Which UK non-London cities could benefit from 'Crossrails', and where would they go?

[tasky]

Which cities could do with having their suburban and metro rail networks connected up with a central tunnel, creating a sort of an S-Bahn service for their metro regions?

Where would you build them, what lines would they take, what intermediate stations would be on the tunnel, etc?

Picc-Vicc tunnel in Manchester is quite an obvious one, but that obviously needs fleshing out...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Liverpool of course already has one. And Brum has two.

Bradford perhaps? It was talked about for long enough.

There aren't that many UK cities with multiple separate termini beyond those, Manchester and London.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Glasgow 'north-south' (Queen Street-Central) often gets mentioned. No real need for any 'additional' stations, just 'deep level' platforms nominally at the current termini. East-west already covered, of course.

 

[willgreen]

Leeds is a definite option; space is pretty constrained on the surface, and a linking of services from one side of the city to the other could actually create a West Yorkshire Metro. Bradford FS to Garforth and Ilkley/Skipton to Wakefield perhaps?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Glasgow 'north-south' (Queen Street-Central) often gets mentioned. No real need for any 'additional' stations, just 'deep level' platforms nominally at the current termini. East-west already covered, of course.

That plus Pic-Vic would be my 2 choices.

 

[Purple Orange]

I’d say Manchester, but it already has a central route through for suburban lines. If only the long-distance and freight trains could be removed somehow...

 

[Mojo]

Bristol has quite a significant amount of travel demand to the "Northern Fringe" with significant amounts of offices and other commercial premises located around Filton, Patchway & Parkway stations [technically none of these are actually in the City of Bristol but are in the larger built up area]. In many regards this is already well served with direct trains from both North Somerset (Weston super Mare etc) and stations out towards Bath.

There is also significant industry at Avonmouth but this is more heavy industry and warehousing/distribution type work, whilst this tends to be lower paid and thus workers aren't usually travelling from places like Bath there is still quite a bit of traffic from off of the line it is on.

 

[stuu]

Bristol needs something, the problem is most of the existing railway is not very useful for local journeys within the city. Ideally a light metro would be built, but first it would have to be moved to another country with a more enlightened attitude to public transport investment

 

[Bletchleyite]

Bristol needs something, the problem is most of the existing railway is not very useful for local journeys within the city. Ideally a light metro would be built, but first it would have to be moved to another country with a more enlightened attitude to public transport investment

It strikes me that the Severn Beach line and the part of the Bristol-Bath Railway Path that is within the city would make a decent foundation for such a thing. Trams would probably be best as Temple Meads is nowhere near the city centre, I think it even beats Chester for how far you have to walk.

 

[Mojo]

It strikes me that the Severn Beach line and the part of the Bristol-Bath Railway Path that is within the city would make a decent foundation for such a thing. Trams would probably be best as Temple Meads is nowhere near the city centre, I think it even beats Chester for how far you have to walk.

It is, but also much of the City Centre offices are located in close proximity to the station.

A segregated tram route does however exist for the future from pretty much close to Stapleton Rd to Cabot Circus, and passive provision for a link into the Bristol to Bath path to Old Market (which had bus stops constructed just over a decade ago in the style of a Tramstop - https://goo.gl/maps/z55cb1FgyeSxpR7R8).

 

[tbtc]

Picc-Vicc tunnel in Manchester is quite an obvious one, but that obviously needs fleshing out...

Manchester needs something doing with it, but I'm struggling to see what tunnel you'd build.

Pic-Vic will always get suggested, despite the tram having linked the two for around thirty years and the money spaffed on the Ordsall Chord, but what would the link be?

At the moment there are a number of services terminating in Piccadilly from the south/west and two services per hour terminating at Victoria from the north/east.

A "south east to north west" alignment, so that trains would be able to go Airport/Stockport - Piccadilly Underground - Victoria Underground - Salford - Bolton/ Eccles?

That'd be a bit of a "kink" and take services away from the popular Oxford Road/ University areas... would it be limited to "metro" doored stock? Because a lot of the cross city services are fairly long distance without the kind of doors suited to short dwell times at underground stations.

The distance between Piccadilly and Victoria is that awkward middle ground between "short enough not to require an intermediate station" (like a Glasgow Queen Street - Glasgow Central or a Bradford Interchange to Bradford Forster Square link) and "long enough to justify an intermediate station" (like the various London Crossrail proposals). But, if the idea is to link the Airport/Stockport and Bolton/ Eccles corridors (I say *if* but these seem a logical link IMHO) then you'd probably be going east of the Northern Quarter, so an intermediate stop wouldn't be that much use (but then, if you're not going to provide an intermediate station then you're missing out on part of the justification).

The more I think about Manchester, the more I am convinced that any new "cross city" route would be better by tram or tram-train, rather than trying to run it as heavy rail.

I could see the logic in Glasgow - plenty of terminating services, a clear north-south alignment, short enough not to need the expense of an intermediate station, now that most Queen Street services are electric it'd be much easier to work - the only two reasons I'm against a Glasgow Crossrail would be:

1. The problem of getting a north-south alignment when there are two east-west "low level" heavy rail lines and one west-east river plus you'd presumably be going inside the circle of the Subway too - so you'd need to go very deep or be very deep or very creative in how you deal with all of these obstacles
2. Whilst there are a lot of short distance "south side" services (Cathcart Circle, Paisley Canal, East Kilbride etc), there's only the Anniesland service to the north that is fairly short distance (now that the Cumbernauld ones run through to Edinburgh), so there's a danger of importing delays if you start extending long distance services through a tunnel - but this is a secondary issue compared to the first one

Bradford would be a waste of money IMHO, the only justification would be for the kind of people who have an aversion to buffer stops and insist that we fill any apparent gaps in the network - I don't think that there's much demand to justify it - you might as well suggest Epsom Crossrail (to link Epsom Downs to Tottenham Corner) on the grounds that there are two terminal stations therefore there must be some kind of justification for demolishing a golf course to link them. You'd be better investing in Windsor Crossrail (and that's saying something!)

 

[nr758123]

Bradford would be a waste of money IMHO, the only justification would be for the kind of people who have an aversion to buffer stops and insist that we fill any apparent gaps in the network - I don't think that there's much demand to justify it - you might as well suggest Epsom Crossrail (to link Epsom Downs to Tottenham Corner) on the grounds that there are two terminal stations therefore there must be some kind of justification for demolishing a golf course to link them. You'd be better investing in Windsor Crossrail (and that's saying something!)

Without being convinced that there's much demand for cross-Bradford traffic which would justify linking Interchange and Forster Square, I think the proposal for NPR to go via Bradford (yes, I know it might never progress beyond just being an idea, but this isn't the place for that discussion) raises the question of how a single Bradford NPR station connects to both halves of the city. It would seem silly to go to the expense of creating a central Bradford NPR station and then failing to connect it to half the city.

 

[randyrippley]

Blackpool
Link up South and North, then reinstate the curve allowing traffic to run between North and Fleetwood.
If you then dualed the south line you could run Fleetwood-Preston via Blackpool town centre via Thornton, Cleveleys, Lytham, St Annes - linking virtually all the Fylde towns

 

[D365]

Cambridge?

 

[randyrippley]

Cambridge?

Tunnelling in fenland would be a challenge, especially with the old buildings above

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Blackpool
Link up South and North, then reinstate the curve allowing traffic to run between North and Fleetwood.
If you then dualed the south line you could run Fleetwood-Preston via Blackpool town centre via Thornton, Cleveleys, Lytham, St Annes - linking virtually all the Fylde towns

Very crayonista!

Like it!

 

[stuu]

M

Bradford would be a waste of money IMHO, the only justification would be for the kind of people who have an aversion to buffer stops and insist that we fill any apparent gaps in the network - I don't think that there's much demand to justify it - you might as well suggest Epsom Crossrail (to link Epsom Downs to Tottenham Corner)

I don't know Bradford so this is entirely speculative, but surely there would be reasonable demand for say Shipley-Halifax (or indeed Shipley-Manchester)? Or perhaps Bingley-Pudsey? Connecting the two Bradford stations would open up a number of different routes between different suburbs/towns which right now rail can't sensibly address

It strikes me that the Severn Beach line and the part of the Bristol-Bath Railway Path that is within the city would make a decent foundation for such a thing. Trams would probably be best as Temple Meads is nowhere near the city centre, I think it even beats Chester for how far you have to walk.

Trams aren't ideal because aside from the Bristol-Bath bike path there are no other disused routes to sensibly use, and the roads along the major axes aren't really suitable for adding trams to. The Severn Beach line is very tangential to the city centre, in fact if you board a train at Montpelier to Temple Meads, you only end up about 200m closer to the city centre

 

[D365]

Tunnelling in fenland would be a challenge, especially with the old buildings above

Not going to stop Mayor Palmer!

 

[xotGD]

As someone who, in normal times, travels from Airedale to Manchester, a cross-Bradford connection would be most useful.

As it is, I travel via Leeds and add to the TPE crush load.

 

[randyrippley]

Not going to stop Mayor Palmer!

I wonder why he wants to terminate at Haverhill? Would make sense to follow the old line all to way to Sudbury - if possible linking with the remaining Sudbury branch if you can find a way past that supermarket on the old station site

 

[JKF]

Bristol crossrail needs to (somehow) go from Clifton to Temple Meads via the harbourside and centre. The idiocy was removing the embankment and bridge over Redcliffe Way when the station area was developed a few years ago, that could have provided a good start. They’ve also stuck a new building on the formation, although plenty of other obstructions there too.

The Mayor has spoken about Bristol needing an underground, but that may be a bit ambitious for a city the government doesn’t really pay much attention to.

 

[Mojo]

Bristol crossrail needs to (somehow) go from Clifton to Temple Meads via the harbourside and centre. The idiocy was removing the embankment and bridge over Redcliffe Way when the station area was developed a few years ago, that could have provided a good start. They’ve also stuck a new building on the formation, although plenty of other obstructions there too.

The Mayor has spoken about Bristol needing an underground, but that may be a bit ambitious for a city the government doesn’t really pay much attention to.

The problem with Bristol is that it is sort of a victim of its success in that it has the lowest unemployment of the core cities, as well as the highest productivity per capita out of the same group. Unfortunately in terms of the media and popular opinion it seems to get lumped in with "the south" which isn't a very popular place to be at the moment, despite many northern cities receiving much more per capita in regards of its urban transport budget despite already having a higher modal share and less traffic congestion.

It came very close to getting a Tramway (although in hindsight perhaps it's a good job as wouldn't have allowed the reinstatement of the four heavy rail tracks along the Filton bank) were it not for the disagreements between the two local authorities involved. I've always thought one of the biggest missed opportunities was the scrapping of the County of Avon, although this was very unpopular and has partly been undone with a Combined Authority and elected Mayor for three quarters of former County (with ongoing discussions about N Somerset joining in time for the next election).

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Leeds would the the best one I think. Perhaps a line from Ilkley-Airport-North Leeds then through Leeds itself connecting onto Pontefract line at Wakefield.

 

[Halish Railway]

Leeds would the the best one I think. Perhaps a line from Ilkley-Airport-North Leeds then through Leeds itself connecting onto Pontefract line at Wakefield.

Finish what the Midland Railway never finished!

 

[BrianW]

I recognise the danger of proposing a solution that's looking for a problem- including the 'crayonist' in myself. Apart from the issue of linking places that may have little evidence of demand for travel from A to B without needing to change somewhere and actually creating opportunity to meet unrealised 'demand' or 'need', it also of course needs to be paid for upfront. I am loth to promote the services of unloved consultants but some assessment of feasibility needs to be made. This and other threads are good opportunities for brainstorming- which should not be contraained by practicalities.
I guess those most likely to go forward are those where eg-
- terminal capacity is full or nearly so and can be alleviated by linking to a similarly afflicted line on the 'other side of town', thus creating opportunity for increasing frequency of 'remaining' services
- preferably those will link with 'services' of similar frequencies, train lengths etc (or opportunities therefor)
- costs seem low vs expected benefits
- possibility of sell off of ground level development opportunities
- 'job creation'
- (most importantly?) political win and will
Covid unfortuanately with the consequential change in travel patterns is very much muddying any forecasts of future demand.
The cynic in me suggests focus on the new 'Blue Wall' locations

 

[popeter45]

this main issue is how London (and Paris with its RER) is designed that makes Crossrail work
many termini stations spread out across the city that Crossrail could connect
most other cities in the UK have one main thru stations on one of the London centric Main Lines instead so not really any other end points to connect too
the only city i can think of that has a termini station and not a commuter rail system that does what Crossrail would do is Swansea and can't really see the nimby's being Okay with a Gower Crossrail

 

[tbtc]

I don't know Bradford so this is entirely speculative, but surely there would be reasonable demand for say Shipley-Halifax (or indeed Shipley-Manchester)? Or perhaps Bingley-Pudsey? Connecting the two Bradford stations would open up a number of different routes between different suburbs/towns which right now rail can't sensibly address

It'd open up a few potential routes in theory, but I don't think that there's going to be that much demand between one place north of Bradford and one place south of Bradford.

In terms of "non-Leeds" services in West Yorkshire, the hourly 75mph DMU services from Huddersfield to Bradford and Huddersfield to Wakefield have been pretty poorly loaded (and Ilkley to Bradford wouldn't get four coach trains if it wasn't for the fact that they interwork with Leeds services)

I can see why people in Huddersfield/ Wakefield/ Bradford want to travel to Leeds (which offers something different/ bigger) but I don't know that there's much in Huddersfield/ Wakefield/ Bradford to attract people from the other two "non-Leeds" places

Is there much in Halifax to attract the people of Shipley? Or vice versa? And would you have to wire up the entire Calder Valley route to justify it (or accept that this means replacing some existing EMU operated services with diesel ones, e.g. if Skipton to Bradford gets extended through to places beyond Bradford Interchange

As someone who, in normal times, travels from Airedale to Manchester, a cross-Bradford connection would be most useful.

As it is, I travel via Leeds and add to the TPE crush load.

I can't see it being much of a time saving - Bradford to Manchester takes about the same time as Leeds to Manchester - and Shipley to Bradford is only a minute or two faster than Shipley to Leeds.

Given the large number of connections at Leeds for fast Manchester services and the 5x26m length of many of them (or 6x23m for doubled up 185s), that sounds preferable to a Calder Valley DMU (which are fairly busy trains themselves)

But, regardless, the Aire Valley places are in the gravitational pull of Leeds - they already have good services to the nearest significant city - nobody is worrying about whether places in the gravitational pull of Manchester (e.g. Stockport) have direct trains to Leeds - it seems a solution in need of a problem IMHO

 

[JKF]

Leeds would the the best one I think. Perhaps a line from Ilkley-Airport-North Leeds then through Leeds itself connecting onto Pontefract line at Wakefield.

Not sure Leeds needs a ‘crossrail’ as such, as it has a single very well sited station right in the middle of the (relatively compact) city centre, unlike say Manchester there isn’t really anything to ‘cross’.

The bottleneck at the east of the station (two track viaduct) could do with some alleviation however, so maybe a tunnelled line running in that direction would be helpful (maybe an extension from the HS2.5 station). My traditional crayoning on this theme involved a line going into the former Marsh Lane goods yard then crossing through Quarry Hill on an elevated section, over the roundabout at the end of eastgate then burrowing under the headrow, emerging somewhere near the old Central Station site and rising up onto the abandoned viaduct that served this station. Subsequent development had killed off such a possibility, so maybe the tunnel portal has to move back to Marsh Lane. Plus there’s the various subterranean and not so subterranean rivers to contend with...

 

[tetudo boy]

Liverpool of course already has one.

Though I wish we had a better one...

 

[daodao]

The answer to the question posed by the OP is none. Manchester solved its need for cross-city links and city centre penetration by building Metrolink, once the Picc-Vic tunnel scheme was abandoned, and enhancing the Castlefield link, although this is abused by allowing long-distance operators TPE/TfW to run services on it. Sheffield/Nottingham/Edinburgh have trams. Glasgow/Liverpool/Birmingham/Newcastle already have a sort of Cross-Rail, and no other UK cities are big enough to justify one.