Why didn't industrial cities like Manchester or Birmingham never get metro systems in the 19th or early 20th century?

[Transilien]

Cities like Birmingham and Manchester grew greatly both in importance and population during this time period. So, why didn't any of these cities follow the example of London or Glasgow and build a metro system of their own?

 

[A S Leib]

I doubt it's the only reason given that it applied to London and Glasgow as well, but maybe trams (and normal railways) were thought to be sufficient?

 

[Dr Hoo]

London had far more ‘white collar’ employment and early commuters.
Glasgow had the special problem of crossing the Clyde downstream of the City Centre.
In largely industrial cities most workers would live near the mill/ factory /foundry or whatever.
And the trams were good. The didn’t penetrate the centre very well in London.

 

[edwin_m]

Along with those reasons, the city centres of Manchester and Birmingham are still quite compact, so most destinations are in walking distance of one of the main stations. London was much bigger even then, and also had a rule that railways had to stop at what was then the edge of the city (Euston Road etc). So something else was needed to get people around in the centre.

 

[Western Sunset]

One could argue that London's "metro system" was very much made up of a set of separate lines, only united later by LT into a system.

 

[JGurney]

I doubt it's the only reason given that it applied to London and Glasgow as well, but maybe trams (and normal railways) were thought to be sufficient?

Yes, didn't the introduction of trams lead to some big falls in passenger numbers on some inner suburban railways and stations in cities like Manchester and Birmingham? Trams were faster, more frequent and cheaper. That would not have encouraged anyone to invest in more urban railways.
London was larger and lacked a comprehensive tram network.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

Liverpool sort of had a metro system with the Mersey Railway and the US style Overhead Railway.

In Manchester, by the late 19th century, most of the mills had moved out of the centre and it had developed a propserous financial / business core so it is surprising there were not moves for an underground network - the separate main-line stations were a pain even then. In the 1920s there was a madcap scheme to take out a loop of the River Irwell and use the bed for cross-city trams - congestion on Deansgate had become a serious problem.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

London tram routes in the 19thC were largely prevented from accessing the City by and large , but there were some odd , if not comprehensive steam suburban services such as Cricklewood to Victoria via the Dudden HIll line , as well as the tranche of services to Moorgate , some starting back at Woolwich ! - GWR services onto the "Circle" northern section - they were not particularly frequent and the fairly early advent of electric tube lines such as the City and South London were very much the way forward , and of course the heavy horse drawn Omnibus services were replaced in the Edwardian era onwards by the greater capacity provided by the internal combusion engine.

The development of a good bit of the London Underground (the so called "Yerkes" lines such as the Bakerloo would have not been so prolific , had the motor bus developed a bit earlier, - forcing the tube lines to develop extensions further out - in the latter case to as far as Watford LNWR) , in order to capitalise on the expensive inner tuble infrastructure , ditto the Morden -Edgeware line as it came to be known , taking over the City and South London.

A very complex history indeed , covered in detail by the likes of Charles Klapper etc.

 

[vic-rijrode]

A very complex history indeed , covered in detail by the likes of Charles Klapper etc.

...also the excellent series of Capital Transport books on each of the lines published in the 1990s. The more recent Wolmar book is readable if you can ignore one or two inaccuracies and errors.

There were a number of books published in the 1980s by Ian Allan called "Road and Rails in ....." which covered Birmingham and Manchester amongst others. Although only covering certain time periods usually from 1900 to just before or after the Second World War, they give detailed explanations on why certain cities developed "metros" and others did not.

Incidentally Manchester could have developed a metro based on a circular tube railway linking the 4 major main-line termini at least as early as 1901! For various reasons, mostly financial this (and subsequent proposals including a "Pic-Vic" Tunnel) never saw the light of day...

 

[Sad Sprinter]

The Treasury.

 

[WestAnglian]

The Treasury.

Railways were privately funded.

 

[philosopher]

For the Birmingham, I have heard unsuitable geology and soils was part of the reason.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Railways were privately funded.

I mean post 1945.

 

[Dr Hoo]

I mean post 1945.

Yes, but the original question was about the first generation of underground railways in the 19th Century.

 

[matchmaker]

Yes, didn't the introduction of trams lead to some big falls in passenger numbers on some inner suburban railways and stations in cities like Manchester and Birmingham? Trams were faster, more frequent and cheaper. That would not have encouraged anyone to invest in more urban railways.
London was larger and lacked a comprehensive tram network.

However, Glasgow had a large and very efficient tram network. Very few of the suburban rail lines there closed because of tram competition, in contrast to Aberdeen for example. Even today, Glasgow has the largest UK suburban rail network outside London.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Yes, didn't the introduction of trams lead to some big falls in passenger numbers on some inner suburban railways and stations in cities like Manchester and Birmingham? Trams were faster, more frequent and cheaper. That would not have encouraged anyone to invest in more urban railways.
London was larger and lacked a comprehensive tram network.

Not really ! - electric tramways in London certainly caused a massive loss of traffic , on for example , the South London line serving London Bridge , Peckham etc but the railway companies countered this by electrifying the route (initially on overhead) , and drastically improving the service , smartening up stations etc , - which was a success and further developed regionally by an outstanding General Manager , one Herbert Walker.

London had of course a fairly comprehensive tram network , further developed and developed by the London County Council - with amagamations of other routes into the whole (for example Croydon Borough lost overall control of trams) - the network stretched from Hampton Court , Purley and well into North and East London. The "subway" tunnel linked both north and south London admirably - and further strengthened the connectivity. (part of said subway is now a road underpass !)

The early years of the 20thC saw an immense growth in both population and economic activity (partly leisure traffic also) - such that the aggregate traffic "cake" grew but eventually as investment in this network was required into the 1930's and beyond (wear and tear , obsolescence and traffic congestion) , tranways saw a demise and certainly immediately after the second world war. (I have not enough knowedge on Birmingham and Manchester , - but the former hung onto the early 1950's)

For London ,I can thoroughly reccomend "The Wheels Used to talk to us" - the recollections of a London tram driver , but a book that goes well into the organisation .economic and social background of the LCC tramways.

 

[Dr Hoo]

However, Glasgow had a large and very efficient tram network. Very few of the suburban rail lines there closed because of tram competition, in contrast to Aberdeen for example. Even today, Glasgow has the largest UK suburban rail network outside London.

In Glasgow neither the trams nor suburban rail crossed the tidal Clyde around Govan (and the ferries were unreliable and low capacity) hence a niche for the Subway.

Although few Glasgow suburban passenger services might have been entirely withdrawn because of tram competition quite a few had distinctly vestigial frequencies. This can be traced back even to pre-grouping days when the Caledonian and North British were still in active competition. (Think: irregular, less than hourly trains, while going past the station door there was probably 'always a tram in sight'.)

 

[eldomtom2]

Although few Glasgow suburban passenger services might have been entirely withdrawn because of tram competition quite a few had distinctly vestigial frequencies. This can be traced back even to pre-grouping days when the Caledonian and North British were still in active competition. (Think: irregular, less than hourly trains, while going past the station door there was probably 'always a tram in sight'.)

Of course low frequencies doesn't necessarily mean a service wasn't fairly well-used, especially if it drew most of its traffic from commuting to work.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Yes, but the original question was about the first generation of underground railways in the 19th Century.

So it is.

 

[melon68]

For the Birmingham, I have heard unsuitable geology and soils was part of the reason.

Both Birmingham and Manchester have sandstone (Permo-Triassic age) bedrock which would have been easy to tunnel through.

 

[The exile]

When asking why no other UK cities got underground system round the turn of the century, it’s worth pointing out that in having 2 cities with underground systems by 1900 we were, IIRC, unique in Europe. Even by WW2 there were still only single figures in the whole of Europe, with (I think) Glasgow and Hamburg being the only non capital cities.

 

[Transilien]

When asking why no other UK cities got underground system round the turn of the century, it’s worth pointing out that in having 2 cities with underground systems by 1900 we were, IIRC, unique in Europe. Even by WW2 there were still only single figures in the whole of Europe, with (I think) Glasgow and Hamburg being the only non capital cities.

Barcelona is another non-capital city that had a metro before WW2. Also, Budapest was not a capital when its metro was first built.

 

[The exile]

Barcelona is another non-capital city that had a metro before WW2. Also, Budapest was not a capital when its metro was first built.

Hadn’t realised about Barcelona. Beg to differ re Budapest - Hungary became a sovereign state with Budapest as its capital with its monarchy in personal union with Austria (Austria-Hungary)

 

[Chester1]

I doubt it's the only reason given that it applied to London and Glasgow as well, but maybe trams (and normal railways) were thought to be sufficient?

Along with those reasons, the city centres of Manchester and Birmingham are still quite compact, so most destinations are in walking distance of one of the main stations. London was much bigger even then, and also had a rule that railways had to stop at what was then the edge of the city (Euston Road etc). So something else was needed to get people around in the centre.

These two explanations completely cover the OP question on Manchester.

During the first half of the 20th century Manchester and Salford's combined city centres had the following stations (going clockwise):

Piccadilly (then named London Road)
Mayfield
Oxford Road
Manchester Central
Deansgate
Salford Central
Manchester Exchange
Manchester Victoria

Eight stations all within half an hours walk of each other and connected by a sprawling network of trams and buses. There were busy commuter services terminating at one of those stations. The most notable ones (services from Bury and Altrincham) formed the core of Metrolink when it opened in 1992.

 

[Senex]

Hadn’t realised about Barcelona. Beg to differ re Budapest - Hungary became a sovereign state with Budapest as its capital with its monarchy in personal union with Austria (Austria-Hungary)

Yes, from the Ausgleich in the spring of 1867 onwards it was a personal union only, with only certain functions joint between the Austrian Empire (to give it the short name) and the Kingdom of Hungary, and in many areas Hungary went its own nationalistic way. Transport was certainly not a joint function and rather different policies were pursued. In 1867 there was no Budapest—that came in late 1873 with the formal amalgamation of three existing cities. The new grand buildings of government were all on the left bank of the Danube. At the end of the century came the Metro.

 

[Rescars]

An interesting variation on the theme is the Oslo metro, which I understand began as a tram system in the 19th century and started to develop into an underground from the 1920s.

 

[The exile]

An interesting variation on the theme is the Oslo metro, which I understand began as a tram system in the 19th century and started to develop into an underground from the 1920s.

Similarly, Brussels has its Pre-metro, which has presumably survived far longer than intended!

 

[edwin_m]

Similarly, Brussels has its Pre-metro, which has presumably survived far longer than intended!

So did quite a few other cities in Benelux and Germany. This may be part of reason why few British cities have metros compared with European ones - we abandoned all but one of our tramways and the Continentals upgraded theirs. But it doesn't answer the OP's question which was about what happened or didn't happen 50 years before that.

 

[Mr. SW]

Wouldn't the Manchester-Bury electrification be a sort of precursor to a metro system? And then stymied by the First World War and Grouping and then not expanded? Then why was the Manchester-Altrincham line electrified to a different standard? Or the Bury line converted to match?

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Wouldn't the Manchester-Bury electrification be a sort of precursor to a metro system? And then stymied by the First World War and Grouping and then not expanded? Then why was the Manchester-Altrincham line electrified to a different standard? Or the Bury line converted to match?

Different stand-alone systems. Manchester->Bury was one of the earlier bespoke systems. Electrified back in 1916 and operated using 1200v DC (third rail) and stayed that way until conversion to Metrolink tram operations in 1991. Why spend any more money?

Manchester->Altrincham on the other side of the City Centre wasn't electrified until 1931 and initially then used 1500v DC (overhead), which had become the new national standard in 1928.