12:08 - Redux
- Thread starter Devvy
- Start date
Devvy
Donor
Yep; the Hoverlloyd merger isn't going ahead - why would you merge with Seaspeed which will shortly be out of business. But as Seaspeed is owned by BR, there's no real wider business impact - all operations transferred from Seaspeed to the Chunnel.
For Mersham...well someone is always going to lose out. At least it's electric traction and not an airport next to them! It's a nice economic boost to the town though, plenty of employment needed at the terminal for the assorted functions.
1982-HS1-pt1
Devvy
Donor
Excerpts from "Drawing the Line", by Nick Godley, part 1.
Early ideas for the high speed link quickly ran in to issues.(*5)
The International Treaty, implementing the Franco-British agreement to construct the Channel Tunnel held provisions for the construction of "connecting and supporting infrastructure" - meant to be the road and rail connections to the tunnel required for effective use of the undersea link. A high speed express train service between London and Paris, as well as London and the emerging de facto European capital of Brussels, was a fundamental part of this, and as such not only were motorways / autoroutes envisaged - the emerging "M20" in Kent, and "Autoroute d'Anglais" in Nord-Pas-de-Calais region. Both France and Britain had succumbed to domestic politics at the same time, and had originally aimed at domestic high speed rail routes; British Rail was focussed initially on it's higher speed route to Sheffield & Manchester - as well as Leeds and Liverpool (*1) firmly within remit, whilst SNCF had built from scratch in the 1970s a new high speed rail route between Paris and Lyons - the two largest French cities (*2). With construction works still underway on both sides, both British and French Governments agreed that an up to 2 year delay on the completion of connecting works would be acceptable as long as such works were well underway by the time the Channel Tunnel opened.
"Grands Projets" have never come easily in the United Kingdom, although Westminster seemingly was gently dipping it's toe in the field. The inauguration in the 1980s of the new "London Britannia Airport", after numerous years of construction was a notable early success, despite the almost continuous lawsuits for several years from environmental groups - now one can hardly imagine air transport in Britain without it. The evolving domestic high speed route, inheriting much of the former Great Central Route is half of a megaproject, with an almost 100 mile stretch under works at one point. However, the 1980s project of the London to the Chunnel High Speed Route would seriously test government resolve over such a high profile - and high expense - route.
Initial plans by British Rail involved large tunnelling under South London, and blasting a route through Kent - an approach which won few friends, and attracted the anger of several local affairs campaign groups and environmentalist concerns. A political impasse arose - the Government demanded that British Rail's proposition for the new high speed link be economically viable, but equally demanded significant tunnelling to allay residential and environmental concerns, with the two points being largely mutually incompatible. This unsolvable formula was also inexorably tied up with the question of where to terminate the line in London, for which several competing ideas continued. London Victoria continued to be the terminus for the "Night Ferry" services to Paris; at least until the Channel Tunnel would open in 1982. Docklands was an area ripe for regeneration and pushed for by the Greater London Council. There was significant free railway land in the Shepherds Bush area, but this was far from central London. With the question mirroring the chicken and egg debate, little progress was made by 1975.
It was campaigners who made the next move however. The derelict station at Holborn Viaduct was suggested as the ideal station, just receiving a station on the new Fowler Line was slap bang in the middle of London, was accessible by existing routes which could be segregated from the wider network, and was generally in the right direction to allow a joining up of north and south links later. With commuter traffic beginning to bounce again following the lower traffic levels of the 1970s, the fledgling Network South East was persuaded to at least not outright reject it by offering use of the high speed link for domestic services to the further reaches of Kent - NSE kept a distinct silence on idea. The route, via Herne Hill, Penge East and Bromley South offered an existing route straight in to the middle of London; the only problem remained "merely" operational; the sheer lack of space for passengers and terminal platforms for the long international trains, let alone the domestic ones.
Other campaigners attempted to draw attention to the "huge and noisy French high speed trains", and whilst initial ideas had high speed freight also using the route (*3), freight was later dropped to allay at least part of the campaigners wishlist - despite freight continuing to cross London via the existing lines. The route had been chosen carefully; much of the former Southern Region network was hampered by small tunnels and small loading gauges; the route as planned would not need significant works to allow wider and taller European style trains to use it - similar to the Great Central route north of London. A young Geoffrey Howe, MP for Reigate, wrote a critical report on the potential for noise pollution in along the route, despite privately noting that there would still be less trains operating along the route then in decades gone by.(*4)
---------------------
(*1) Sheffield and Manchester are clearly within scope of the GCML. However, in order to free up track capacity closer to London, Liverpool will likely have to be connected, and Leeds is a short hop from Sheffield.
(*2) Technically the two largest "urban areas" rather than cities, but doesn't sound quite so snappy!
(*3) Unbelievably, yes freight access was an early design feature of pre-Arup HS1.
(*4) Yes, that really happened.
(*5) BR's original 1973 route ideas
Early ideas for the high speed link quickly ran in to issues.(*5)
The International Treaty, implementing the Franco-British agreement to construct the Channel Tunnel held provisions for the construction of "connecting and supporting infrastructure" - meant to be the road and rail connections to the tunnel required for effective use of the undersea link. A high speed express train service between London and Paris, as well as London and the emerging de facto European capital of Brussels, was a fundamental part of this, and as such not only were motorways / autoroutes envisaged - the emerging "M20" in Kent, and "Autoroute d'Anglais" in Nord-Pas-de-Calais region. Both France and Britain had succumbed to domestic politics at the same time, and had originally aimed at domestic high speed rail routes; British Rail was focussed initially on it's higher speed route to Sheffield & Manchester - as well as Leeds and Liverpool (*1) firmly within remit, whilst SNCF had built from scratch in the 1970s a new high speed rail route between Paris and Lyons - the two largest French cities (*2). With construction works still underway on both sides, both British and French Governments agreed that an up to 2 year delay on the completion of connecting works would be acceptable as long as such works were well underway by the time the Channel Tunnel opened.
"Grands Projets" have never come easily in the United Kingdom, although Westminster seemingly was gently dipping it's toe in the field. The inauguration in the 1980s of the new "London Britannia Airport", after numerous years of construction was a notable early success, despite the almost continuous lawsuits for several years from environmental groups - now one can hardly imagine air transport in Britain without it. The evolving domestic high speed route, inheriting much of the former Great Central Route is half of a megaproject, with an almost 100 mile stretch under works at one point. However, the 1980s project of the London to the Chunnel High Speed Route would seriously test government resolve over such a high profile - and high expense - route.
Initial plans by British Rail involved large tunnelling under South London, and blasting a route through Kent - an approach which won few friends, and attracted the anger of several local affairs campaign groups and environmentalist concerns. A political impasse arose - the Government demanded that British Rail's proposition for the new high speed link be economically viable, but equally demanded significant tunnelling to allay residential and environmental concerns, with the two points being largely mutually incompatible. This unsolvable formula was also inexorably tied up with the question of where to terminate the line in London, for which several competing ideas continued. London Victoria continued to be the terminus for the "Night Ferry" services to Paris; at least until the Channel Tunnel would open in 1982. Docklands was an area ripe for regeneration and pushed for by the Greater London Council. There was significant free railway land in the Shepherds Bush area, but this was far from central London. With the question mirroring the chicken and egg debate, little progress was made by 1975.
It was campaigners who made the next move however. The derelict station at Holborn Viaduct was suggested as the ideal station, just receiving a station on the new Fowler Line was slap bang in the middle of London, was accessible by existing routes which could be segregated from the wider network, and was generally in the right direction to allow a joining up of north and south links later. With commuter traffic beginning to bounce again following the lower traffic levels of the 1970s, the fledgling Network South East was persuaded to at least not outright reject it by offering use of the high speed link for domestic services to the further reaches of Kent - NSE kept a distinct silence on idea. The route, via Herne Hill, Penge East and Bromley South offered an existing route straight in to the middle of London; the only problem remained "merely" operational; the sheer lack of space for passengers and terminal platforms for the long international trains, let alone the domestic ones.
Other campaigners attempted to draw attention to the "huge and noisy French high speed trains", and whilst initial ideas had high speed freight also using the route (*3), freight was later dropped to allay at least part of the campaigners wishlist - despite freight continuing to cross London via the existing lines. The route had been chosen carefully; much of the former Southern Region network was hampered by small tunnels and small loading gauges; the route as planned would not need significant works to allow wider and taller European style trains to use it - similar to the Great Central route north of London. A young Geoffrey Howe, MP for Reigate, wrote a critical report on the potential for noise pollution in along the route, despite privately noting that there would still be less trains operating along the route then in decades gone by.(*4)
---------------------
(*1) Sheffield and Manchester are clearly within scope of the GCML. However, in order to free up track capacity closer to London, Liverpool will likely have to be connected, and Leeds is a short hop from Sheffield.
(*2) Technically the two largest "urban areas" rather than cities, but doesn't sound quite so snappy!
(*3) Unbelievably, yes freight access was an early design feature of pre-Arup HS1.
(*4) Yes, that really happened.
(*5) BR's original 1973 route ideas
Holborn Viaduct as a Eurostar station is actually a good idea. A travelator could have been built underneath Smithfield to Farringdon to provide access to Kings Cross/Euston. Would have been a bit awkward coming up from South West London, as that area today is a bit of a backwater unless your on Thameslink. Would have given the French a spectacular welcome to London over Blackfriars Railway Bridge.
I’m sure I read somewhere that Mrs Thatcher wanted the CTRL to have a station in Canning Town to serve Canary Wharf, But shyed away from the idea when the extent of demolition that would have been required was made apparent.
I’m sure I read somewhere that Mrs Thatcher wanted the CTRL to have a station in Canning Town to serve Canary Wharf, But shyed away from the idea when the extent of demolition that would have been required was made apparent.
Devvy
Donor
Holborn Viaduct was my first choice for a number of reasons, including what you've mentioned; Farringdon is a mere travellator away, and a direct interchange on the Fowler Line as well. However, I just can't see it being realistic. The platforms don't look like they take longer than an 8-coach EMU, let alone anywhere near the planned lengths for the Trans-Manche train, and I can't see how immigration and customs can be fitted in, let alone any security provisions if required, in to the station as is without requiring major alterations to the office block now above. There's also only a few platforms of limited width (bear in mind the number of passengers getting off the train at London from Europe!) which poses safety concerns given the numbers, and there's not really enough platforms for domestic services which would give much needed economic credit to the line.
Basically yes! The long straight red route was basically just a quadrupling of the Tonbridge to Ashford line (OTL just several passing loops for Eurostar whilst it used the line).
Bear in mind, this is only Part 1, and nothing has been finalised yet with regards to the route!
Devvy
Donor
Office buildings were built circa early 1960s, and the station only occupied the ground floor - presumably the higher floors were independently owned by businesses for office space. So it'd be expensive to compulsorily repurchase and demolish, not withstanding the fact I can't see Thatcher wanting to do something like that. And even so, I reckon the platforms are only 200m longish, and can probably only take 4 platforms due to wider platforms required. You can't extend north due to Holborn Viaduct road, and it's going to be difficult to extend south because of only double track alignment and bridge/embankment positioning. The Eurostar trains are almost 400m long - extending the platforms to even 250m-300m is going to be bloody expensive let alone 400m. At which point you enter in to the realm of why spend all this money retrofitting an existing station to make a workable solution; why not spend the money on a new station in a better location and potentially get a much better station?
1982-Manchester-Metro-pt2
Devvy
Donor
1982 - The Transport Revolution in Manchester, part 2.
The Manchester Metro rolling stock is closely associated with the London Underground Victoria Line stock.
Parliamentary authority to construct was rapidly followed by the beginning of construction, only to be delayed by the three-day working week and general 1970s economic malaise. Work continued slowly; thankfully the scheme in Manchester only required four (later expanded to seven) underground stations, of limited length in comparison to schemes in London.
Beginning in 1974, the first phases of construction involved the conversion of many miles of heavy rail, British Rail, routes in to light rail suitable for London Underground rolling stock to operate on. Loading gauges presented little problem - Underground trains were, and remain, far smaller than any British Rail main line train, but the correct resignalling and electrification of the route would take time. The central part, the most important, comprised of a tunnelled section underneath Manchester city centre itself, and would need the primary four underground stations excavating - which would mostly be constructed by digging and later covering the stations.
Perspex model of Royal Exchange station
The short stub extension to the south was approved by the Government late in construction in 1979, and allowed a continuity of construction - even if these construction works were highly disruptive in an effort to control costs. The GMC approved a cut-and-cover route along Oxford Road, causing massive disruption to a major road which was at the time also a major bus route. It did however again demonstrate the severe pressure on finances at the time; the cut-and-cover technique completely underneath the road avoided having to pay for any wayleave rights to landowners above.
All the construction work continued even as political debates occurred in the background. The GMC sought to curtail the northern branches to Rawtenstall, or even potentially Bury - preferring not to potentially subsidise operations in another county for financial and legal reasons. Residents of Rawtenstall and Bacup protested vociferously - the route in to Manchester had always be well utilised and run at a (for the time) high frequency, and locals could not countenance the withdrawal of such a service. A complex cross-suibsidy arrangement was arranged; some saying it has had nowhere near enough cross examination by the county councils, but it did at least provide arrangement, with Lancashire County Council agreeing to subsidise passengers to & from stations within the county, thereby allowing stations as far as Bacup to stay open. Whilst some planners may have envisaged services returning to places as far north as Accrington, this was never a realistic expectation given that services ended in the 1960s and the difficulty in getting agreement to serve just stations to Bacup. Underground trains would have been unsuitable for such long distance trips in addition, with no toilets on board either.
On the rolling stock side, the trains procured were of London Underground design as planned, keeping costs to a minimum with no requirement to design new trains from scratch. The 1973 Stock, used in London for the Piccadilly Line served as the original design, with only the formation changed. The original 1973 Piccadilly Line stock had 6 carriages totalling 107 metres long, but however the Manchester Metro platforms were only 100 metres long. To aid in driver swaps and to make sure the train fitted within the station for safety reason - and as critics would add, for cost cutting reasons - the trains for Manchester were rejigged to form 5 coach trains, as DM-T-NDM-T-DM formation (*2), with a length of 88 metres.
The previous Class 504 trains on the Bury Line also used side-contact third rail electric systems
The only other major difference was the adoption in Manchester of the side contact third rail system, mimicking the former "non-standard" British Rail electrification system in the area which played a part in BR's willingness to dispose of the line. The side contact system was partly chosen for safety - it is much easier to build a cover over without the need to cater for a top contact, but also for weather - the north suffers a colder climate than the south, with ice and snow far more prevalent, and the top-contact third rail system used in the south would be affected by ice forming on the rail, hindering power collection in the north far more often. The system quickly proved useful, with snowstorms in the winter of 1985/86 affecting services (service levels were reduced), but the Metro system continuing to function through most of the winter.
The service proved more successful than imagined, in part because of the 1980s economic revival of Manchester. Analysts still argue over the chicken vs egg debate; did the Metro spur economic revival, or did the economic revival justify the Metro? Either way, the GMC managed service offered integrated ticketing with the bus network, served multiple areas of the Manchester conurbation, and allowed direct access to the commercial and political centres of Manchester. It also provided a stimulus to redevelopment of the G-Mex (the former Manchester Central station), which was firstly an exhibition centre, and now general arena building, hosting music concerts, and other indoor sports such as boxing, badminton, basketball, and squash, and is one of the busiest indoor arenas in the United Kingdom (*3).
The popularity quickly became a problem at some city centre stations, with overcrowding during rush hours witnessed regularly at Victoria station, and Royal Exchange during Saturdays, with the service pattern of 5 trains per hour on each of the 4 branches during rush hour, and 4 trains per hour off-peak becoming insufficient to move people quickly enough during the 1990s economic boom in the United Kingdom. The 2000s would see Government funding for the "Big Bang" project in Manchester (*5). Significant resignalling using a Westinghouse system, similar to that used on the Victoria Line in London. A computer system "Automatic Train Operation" (*6) guides the train between the busiest mid-section area of the route, providing the maximum throughput of trains during rush hour, and allowing a 6tph (train every 10 minutes) during rush hour, with 5tph (every 12 minutes) off peak, with the provision of a fifth branch resulting in a highly effective 30 trains per hour in each direction during peak times. With funding continuing to be unavailable for a second line however, Greater Manchester came to agreement with British Rail in 2015, copying the model used in several other British cities for funding of a British Rail operated service, but marketed and ticketed under GMPTE auspices. The route, running east-west, brought in many new suburbs to the Metro network, although not offering direct access to the city centre core except via Metro (Underground) connections (*7), and utilised several old routes which either lay under-used by BR, or had preserved alignments still allowing the track to be reinstated.
Bury station, a point on the route north and termination service for service F
The fifth branch split in the north near Radcliffe to serve Bolton, and in the south branched off to serve Old Trafford Football (for Manchester United football, as opposed to Old Trafford Cricket station, for the cricket) as well as the large out-of-town Trafford Shopping Centre which opened in 1998. Costs were again kept to a minimum by the use of extant routes to the north; the Radcliffe-Bolton stretch of track was used until the 1970s for freight purposes, and had been safeguarded by the Greater Manchester Council for just such a purpose. To the south, the new route squeezed in to the existing right-of-way shared by British Rail services from Manchester to Warrington, and also allowed them to legally close the Manchester United railway station which was operationally a pain for British Rail. During match day Saturdays, whilst the rest of the network operates on off-peak frequencies (5 branches at 5 trains per hour), a pseudo 6th branch operates from the Trafford Centre to the terminating platform at Bury station, bringing a 10 train per hour service to Manchester United for the thousands for football fans, as well as Saturday shoppers to the Trafford Centre. Unfortunately during weekday evening matches, the network is unable to offer this frequency during the evening rush hour period, although the same enhanced service is offered from at least 10 minutes before the match ends.
New trains, initially procured in 2012 had by 2019 fully replaced the former 1973 stock after roughly 30 years of operation - with some showing the wear quite visibly. The new trains were again modelled after the London Underground Victoria Line rolling stock, which had now embarked upon a new design. They benefited from the same features, designed for another high capacity and very high demand line; seating inside, higher top speed, higher acceleration, and wider doors to allow faster boarding/disembarking. The slightly shorter carriage length at approx 16.6 metres long allowed a 6 coach train this time, bringing the train length to 99.6 metres long (with a DM-T-NDM-NDM-T-DM formation) - just fitting within the station. Signal visibility on the end of the platforms was no longer needed due to the automatic train operation in the tunnelled areas, again negating safety issues.
-----------------
(*1) The designated names for the stations under the original Picc-Vic plans
(*2) DM = Motored coach with driving cab (Driving Motor), T = unmotored coach (Trailer), NDM = motored coach without driving cab (Non Driving Motor)
(*3) Taking on the role of the OTL Manchester Arena, which here is not built on the Victoria station lands.
(*4) The OTL Arndale Centre did indeed feature rudimentary future provision for not just the Picc-Vic Line, but also a second line at 90deg.
(*5) Predictable naming...after the Metrolink project.
(*6) As standard on many London Underground lines now.
(*7) Think London Underground and London Overground - for which Overground is technically a National Rail service.
The Manchester Metro rolling stock is closely associated with the London Underground Victoria Line stock.
Parliamentary authority to construct was rapidly followed by the beginning of construction, only to be delayed by the three-day working week and general 1970s economic malaise. Work continued slowly; thankfully the scheme in Manchester only required four (later expanded to seven) underground stations, of limited length in comparison to schemes in London.
Beginning in 1974, the first phases of construction involved the conversion of many miles of heavy rail, British Rail, routes in to light rail suitable for London Underground rolling stock to operate on. Loading gauges presented little problem - Underground trains were, and remain, far smaller than any British Rail main line train, but the correct resignalling and electrification of the route would take time. The central part, the most important, comprised of a tunnelled section underneath Manchester city centre itself, and would need the primary four underground stations excavating - which would mostly be constructed by digging and later covering the stations.
- Manchester Central; which would lie roughly in the middle of the former platform area, ironically having the effect of "reopening" Manchester Central. This was one of the most controversial stations to allow, only agreed after developer contributions from the company rebuilding the station in to the "G-Mex" exhibition centre, which would allow the conference facility to have a direct interchange in to the Metro system.
- Central (*1); serving the Manchester Town Hall. This was the other controversial station, being as the Albert Memorial, and several other monuments, would all be removed during works and later reinstalled after Metro works concluded.
- Royal Exchange (latterly "Arndale" (*1)); serving the just constructed new Arndale shopping centre. Again, developer contributions assisted with construction of this station, being as it's primary purpose was to interface with the new shopping centre. The addition of a bus centre, forced on to the developers by the Greater Manchester Council, would allow a direct Metro to bus interchange at a central point. The Royal Exchange station also featured provision for a future "Line 2" as the primary interchange station between the lines (*4).
- Manchester Victoria; at the time, the second busiest Manchester main line station, but a very convenient interchange location on the cross city rail routes and end of several branches to the north. The Metro link allowed the closure of several terminal platforms on the south side of the station, and the rationalisation of facilities and tracks, much to British Rail's liking.
Perspex model of Royal Exchange station
The short stub extension to the south was approved by the Government late in construction in 1979, and allowed a continuity of construction - even if these construction works were highly disruptive in an effort to control costs. The GMC approved a cut-and-cover route along Oxford Road, causing massive disruption to a major road which was at the time also a major bus route. It did however again demonstrate the severe pressure on finances at the time; the cut-and-cover technique completely underneath the road avoided having to pay for any wayleave rights to landowners above.
- Manchester Oxford Road; serving a smaller interchange purpose with cross-city routes to the south of the city which were not taken over by the Metro system. The station also serves much of the Manchester Metropolitan campus.
- University; which serves the huge student campus of the (now) University of Manchester. The provision of Metro access to students was designed by the Council to allow convenient access for students in to the city, providing Metro usage at off-peak hours given that students would likely be using public transport.
- Hospitals; serving both the Royal Infirmary and St Mary's Hospital (and other smaller sites), which together account for a wide array of healthcare provision within Greater Manchester. Given the significant usage of the site, and the demographics of healthcare provision (skewed towards the less economically active and thereby requiring public transport), it was considered another important link.
All the construction work continued even as political debates occurred in the background. The GMC sought to curtail the northern branches to Rawtenstall, or even potentially Bury - preferring not to potentially subsidise operations in another county for financial and legal reasons. Residents of Rawtenstall and Bacup protested vociferously - the route in to Manchester had always be well utilised and run at a (for the time) high frequency, and locals could not countenance the withdrawal of such a service. A complex cross-suibsidy arrangement was arranged; some saying it has had nowhere near enough cross examination by the county councils, but it did at least provide arrangement, with Lancashire County Council agreeing to subsidise passengers to & from stations within the county, thereby allowing stations as far as Bacup to stay open. Whilst some planners may have envisaged services returning to places as far north as Accrington, this was never a realistic expectation given that services ended in the 1960s and the difficulty in getting agreement to serve just stations to Bacup. Underground trains would have been unsuitable for such long distance trips in addition, with no toilets on board either.
On the rolling stock side, the trains procured were of London Underground design as planned, keeping costs to a minimum with no requirement to design new trains from scratch. The 1973 Stock, used in London for the Piccadilly Line served as the original design, with only the formation changed. The original 1973 Piccadilly Line stock had 6 carriages totalling 107 metres long, but however the Manchester Metro platforms were only 100 metres long. To aid in driver swaps and to make sure the train fitted within the station for safety reason - and as critics would add, for cost cutting reasons - the trains for Manchester were rejigged to form 5 coach trains, as DM-T-NDM-T-DM formation (*2), with a length of 88 metres.
The previous Class 504 trains on the Bury Line also used side-contact third rail electric systems
The only other major difference was the adoption in Manchester of the side contact third rail system, mimicking the former "non-standard" British Rail electrification system in the area which played a part in BR's willingness to dispose of the line. The side contact system was partly chosen for safety - it is much easier to build a cover over without the need to cater for a top contact, but also for weather - the north suffers a colder climate than the south, with ice and snow far more prevalent, and the top-contact third rail system used in the south would be affected by ice forming on the rail, hindering power collection in the north far more often. The system quickly proved useful, with snowstorms in the winter of 1985/86 affecting services (service levels were reduced), but the Metro system continuing to function through most of the winter.
The service proved more successful than imagined, in part because of the 1980s economic revival of Manchester. Analysts still argue over the chicken vs egg debate; did the Metro spur economic revival, or did the economic revival justify the Metro? Either way, the GMC managed service offered integrated ticketing with the bus network, served multiple areas of the Manchester conurbation, and allowed direct access to the commercial and political centres of Manchester. It also provided a stimulus to redevelopment of the G-Mex (the former Manchester Central station), which was firstly an exhibition centre, and now general arena building, hosting music concerts, and other indoor sports such as boxing, badminton, basketball, and squash, and is one of the busiest indoor arenas in the United Kingdom (*3).
The popularity quickly became a problem at some city centre stations, with overcrowding during rush hours witnessed regularly at Victoria station, and Royal Exchange during Saturdays, with the service pattern of 5 trains per hour on each of the 4 branches during rush hour, and 4 trains per hour off-peak becoming insufficient to move people quickly enough during the 1990s economic boom in the United Kingdom. The 2000s would see Government funding for the "Big Bang" project in Manchester (*5). Significant resignalling using a Westinghouse system, similar to that used on the Victoria Line in London. A computer system "Automatic Train Operation" (*6) guides the train between the busiest mid-section area of the route, providing the maximum throughput of trains during rush hour, and allowing a 6tph (train every 10 minutes) during rush hour, with 5tph (every 12 minutes) off peak, with the provision of a fifth branch resulting in a highly effective 30 trains per hour in each direction during peak times. With funding continuing to be unavailable for a second line however, Greater Manchester came to agreement with British Rail in 2015, copying the model used in several other British cities for funding of a British Rail operated service, but marketed and ticketed under GMPTE auspices. The route, running east-west, brought in many new suburbs to the Metro network, although not offering direct access to the city centre core except via Metro (Underground) connections (*7), and utilised several old routes which either lay under-used by BR, or had preserved alignments still allowing the track to be reinstated.
Bury station, a point on the route north and termination service for service F
The fifth branch split in the north near Radcliffe to serve Bolton, and in the south branched off to serve Old Trafford Football (for Manchester United football, as opposed to Old Trafford Cricket station, for the cricket) as well as the large out-of-town Trafford Shopping Centre which opened in 1998. Costs were again kept to a minimum by the use of extant routes to the north; the Radcliffe-Bolton stretch of track was used until the 1970s for freight purposes, and had been safeguarded by the Greater Manchester Council for just such a purpose. To the south, the new route squeezed in to the existing right-of-way shared by British Rail services from Manchester to Warrington, and also allowed them to legally close the Manchester United railway station which was operationally a pain for British Rail. During match day Saturdays, whilst the rest of the network operates on off-peak frequencies (5 branches at 5 trains per hour), a pseudo 6th branch operates from the Trafford Centre to the terminating platform at Bury station, bringing a 10 train per hour service to Manchester United for the thousands for football fans, as well as Saturday shoppers to the Trafford Centre. Unfortunately during weekday evening matches, the network is unable to offer this frequency during the evening rush hour period, although the same enhanced service is offered from at least 10 minutes before the match ends.
New trains, initially procured in 2012 had by 2019 fully replaced the former 1973 stock after roughly 30 years of operation - with some showing the wear quite visibly. The new trains were again modelled after the London Underground Victoria Line rolling stock, which had now embarked upon a new design. They benefited from the same features, designed for another high capacity and very high demand line; seating inside, higher top speed, higher acceleration, and wider doors to allow faster boarding/disembarking. The slightly shorter carriage length at approx 16.6 metres long allowed a 6 coach train this time, bringing the train length to 99.6 metres long (with a DM-T-NDM-NDM-T-DM formation) - just fitting within the station. Signal visibility on the end of the platforms was no longer needed due to the automatic train operation in the tunnelled areas, again negating safety issues.
-----------------
(*1) The designated names for the stations under the original Picc-Vic plans
(*2) DM = Motored coach with driving cab (Driving Motor), T = unmotored coach (Trailer), NDM = motored coach without driving cab (Non Driving Motor)
(*3) Taking on the role of the OTL Manchester Arena, which here is not built on the Victoria station lands.
(*4) The OTL Arndale Centre did indeed feature rudimentary future provision for not just the Picc-Vic Line, but also a second line at 90deg.
(*5) Predictable naming...after the Metrolink project.
(*6) As standard on many London Underground lines now.
(*7) Think London Underground and London Overground - for which Overground is technically a National Rail service.
Devvy
Donor
To be quite honest, I have no idea. Wayleave rights still seem to be in place for underground cabling/ducting (ie. gas/water/elec/telecoms) at least, but then that's normally reasonably close to the surface. Underground transport, I'm not sure, and I can't figure it out on Google. Even if it's not, then I'd just rephrase it slightly to "avoided have to deal with any complications from landowners above" - the same concept exists, as they are avoiding having to deal with any buildings above and difficulties of deep level tunneling (and station excavation). Cut & cover is highly disruptive, but very simple.
Hahahhahhahahaha. Ha. *Flashback induced Sobbing*
Cut and cover is exceptionally disruptive, very cheap (relatively speaking) but so far from simple it just isn't funny. The utility diversions alone will be a relentless nightmare for all involved, expect Edinburgh Tram levels of delays and cost over-runs. That project being the benchmark for such things, so much so that the inquiry as to why the Edinburgh Tram project was late and over-budget is itself now late and over-budget...
As for wayleaves, utilities are a bit special as most of the firms have inherited the powers from when they were nationalised industries. For instance water companies can compulsory purchase land (or force a wayleave upon a land owner) if it is to lay new water supply or sewer. There's a system to control it, and generally they have to make an effort to negotiate first, but they have that power as a backup if anyone is obstructive and there's no reasonable alternative.
British Rail never got those powers, and local government definitely wouldn't be allowed them. So in in this case there would almost certainly have to have been some sort of Act of Parliament to get the necessary planning approval as there is no way a scheme that size get through standard planning - the inevitable objectors would gum it for decades. Given an earlier Channel Tunnel and London Britannia Airport it's not unreasonable to assume something like the OTL Hybrid Bill process has developed. So there would be a Manchester Metro Bill that would give GMC (or the designated builder/operator) compulsory purchase powers, or some similar mechanism. Main limitation on those powers would be having to fix the route before the bill goes in, so no late changes, and the whole scheme being subject to a string of Obligations and Undertakings about how they will minimise impacts and mitigate problems they cause (or are perceived to cause).
Wow great to see more Underground lines outside London. How about any for Birmingham?
Devvy
Donor
It looks decent, but reality is that it's just one north-south cross city tunnel, and absorbing most of the existing suburban routes already in place. Even the later line to the Trafford Centre I have reusing part of the Trafford Park Railway right of way (roughly parallel to Barton Dock Road). The east-west line uses the existing above ground Deansgate-Piccadilly viaduct, shared with some "proper" BR services (and freight trains accessing Manchester International Freight Yard).
Liverpool I've held back from, in a quasi swap with Manchester. The lesser Beeching Report/Reform means that there wasn't as much of a push to create Merseyrail as all the rail routes aren't being axed. But obviously there will be jealous looks at Manchester, and Liverpool is in some ways even better suited with regards to existing rail infrastructure for conversion to local metro.
Can always rely on you for some background information on weird and wonderful related things!
Thanks for the detail on wayleave, it's not really a subject that rail literature tends to cover!My plan was that Westminster would indeed pass an Act to authorise the Manchester Metro tunnelling, with a later second Act authorising the short extension; roughly analogous to the OTL Victoria Line with the extension to Brixton and Pimlico station.
The cut and cover bit is actually only 1.8km long from roughly Whitworth Street, rising from bored tunnel under the canal in to cut and cover station at Oxford Road station. Then cut and cover with a University station at Booth Street junction, and Hospitals station at Denmark Road junction. It, of course, is not simple - I'm sure those who have been through it will roll their eyes at such a statement, but it should be much simpler that deep bored tunnel, especially for the 3 stations which can sit above the rail but directly below the road. Back in the 1970s/early 80s when construction would be happening, the amount of below ground infrastructure must be far less than now; at the very least there should be far less telecoms below ground, although admittedly going down the middle of a university site will probably complicate things.
On a side note, I did contemplate a further extension (as I'm sure people would do in this ATL) from Hospitals along Oxford Street towards Fallowfield; this has not gone ahead due to a) lack of funds and b) the poor experience of cut and cover tunneling along the road. My feeling was that cut & cover would be chosen as it would look simple, potentially be cheaper, but the actual experience of doing it would mean that no extensions would be granted on that short stub. Although given that the market for that stub are student and those going to hospital - demographically speaking generally less affluent people - means that it'd probably be pretty well utilised anyway.
The faff over the "Fowler Line" and delays has meant that Manchester has managed to sneak in for Underground construction in the 1970s when the OTL Jubilee Line was built. London will get it's improved Fowler Line (better name pending) in the 1980s, but obviously won't have to wait for the extension in the 1990s.
Birmingham, I'm given to understanding, isn't particularly well suited to Underground tunnelling due to it's underlying geology. But Birmingham will lead the way in BR subsidised metro services (ie. Manchester Metro east-west line), so all's not lost.
On the Wayleaves issue
Building London’s Underground : From Cut and Cover to Crossrail Antony Badsey-Ellis
It will be seen in Chapter 19 that the Victoria Line was granted specific powers to take the subsoil beneath property, with only the payment of compensation. Since the line was being built with public money, the only reason for its construction was that it would be to the benefit of the public (it was not going to make a profit), and as the majority of property owners beneath whose land it would pass would never be inconvenienced by it, this seemed to be the sensible way forward.
In Chapter 19 it goes on to say
The planning for the first new underground line across London since 1907 was started in earnest in the late 1940’s. By the mid 1950’s the route between Victoria and Walthamstow was fairly well defined. A major change in approach to tube railways was that the Parliamentary powers that authorised the line, the British Transport omission Act 1955, authorised the taking of the subsoil rights for the line, with payment of compensation. This allowed the line to cut across the street pattern entirely, without the time consuming and costly need to negotiate with a huge number of property owners to agree compensation.
I cant tell whether it was specific to the Victoria line.
Building London’s Underground : From Cut and Cover to Crossrail Antony Badsey-Ellis
It will be seen in Chapter 19 that the Victoria Line was granted specific powers to take the subsoil beneath property, with only the payment of compensation. Since the line was being built with public money, the only reason for its construction was that it would be to the benefit of the public (it was not going to make a profit), and as the majority of property owners beneath whose land it would pass would never be inconvenienced by it, this seemed to be the sensible way forward.
In Chapter 19 it goes on to say
The planning for the first new underground line across London since 1907 was started in earnest in the late 1940’s. By the mid 1950’s the route between Victoria and Walthamstow was fairly well defined. A major change in approach to tube railways was that the Parliamentary powers that authorised the line, the British Transport omission Act 1955, authorised the taking of the subsoil rights for the line, with payment of compensation. This allowed the line to cut across the street pattern entirely, without the time consuming and costly need to negotiate with a huge number of property owners to agree compensation.
I cant tell whether it was specific to the Victoria line.
It would have had a significant effect. However it would have required a level of common sense at Apple that was, OTL, absent. Maybe kill off Jobs.
Also '90s 1394 wasn't useful for notebooks, the power was insufficient. Finally it was far more expensive to implement.
Deep bored tunnel is actually considerably simpler in many ways. It has it's challenges but the ability to ignore most of your stakeholders and have all logistics going through one point really helps simplify things. The downside is that it is more expensive because it is (generally) slower, particularly on a short 1.8km drive which is pretty marginal for a bored tunnel - the crew will barely have learnt the machine and got efficient before the tunnel is finished.
Telecoms are one of the easiest utilities to deal with; very flexible, properly mapped, and if they do fail it's only expensive not dangerous. It's the cast iron gas mains that are the problem, aside from being very sensitive to movement the utility maps are vague, the pipe will (probably) be in the same street but don't expect any more precision than that. If it's an important main expect an 18month/2year time period to re-route it, if it's one of the critical monsters then double that time span. Sewers are in theory easier, but the requirement to maintain a constant fall could make things very tricky when trying to re-route them around the C&C works.
This sounds very plausible, the contemplation of extensions would be particularly intense if there is any passive provision put in. Or things that look like passive provisioning, over-run tunnels pointing towards potential station locations, that sort of thing.
From a skim Birmingham doesn't look that bad for tunnelling. Or at least not for TBM tunnelling, a decent EPB TBM should be able to get through it fairly easily. I think it's like South London, not possible for original hand-dug under a shield tunnels, but fine for something 'modern' (70s tech or later I'd guess).
Trams? In Birmingham? If the current programme is anything to go by–massively over-engineered and therefore very expensive, plus taking seemingly geological ages to actually build short stretches of line–it would not turn out well. There's also the fact that if you build it too soon then the Queensway will still be intact which means when parts of it are demolished later on you might have some major rebuilding to do.
Funnily enough when reading through the thread previously one thought I had was with all the resources being given to the nation's third city that other cities would be clamouring for their own share of government spending, with Birmingham being near if not at the front of the line, but never got around to posting. Having tunnelling being technically viable, if no doubt hideously expensive, is interesting.