Thanks for all the support on the video, it's been my best peforming one so far! Im not from Manchester and don't have a super in-depth understanding of the system, but im hoping to bring more light to stuff like this. Working hard to get some more videos out soon :)
Lots of tunnels under Manchester, in 1971 I was an apprentice telephone engineer, GPO, now British telecom, I remember once going down a man hole in city centre, (with the engineer I was shadowing) not far from river Irwell, at the bottom of the manhole were some heavy timbers with iron rings set in them, lifted two timbers the went down iron spiral stairs , came down a few feet onto a proper cobbled street, it was bricked up at the sides and a long brick arch above, don’t remember really exploring this, I was told that many years ago this would have run down to the edge of the river Irwell and as the city developed and the river embankments were built up to today’s level, some of these old , narrow streets were brick over rather than filled in. You can see old “barred openings “ halfway up the embankments nowadays
There are no traffic flows large enough in the Manchester metropolitan area that could support the enormous cost of a tunnelled metro system. What could work is short underpasses at key places to speed up tram services rather than flat junctions everywhere.
Exactly right. That's what the Ashton Line did in places, and others in comments are suggesting an entirely underground system, but that is just not efficient and cost will outweigh benefit if the Metrolink were to be replaced.
There are, and will be. The population of Manchester itself is set to double in the next decade. The tram system we currently have is at capacity on any given day, and you see just how badly it handles even smaller events like a football match. We need a subway system or heavy commuter rail lines on their own tracks. Trams aren't a mass transit solution, they're used in place of busses where they need the extra capacity but they can't be a replacement for a proper metro. We need a Crossrail for the north, basically, something to link up the big population hubs in the region of Liverpool, Manchester, Bradford and Leeds with connections to Sheffield. The approach at Piccadilly is still the same as it was over 100 years ago, it's a huge bottleneck for ALL train traffic through the area. HS2 was going to help out with that but who knows when or if we'll ever see that come to fruition after Sunak cancelled the northern leg. Hopefully with the devolved transportation plans for the regions Labour are suggesting we might see something actually happen where multiple city regions can combine their resources and do something that integrates across county lines. Before then you need to rely on central government and we all know what the treasury is like about spending money outside of the M25 lol.
@@tramographyMCR There isn't much that can be done capacity wise really. It's limited by what it is. The only way you can really improve it is by making it entirely separate from all other traffic (including pedestrians) so nothing can get in the way of its operation, and to be able to more quickly stop and start for more regular service. The current rolling stock just isn't designed for that. Basically we want something like the Victoria Line in London. Every 90 seconds on the busiest parts of the network. That frequency is how you get capacity and you can only achieve that on dedicated track. If we do end up building a proper metro it has the potential to be a total game changer for the region if properly integrated with other transit modes. Obviously the main train stations would be linked up, but also the bigger bus stations or ones in important locations like Middleton. Imagine the investment these places would get from the outside now its so much easier to get around the place from further afield?
@@tramographyMCR The problem is the city centre is a choke point for the whole system. It can take just as long for a tram to cross it than it takes to get there from the terminus. It's slow and congested because trams have to work around cars, pedestrians and cyclists. If the tracks between Piccadilly, Deansgate and Victoria were underground "pre-metro" style, that would help a lot, and further sections could be tunneled as the budget allows, until you have a situation similar to Stuttgart, Karlsruhe or Hannover. That's one option, another would be to build a new automated metro line between the highest density areas of the city, and perhaps hook it up to some of the grade separated Metrolink lines and convert them to light metro.
A nicely shot, well educated video! I do think what Manchester needs are two circular lines that meet on Wilmslow Rd and through to in town. Willow Rd id the world's busiest bus corridor. Well it's ridiculously busy anyway. One circle to serve west and north. The other east and south. It'd give new quicker routes to areas not served like Rusholme and Moss Side. It would link up the bus stations, metro lines and trains. You wouldn't need to going town and then out which would be good for local growth. You could be in places like Dunham Massey, Tatton Park in 20 minutes from the city centre which would increase tourism and health benefits. 78,000 going in and out of Old Trafford, plus the Cricket, concerts, and I suppose City is a huge clog of people trying to get into town just to leave it again. There's a huge mix of diverse areas in 'Greater Manchester' that you can only access via a car. If it's not London it doesn't generally get built. It'd never happen. Ideally Birmingham, Liverpool, Leeds and Newcastle should have something similar.
Thanks for the really interesting video. I wrote about light rail/trams for my dissertation many years ago. I had suggested that trams were better than a subway, due to there being no need for tunnels and underground stations, and the perceived safety of tram stops because they were in the open. Nowadays, I support the idea of turning the Metrolink into a subway/metro. I accept that safety at tram stops will have changed due to changes in the levels of crime, so subway stations with CCTV and security guards patrolling the stations should improve passenger safety. Furthermore, they should help to improve capacity. One final thought: I saw in a book (published over 40 years) that included a plan to build two railway lines, one linking Victoria Station to Central Station and a line linking Piccadilly to the north-west of the city. Albert Square would have been the site of the interchange. What a pity these schemes never went ahead (Ditto with the Picc-Vic).
cars always have to give way to the trams and they come every 6 mins outside the city centre which is perfectly fine, also if it was a subway i wouldnt be able to bump it
This video is really well put together, and you kept the info concise as well, didn't feel like you were reading off of a script for majority of the video, nice work. Yes, the Metrolink has many problems right now. One thing is that the north doesn't get as much funding for transport compared to London. A subway would be nice, but it would be much more efficient and easier to improve the current network instead of beginning another separate project. The Metrolink also can't really be extended anymore and operate well without extra vehicles. There are overcrowding issues often on the Bury and Altrincham Lines. Every line and route meets in he city centre at some point as well (which I think you mentioned briefly in the video). Pretty much every tram gets delayed after passing through the city centre. A metro tunnel has been proposed for the future between Old Trafford (ish) and Piccadilly station which might help with congestion issues at central parts of the network. There are loads of things I want to mention, but I'll just press enter before I lose control of my hands Your camerawork and editing is also quite good for 100 subscribers. You definitely deserve all the attention this video gets. Commitment to travel from Bristol to up here :)
Thanks! Especially after riding on the Elizabeth Line a few times, I think the North is really poorly served by transport. Probably the biggest weakness of Metrolink (in my opinion) is that there is not enough space above the ground to expand in such a large city.
There's actually a lot of opportunities for extensions, more than you might have expected, but I won't list them all (unless you ask!) The network just cannot expand because it's having a hard time as it is now
It'd be interesting if they built a tram tunnel like what many tram systems in mainland Europe (especially German but also some Austrian & Swiss "Stadtbahnen") have, but I doubt they'll get the money to do that
It's ridiculous that a city the size of Manchester with a metro population approaching 3 million isn't already thinking of building a mass-rapid transit system. Trams are great, but there's only so many new lines and extensions you can build before you stretch the system beyond its limits. A comparable city such as Lyon in France which has 4 metro lines, 7 tram lines and 26 high frequency bus lines. Seeing how rapidly Manchester is growing, and how densely populated the centre is becoming with all those new highrises, it only makes sense start thinking ahead and provide a mass rapid transit system that can complement and provide relief for existing core metrolink services. We need to think about 50 years down the line, not just the next decade.
metrolink is perfectly adequate, it brightened up certain superbs in manchester (wythenshawe, rochdale) and besides the subway would take ages and what would happen to the existing inferstructure?
Nice video. It occurs to me that Manchester would be an ideal place for an S-Bahn. The classic S-bahn system is built out of existing lines that spread out in different directions from the city, and Greater Manchester has plenty of those, that all funnel together into a "Stammstrecke" - that is a tunnel under the city centre with a very high frequency of trains. As expensive as this is, it's mostly about making use out of existing infrastructure - i.e. all the routes that can't be used as much as they could because it's too congested in the city centre, rather than building a whole new metro system as larger cities would do. Here in Stuttgart, which I guess is about half the size of Manchester, the S-Bahn has 6 lines each running every 15 minutes with 140 or 200m long trains - that's a train every 2.5 minutes in the city centre underground stations. And this is in addition to the Stadtbahn - the Stadtbahn being roughly the same as the Metrolink (yellow too) as a mixture of tram and light railway (although the Stadtbahn too mostly disappears underground in the city centre). German cities invested in these systems in the 70s and 80s and reap the rewards today and for decades to come - it's hard to imagine anything different. You can imagine how something similar would be a quantum leap for Manchester.
That's essentially what the Elizabeth Line in London is. It uses a bunch of existing lines outside the city core and has new tunnels in the centre and links everything together. Manchester really does need this. The population is growing quite rapidly and what we have right now is not going to be able to cope. It can just about cope with it right now but falls over quite often when there's extra strain on for say large events.
@@leek6927 The problem with all the trains we already have is that they all share the same incredibly overcrowded track space. There's been hardly any expansion of rail outside of London for over a century. The station approaches at both Victoria and Piccadilly have essentially the same capacity they did in 1890 (modern signalling helps there of course but that only goes so far). We have the fast trains to that go down to London and up to Glasgow that take up huge headways which reduces the number of slower and more frequent services we can run. HS2 is designed to release much of that capacity... assuming it ever gets reinstated then actually built. A high capacity, regular, fully segregated metro system would do wonders for all traffic in the whole region. It doesn't all have to be in tunnels, just under the urban cores like the London Underground is. Most of the Underground is actually over ground, and most of the Overground is actually under ground lol. The ideal solution would be a metro that does all the heavy lifting, with trams linking all those areas in between then the busses picking up extra capacity or serving the areas it makes no real sense to run a dedicated set of tracks and all that come with it. It'll take years and be expensive, but it isn't beyond our capability. The problem is nobody wants to pay for it and the place with all the money wants to spend it on itself. London. We need to put massive investment into all of our city regions with better infrastructure which will bring with it more outside investment because it'll make it quicker and easier for people to get to and from work, and to move goods around etc. It'll also improve the diversity of the economy rather than relying almost entirely on the finance sector which only exists in The City and Canary Wharf. Two infinitely tiny spits of land relative to the size of the country they're in. When the finance sector goes down the tubes so does the UK economy.
The Metrolink is by far the greatest thing to happen to Manchester in the last 100 years, apart from the success of the 2 Manchester football teams. Its brilliant and getting further expansion to Stockport, Middleton, Bolton and Wigan will enhance it even more.
as someone who lives in Manchester I agree with you. from what I heard the trams were getting extended to Bolton but that got cancelled for reasons I do not know. the public transport in Manchester are very poor especially northern on the Walkden line and the bee network. buses that are in the bee network sector are really poor buses don't come on time we have to wait every 20 mins for a bus or even up to half hour or even up to an hour if delayed I have a friend who works for the bee network hand he said to me I think the bee network in general is diabolical. great video though.
I think Bolton was put on the back burner because there's already regular train services there. Kind of why (well, one of the reasons) the London Underground doesn't serve much south of the Thames. There are already a bunch of commuter rail services down there that do the trick. That and it's mostly waterlogged gravel rather than the easy to cut through clay on the north. But that's not really relevant to this lol.
Honestly for how much a metro system costs it’s not worth it. It takes 30 about minutes to get from Ashton under lyne to the city centre. That money would be far better spent on a circular line connecting the outer towns on the system and increased capacity at peak hours imo
A circular line connecting the towns is something planned for the future, but likely would not have been able to happen without the network we have now. Connecting surrounding areas to the city centre of Manchester brings in more money for the Metrolink than a circular line connecting Ashton, Oldham, and Stockport would for example. The Ashton Line is one of the slower Metrolink lines as well! The Bury Line is longer in track, and it takes 24 mins. The Altrincham takes 22, the East Didsbury takes 21, the Trafford Centre takes 21, the Eccles takes 20, and from Oldham it takes 20. I left out the Airport Line because its construction purpose was slightly different (it's quite slow though), and Rochdale because it has a 15 min train connection. Ashton also has a 15 min train connection. Droylsden and Audenshaw and Clayton do not, which is why the tram line was built.
The long term plan is to connect the "spokes" up with a "wheel", or something similar. An actual loop line isn't very good for reliability though so I imagine they'd have sections that link up but not have a single service do an actual circle, if that makes sense. They'd need to build quite a lot of new track for that, most of what exists now is old alignments that still existed. They replaced the track and electrified it of course but they didn't need to build many new permanent ways. There are still quite a few alignments they could use to link bits up but a lot of if will need to be brand new and thus expensive.
You could never have automated trams on, for instance, the branch that goes to Media City and Eccles. Automation is not possible, even if the city centre section were underground.
Im planning to do it after my next video. I would like to do interviews with regular users of the service and real life testing to prove the points so it might take a bit of time, though will probably be out by early December.
Another thing is that a subway system would not only cost billions but also means lots of traffic issues with roads being constantly dug up. It would be a nightmare.
That's the "cut and cover" method which the Tube used when it opened in 1863 but tunnel boring machines would be used if they wanted to build a subway now.
@@stevenblood1284 Ofc, Im just saying that the cut and cover method would not be used anymore, it is a very inefficient and inconvient way of digging a tunnel.
@@stevenblood1284 There was more traffic on the roads in London in 1863 than there is now. Thats why they built train lines under ground. There's absolutely no way we'd use the cut and cover method today when building a metro line under a major city. They'd use a TBM as we've used since the first deep level tube line in 1890. The whole point of which was to avoid having to dig anything up and cause traffic problems.
Metrolink is nice but it's starting to struggle as the city grows. A proper subway would have been an expensive investment back in the 70's but would have benefitted the city in the long run. Manchester will likely have to build one anyway in the next 20 years or so, especially if Greater Manchester plans on adding a million or so people in that period. On the plus side driverless train technology has come a long way, so some aspects will be easier now.
@@GlobeSync1would they be able the existing trams underground? Or is there something stopping that, as what I would do is make a tunnel for just the core section and then go above ground after that and run on the existing routes which I think are on dedicated rights of way anyway. Then it would be like the Tyne and Wear metro which I would consider good, to me that seems to make far more sense than making a disconnected system which wouldn’t be helpful anyway if you want to go anywhere but the CBD
I think one of the reasons they didn’t do an underground metro is because the soil conditions would make it really expensive, I’m not sure if that would still be the case although it would be really expensive anyway because if the useless government
Maybe? I'm probably not the best person to ask that question but I think it could be a possibility. A bit like the Elizabeth Line which has to run as a subway in the core underground, then as a long distance train out to Shenfield, Reading and other parts. But maybe the current tram stock wouldn't be capable of operating underground services.
It wont be good idea for a subway since it goes to popular areas where it stops if you add those stops there it will cause traffic on cars when its building.
And then when it's built, fewer people will need to use their cars because it'll be more convenient to just get on the metro. We need to change our mindset of driving everywhere, and we need to build cities where you don't NEED to. Imagine how much worse London would be if they didn't have the Underground and everyone just drove everywhere? It's an absolute nightmare as it is, and the traffic now is actually nowhere near as bad as it was back when they were building the first Underground line. That's WHY they went under ground in the first place to avoid all the traffic on the streets. That and the literal crap from all the horses. This is why we have raised pavements by the way lol.
I think the Picc-Vic will eventually be built to solve some of the issues, it'll just be a part of the Metrolink and not a whole separate system however
@@laurencec09 Literally 99.9% chance Picc-Vic won't be built ever. The Ordsall Chord allowed trains to run directly from Victoria to Piccadilly, and a tram line was built instead of the Picc-Vic line anyway. It takes 7 mins on a good day on the tram between the two main stations.
@@tramographyMCRThere was a rumour that the reason the Picc-Vic tunnel wasn’t proceded with was because there was a large Cold War communications centre buried in the way!
The video was fine. It's just that the Metro has been poorly implemented. For a start needing a platform to get onto the vehicle is silly; it makes each station a major investment, the building blocks the free passage of people, for example Market Street. Practically every other tram network (that I know about) uses street level entrance. Imagine, you fly into Manchester Airport and think "I'll take the Metro, bound to be fast" and then sit as the trams trundle along at a slow speed, stopping every 200 metres or so. I have a 15 minute walk to a station. plus almost 50 minute journey. It's quicker and cheaper to take the 43 bus from the Airport to Piccadilly, faster is the train. There is a small town and rail station near the airport - Heald Green- putting the Tram Line near the rail station would have improved the transport for the area. A few years ago I had to transfer from Manchester Piccadilly to Victoria, descending into the undercroft for a linking tram was miserable. After that I walked - much quicker. Rant over!
Your first point about the trams needing a platform. No, it wasn't actually that silly, since they were inheriting British Rail platforms back when the Metrolink first opened. It would have taken years to convert railway lines to Metrolink if entire stations had to be redone, but the Bury Line was converted in 8 months because of that decision, and got passengers moving swiftly. The Alty Line was converted in 6 months also. Most people will check how long the journey takes (or at least how many stops it has) before boarding any form of transport. Every 200 metres is also out of proportion (even for the Airport Line). 95% of people arriving at MA will flock to the trains (I've been there train/tramspotting before, I know). Yeah, the bus is ~5 mins faster than the tram when there is light traffic. There is not always light traffic, especially from South Manchester. The train is about three times faster, yes, hence why everyone flocks to the trains after getting to MA. The tram line connection to the Airport is not just for city centre to Airport journeys which you are making it seem like, it is for city centre to Wythenshawe, and Wythenshawe to Airport journeys primarily. There are other modes of transport for a reason. How would they have gone about connecting Heald Green? You just dropped this sentence into the paragraph as if it could work practically at all. A short spur from Peel Hall to Heald Green station wouldn't do much for the transport at all. After all, the rail station already has direct, frequent connections to the Airport, and direct, frequent connections to Manchester city centre. Putting a tram line there as well that serves those same places (when there are also bus connections from the tram line to Heald Green!!!) would be a waste of money. Yes, Piccadilly to Victoria takes 7 mins on a good day, but trams are every 12 minutes. Walking does take about 19 minutes, though, so if you immediately miss a tram, probably better off walking, yes. There are also free buses that run every 10 minutes and take around the same amount of journey time.
@@tramographyMCR I know the platforms were there from British Rail days, one of them goes past my old school, but they they restrict growth along the ordinary streets. They also prevent the re-use of the rail system. The original tram system used the streets, and had a route down Princess road - imagine buses having to have platorms on the street. The much-needed route from the airport to Stockport could have gone on the road. They could have had a route from the Airport through Heald Green and up to Stockport on the road. They could have routed the metro up Brownley Green to Sharston then along the Princess Parkway to Piccadilly. Instead they can't do this because of the need for platforms, they are stuck with a system that is expensive and time consuming to expand und under-used stops. The platforms on Market Street are a nuisance. The routing in the manchester centre is a nuisance.
@@alanmon2690 The thing with constructing tram lines on the streets nowadays when car traffic is increasing is that it takes longer. Road closures on main roads will be disruptive to traffic. Much easier to use rail alignments: faster + cheaper to construct/convert. They never planned for the Bury, Alty, and Oldham Loop lines to be reused by trains. The whole reason they were converted to Metrolink was because they received more local traffic than national. The Bury Line was an awkward 10mile-ish spur that proved to be unhelpful to have on the network with railway traffic increasing in 90s. Oldham Loop was falling apart slowly in 2009 before it was converted (overcrowding, failing infrastructure). Not sure about the Altrincham Line but probably for similar reasons. Again, Heald Green has other transport connections. 30 mins to Stockport by bus, runs every 30 mins, and in the other direction, Heald Green to Manchester Airport on the tram again is not necessary, it has a frequent non-stop train connection. *Even with lowered platforms keep in mind,* routing the trams on the road from the Airport to Stockport instead of the current plan to use rail alignments... Track length is pretty much the same using either plan, but the rail alignment route looks better since it doesn't require road closures of any sort. I also don't see any way the tram line could rise up into Stockport *even with lowered platforms* without making extremely tight turns. (Finney Lane /Wilmslow Rd junction for example, how would that work?) The railway alignment route is much much better than the idea you're suggesting here, *even with lowered platforms.* Again, don't know how they would possibly go about getting trams onto Princess Parkway, let alone constructing the tram tracks and causing immense disruption to traffic while they do it, instead of just using former railway alignments. It's much better for everyone! I don't see why all the trams need to run on the road! Basically, the reason why they don't use roads often is because roadworks cause traffic, as opposed to railways, which don't mix with road traffic. It's not because the platforms are too high to work, it's because they are trying to be as efficient as possible while constructing a tram line. Unless you need to walk through the middle of Market Street for some reason, the platforms shouldn't be that much of a bother. Nothing we can really do about the routing of the city centre. It's the absolute best it could have been if you look closely at where the lines go. More junctions and more lines would just mess things up even more and that is the last thing the Metrolink needs right now.
Thanks for all the support on the video, it's been my best peforming one so far!
Im not from Manchester and don't have a super in-depth understanding of the system, but im hoping to bring more light to stuff like this.
Working hard to get some more videos out soon :)
Lots of tunnels under Manchester, in 1971 I was an apprentice telephone engineer, GPO, now British telecom, I remember once going down a man hole in city centre, (with the engineer I was shadowing) not far from river Irwell, at the bottom of the manhole were some heavy timbers with iron rings set in them, lifted two timbers the went down iron spiral stairs , came down a few feet onto a proper cobbled street, it was bricked up at the sides and a long brick arch above, don’t remember really exploring this, I was told that many years ago this would have run down to the edge of the river Irwell and as the city developed and the river embankments were built up to today’s level, some of these old , narrow streets were brick over rather than filled in. You can see old “barred openings “ halfway up the embankments nowadays
I saw my picture which made me smile :)) I took the pic of the TfW trains at Cardiff Ctrl used on Wikipedia today :))
There are no traffic flows large enough in the Manchester metropolitan area that could support the enormous cost of a tunnelled metro system. What could work is short underpasses at key places to speed up tram services rather than flat junctions everywhere.
Exactly right. That's what the Ashton Line did in places, and others in comments are suggesting an entirely underground system, but that is just not efficient and cost will outweigh benefit if the Metrolink were to be replaced.
There are, and will be. The population of Manchester itself is set to double in the next decade. The tram system we currently have is at capacity on any given day, and you see just how badly it handles even smaller events like a football match. We need a subway system or heavy commuter rail lines on their own tracks. Trams aren't a mass transit solution, they're used in place of busses where they need the extra capacity but they can't be a replacement for a proper metro. We need a Crossrail for the north, basically, something to link up the big population hubs in the region of Liverpool, Manchester, Bradford and Leeds with connections to Sheffield.
The approach at Piccadilly is still the same as it was over 100 years ago, it's a huge bottleneck for ALL train traffic through the area. HS2 was going to help out with that but who knows when or if we'll ever see that come to fruition after Sunak cancelled the northern leg.
Hopefully with the devolved transportation plans for the regions Labour are suggesting we might see something actually happen where multiple city regions can combine their resources and do something that integrates across county lines. Before then you need to rely on central government and we all know what the treasury is like about spending money outside of the M25 lol.
@@TalesOfWar Imho the Metrolink just needs to be improved. Capacity is a huge problem as you mentioned.
@@tramographyMCR There isn't much that can be done capacity wise really. It's limited by what it is. The only way you can really improve it is by making it entirely separate from all other traffic (including pedestrians) so nothing can get in the way of its operation, and to be able to more quickly stop and start for more regular service. The current rolling stock just isn't designed for that. Basically we want something like the Victoria Line in London. Every 90 seconds on the busiest parts of the network. That frequency is how you get capacity and you can only achieve that on dedicated track.
If we do end up building a proper metro it has the potential to be a total game changer for the region if properly integrated with other transit modes. Obviously the main train stations would be linked up, but also the bigger bus stations or ones in important locations like Middleton. Imagine the investment these places would get from the outside now its so much easier to get around the place from further afield?
@@tramographyMCR The problem is the city centre is a choke point for the whole system. It can take just as long for a tram to cross it than it takes to get there from the terminus. It's slow and congested because trams have to work around cars, pedestrians and cyclists. If the tracks between Piccadilly, Deansgate and Victoria were underground "pre-metro" style, that would help a lot, and further sections could be tunneled as the budget allows, until you have a situation similar to Stuttgart, Karlsruhe or Hannover. That's one option, another would be to build a new automated metro line between the highest density areas of the city, and perhaps hook it up to some of the grade separated Metrolink lines and convert them to light metro.
A nicely shot, well educated video! I do think what Manchester needs are two circular lines that meet on Wilmslow Rd and through to in town. Willow Rd id the world's busiest bus corridor. Well it's ridiculously busy anyway. One circle to serve west and north. The other east and south. It'd give new quicker routes to areas not served like Rusholme and Moss Side. It would link up the bus stations, metro lines and trains. You wouldn't need to going town and then out which would be good for local growth. You could be in places like Dunham Massey, Tatton Park in 20 minutes from the city centre which would increase tourism and health benefits. 78,000 going in and out of Old Trafford, plus the Cricket, concerts, and I suppose City is a huge clog of people trying to get into town just to leave it again. There's a huge mix of diverse areas in 'Greater Manchester' that you can only access via a car. If it's not London it doesn't generally get built. It'd never happen. Ideally Birmingham, Liverpool, Leeds and Newcastle should have something similar.
Slightly over my head but that sounds like a good idea. Would like to come back to Manchester sometime if a metro does get built.
Thanks for the really interesting video. I wrote about light rail/trams for my dissertation many years ago. I had suggested that trams were better than a subway, due to there being no need for tunnels and underground stations, and the perceived safety of tram stops because they were in the open. Nowadays, I support the idea of turning the Metrolink into a subway/metro. I accept that safety at tram stops will have changed due to changes in the levels of crime, so subway stations with CCTV and security guards patrolling the stations should improve passenger safety. Furthermore, they should help to improve capacity. One final thought: I saw in a book (published over 40 years) that included a plan to build two railway lines, one linking Victoria Station to Central Station and a line linking Piccadilly to the north-west of the city. Albert Square would have been the site of the interchange. What a pity these schemes never went ahead (Ditto with the Picc-Vic).
cars always have to give way to the trams and they come every 6 mins outside the city centre which is perfectly fine, also if it was a subway i wouldnt be able to bump it
This video is really well put together, and you kept the info concise as well, didn't feel like you were reading off of a script for majority of the video, nice work.
Yes, the Metrolink has many problems right now. One thing is that the north doesn't get as much funding for transport compared to London.
A subway would be nice, but it would be much more efficient and easier to improve the current network instead of beginning another separate project.
The Metrolink also can't really be extended anymore and operate well without extra vehicles. There are overcrowding issues often on the Bury and Altrincham Lines.
Every line and route meets in he city centre at some point as well (which I think you mentioned briefly in the video). Pretty much every tram gets delayed after passing through the city centre.
A metro tunnel has been proposed for the future between Old Trafford (ish) and Piccadilly station which might help with congestion issues at central parts of the network.
There are loads of things I want to mention, but I'll just press enter before I lose control of my hands
Your camerawork and editing is also quite good for 100 subscribers. You definitely deserve all the attention this video gets. Commitment to travel from Bristol to up here :)
Thanks! Especially after riding on the Elizabeth Line a few times, I think the North is really poorly served by transport.
Probably the biggest weakness of Metrolink (in my opinion) is that there is not enough space above the ground to expand in such a large city.
There's actually a lot of opportunities for extensions, more than you might have expected, but I won't list them all (unless you ask!)
The network just cannot expand because it's having a hard time as it is now
It'd be interesting if they built a tram tunnel like what many tram systems in mainland Europe (especially German but also some Austrian & Swiss "Stadtbahnen") have, but I doubt they'll get the money to do that
It's ridiculous that a city the size of Manchester with a metro population approaching 3 million isn't already thinking of building a mass-rapid transit system. Trams are great, but there's only so many new lines and extensions you can build before you stretch the system beyond its limits. A comparable city such as Lyon in France which has 4 metro lines, 7 tram lines and 26 high frequency bus lines. Seeing how rapidly Manchester is growing, and how densely populated the centre is becoming with all those new highrises, it only makes sense start thinking ahead and provide a mass rapid transit system that can complement and provide relief for existing core metrolink services. We need to think about 50 years down the line, not just the next decade.
Idk where you got 5 million from. Grater Manchester has 2.8-2.9 million people
@@JB22. I think he means Merseyside as a whole
@@SirNob Merseyside is Greater Liverpool. I think you mean Greater Manchester.
@@JB22. I have no idea now, lol I thought it was 5 million for some reason, my bad!
metrolink is perfectly adequate, it brightened up certain superbs in manchester (wythenshawe, rochdale) and besides the subway would take ages and what would happen to the existing inferstructure?
Nice video. It occurs to me that Manchester would be an ideal place for an S-Bahn. The classic S-bahn system is built out of existing lines that spread out in different directions from the city, and Greater Manchester has plenty of those, that all funnel together into a "Stammstrecke" - that is a tunnel under the city centre with a very high frequency of trains. As expensive as this is, it's mostly about making use out of existing infrastructure - i.e. all the routes that can't be used as much as they could because it's too congested in the city centre, rather than building a whole new metro system as larger cities would do.
Here in Stuttgart, which I guess is about half the size of Manchester, the S-Bahn has 6 lines each running every 15 minutes with 140 or 200m long trains - that's a train every 2.5 minutes in the city centre underground stations. And this is in addition to the Stadtbahn - the Stadtbahn being roughly the same as the Metrolink (yellow too) as a mixture of tram and light railway (although the Stadtbahn too mostly disappears underground in the city centre). German cities invested in these systems in the 70s and 80s and reap the rewards today and for decades to come - it's hard to imagine anything different. You can imagine how something similar would be a quantum leap for Manchester.
I would like to make lots of videos about transport systems in continental Europe, they look really intresting!
I mean Manchester has lots of local trains into it anyways, them through running would be great
That's essentially what the Elizabeth Line in London is. It uses a bunch of existing lines outside the city core and has new tunnels in the centre and links everything together. Manchester really does need this. The population is growing quite rapidly and what we have right now is not going to be able to cope. It can just about cope with it right now but falls over quite often when there's extra strain on for say large events.
@@leek6927 The problem with all the trains we already have is that they all share the same incredibly overcrowded track space. There's been hardly any expansion of rail outside of London for over a century. The station approaches at both Victoria and Piccadilly have essentially the same capacity they did in 1890 (modern signalling helps there of course but that only goes so far). We have the fast trains to that go down to London and up to Glasgow that take up huge headways which reduces the number of slower and more frequent services we can run. HS2 is designed to release much of that capacity... assuming it ever gets reinstated then actually built. A high capacity, regular, fully segregated metro system would do wonders for all traffic in the whole region. It doesn't all have to be in tunnels, just under the urban cores like the London Underground is. Most of the Underground is actually over ground, and most of the Overground is actually under ground lol.
The ideal solution would be a metro that does all the heavy lifting, with trams linking all those areas in between then the busses picking up extra capacity or serving the areas it makes no real sense to run a dedicated set of tracks and all that come with it. It'll take years and be expensive, but it isn't beyond our capability. The problem is nobody wants to pay for it and the place with all the money wants to spend it on itself. London. We need to put massive investment into all of our city regions with better infrastructure which will bring with it more outside investment because it'll make it quicker and easier for people to get to and from work, and to move goods around etc. It'll also improve the diversity of the economy rather than relying almost entirely on the finance sector which only exists in The City and Canary Wharf. Two infinitely tiny spits of land relative to the size of the country they're in. When the finance sector goes down the tubes so does the UK economy.
A little tip with the doors. You can press it before it stops then it'll open when it does. Not quite automatic, but it speeds things up a little.
That's really cool, I'm not sure I knew that!
The Metrolink is by far the greatest thing to happen to Manchester in the last 100 years, apart from the success of the 2 Manchester football teams.
Its brilliant and getting further expansion to Stockport, Middleton, Bolton and Wigan will enhance it even more.
Excellent video! Thank you
as someone who lives in Manchester I agree with you. from what I heard the trams were getting extended to Bolton but that got cancelled for reasons I do not know. the public transport in Manchester are very poor especially northern on the Walkden line and the bee network. buses that are in the bee network sector are really poor buses don't come on time we have to wait every 20 mins for a bus or even up to half hour or even up to an hour if delayed I have a friend who works for the bee network hand he said to me I think the bee network in general is diabolical. great video though.
I think Bolton was put on the back burner because there's already regular train services there. Kind of why (well, one of the reasons) the London Underground doesn't serve much south of the Thames. There are already a bunch of commuter rail services down there that do the trick. That and it's mostly waterlogged gravel rather than the easy to cut through clay on the north. But that's not really relevant to this lol.
Fantastic video well done!
nice video mate. keep up with the good work
Victoria and Piccadilly stations are not far apart, when in Manchester it’s a 1( minute walk. There is also a free bus service from these stations.
A one minute walk, really ?? Who are you, the Six Million Dollar Man ? LOL 😂😂😂
Honestly for how much a metro system costs it’s not worth it. It takes 30 about minutes to get from Ashton under lyne to the city centre.
That money would be far better spent on a circular line connecting the outer towns on the system and increased capacity at peak hours imo
A circular line connecting the towns is something planned for the future, but likely would not have been able to happen without the network we have now.
Connecting surrounding areas to the city centre of Manchester brings in more money for the Metrolink than a circular line connecting Ashton, Oldham, and Stockport would for example.
The Ashton Line is one of the slower Metrolink lines as well! The Bury Line is longer in track, and it takes 24 mins. The Altrincham takes 22, the East Didsbury takes 21, the Trafford Centre takes 21, the Eccles takes 20, and from Oldham it takes 20. I left out the Airport Line because its construction purpose was slightly different (it's quite slow though), and Rochdale because it has a 15 min train connection.
Ashton also has a 15 min train connection. Droylsden and Audenshaw and Clayton do not, which is why the tram line was built.
Still a lot quicker than a bus.
The long term plan is to connect the "spokes" up with a "wheel", or something similar. An actual loop line isn't very good for reliability though so I imagine they'd have sections that link up but not have a single service do an actual circle, if that makes sense. They'd need to build quite a lot of new track for that, most of what exists now is old alignments that still existed. They replaced the track and electrified it of course but they didn't need to build many new permanent ways. There are still quite a few alignments they could use to link bits up but a lot of if will need to be brand new and thus expensive.
You could never have automated trams on, for instance, the branch that goes to Media City and Eccles. Automation is not possible, even if the city centre section were underground.
Trust me mate the Oldham and Rochdale line reaches 50mph if not more
Max speed is 50mph for all trams
I like to see a video on the TFW
Im planning to do it after my next video. I would like to do interviews with regular users of the service and real life testing to prove the points so it might take a bit of time, though will probably be out by early December.
Another thing is that a subway system would not only cost billions but also means lots of traffic issues with roads being constantly dug up. It would be a nightmare.
That's the "cut and cover" method which the Tube used when it opened in 1863 but tunnel boring machines would be used if they wanted to build a subway now.
@GlobeSync1 there was no cars on the roads in 1863, just horses and carriages.
@@stevenblood1284 Ofc, Im just saying that the cut and cover method would not be used anymore, it is a very inefficient and inconvient way of digging a tunnel.
@@stevenblood1284 There was more traffic on the roads in London in 1863 than there is now. Thats why they built train lines under ground. There's absolutely no way we'd use the cut and cover method today when building a metro line under a major city. They'd use a TBM as we've used since the first deep level tube line in 1890. The whole point of which was to avoid having to dig anything up and cause traffic problems.
Great video mate. Have a sub.
Metrolink is nice but it's starting to struggle as the city grows. A proper subway would have been an expensive investment back in the 70's but would have benefitted the city in the long run. Manchester will likely have to build one anyway in the next 20 years or so, especially if Greater Manchester plans on adding a million or so people in that period. On the plus side driverless train technology has come a long way, so some aspects will be easier now.
Fully agree, hoping a subway gets built soon.
@@GlobeSync1would they be able the existing trams underground? Or is there something stopping that, as what I would do is make a tunnel for just the core section and then go above ground after that and run on the existing routes which I think are on dedicated rights of way anyway. Then it would be like the Tyne and Wear metro which I would consider good, to me that seems to make far more sense than making a disconnected system which wouldn’t be helpful anyway if you want to go anywhere but the CBD
I think one of the reasons they didn’t do an underground metro is because the soil conditions would make it really expensive, I’m not sure if that would still be the case although it would be really expensive anyway because if the useless government
Maybe? I'm probably not the best person to ask that question but I think it could be a possibility.
A bit like the Elizabeth Line which has to run as a subway in the core underground, then as a long distance train out to Shenfield, Reading and other parts.
But maybe the current tram stock wouldn't be capable of operating underground services.
@ yeah the stock is the question as I’m not sure if maybe it is to long or something
It wont be good idea for a subway since it goes to popular areas where it stops if you add those stops there it will cause traffic on cars when its building.
And then when it's built, fewer people will need to use their cars because it'll be more convenient to just get on the metro. We need to change our mindset of driving everywhere, and we need to build cities where you don't NEED to. Imagine how much worse London would be if they didn't have the Underground and everyone just drove everywhere? It's an absolute nightmare as it is, and the traffic now is actually nowhere near as bad as it was back when they were building the first Underground line. That's WHY they went under ground in the first place to avoid all the traffic on the streets. That and the literal crap from all the horses. This is why we have raised pavements by the way lol.
@@TalesOfWar there isn't a lot of traffic in manchester only if the traffic lights had more time to drive through
@@bloxburgbuild2 You are kidding, right?
maybe in the city centre it is but in local areas like tamside are less crowded
I think the Picc-Vic will eventually be built to solve some of the issues, it'll just be a part of the Metrolink and not a whole separate system however
the tram was initally built instead of the picc vic thing. takes about 3 minutes so building a tube is actually useless
@@laurencec09 Literally 99.9% chance Picc-Vic won't be built ever. The Ordsall Chord allowed trains to run directly from Victoria to Piccadilly, and a tram line was built instead of the Picc-Vic line anyway. It takes 7 mins on a good day on the tram between the two main stations.
@@tramographyMCRThere was a rumour that the reason the Picc-Vic tunnel wasn’t proceded with was because there was a large Cold War communications centre buried in the way!
Interior could be improved
A subway? It’s all about money unfortunately
The video was fine. It's just that the Metro has been poorly implemented. For a start needing a platform to get onto the vehicle is silly; it makes each station a major investment, the building blocks the free passage of people, for example Market Street. Practically every other tram network (that I know about) uses street level entrance. Imagine, you fly into Manchester Airport and think "I'll take the Metro, bound to be fast" and then sit as the trams trundle along at a slow speed, stopping every 200 metres or so. I have a 15 minute walk to a station. plus almost 50 minute journey. It's quicker and cheaper to take the 43 bus from the Airport to Piccadilly, faster is the train. There is a small town and rail station near the airport - Heald Green- putting the Tram Line near the rail station would have improved the transport for the area. A few years ago I had to transfer from Manchester Piccadilly to Victoria, descending into the undercroft for a linking tram was miserable. After that I walked - much quicker. Rant over!
haha no way anyone would ever get the 43 to the airport it takes about 2 hours jus get the train mate
Your first point about the trams needing a platform. No, it wasn't actually that silly, since they were inheriting British Rail platforms back when the Metrolink first opened. It would have taken years to convert railway lines to Metrolink if entire stations had to be redone, but the Bury Line was converted in 8 months because of that decision, and got passengers moving swiftly. The Alty Line was converted in 6 months also.
Most people will check how long the journey takes (or at least how many stops it has) before boarding any form of transport. Every 200 metres is also out of proportion (even for the Airport Line). 95% of people arriving at MA will flock to the trains (I've been there train/tramspotting before, I know).
Yeah, the bus is ~5 mins faster than the tram when there is light traffic. There is not always light traffic, especially from South Manchester.
The train is about three times faster, yes,
hence why everyone flocks to the trains after getting to MA.
The tram line connection to the Airport is not just for city centre to Airport journeys which you are making it seem like, it is for city centre to Wythenshawe, and Wythenshawe to Airport journeys primarily. There are other modes of transport for a reason.
How would they have gone about connecting Heald Green? You just dropped this sentence into the paragraph as if it could work practically at all. A short spur from Peel Hall to Heald Green station wouldn't do much for the transport at all. After all, the rail station already has direct, frequent connections to the Airport, and direct, frequent connections to Manchester city centre. Putting a tram line there as well that serves those same places (when there are also bus connections from the tram line to Heald Green!!!) would be a waste of money.
Yes, Piccadilly to Victoria takes 7 mins on a good day, but trams are every 12 minutes. Walking does take about 19 minutes, though, so if you immediately miss a tram, probably better off walking, yes.
There are also free buses that run every 10 minutes and take around the same amount of journey time.
@@tramographyMCR I know the platforms were there from British Rail days, one of them goes past my old school, but they they restrict growth along the ordinary streets. They also prevent the re-use of the rail system. The original tram system used the streets, and had a route down Princess road - imagine buses having to have platorms on the street. The much-needed route from the airport to Stockport could have gone on the road. They could have had a route from the Airport through Heald Green and up to Stockport on the road. They could have routed the metro up Brownley Green to Sharston then along the Princess Parkway to Piccadilly. Instead they can't do this because of the need for platforms, they are stuck with a system that is expensive and time consuming to expand und under-used stops. The platforms on Market Street are a nuisance. The routing in the manchester centre is a nuisance.
@@frankieconnolly6984 No it doesn't mate. But as a pensioner with a free pass I use the train, and the 43.
@@alanmon2690 The thing with constructing tram lines on the streets nowadays when car traffic is increasing is that it takes longer. Road closures on main roads will be disruptive to traffic. Much easier to use rail alignments: faster + cheaper to construct/convert.
They never planned for the Bury, Alty, and Oldham Loop lines to be reused by trains. The whole reason they were converted to Metrolink was because they received more local traffic than national. The Bury Line was an awkward 10mile-ish spur that proved to be unhelpful to have on the network with railway traffic increasing in 90s. Oldham Loop was falling apart slowly in 2009 before it was converted (overcrowding, failing infrastructure). Not sure about the Altrincham Line but probably for similar reasons.
Again, Heald Green has other transport connections. 30 mins to Stockport by bus, runs every 30 mins, and in the other direction, Heald Green to Manchester Airport on the tram again is not necessary, it has a frequent non-stop train connection.
*Even with lowered platforms keep in mind,* routing the trams on the road from the Airport to Stockport instead of the current plan to use rail alignments... Track length is pretty much the same using either plan, but the rail alignment route looks better since it doesn't require road closures of any sort. I also don't see any way the tram line could rise up into Stockport *even with lowered platforms* without making extremely tight turns. (Finney Lane /Wilmslow Rd junction for example, how would that work?)
The railway alignment route is much much better than the idea you're suggesting here, *even with lowered platforms.*
Again, don't know how they would possibly go about getting trams onto Princess Parkway, let alone constructing the tram tracks and causing immense disruption to traffic while they do it, instead of just using former railway alignments. It's much better for everyone! I don't see why all the trams need to run on the road!
Basically, the reason why they don't use roads often is because roadworks cause traffic, as opposed to railways, which don't mix with road traffic. It's not because the platforms are too high to work, it's because they are trying to be as efficient as possible while constructing a tram line.
Unless you need to walk through the middle of Market Street for some reason, the platforms shouldn't be that much of a bother.
Nothing we can really do about the routing of the city centre. It's the absolute best it could have been if you look closely at where the lines go. More junctions and more lines would just mess things up even more and that is the last thing the Metrolink needs right now.
Subways cost money. This factor will become more important to you once you are old enough to pay taxes.
They are not cheap but I think would be worth it for a city the size of Manchester.
Subways pay their way in the long run and improve economic activity where they serve. Maybe one day you'll be wise enough to understand.