Is A Central Manchester Metro Tunnel Feasible?

[Purple Orange]

This is a spin-off from the Light Rail v Heavy Rail thread.

Is a rail tunnel under Central Manchester feasible? What form would it take? What route? What stations? What frequency?

If you think it’s not feasible, why not and what alternative would you seek?

Plus a poll has been added for a little more interest.

I think a tunnel is unlikely but feasible. I’d expect it to take the Warrington and Altrincham line and head to Glossop & Hadfieid and Rose Hill.

Stations located at in the tunnel would be at Cornbrook, Spinningfields, St Peters Sq, Piccadilly, Piccadilly East.

I’d run 5 tph Warrington-Rose Hill and 5 tph Altrincham-Glossop/Hadfield, with light rail metro trains (not tram-trains).

Tram-trains would run an additional 5 tph from Altrincham to Bury and would be the vehicle used on all other lines.

It would enable the 45 tph frequency on the surface to be distributed more heavily towards Metrolink lines with a greater ‘tram’ like feel to them.

 

[2192]

A tunnel was the plan in the 1970's, but they joined the rail lines up with trams instead as it was cheaper.

 

[JKF]

A tunnel was the plan in the 1970's, but they joined the rail lines up with trams instead as it was cheaper.

I believe there was some passive provision for this included in the Arndale Centre?

 

[Mcr Warrior]

I believe there was some passive provision for this included in the Arndale Centre?

Was there, or is that an urban myth?

 

[Bletchleyite]

All of them are feasible, but whether any will happen is another question.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Was there, or is that an urban myth?

The Guardian (probably a slightly more reliable source than Mr Pedia) said it was true

Manchester's tube train that never was

Newly found plans and a big hole under the Arndale centre reveal the sad story of an underground, three ring roads and heliport which were to remain a wonderful dream

www.theguardian.com

 

[Dr Day]

A tunnel would certainly be feasible from an engineering perspective with enough cash thrown at it. The question is maybe more around the economic feasibility - taking all modes into consideration what is the best value overall transport solution for Manchester and if that requires a tunnel, what would need to be in it?

Trade offs to be considered could include loss of road space for other vehicles if two routes either side of the city were linked a street running tram/tramtrain, journey time and reliability benefits from full segregation, surface versus underground stations (latter drives a lot of opex and capex cost) , interchange opportunity etc to name just a few.

 

[tbtc]

I started a thread about this two years ago (https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/tunnel-under-manchester-city-centre-where-and-what-for.197419/) - because there was a lot of talk about a tunnel underneath Manchester but apparently no agreement over what it should be/ what problems it was intended to solve

It could be a high frequency one for Metrolink/ local trains, it could be to take the long distance trains off Castlefield or for HS2 ... but one tunnel isn't going to be able to all of these (it's a bit like the Leamside line, which is something that lots of different people regularly suggest but for contradictory reasons)

Is it intended to provide a Pic-Vic link? If so then does it go directly between the two stations (only around a mile apart) or do you have intermediate stations (three stations in a mile, more?)?

Then what do you do with the remaining train services? e.g. if the idea is a tunnel allowing services to run Airport - Pic - Vic - Salford - Bolton/ Chat Moss then does that mean no more Airport/ Bolton/ Chat Moss services through Castlefield? Or some services via Castlefield and some via a tunnel?

There's then the question of which lines you are wanting to convert to "metro" for such a tunnel... Andy Burnham will want local trains for local people (and, fair enough, that's his constituency), but some people on other lines won't be too happy about being "downgraded", losing their longer distance services etc (e.g. whilst the majority of people on the Atherton/ CLC may only be heading to Manchester City Centre, and may appreciate a more frequent service that a "metro" provides, and also appreciate a service that stops underneath somewhere like the Arndale, the lower number of people who do longer distance journeys will make a lot of noise)

Will this kill off the suggestions of 15/16 at Piccadilly? Will anything?

Good in theory - I just don't know what to narrow it down to - there are so many different flavours of option, depending on what you are trying to "solve"

(there's also the issue that Manchester has had the Windsor Link, the cross city Metrolink, the Metrolink extensions including a second city crossing, the Ordsall Chord... how many more expensive projects does it need? Whereas cities like Leeds hadn't had very much in comparison)

 

[Mcr Warrior]

The Guardian (probably a slightly more reliable source than Mr Pedia) said it was true

Manchester's tube train that never was

Newly found plans and a big hole under the Arndale centre reveal the sad story of an underground, three ring roads and heliport which were to remain a wonderful dream

www.theguardian.com

Thanks for clarifying. If the story has Keith Warrender's name attached to it somewhere, then it's probably true.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Perhaps they could re-purpose the existing tunnel:

Manchester Guardian is an underground telephone exchange in the centre of Manchester built in 1954. It is 112 feet (34m) below ground and cost £4 million to construct. The main tunnel, one thousand feet long and twenty-five feet wide (300m by 7m), lies below buildings in Back George Street, linking up to an anonymous and unmarked surface building containing the entrance lifts and ventilator shafts. There are also access shafts in the Rutherford telephone exchange in George Street.

Its purpose was to resist a Hiroshima sized twenty-kiloton atom bomb, and preserve essential communications links even if the centre of Manchester had been flattened.

A deep level tunnel system runs east and west from Guardian. A mile-long (1.3km) tunnel runs west to Salford, and a thousand-yard (700m) tunnel runs to Lockton Close in Ardwick, where a modernised ventilator building marks the south-eastern extension of the Manchester deep level tunnels.

source: http://www.atomica.co.uk/guardian/ itself taken, by permission, from War Plan UK: The Secret Truth about Britain's "Civil Defence" by Duncan Campbell
Published by Paladin Books in 1983. The plan comes from the same source, the photographs from the website, I assume as I didn't reference them when I downloaded them.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

A tunnel was the plan in the 1970's, but they joined the rail lines up with trams instead as it was cheaper.

That's a little simplistic. The tunnel plan was the Picc-Vic scheme and was next in line for funding after Liverpool's Link and Loop scheme (built 1972-77). However the Sterling Crisis of 1976 meant that the money ran out and Picc-Vic was cancelled. Even the Liverpool scheme was scaled back from what was originally intended. While Metrolink eventually was able to fulfil some of the intention of Picc-Vic the funding was agreed long after Picc-Vic had become just a memory.

 

[daodao]

(there's also the issue that Manchester has had the Windsor Link, the cross city Metrolink, the Metrolink extensions including a second city crossing, the Ordsall Chord... how many more expensive projects does it need? Whereas cities like Leeds hadn't had very much in comparison)

Manchester has had more than its fair share of rail investment, compared to other major cities like Bristol and Leeds. This includes the white elephant of the Ordsall curve, which should be mothballed as its use exacerbates problems. IMO, a tunnel is neither affordable nor needed, at least at present. In the first instance, better use should be made of existing infrastructure (other than the Ordsall curve), in particular:

• extending Metrolink services terminating at Piccadilly onto the ex-GC suburban lines to free up platform space at Piccadilly
• removing long-distance trains (bar the Sheffield-Liverpool service) from the Castlefield line, in particular trains from the Standedge line - they should serve either Victoria or Piccadilly stations, but not both.

 

[Purple Orange]

Manchester has had more than its fair share of rail investment, compared to other major cities like Bristol and Leeds. This includes the white elephant of the Ordsall curve, which should be mothballed as its use exacerbates problems. IMO, a tunnel is neither affordable nor needed, at least at present. In the first instance, better use should be made of existing infrastructure (other than the Ordsall curve), in particular:

• extending Metrolink services terminating at Piccadilly onto the ex-GC suburban lines to free up platform space at Piccadilly
• removing long-distance trains (bar the Sheffield-Liverpool service) from the Castlefield line, in particular trains from the Standedge line - they should serve either Victoria or Piccadilly stations, but not both.

How do you remove the TPE and North Wales services from Castlefield and keep local politicians happy that their town is connected to the airport?

I would send the Scotland and North Wales services to Victoria to terminate, but is there the capacity?

The ordsall chord could be used very well if priorities through Manchester were altered and it was a stopping service that uaed the line instead.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How do you remove the TPE and North Wales services from Castlefield and keep local politicians happy that their town is connected to the airport?

In the end you just have to tell them that the bread and butter service to Manchester city centre is more important than their once a year bucket and spade for which they probably drive or take a taxi anyway.

I would send the Scotland and North Wales services to Victoria to terminate, but is there the capacity?

You'd have to connect them to something going east or build a new reversing siding. The latter would not be expensive so should be built.

The ordsall chord could be used very well if priorities through Manchester were altered and it was a stopping service that uaed the line instead.

I would agree that an "S-Bahn-Manchester" operated exclusively using 195/331 would be the best way to use the route including Ordsall.

 

[Ken H]

I did think maybe a cut and cover tunnel would be cheaper, running under roads like the Metropolitan Line does. But no obvious route except maybe Ancoats street. And that's away from the centre so no intermediate traffic.

 

[Purple Orange]

In the end you just have to tell them that the bread and butter service to Manchester city centre is more important than their once a year bucket and spade for which they probably drive or take a taxi anyway.



You'd have to connect them to something going east or build a new reversing siding. The latter would not be expensive so should be built.



I would agree that an "S-Bahn-Manchester" operated exclusively using 195/331 would be the best way to use the route including Ordsall.

Utilising the Ordsall chord, castlefield and the line out through Salford Crescent should certainly be scoped as a potential s-bahn type service. If it was properly utilised in that way, there mah not be a need for a tunnel at all.

I was looking at the Dublin DART+ proposals and they are essentially taking 4 heavt rail lines to run 6 tph all stops. That is where our cities need to get to.

I did think maybe a cut and cover tunnel would be cheaper, running under roads like the Metropolitan Line does. But no obvious route except maybe Ancoats street. And that's away from the centre so no intermediate traffic.

Its exceptionally busy around there, but I wouldnt priorotise it as a route though.