886.

    • @martinsloman6905
      @martinsloman6905 4 години тому

      @@ajfrostxThe original Mersey railway tunnel opened in 1886with the Loop and Link Line in 1977.

    • @davidemmott6225
      @davidemmott6225 36 хвилин тому

      @@Millennial_Manc how do you tell the difference? What about London's Metropolitan Line: basically a suburban commuter railway.

  • @paupadros
    @paupadros 2 години тому

    There is a particularly poignant line in the 2025 report "The south-west to north-east axis - our emerging findings show that even if longer, walkthrough trams were implemented across the Metrolink network as part of a roll-out of Next Generation Vehicles, capacity could still be on the limit or exceeded in 2040. Connecting Metrolink lines (particularly those that have no on-street running i.e. Altrincham, East Didsbury and Bury) using a tunnel could allow even longer vehicles and higher frequencies on these lines, and free up capacity on the remaining Metrolink lines to run higher frequencies and new services. "
    aka. we can't keep making trams longer and Metrolink Manchester city centre is getting close to capacity. Because some of the current lines are former railway lines, these could be put underground in a tunnel to turn it into a full metro fairly easily. I think it will come to a point where it will be a must to keep the region going.

  • @DubStu
    @DubStu 17 годин тому +2

    It’s always struck me as odd that as England’s second city, Manchester didn’t push for it harder.
    Especially since Glasgow (2nd city of the Empire at the time) was 3rd in the World to get there’s (just behind Budapest)

    • @TalesOfWar
      @TalesOfWar 17 годин тому

      Glasgow still hasn't had any expansion of it lol.

  • @mohammedfaiisal
    @mohammedfaiisal 16 годин тому +1

    I wish Manchester or greater Manchester had an underground system. Would have been so cool and less obstructions to get to where you want to go. I've always wanted a train/tram going from Oldham straight to Ashton. Right now, you have to go through Manchester to go to Ashton

    • @Millennial_Manc
      @Millennial_Manc 16 годин тому

      Metrolink needs an overground circle line next

    • @mohammedfaiisal
      @mohammedfaiisal 13 годин тому

      @ I'll take anything tbh. As long as it speeds transport from one town to another. Before 2014, I was able to get to Manchester 10 minutes faster. Because of the two tunnels between Freehold and Oldham Mumps original location. But they stopped that and made a new route. When in reality, they should have kept it as a second route. The original Oldham mumps was also about 3 minutes closer to home and I didn't need to cross the main road to get to the metrolink. It was very reliable so I miss that. I think about it every time I get on the tram. From leaving my house to getting to freehold, used to take me just over 10 minutes. Now it takes about 20 minutes. Made things very inconvenient for me and I assume many others. As there are many people that want to get to Manchester from Rochdale and Shaw or vice versa and they don't need to go through the town centre. The original tunnel route would have been perfect and smooth
      They also promised in 2016 a metrolink going from Oldham to Ashton with like 6 stops or something but that never happened and we need that. Then, they could add a further extension from Ashton to Stockport. Getting to Stockport from Oldham via Ashton, would be much quicker than getting to Stockport from Oldham via Manchester. There's old train routes that can still be used today as potential under ground or metrolink routes. For Oldham to ashton, it's through Alex park and then park bridge

    • @Millennial_Manc
      @Millennial_Manc 13 годин тому

      @@mohammedfaiisal A metrolink to Stockport and other places like Cheadle (using the old disused railway line) is already under construction. I think they’ve built the transport interchange for it already but it’s just buses for now. It’ll be linked to the railway station and metrolink in due course. Maybe when that’s done they might build the original plan in reverse.

  • @lazrseagull54
    @lazrseagull54 11 годин тому +1

    It would be so nice if more British cities had this kind of thing.
    UK cities with various types of underground networks:
    London (full metro and underground suburban rail)
    Liverpool/Birkenhead (underground suburban rail)
    Newcastle/Sunderland (light metro)
    Glasgow (full metro and underground suburban rail)
    German cities with various types of underground networks:
    Berlin (full metro and underground suburban rail)
    Hamburg (full metro and underground suburban rail)
    Munich (full metro and underground suburban rail)
    Cologne (underground trams)
    Frankfurt (underground trams and underground suburban rail)
    Stuttgart (underground trams and underground suburban rail)
    Düsseldorf (underground trams)
    Dortmund (underground trams)
    Essen (underground trams)
    Leipzig (underground suburban rail)
    Hannover (underground trams)
    Nuremburg/Fürth (full metro)
    Bochum/Herne (underground trams)
    Gelsenkirchen (underground trams)
    Duisburg (underground trams)
    Karlsruhe (underground trams)
    Bonn (underground trams)
    Bielefeld (underground trams)
    Mülheim an der Ruhr (underground trams)
    Many of these cities have a smaller city centre than Manchester and have 3x more tunnel than the Picc Vic project. Bochum, Gelsenkirchen, Bonn, Bielefeld and Karlsruhe are all similar in size to Brighton, Cardiff or Coventry and run their trams through tube lines under the busier parts of town.
    Lausanne, Switzerland is similar in size to Halifax, Telford or Cambridge and has a driverless full metro that runs every 4 minutes.

  • @reubenjelley3583
    @reubenjelley3583 16 годин тому

    Lovely edit/ pacing as always! Yes Manchester will get one, perhaps when a high speed cross country line burrows its way under they'll have to consider future heavy rail. So yeah you'll get one just wonder when, hopefully in our lifetimes. Can't have such a city being choked out by cars forever. Mint to see the map overlays aswell.

  • @Arghans
    @Arghans 28 хвилин тому

    I hate the lack of foresight. Now we have the Ordsall Cord and they’re saying there isn’t enough capacity and talking about rebuilding Oxford Road when this could all have been bypassed even leaving out any stations would have been fine.

  • @overshot3037
    @overshot3037 13 годин тому +1

    Would love a greater Manchester underground, getting into Manchester is shocking

  • @binbon6339
    @binbon6339 10 годин тому +2

    Glasgow, Tyne and Wear, AND Merseyrail

  • @michaeljohndennis2231
    @michaeljohndennis2231 3 години тому

    It reminds me so much of those plans (that keep getting shelved) to build a high speed rail tunnel under the Irish Sea from Holyhead to Dublin - but in our modern times, what is really needed is a total ban on all private car ownership and use (and everything else associated with that) within 50 miles of both Manchester and all other U.K. cities, as this would make road-based public transport like buses and trams far more efficient, especially within the M60 ring - the simple fact is that most people who have private cars (including EV’s) just don’t need them and must be made to use public transport whether they like it or not

    • @Tonydjjokerit
      @Tonydjjokerit 2 години тому

      I would like to see that too. But cars are so popular there will be a huge outcry and any government who tries it will be voted out of office very quickly!

  • @johndavidbaldwin3075
    @johndavidbaldwin3075 3 години тому

    There was a proposal in the 1960s for a light rail system up Rochdale Road

  • @alistairgrew
    @alistairgrew 3 години тому

    I think a Brussels Style 'Premetro' system could have some merit in sticking part of the metrolink in a tunnel under the ciry centre to increase traffic separation.

  • @lewys1087
    @lewys1087 2 години тому

    Imo the Oxford Road/Wilmslow Road corridor is ripe for an alternative to the convoy of buses ferrying uni students to and from the south of the city, I always thought reinstating the on-road trams was the most obvious solution in terms of cost and historic precedent, but it'd probably be an even more perfect candidate for an underground railway.

  • @garycroft8213
    @garycroft8213 17 хвилин тому

    There are trains from Piccadilly to Victoria that take 9 minutes, there are trams that run similarly that take 20 minutes or less.
    Even if an underground had a faster journey, just walking underground to platforms and back out again must add 10 minutes.
    There are cities that have much greater need such as Leeds that don't even have mass tranaport today, so don't think it will be built.

  • @anekarice
    @anekarice 17 годин тому

    Great video 👍

  • @LEEAIM
    @LEEAIM 17 годин тому

    so much to love about our city now. great transport all over greater manchester area . i leave the car at the metro car-park and travel in on the tram. easier to walk around city centre than drive.

  • @SuperMorgan1980
    @SuperMorgan1980 14 годин тому

    Absolutely correct about the walking Ollie. There aren’t many cities in the UK that you can’t realistically walk across the city centre in less than half an hour

    • @lazrseagull54
      @lazrseagull54 10 годин тому +1

      Plenty of European cities with smaller city centres than Manchester have underground networks though, often with the tunneled parts only being under the city centre with 5-8 tube stations but the services continue into the rest of town on suburban railways, as would have been the case with the Picc-Vic tunnel or more commonly onto tram tracks as would probably be the case if they built an underground in Manchester today. The longest lines to Altrincham, Bury, East Didsbury and Rochdale are already mostly on their own alignment as they were built on the trackbeds of former railways so you would really only need to put the city centre stops underground to convert those lines into a metro like the one in Newcastle.

    • @davidemmott6225
      @davidemmott6225 29 хвилин тому +1

      Still a hefty and inconvenient walk with luggage between two stations . Especially if it''s raining as it often is in Manchester.

  • @kaitlyn__L
    @kaitlyn__L 15 годин тому

    I like the conclusion and generally agree. Especially with the trams getting kind of congested in the centre (as I understand it) and taking a while for longer distances; connecting all the regions together with some kind of a faster "interurban" railway seems sensible to me. (Underground or no.) Let the trams be more for those shorter connecting routes like you point out it's good at.
    Like, to me, the Low Level Trains in Glasgow are much more useful than the Subway. They cover a wider section of the city, go to many more suburbs, and come almost as frequently. But these historic proposals remind me more of our Subway, where it's mainly for getting north/south quick or shaving some time off travel round the centre.
    Of course, our Subway didn't allow for mainline trains to cross-over, and our Low Level Trains do, so it's not a perfect comparison.
    And while keeping the street walkable, bikeable, and pushable is very important; at least for me I can't forget that taking 10, 15, 20 minutes in a wheelchair to go between places instead of 5 minutes on a tram can sometimes cross the line into too much pushing. Even if it doesn't actually save any time. But again, trams are WAY better for short hops like that; since all the faff with lifts/ramps and tickets easily doubles the time to board for a wheelchair.
    So I wish Glasgow would hurry up with converting the busiest bus routes into trams (it was briefly considered for the 2014 Commonwealth Games, and has been reiterated in last year's "Clyde Metro" map). Buses can be very hit-or-miss with my wheelchair, but trams would be amazing.

  • @ianboyle1621
    @ianboyle1621 53 хвилини тому

    Great video, as usual, Ollie. The only underground Manchester needs is a mainline London to Scotland route. Why is the UK so obsessed with terminal stations. Look to mainland Europe where the majority of main citys have a through station. They think they are such a good idea in Germany where, in Stuttgart, they have spent billions converting the old terminus station to a through line.
    The trouble with the UK is that no one ever seems to see the bigger picture. They never should have planned the the West Coast Main Line by-passing Manchester. It's the same with Heathrow. That should never have been built in that location (but was OK for little by-planes) and successive governments kept 'kicking it down the road' even building Terminal 5. Now that it has become so big it's virtually impossible to even think of relocating. We will never get an opportunity, like Hong-Kong, did to build a brand new airport away from the city centre. It will only take one plane to crash onto the Houses of Parliament or Buckingham Palace as it makes it final approach to Heathrow so get people saying we should have a super airport in the estuary, but even then it will be far too expense.
    There was an opportunity for the railway in Manchester with HS2 but that was botched. It should just have gone straight through Manchester (where it could have been a proper hub to connect to an HS3 railway connecting Liverpool with Yorkshire) and onto Preston.
    I think it's humiliating that we don't have a mainline style train connecting Manchester with Scotland. Can you imagine peoples reaction in London if they were told that they had to go to Scotland on a 3 coach Diesel Multiple Unit?

    • @davidemmott6225
      @davidemmott6225 31 хвилина тому

      Victorian entrepreneurs built railways and their terminals as a private investment. They didn't think in terms of integrated travel and government was in their pockets so rolled over and let them.

  • @northernengland
    @northernengland 17 годин тому

    Great video

  • @stickynorth
    @stickynorth 10 годин тому +1

    Two concepts could work for Manchester should they so choose... Why not an underground tram subway under the CBD like in Frankfurt and Edmonton whose design is based on Frankfurt.. This eliminates congestion in the core while allowing dedicated high speed LRT platforms that are grade separated and have much more capacity than surface ones for a variety of reasons... The other solution? Driverless metro like Vancouver's Skytrain or Lille's VAL... These automated typically tiny trains can zip in and around the city on dedicated corridors at higher speeds than most LRT can and does so cheaper since automation brings down overall operating costs like 30-70% according to the last numbers I saw... Plus you can send trains as fast as 60-90 seconds which means you only need tiny stations to move the came capacity as a larger overall one like London or Edmonton which uses up to 5-car, 124m long trains to transport as many as 960 people in one go...

    • @lazrseagull54
      @lazrseagull54 9 годин тому

      If you just put the stops between St. Peter's Square and Victoria underground, the lines to Bury, East Didsbury, Altrincham and Rochdale almost become metro lines as they are mostly on former railways. Then add a branch to Picadilly so tram-trains could also exit the tunnel onto the suburban railways into southeast Manchester. This would be the Frankfurt style part but with a Karlsruhe style twist. The VAL lines could be a much more expansive project that would follow completely new routes as the Frankfurt/Edmonton style part would just be an upgrade to the core of the existing light rail and suburban rail networks.

  • @RendererEP
    @RendererEP 4 години тому

    I would be interested in seeing the same topic regarsing Leeds and its urban area, as well as Birmingham.

  • @andyroid7339
    @andyroid7339 22 хвилини тому

    Another great video Ollie! Walking is good - apart from when it's cold, p*ssing it down and you've filled your arms with purchased goods. Jumping on a light rail train to take me to a P&R site out of town would suit me better.

  • @seany84uk
    @seany84uk 11 годин тому

    Great video. Isnt there meant to be a partially built tunnel under the arndale for the pic vic line?

  • @weetikissa
    @weetikissa 5 годин тому

    There are many much smaller cities in Europe with sensible underground systems. It’s not about the current population of the city as much as capacity on existing rail and what kind of sustainable growth you want to encourage in your city (ie. do you want your city to densify around good transport links or will it have to expand outwards, bringing more cars into the city?)

  • @kaitlyn__L
    @kaitlyn__L 16 годин тому

    I've never before noticed how "Clint Eastwood" in that Picc-Vic promotional poster looks like, well, a much ruder word. Always been too focused on the train itself, going to Bolton!

  • @slavvy.mp4884
    @slavvy.mp4884 4 години тому

    Thats a WILD choice for an outro song 💀💀💀

  • @TalesOfWar
    @TalesOfWar 17 годин тому +7

    We need one. It isn't a case of if, but when. The traffic is already horrific around Manchester and the population is set to double within the next decade. The Trams aren't enough, they're basically just permanent heavy busses in terms of capacity. The tram network is at capacity on any given day and you can tell when there's an event, and the whole thing kind of breaks. A proper underground network in and around Manchester would be able to move orders of magnitude more people than the trams can, and they can be more direct too given you don't need to smash things on the surface to build them (as much at least). The long term goal would be to connect all the big hubs with high capacity underground rail then have the trams link it all together, and the busses to pick up the slack in between. Like London does with the Underground, Overground, DLR, Thameslink, Elizabeth Line and the busses. It's all an integrated system.
    As with HS2, this kind of thing is about capacity, not speed. Any speed benefits are mostly bonuses rather than real goals in and of themselves.

    • @mohammedfaiisal
      @mohammedfaiisal 16 годин тому

      I wish it happens but I'm not sure I see it happening. But they may only do it for city centre and not further like out of Manchester. Towns like Oldham or Ashton for example

  • @SocieteRoyale
    @SocieteRoyale 17 годин тому +1

    wow have never heard if the Guardian Exchange, is it now declassified and open to visitors like the Liverpool Western Approachs? or is it instead lost to time like most things?

    • @TalesOfWar
      @TalesOfWar 17 годин тому +2

      It's used by BT to run telecoms cables now, so not open to the public. The shaft to get down there is also pretty deep, someone tried getting in a few years ago and fell to their death.

  • @karlgt9989
    @karlgt9989 3 години тому

    TfGM are not talking about an underground as its all about connecting the GMCA, i have seen talk of a circular rail route connecting the surrounding towns to reduce the need of having to go through the city centre to get to the other side for example

  • @jetsons101
    @jetsons101 16 годин тому

    Is seems a "underground" system could be difficult to build as there are so many forgotten basements, culverted rivers and brooks, sewers everywhere and a few cemeteries here and there where the headstones were moved but not the bodies. A monorail system like the Disneyland Mark I, Mark II, or Mark III would be a more pleasant ride thanks to the view and being up in the fresh air. Also the cost of a monorail is much lower.

    • @BeeHereNowuk
      @BeeHereNowuk  16 годин тому +1

      Yeah great point. There's so much underground already, but I'm sure with clever planning they can figure it out.

    • @Croz89
      @Croz89 11 годин тому +2

      No worse than London really. Manchester also has good geology for tunnels, mostly sandstone which is self supporting.

    • @lazrseagull54
      @lazrseagull54 9 годин тому

      If Essen, Gelsenkirchen, Bochum and Dortmund can do it with all their abandoned mines, then Manchester surely has the room. You can drill deeper than previously built stuff.

    • @davidemmott6225
      @davidemmott6225 23 хвилини тому +1

      Probably not as many historic monuments as in Rome however. And they managed it eventually.

  • @markrice689
    @markrice689 5 годин тому

    hi i thougth thats why there built the tram lines in the 90s its cheaper than diggin under ground to menny canals and water ways under manchester

  • @SocieteRoyale
    @SocieteRoyale 17 годин тому +5

    I feel Manchester could use a Merseyrail style system linking all the suburbs, maybe with a tunnel running under the city stopping a few key places. The trams seem very slow and pondering compared to the train, more like a bus

    • @TalesOfWar
      @TalesOfWar 17 годин тому +1

      That's really what trams are. A replacement for heavy bus routes where you need more capacity. They're great, but they need to be a part of a bigger, wider integrated solution.

  • @tw9341
    @tw9341 29 хвилин тому

    Loving the Thomas the tank theme remix 😅

  • @calpayne_
    @calpayne_ 12 годин тому

    Hey, do you know where I can find the Metrolink map at 12:14 please?

    • @BeeHereNowuk
      @BeeHereNowuk  7 годин тому

      Sorry I drew that animation myself a couple of years ago for a video about the trams and now it only exists online within that video

  • @vobchopper
    @vobchopper 6 годин тому +13

    The short answer is simple " because Manchester isn't London"

    • @ianwray5341
      @ianwray5341 4 години тому +2

      Nor is Liverpool but they got their tunnels

    • @DisleyDavid
      @DisleyDavid Годину тому

      ​@@ianwray5341And they have underground lines in the city centre.

    • @alandargie9358
      @alandargie9358 Годину тому

      Newcastle isn't either and it got a Metro.

    • @paulc4383
      @paulc4383 23 хвилини тому

      Liverpool already had part of their tunnel network dug out prior to Merseyrail. Makes a difference to the budget.​@@ianwray5341

  • @-Osiris-
    @-Osiris- 6 хвилин тому

    The worst thing Manchester ever did was to accept a tram network instead of a high capacity fully grade separated underground (in the centre at least) metro system. You might say 'it's better than nothing' and that's exactly why Manchester doesn't have the network it deserves

  • @duckweedy
    @duckweedy 14 годин тому

    I would say make the area more pleasant to walk in.

  • @davepoul8483
    @davepoul8483 6 годин тому

    good vid.... chill folks.... we'er mancs..

  • @SirKenchalot
    @SirKenchalot 2 години тому

    You get most of the way through a video about an underground railway in Manchester then argue that you don'tnee one anyway. It does rain a bunch in Manchester as I recall from my visit so there's that. Surely that's why Glasgow has a subway.

  • @123chris0
    @123chris0 11 годин тому +1

    Anyone from Leeds watching this having nothing better than a poor bus service 😵‍💫
    Largest city in western Europe without a modern mass transit system 🤦🏻‍♂️

    • @lazrseagull54
      @lazrseagull54 10 годин тому

      And 4th largest without any kind of underground local rail after Belgrade, Birmingham and Manchester.
      The first 2 Belgrade metro lines are under construction and planned to open by the end of this decade.

    • @martinsloman6905
      @martinsloman6905 3 години тому

      The you-tuber RM Transit (based in Canada) has done videos on both Leeds and Manchester - quite interesting.

  • @maedero05
    @maedero05 14 годин тому

    Wonder a monotail or El never conscidered ? Picadilly and Victoria are elevated ? Metrolink great system, maybe Pic Vic route rethinked, west to east line avoid both stations. Still another shuttle east from city center, monorail or el would ease congestion !

  • @bonty427
    @bonty427 3 години тому

    Manchester needs a monorail like in The Simpsons...Lol

  • @johncallaghan4616
    @johncallaghan4616 Годину тому

    Simply, a beautiful body of work !
    Maybe, just maybe, M/Cr could benefit from (again) going back in time, to the “CentaLine” shunter Buses, save that they should follow the model of Guanghou, China, where it’s exactly the same, but completely driverless ‘hop on-hop off ?
    Thoughts?
    JCHK

  • @danh5637
    @danh5637 Годину тому

    In fairness you can walk no to end around Manchester City centre in 15 minutes. It’s completely pointless. Whereas in London you can be travelling for hours and still inside the city.

  • @magiera92
    @magiera92 15 годин тому

    If we get a circular Metrolink line, I'll never mention an underground again. Promise.

  • @Millennial_Manc
    @Millennial_Manc 16 годин тому +2

    Enjoyed the video and learned a bit. Should have credited Museum of Transport though. Two things you overlooked:
    1) Platform 13/14 at Piccadilly are so busy it’s impacting railway performance across the region. Various solutions have been explored, one of which is two parallel lines (less likely now HS2 is defunct plus it would cause massive disruption during construction), another is building two lines above the existing ones in the style of Hauptbahnof station in Berlin, but the third option is a
    below ground ‘fly under’ which would enable ordinary railway trains to dive underneath Piccadilly station, probably along tunnels to Oxford Road and Deansgate so as not to increase congestion there, then emerge to carry on its journey. That would give us a quasi beginning of an underground network that could be augmented with light rail. The barrier to doing this is the angle at which trains would have to descend when approaching Piccadilly to be able to get under the station without it being too steep to for trains to climb when leaving the other way. The incline would have to start some distance from the station and there are issues to overcome with doing that around the existing infrastructure.
    2) Although the earlier proposals at the turn of the century and the 40s/60s/70s all centered around a small walkable loop and areas served by Metrolink now, the city centre has expanded and continues to do so. There is no metrolink whatsoever in Spinningfields, Salford Central, Chapel Street, Salford Uni areas despite them having major residential and commercial
    development. This is now expanding towards Regent Road with proposals for additional large residential developments to replace the shops on the retail park, none of which is served by railways or metrolink. The Ordsall Chord doesn’t connect Piccadilly to Salford Central because those trains run on a separate line through Salford Central that doesn’t have a platform, and despite the second refurb of Salford Central being underway right now, there are no efforts to build that platform even though it was in the original proposals for the Chord. Furthermore, the existing metrolink has serious reliability issues, partly because it shares roads with motor vehicles and pedestrians in the city centre and trams are frequently blocked or slowed due to this, which will get worse with the ongoing war on motorists and as the city gets busier. So there is a financial case for a larger underground loop than previously proposed which would connect areas not covered by Metrolink with the city centre, plus facilitate the expansion of the city centre while giving a way for people in future developments to access the city without a car.

  • @uingaeoc3905
    @uingaeoc3905 13 годин тому

    Manchester did not go 'railway mad' before Liverpool !

  • @konsultarvode6527
    @konsultarvode6527 3 години тому

    "followed soon after" I mean 33 years is not that soon

  • @bbbf09
    @bbbf09 3 години тому

    Now we know Labour's plan for growth is solely all down south then clogs are all you need up North from now on.

  • @daneishere
    @daneishere 17 годин тому +8

    I 100% think Manchester needs a metro system. One that goes from all the boroughs in the city. Also I found the metro link so slow in some parts. If it had a tube system it would open up economic growth and make it far more tourist friendly for people to truly explore and see all the amazing parts of the city.

    • @noahbowie5985
      @noahbowie5985 17 годин тому +1

      This would improve things a lot as the Metrolink is so congested in the city centre that even the smallest delay means you're sitting outside deansgate-castlefield as the third tram in a queue. If there were two tunnels that just allowed some trams to bypass under the city centre going both east-west and north-south it would make an enormous difference

    • @mohammedfaiisal
      @mohammedfaiisal 16 годин тому

      An underground thats planned properly, that directly goes to each town centre, rather than what we have now with the tram, where to get to bury from Rochdale, you have to bus it, because tram goes to Manchester first then bury. Same with Ashton from Oldham. Bus it faster as it's direct. The tram goes to Manchester and then Ashton. These are the things the underground could fix. Even though there's a route that can go to Ashton from Oldham or Bolton Rochdale via Bury. There's a route there but they haven't worked on it. I want a route to Ashton from Oldham and also a route from Rochdale to Bury to Bolton. But from Oldham, there can be a short route. But I don't see it happening. Maybe not in this lifetime

  • @jonathanpringle8238
    @jonathanpringle8238 15 годин тому

    they techically could have an underground. the BT tunnels are massive and go from ardwick to salford. if someone used common sense in 2025 it could easily be converted

    • @simontay4851
      @simontay4851 11 годин тому +1

      But are they big enough to fit a train through.

    • @jonathanpringle8238
      @jonathanpringle8238 11 годин тому +1

      @@simontay4851 in the largest part of tunnel its said you could fit a routemaster bus in it

  • @anekarice
    @anekarice 17 годин тому +5

    The time to build an underground is in the Victorian era, when developers could pretty much do whatever they wanted and people were still impressed by the concept of a train. There's no way in hell you're going to tunnel under the city these days without £50bn in cash and 50 years of time. Nobody will fund that.

    • @jonathanpringle8238
      @jonathanpringle8238 15 годин тому

      there is massive tunnels already there, the BT tunnels as one example

    • @anekarice
      @anekarice 15 годин тому

      @jonathanpringle8238 well, the underground is just around the corner then.

    • @lazrseagull54
      @lazrseagull54 9 годин тому

      How have 9 Spanish cities and 10 German cities opened new underground lines over the last 2 decades? What are UK cities doing so differently? The most recent ones in Düsseldorf, Cologne, Bochum, Dortmund, Karlsruhe and Leipzig are similar in scale to what Manchester would build and only cost slightly over €1bn each, not 50bn.

    • @anekarice
      @anekarice 4 години тому

      @lazrseagull54 I'm sure other places in Europe do things better than we do in relation to infrastructure - they usually do.
      The Elizabeth line in London took more than 10 years, cost more than £10bn, and had the benefit of using existing infrastructure in a lot of places. Also look at HS2 for a more recent example of the horrors of building new transport networks.

  • @michaelleigh2446
    @michaelleigh2446 14 годин тому

    Economic sense, never stopped Govts. doing things. HS2????

  • @MervynPartin
    @MervynPartin 3 години тому

    Why? Manchester is not London, so no need to bother. (The same applies to the rest of England outside the M25- Wales and Scotland already developing their transport infrastructure).

  • @RonTodd-gb1eo
    @RonTodd-gb1eo Годину тому

    Too far from London to get the money.

  • @Eric_Hunt194
    @Eric_Hunt194 17 годин тому +2

    You used the term "riff-raff" wrong: that term means the common/working class people, not the gentry.

    • @jetsons101
      @jetsons101 17 годин тому

      Over here 5120 to your west "Riff Raff" is used to describe troublemakers

    • @Millennial_Manc
      @Millennial_Manc 16 годин тому +1

      I’m pretty sure it was a gag to show a picture of the business owners as he said riff raff.

    • @BeeHereNowuk
      @BeeHereNowuk  16 годин тому +2

      I was just trying to be funny that's all

    • @andrewwoodgate3769
      @andrewwoodgate3769 15 годин тому

      Well I laughed! ​@@BeeHereNowuk

    • @theblah12
      @theblah12 14 годин тому

      They’re the riff-raff to us.

  • @nuttygold5952
    @nuttygold5952 4 години тому

    We have trams!

  • @GMMilambar
    @GMMilambar 17 годин тому +1

    Manchester is too small to need an underground. Any underground would be a pointless vanity project.
    By the time you've waited for your train, boarded, gone choochoo, and finally deboarded, you could have walked just as fast, if not faster.

    • @Millennial_Manc
      @Millennial_Manc 16 годин тому +3

      Walk from Spinningfields to Piccadilly? Salford Uni to St Peter’s Square? The future Regent Road developments to the city? The original loop was too small and is served by metrolink now but the city centre is expanding. Over 70 of the 90 something large construction cranes in the entire country are in Greater Manchester.

    • @Croz89
      @Croz89 11 годин тому +1

      There are at least a dozen European cities smaller than Manchester with an underground metro or pre-metro. Manchester is not too small.

    • @lazrseagull54
      @lazrseagull54 9 годин тому

      You should check out Lausanne, Rennes, Nuremburg, Bilbao or many other European cities, 1/3 the size of Manchester with underground networks that run every few minutes.
      Manchester and Birmingham will actually be the 2 largest European cities with no form of underground local rail when the Belgrade metro opens its first 2 lines at the end of this decade. Leeds is already the largest that doesn't even have trams.

  • @martinbury9223
    @martinbury9223 5 годин тому

    Well highlighted Ollie, if little forgotten & unloved Catania in Sicilly can build one, despite a Londoncentric continuim, the Repubik ov Mancunia really has no excuses.. 🚉 🫶