Why don't UK cities have extensive undergound metros?
Posted 10-15-2014 at 03:57 AM by John-UK
In the late 1970s the country decided to make London a world mega city. The rest of the country would suffer as resources would be poured into London. No other city would expand and in fact many contracted as the UK population as whole increased. Liverpool and Manchester and others contracted in populations. Liverpool was laid out in the early 1900s to cope with 2.5 million. It is now under 500,000. This is the reason why many large UK cities have appalling urban rail networks, or no networks at all, compared to comparable Germany.
If Leeds, Manchester, Bristol, Birmingham were in Germany they would have an S-Bhan urban rail network and Liverpool's metro would be completed and extended.
[B]How Liverpool built its Metro[/B]
In Liverpool in the 1900s boulevards were built radiating out from the old city centre with wide reservations accommodating trams. Indeed the country's largest tram network was in Liverpool, the city foolishly got rid of them by 1957.
The city had electric commuter rail lines from its centre (underground) into the Wirral and north to Southport and Ormskirk. To the south diesel trains ran some urban lines. The section serving the Wirral was the 2nd underground railway in the world with the world's deepest stations either side of the deep river. The commuter lines terminated at a number of large mainline terminal stations around the city centre. You could take an urban train from the south of the city, then get off at a mainline terminal station, have to take a bus across the city centre and then from another mainline terminal station take another train to the north of the city.
These large and expensive to maintain terminal stations were demolished and put underground with new tunnels linking them to give a south to north crossrail. Travelling from the south of the city right up to Southport on one train was possible. Of the 5 rail terminals in Birkenhead and Liverpool, all were demolished except Lime St mainline terminal where long haul trains were concentrated. The station has its own underground metro station under the mainline station for easy access from all over the region.
Some diesel lines were electrified. Liverpool had an abundance of disused freight lines and tunnels serving the docks. These were planned to be electrified and used on the new Merseyrail metro network. A great idea that worked.
Tyne and Wear had lots of disused freight rail lines that could be used for a metro but no underground tunnels in the centre. Like Merseyrail a new metro was created using existing lines and new tunnels and stations in the centre were built. In Liverpool and Newcastle's cases existing passenger and freight rail infrastructure was largely used to create urban metros. A great idea that worked for both cities and cheap to build.
One third of the planned network in Liverpool was abandoned after work started. The boring of tunnels was started at Central underground station but abandoned after cutting only about 10 yards. A six platform underground parkway station was planned in the east of the city with work also being halted. Miles of trackbed was mothballed and after 40 years is still unused. The 1.25 mile 1829 Wapping Tunnel, built by Stephenson, one of the oldest rail tunnels in the world, was to link the eastern part of the city with the centre's underground section. The tunnel is still laying there with no lines in it. The lines in the eastern section of the city were not electrified and slow diesels trains were used unable to use the city centre's underground section and stations. Liverpool does not even have a station at its airport despite the metro, Manchester/Leeds and London lines running nearby. In the meantime London's urban rail infrastructure was improved and greatly expanded to the point other cities could only dream of.
Liverpool is wanting money to open up this needed partially underground station near the city centre, the Dept for Transport will not provide funding. The platforms are still there and the passenger waiting rooms can be seen cut into the rock:
[IMG]http://i60.tinypic.com/23u4igx.jpg[/IMG]
Liverpool's metro as it is:
[IMG]http://i62.tinypic.com/px27k.png[/IMG]
Liverpool's metro if all the trackbed, tunnels, lines and stations are reused or built as planned. A massive difference. If tram/trains were reintroduced running on the boulevards they could merge with the Merseyrail metro running into the tunnels and stations. Electric/battery trains now operational in Japan and a version is being tested in the UK by Bombardier, can open up many lines cheaply without the expensive electrification costs. See this post: [URL]https://www.city-data.com/forum/36621079-post223.html[/URL]
[IMG]http://i61.tinypic.com/200bs7p.jpg[/IMG]
[B]Tyne & Wear Metro[/B]
Unlike Liverpool, the Tyne and Wear metro used virtually all available trackbed and lines, so expansion is expensive.
The beauty and attraction of the Merseyrail approach was that it eliminated expensive to maintain mainline terminal stations, making them through stations under the ground. Terminal stations area a liability, Berlin eliminated its terminal stations converting them all into through stations over time.
[B]Manchester's Failed attempt[/B]
Manchester attempted to form the core of a new underground rail network. They foolishly never took on board the successful approach of neighbouring Liverpool and Birkenhead in eliminating all terminal station bar one. They came up with the Pic-Vic tunnel. This would link Piccadilly terminal station to the south and Victoria station to the north of the city centre. The tunnel would have far too many stations, so many they may have well put in travelator. There was no plan to remove Victoria terminal station and take the station underground as Liverpool did with its terminal stations. The Dept for Transport were not impressed and withdrew funding.
Manchester dreamt up the street tram/train network they currently have. The difference between the two cities can be seen at Manchester's Piccaddilly. It is large and has more activity than Liverpool's Lime St. Liverpool put a lot of its regional services under the city into underground stations, while Manchester was using existing old terminals.
[B]Birmingham & Leeds[/B]
Birmingham has a number of surface commuter rail lines that enter the city centre. Many of these are regional rail lines, however they can all be electrified and the Birmingham "metro" cut back to metro terminal stations within its region. These can be linked in the centre with only a few tunnels bored with underground stations cut in to make a comprehensive commuter rail/metro network. Passing sections could be built to allow faster regional trains to run though on the surface lines. Mainline New St station is a through station. Why aren't the people of Birmingham wanting this and shouting loudly? Something similar can be done at Leeds.
[IMG]http://i57.tinypic.com/2hrq2v9.png[/IMG]
For those interested in rail history. Liverpool's historic rail tunnels:
[URL]https://localwiki.org/liverpool/Liverpool's_Historic_Rail_Tunnels[/URL]
If Leeds, Manchester, Bristol, Birmingham were in Germany they would have an S-Bhan urban rail network and Liverpool's metro would be completed and extended.
[B]How Liverpool built its Metro[/B]
In Liverpool in the 1900s boulevards were built radiating out from the old city centre with wide reservations accommodating trams. Indeed the country's largest tram network was in Liverpool, the city foolishly got rid of them by 1957.
The city had electric commuter rail lines from its centre (underground) into the Wirral and north to Southport and Ormskirk. To the south diesel trains ran some urban lines. The section serving the Wirral was the 2nd underground railway in the world with the world's deepest stations either side of the deep river. The commuter lines terminated at a number of large mainline terminal stations around the city centre. You could take an urban train from the south of the city, then get off at a mainline terminal station, have to take a bus across the city centre and then from another mainline terminal station take another train to the north of the city.
These large and expensive to maintain terminal stations were demolished and put underground with new tunnels linking them to give a south to north crossrail. Travelling from the south of the city right up to Southport on one train was possible. Of the 5 rail terminals in Birkenhead and Liverpool, all were demolished except Lime St mainline terminal where long haul trains were concentrated. The station has its own underground metro station under the mainline station for easy access from all over the region.
Some diesel lines were electrified. Liverpool had an abundance of disused freight lines and tunnels serving the docks. These were planned to be electrified and used on the new Merseyrail metro network. A great idea that worked.
Tyne and Wear had lots of disused freight rail lines that could be used for a metro but no underground tunnels in the centre. Like Merseyrail a new metro was created using existing lines and new tunnels and stations in the centre were built. In Liverpool and Newcastle's cases existing passenger and freight rail infrastructure was largely used to create urban metros. A great idea that worked for both cities and cheap to build.
One third of the planned network in Liverpool was abandoned after work started. The boring of tunnels was started at Central underground station but abandoned after cutting only about 10 yards. A six platform underground parkway station was planned in the east of the city with work also being halted. Miles of trackbed was mothballed and after 40 years is still unused. The 1.25 mile 1829 Wapping Tunnel, built by Stephenson, one of the oldest rail tunnels in the world, was to link the eastern part of the city with the centre's underground section. The tunnel is still laying there with no lines in it. The lines in the eastern section of the city were not electrified and slow diesels trains were used unable to use the city centre's underground section and stations. Liverpool does not even have a station at its airport despite the metro, Manchester/Leeds and London lines running nearby. In the meantime London's urban rail infrastructure was improved and greatly expanded to the point other cities could only dream of.
Liverpool is wanting money to open up this needed partially underground station near the city centre, the Dept for Transport will not provide funding. The platforms are still there and the passenger waiting rooms can be seen cut into the rock:
[IMG]http://i60.tinypic.com/23u4igx.jpg[/IMG]
Liverpool's metro as it is:
[IMG]http://i62.tinypic.com/px27k.png[/IMG]
Liverpool's metro if all the trackbed, tunnels, lines and stations are reused or built as planned. A massive difference. If tram/trains were reintroduced running on the boulevards they could merge with the Merseyrail metro running into the tunnels and stations. Electric/battery trains now operational in Japan and a version is being tested in the UK by Bombardier, can open up many lines cheaply without the expensive electrification costs. See this post: [URL]https://www.city-data.com/forum/36621079-post223.html[/URL]
[IMG]http://i61.tinypic.com/200bs7p.jpg[/IMG]
[B]Tyne & Wear Metro[/B]
Unlike Liverpool, the Tyne and Wear metro used virtually all available trackbed and lines, so expansion is expensive.
The beauty and attraction of the Merseyrail approach was that it eliminated expensive to maintain mainline terminal stations, making them through stations under the ground. Terminal stations area a liability, Berlin eliminated its terminal stations converting them all into through stations over time.
[B]Manchester's Failed attempt[/B]
Manchester attempted to form the core of a new underground rail network. They foolishly never took on board the successful approach of neighbouring Liverpool and Birkenhead in eliminating all terminal station bar one. They came up with the Pic-Vic tunnel. This would link Piccadilly terminal station to the south and Victoria station to the north of the city centre. The tunnel would have far too many stations, so many they may have well put in travelator. There was no plan to remove Victoria terminal station and take the station underground as Liverpool did with its terminal stations. The Dept for Transport were not impressed and withdrew funding.
Manchester dreamt up the street tram/train network they currently have. The difference between the two cities can be seen at Manchester's Piccaddilly. It is large and has more activity than Liverpool's Lime St. Liverpool put a lot of its regional services under the city into underground stations, while Manchester was using existing old terminals.
[B]Birmingham & Leeds[/B]
Birmingham has a number of surface commuter rail lines that enter the city centre. Many of these are regional rail lines, however they can all be electrified and the Birmingham "metro" cut back to metro terminal stations within its region. These can be linked in the centre with only a few tunnels bored with underground stations cut in to make a comprehensive commuter rail/metro network. Passing sections could be built to allow faster regional trains to run though on the surface lines. Mainline New St station is a through station. Why aren't the people of Birmingham wanting this and shouting loudly? Something similar can be done at Leeds.
[IMG]http://i57.tinypic.com/2hrq2v9.png[/IMG]
For those interested in rail history. Liverpool's historic rail tunnels:
[URL]https://localwiki.org/liverpool/Liverpool's_Historic_Rail_Tunnels[/URL]
Total Comments 0
