Why did Manchester Never Get an Underground?

Manchester has one famous example of an underground plan that nearly came to fruition - the Picc-Vic line in the early 1970s. This would be an underground section of the mainline railway network, connecting the two biggest stations on opposite sides of the city. It was a flashy, popular idea that disappointingly didn't happen for a multitude of different reasons. But did you also know that it wasn't the first, or the last attempt to get an underground railway in Manchester?
Link to 'Infra MANC' publication about the Picc-Vic and Guardian Underground Telephone Exchange:
issuu.com/cybe...
Authors: Richard Brook, Martin Dodge
Also see: 'Tunnels through time' www.manchester...
========================================
Facebook: @BeeHereNowUK
Instagram: @olliet_uk
Support me on Patreon for added extras and exclusive content:
/ beeherenow
If you like the video and want to show some support, how about buying me a brew. Thanks!
www.buymeacoff...
Subscribe for more world-changing Northern history.

[@BeeHereNowuk]

There's more to the Picc-Vic line failure that didn't make it into the video. Thanks for watching, please like and comment below with your thoughts. :)

[@StLouis-yu9iz]

I love the outro song! :]

[@import_xlsxwriter]

As a transport planner, the failure of Picc-Vic to be built in the 70s is gutting, as if it had gone ahead I have no doubt it would've got the ball rolling and we'd have a half-decent underground network in Manchester by now. It's impressive how much they've managed to build Metrolink out on a fairly low budget in the last 30 years, but sadly the UK government hasn't taken rail infrastructure investment seriously for the last 100 years now and is all too keen to put long-term projects on the chopping block to save a few £s. Hope to see at least one tunnel across the city in my lifetime, think it'll be necessary at some point.

[@ethyhayes]

Absolutely zero chance GM could have, or indeed could today, deliver an underground network on par with metrolink. As a transport planner myself - while TfGMs delivery of metrolink has certainly been above and beyond - you vastly overestimate the efficiencies found with metrolink and the low budgets; 1) the current network was, for most part, delivered on preexisting land which had already served rail use. Indeed the Bury line was a heavy rail network quite literally until metrolink took it over. Much is said about metrolinks ability to deliver projects at good value - reality is rarely do these projects reflect build costs of an entirely new rail corridor; especially not where land purchase becomes necessary. It is fanciful that GM would have been in a position to operate a wide underground network at any point since the picc-vic tunnel was dreamt up. 2) the metrolink system, and TfGM in general, has been hemorrhaging money at an alarming rate. The metrolink network remains far from commercially viable, even with significant public funding input. I'm not slating what has been achieved; but I am fed up of the constant smoke and mirrors crap said about metrolink in the transport planning profession 😂

[@TrainPlaneFan123]

always the uk being idiots.

[@thomasohare8552]

I don't enjoy focusing on commercial viability, and that's because the roads don't make a profit. As soon as the roads become profitable, then the rail industry can be expected to do the same. From this perspective, the purpose of the tram is to provide accessibility across the city for those who can't drive, to shift as many cars off the road as possible, and to move people between commercial centres to relieve congestion. If it does these in any capacity, then the success criteria is: does it cost more to run than total driving/taxiing/walking hours it saves + the hours less mobile people would sit at home. (You charge each hour of time at minimum wage for example). I explained this poorly, but commercial viability is only a factor when nobody uses it. The roads haemorrhage money, while still covered in potholes and generating minimal kickback besides a greater logistical nightmare, they are commercially unviable but perceived as vital to the city movement (they are, as is quality transport to get as few people on the roads as possible).

[@harounk8849]

One day it will come to you guys for sure. Manchester is growing. It’s a city of opportunity and it cannot be ignored for just how much potential there is. As a Londoner I’m rooting for you and the rest of the north !!

[@ethyhayes]

​​​I agree with you in principle; but this ideological driven attitude doesnt solve the reality of a 775+ million pound black hole. Its all well and good subsidising PT; but thay subsidy quite clearly cannot be ever growing in the face of lower patronage. Further, personal car use is growing in greater Manchester. Metrolink has seen no significant mode shift. This is once again, smoke and mirrors. The metrolink is a great example of british light rail, but my gosh people lap up TfGMs take on it without a shred of critical thought. Finally the idea that roads hemorrhage is such a silly old trope. This is a first year undergrad take on transport planning and remains fundamentally ideologically flawed. I mean, good luck arguging metrolink provides anywhere near the economic benefit of the m60 for example. Roads are shit. Cars are crap. But I'm so tired of transport planners making this objevtively ridiculous syatements 😅

[@kevinoconnor2754]

Selling the tunnel on the idea of speed falls down the same trap as those who think HS2 is just about speed, neither are. Historically, this may have been the selling point, but any modern-day proposals like those in the TFGM 2040 vision are about capacity. Look across the Greater Manchester rail network, and you will see key junctions that are full to their current capacity. This includes Stockport, Slade Lane junction, and the Castlefield corridor. The problem is a lack of throughput. The Ordsall Chord was intended to allow more trains to pass through but not terminate at Piccadilly or Victoria; however, it only moves the problem because the junctions at either end of the chord are on the flat, so trains have to pass over other lines, thus restricting capacity on those lines. The capacity problem isn’t going away, and while some short-term solutions, like the third platform at Rochdale and the Collyhurst turnback, are being completed, they won’t provide solutions for longer-term growth. This only gets worse when you consider HS2’s cancellation.

[@Alan_GA]

You come across as quite informed in this matter. If I may, briefly what would you propose as a longer term solution in tandem with increased capacity?

[@kevinoconnor2754]

@@Alan_GA@Alan_GA I think it's impossible to be brief, but if you want an answer in the shortest form possible, the simple answer is a question straight back: how much are you willing to spend? Short-term solutions include; longer trains - lead in time is about 3 years, different stopping patterns and route diagrams (think like pre-covid the CLC service in the peaks that terminated at stockpot, more extended platforms at shorter stations to accommodate longer trains, trade-off less long-distance limited stop services for more local services (or visa versa), simplification of diagramming (Cross Country Operation Princess). These will only deliver marginal net results More expensive solutions would include grade separation of key junctions (the Newark flat crossing alone reduces the ECML by 2 TPH), improved signalling (the long block sections on the North Wales coast line and Hope Valley line reduce capacity), double or quad tracking, and more turnbacks and sidings where slower trains can be held. However, again, these won't give the capacity boost needed in key junctions like Stockport. If you really want a real capacity boost and a railway fit for the future, then we need HS2 in its original form. This would remove the fast trains from the current lines and allow more uniform services rather than fast and slow trains competing for space.

[@john1703]

I agree that extra capacity on the WCML is highly desirable, not least to carry freight, and preferably all the way to at least Preston. It does not need to be "high speed" and in expensive tunnels.

[@tremensdelirious]

What is the Collyhurst turn back?

[@prostakuk]

@@john1703 But doing both of those things helps future-proof it. If you're bothering to build it, do it right.

[@mattevans4377]

Another type of Underground I think could work, would be an Elizabeth line type system. If you actually look at how long the Elizabeth line is, putting it up North would mean reaching places like Liverpool, Leeds and Sheffield, as well as all the places in-between. It would then create a true Northern powerhouse, to rival London

[@A380Concord]

The new part of the Elizabeth line is only about 10 miles long, it connected two existing lines that were built in the Victorian era. Not that Manchester shouldn't get a good underground metro or network rail mainline underground through system like the Elizabeth line, but Liverpool, Leeds and Sheffield are all 30+ miles away, so this is just hyperbole.

[@mattevans4377]

@A380Concord Reading and Shenfield are roughly that far from central London, and those 4 cities combined, and the surrounding areas, would be about the same population as London. You could even throw in Preston if you wanted even more people

[@LolBot720]

the Elizabeth line didn't actually create that length, it only really connected Paddington and Liverpool Street. it's not another type of Underground at all, it's exactly the same type of scheme as the Picc-Vic tunnel

[@lazrseagull54]

The Picc-Vic tunnel would have been an Elizabeth line style system as is Merseyrail. These are local/suburban rail systems with numerous subway stations under the city centre, stopping once or more in each part of town, while northern powerhouse would be intercity high speed rail, stopping once in each city and at airports.

[@Croz89]

That would be more like a high speed express commuter line, which is what NPR is supposed to be.

[@Evemeister12]

It's bonkers that even with the existence of metrolink trams, Manchester didn't have a direct link between piccadilly and victoria for decades.

[@lewys1087]

Imo the Oxford Road/Wilmslow Road corridor is ripe for an alternative to the convoy of buses ferrying uni students to and from the south of the city, I always thought reinstating the on-road trams was the most obvious solution in terms of cost and historic precedent, but it'd probably be an even more perfect candidate for an underground railway.

[@parmentier7457]

I live in Rotterdam myself, which has the same population as Manchester. When I was in Manchester, I was surprised that there was no metro. Rotterdam only started building a metro in the 1960s and has a metro network of 103 kilometers long and 71 stations.

[@peterdawson2645]

Interesting, and as a non-Mancunian also interesting to read the comments. One quibble - you didn't include Liverpool as having an Underground. Merseyrail has several fully underground stations and a cross city link as well as the original Mersey Railway under the river. Touching on Scouse-Manc rivalry?

[@johnburns4017]

Out of order to ignore nearby Liverpool which had the world's second underground railway in 1886.

[@iamjoestafford]

Another fantastic video from my favourite KZbin channel 😃 Great to see a shoutout for Martin Dodge - as the university's Humanities press officer I have publicised a number of his projects with my press releases. He has done a great service for the city with his efforts to piece together old documents and maps!

[@BeeHereNowuk]

Aw amazing thanks! Yeah I've seen Martin Dodge's name so many times when I research these videos over the years I thought it was high time I gave him some credit. Would be good to chat with him and pick his brain 😄

[@iamjoestafford]

@ I can put you in touch if you want - I'm sure he'd be delighted to talk to you! He'd make a great subject for a future video I think.

[@ntq1ty]

@@iamjoestafford yes please! Maybe some talks for the Manchester Histories Festival too?

[@ReeseofEastAnglia]

The issue I have here is that there is an overemphasis on the city centre and particularly connecting Victoria and Piccadilly. Whereas a Heavy Metro line would work best connecting over a longer distance. I would personnaly recommend building a line that connects; Stockport, The University of Manchester, Central Manchester (including national rail stations) and ending at Salford. It would be a good way to connect parts of the city that doesnt have good rapid transport while offering other improvements over trams such as not being affected by traffic, faster speeds as it isn't restrained to the street network and a higher capacity. Los Angeles could definintely be a point of comparison showing how a system can run mainly light rail with a few key heavy rail corridors.

[@TAP7a]

Turning Oxford road into a tram corridor would be fantastic, but why a train?

[@ReeseofEastAnglia]

@@TAP7a A Metro line wouldn't constrain trains to roads/disused railway lines. A Metro line heading south from the city centre can roughly follow Oxford Road to the Rusholme area, then travel southeast to Levenshulme where it can run under Stockport Road to Stockport, a route that would be difficult for a tram. Secondly, Oxford Road isn't particularly wide, so building a tram corridor would require closing the road, only to have the trams caught in the same traffic as cars, whereas construction of a metro line would not require road closures, only cause above ground construction at Metro stations, and therefore causes less protests from the businesses on the route. Thirdly, because a heavy metro line would be in underground tunnels, they wouldn't be constrained by speed limits, and could reach 60-70mph max speeds, which makes a heavy metro a good option for trips across the Greater Manchester region as a whole.

[@leventebito]

Manchester absolutely needs an underground section in the city centre. The tram services are incredibly good, but the foot traffic is so much around Piccadilly gardens/Market street that throwing trams in the mix us downright dangerous. If you ever walked through market street on a Saturday you know what I'm talking about. There should be a grade separation either underground, like the cute small cut and cover Budapest metro line 1 OR above ground, something like the DLR in London. Both of these would be a relatively cheap way to future proof the Metrolink

[@lazrseagull54]

I dream of a single-bore 4-track tunnel with a diameter similar to the one used on L9/L10 in Barcelona on an upside-down U shaped alignment with tunnel ramps from the suburban tracks and tram tracks from the southeast of Picadilly at one end, 4-platform stations at Piccadilly station, Piccadilly Gardens and Northern Quarter, then a 6-platform station at Victoria with the 2 tracks carrying the lines from south of Piccadilly exiting the tunnel here via a ramp onto suburban tracks west of Victoria (and maybe one day taking over the busway corridor) with the 2 tracks they just used now carrying the trams from east of Victoria alongside the other 2 tracks from east of Piccadilly through the remainder of the tunnel, calling at 4-platform stations at Exchange square and St. Peter's Square, with the trams from Piccadilly exiting via a ramp onto the Cornbrook viaduct and the trams from Victoria via another ramp south of St. Peter's Square onto the once planned tram corridor on the central reservation of Princess Street, for the airport line to use alongside new services from the Fallowfield line. It would probably help if all the suburban lines used tram train vehicles. If this tunnel looped back round to Piccadilly after St. Peter's Square, this part could carry mainline trains, freeing up the current railway viaduct to Picadilly as a further local rail core route.

[@Åka-kollektivt]

I mean Karlsruhe has its main light-rail/tram route through the centre in a tunnel, with a population of 320k, compared to Manchester's over 550k. If they can do it, so can Manchester.

[@lazrseagull54]

@@Åka-kollektivt and Lausanne, Switzerland has a fully driverless underground with a population of only 146k. Rennes, France has 2 driverless underground lines with 220k.

[@oliversissonphone6143]

What about instead of building something, we invest it all in plans for a HSR and then cancel the project?

[@gorgu08]

We are spoiled in Glasgow with three underground lines through the city. The North Clyde line which passes under Queen street, the argyle line which passes under Glasgow central and the underground which encircles the city centre and west end….

[@southcalder]

But in the same way as Manchester, the two main stations aren’t well linked. In fact, unlike Manchester, there are no direct services between them, and to do it without reversing would require sending a train all the way to Anniesland (which is a relatively recent link only built for the GLQ rebuild) or Coatbridge and Hamilton. It takes about 10 mins to walk surface streets between the two stations. Tantalisingly close for an underground travelator (though the Subway is in the way so would need to go fairly deep).

[@therealchriscunningham]

And yet getting from Glasgow Central, which serves the west and south, and Glasgow Queen Street, which serves the north and east, still requires one to physically lug oneself across the city centre by foot despite each of the two stations having a low level connection (two in the case of Queen Street which also has an adjacent tube stop). There's been talk of unifying those two for decades as well. Instead those in charge decided in their infinite wisdom to demolish an entire city block to thread a motorway through it.

[@50upss]

@@therealchriscunningham linking the two stations with some sort of tunnel would be amazing to allow direct services from north to south, similar to Thameslink in London

[@therealchriscunningham]

@ Considering they're a mere couple of city blocks apart and the perilous state of central Glasgow's real estate (which consists primarily of vape shops, student flats, or grade A listed buildings that mysteriously burn down in the middle of the night to make room for more student flats) this is prime time for a bolder move to just link the high level lines.

[@marktownend8065]

@@southcalder Buchanan St subway station has a short travelator to Queen St already, and a Mezzanine ticket hall between the tracks and street levels. A new subsurface passageway from Central might plug into the east or south side of the mezzanine floor at Buchanan St. without going very deep. My favourite idea for Glasgow is a 'crossrail' linking Ayrshire and Stirling/Edinburgh services via a new rail tunnel on a SW-NE alignment passing under or close to both termini. A central subterranean station could have entrances at each end of long through platforms like some of the London Elizabeth Line stations. The north one would join into the Buchanan St./Queen St. complex via the subway station mezzanine and the south entrance would have new passageways leading to Glasgow Central station. The station construction could incorporate a parallel foot tunnel at mezzanine level equipped with moving walkways for those who wish to change between remaining terminating services at the two mainline stations. The track level of the new station would probably be lower than the subway as approach routes have to cross it twice and also pass under the Clyde.

[@dollopsofspraycream]

Great video, Ollie! What we really, really need is a cross-city railway that extends into the boroughs like a German S-Bahn system. Or a bit closer to home, Merseyrail. I'm also a big proponent of building a cut-and-cover line under Oxford Road/Wilmslow Road, all the way out to Wythenshawe. Even with the new airport tram line, it takes too long to get from there (which is theoretically part of Manchester city!) to the centre of town.

[@watcherzero5256]

Metrolinks surface crossing of the city centre is reaching its capacity limit. We already have double trams but to meet demand on the lines going forward we need quadruple trams which is impractical for street stops. So planning is going in to burying some of the tram city crossings, notably the Bury-Altrincham and Bury-East Didsbury service, so that the lines have enough capacity to meet future demand which would also free up the streetscape for more services on the other lines (its also being considered whether additional Warrington services could piggyback on this allowing more commuter services on the CLC line and more stations for example at Old Trafford). At the same time we have the capacity crunch of the Castlefield corridor and in a back to Picc-Vic style arrangement there is consideration being given to a tunnel to allow Wigan/Bolton to Stockport/Airport services to pass under the city leaving room on the existing viaduct lines for the intercity services. You can read about it in the Draft Rapid Transit Strategy.

[@bh_92-k4t]

I was wondering whether some of those tram lines could be converted to underground lines in the future, given most of them like the ones you mentioned used to be national rail lines (like a lot of the London Underground). The Bury - Altrincham and Rochdale via Oldham lines would be obvious candidates Shouldn’t there also be some new lines not served by any rail transport to speed up bus journeys, such as the Wilmslow and Stockport roads? Also towards Bolton and Wigan (not sure which alignments though). Maybe you could get rid of the tram to Ashton, and have a tube line follow its route to Stalybridge?

[@Tonydjjokerit]

@@bh_92-k4t Far too expensive!

[@davidemmott6225]

The idea of Metrolink was to link up suburban lines and enable them to cross the city centre.Unfortunately street running, and the limited size of the trams, restricts capacity and adds to delay. Replacing the city centre tramways with an underground section makes a lot of sense. We've done it in Liverpool (well, built the underground section - trams went a long time ago).

[@jackmartinleith]

Excellent research, maps and pix, pleasingly presented. Great work all round. Thank you.

[@saramoor3133]

Thankyou for making this. So interesting

[@BeeHereNowuk]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@michaelallen2063]

Great video. Your conclusion is on the money, for me. An integrated mass transit system across Greater Manchester, with lines radiating out for an interchange hub underneath the city centre, feels like a proposal that would create social value and have commercial viability. The irony is that Liverpool developed such a thing in the mid 70s. A smaller city centre, with a decentralised population due to postwar slum clearances, and headlong in economic decline at the time (so even less business case than Manchester), and yet the "Loop and Link" project went ahead. Now everybody can get from Chester to Southport, Wirral to Ormskirk (distances of 40-50 miles or so), all on a flat-rate £6 travelcard with a maximum of 1 change via an underground network beneath the city centre. It's a great system today, but it seems staggering that a project like that was seen through to completion when none of Manchester's proposals ever got to spades in the ground.

[@1258-Eckhart]

The Ordsall Chord bridge is a white elephant, because it can only work properly after you have quadrupled the lines through the Castlefield corridor and provided two extra platforms at Piccadilly. Those lines are curently working at full capacity so there are no available slots to feed trans-city services in via the Ordsall Chord. The trams are an excellent improvement 👍👍👍 but what is missing is a through mainline corridor from Crewe, serving the airport, Piccadilly, Victoria then on to Bolton and the WCML via Chorley. This would enable through London - Glasgow trains to stop in Manchester rather than as now Warrington. So I'm still in favour of a Picc-Vic tunnel.

[@davidowen2396]

London-Glasgow trains stopping at Warrington is great. It makes for easy connections to Liverpool and Manchester and is a real leveller for the North West.

[@Cowman9791]

Something like that would not work at all for intercity trains, because in part you would get longer journey times, but a cross-city route is more often than not better suited for regional and/or commuter trains, not intercity trains, given that would maximise the number of trains running through the tunnel, provided they are not vastly different types of trains because that is what causes the absolute bottleneck situation on the Castlefield corridor where there is a mix of commuter (Manchester to Liverpool stoppers), Regional (Norwich to Liverpool) and intercity trains all sharing the same section, creating a very uneven balance. You would also lose benefits, because more likely than not, they would need to subject Manchester Piccadilly or Manchester Victoria to pick up/drop off only rules to avoid cross city commuters from filling up intercity services bound to Scotland.

[@ADAMEDWARDS17]

Famously Chris Grayling was the Tory transport secretary who cancelled platforms 15 and 16 at Piccadilly, the 4 tracks west to almost Oxford Road and the rebuilind of Oxford Road to save money. That's why the Ordsall Chord doesn't work.

[@1258-Eckhart]

@@ADAMEDWARDS17 That guy has displaced Beeching in the damage he did to the UK's rail industry. With Beeching, it was at least country lines which were taking one little old lady to work and back each day, with Grayling it was the transpennine upgrade, the electrification of EastWest Rail and the scrapping of the urgent capacity upgrade in Manchester - all critical projects which will all have to be realised anyway, and now at four times the cost which Grayling saved.

[@ADAMEDWARDS17]

@@1258-Eckhart Totally agree. And then compounded by the utterly stupid decision to cancel most of HS2, with the result that when Phase 1 reaches Lichfield the extra trains will reduce capacity on the WCML north to Crewe, not increase it. There's also the hypocrasy that when road schemes go massively overbudget and are late, no one seems to care.

[@ADAMEDWARDS17]

The best comparison to Picc Vic is what happened in Liverpool where all the local lines were joined up and big old station sites released for development. It made a huge difference to travel across the whole of Merseyside. One project not included I can remember my Grandad having a book about was a victorian era plan for a line direct from London Road station to Victoria which would then have been rebuilt as a massive T shaped station giving Manchester one big central station. I suspect this fell foul of construction costs and because it didn't servce anywhere useful on that straight line, so didn't add ease of access to the city centre.

[@CarlSmith-bs4qx]

The lack of transport planning in the UK outside of London is very evident when studying other countries. The Picc-Vic could have worked and driven growth.

[@Llotel972]

Maybe though underground metro is definitely an outlier in that. For its size the UK has a lot of subways

[@alaindumas1824]

@Llotel972 Comparable European countries have twice as many subways : - Germany : Berlin, Hamburg, Munich, Essen, Nuremberg, Frankfurt - France : Paris, Marseille, Lyon, Toulouse, Lille, Rennes - Italy : Rome, Milan, Turin, Genoa, Napoli, Brescia. - Spain : Madrid, Barcelona, Bilbao, Valencia, Malaga, Sevilla.

[@Llotel972]

@@alaindumas1824 Many of the metros you mentioned are actually light rail, something many UK cities have. If we combine subways and light rail then the UK has six metros.

[@lazrseagull54]

@Llotel972 alaindumas only mentioned networks that have at least one fully self contained metro line and more importantly in regards to whether or not a European city smaller than or similar in size to Manchester would usually build a subway: they all have multiple underground stations on their light rail and/or tram networks. Germany has over 20 networks with subway stations when you count the 15 (roughly) cities with underground light rail and underground trams, as well as the S Bahn tunnel in Leipzig and the 4 full U Bahn networks. subway stations on German light rail networks: Cologne: 38 underground stations Dortmund: 23 underground stations Bochum/Herne: 21 underground stations Essen: 20 underground stations Düsseldorf: 20 underground stations Frankfurt: 20 underground stations Hannover: 19 underground stations Stuttgart: 14 underground stations Bonn: 12 underground stations Mülheim: 9 underground stations Bielefeld: 7 underground stations Gelsenkirchen: 7 underground stations Duisburg: 7 underground stations Karlsruhe: 7 underground stations The UK only has 2 urban areas with an U Bahn, as the one in Merseyside is an S Bahn and the one in Tyne and Wear is a Stadtbahn.

[@Llotel972]

@lazrseagull54 Uh, no Germany only has 4 U-bahns in the country same amount as the UK. Now if you're trying to say that the UK should have more light rail and trams then yes I 100% agree.

[@Croz89]

In theory the Metrolink can cross the city in 13 minutes, but in practice it's often slower than that if there's congestion, I've spent over 20 minutes going from Victoria to Piccadilly, slower than walking pace, and half of that was stuck behind a queue of trams outside Shudehill. That's part of the problem of street running, it's not just slower, it's not as consistent as full grade seperation. If you've not got luggage you're better off getting a bee bike and cycling between the two nowadays.

[@Embur]

Incredible video!! I'm definitely of the belief that almost all Northern cities have been cheated out of underground and other light rail systems like this quite heavily, especially in my own native city of Leeds. Perhaps the future calls for an inter-regional system, perhaps with Merseyside, Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire getting their own underground/light rail networks connected by high speed rail over the Pennines could be one of the greatest projects in the history of the North. Either way, really glad to have found this channel. 💛🐝

[@noeonoohno4219]

@@Embur if you want better trains in the north you need socialism, and you need to stop electing corrupt tories or austerity Labour. Neither will invest in the north but will string you along for your votes. The railways were best under a socialist model and need to be nationalised and invested in. We have unprecedented wealth inequality. The money is there, we are just letting the rich get richer while our infrastructure stagnates.

[@Embur]

@ I assure you that in my years of voting, I’ve never voted for Labour nor the Tories on the national or civic level

[@noeonoohno4219]

@@Embur ah I didn’t mean you personally so much as the north as an electorate but good choice 🙌

[@Embur]

@ Ahh that’s totally fair, my mistake 😅 I do agree for the most part, although I think West and South Yorkshire in particular has some somewhat promising leftist/socialist Labour MPs, but I certainly agree for the most part. A West Yorkshire Underground will unfortunately quite naturally run at a net loss, so it’d need go have a government (even a local one) happy and willing to subsidise it in the name of investment, something that quite a few governments in the last 25 years have promised, but none have yet delivered.

[@AtoZbyLocalBus]

Manchester next Underground project, is the tram and train Undergroud 2035 project. This will put the 3 tram lines underground, and it will also built an underground tunnel for mainline trains, double the number of tracks along the Manchester Piccadiley, Oxford Road and Deansgate route, by building 2 underground train lines.

[@Millennial_Manc]

They explored that as an alternative to the Ordsall Chord but the Chord was chosen as the preferred option because of the long gradual incline needed into Piccadilly Station and where that slope would have to begin for trains to be able to climb up it. That cost / benefit analysis claimed that the Chord would relive a significant amount of congestion at Piccadilly which we all know it hasn’t. Barely anything goes over it. Plus there was already a Piccadilly to Victoria direct line going the other way towards Ardwick, but it’s only used to move rolling stock as it needs some upgrades to make it suitable for passengers. Outrageous waste of public money on that Chord that should have prompted an inquiry. The original problem at Piccadilly remains. I think the issues of the incline can be overcome. This is the city that made water run uphill with the invention of canal locks so I’m sure we can figure out how to get a train under Piccadilly. Failing that, they ought to build two new lines directly above 13/14. This has been dismissed as very disruptive to those two lines during construction but i don’t think anyone’s considered clearing some land around Piccadilly / Mayfield, creating a construction site, and building the new infrastructure at ground level in a modular format that would be picked up and lowered into position, instead of constructed up in the air. Manchester will never make it as a major city because you can’t get to it. The war on motorists now takes the form of perpetual roadworks and road closures with absolutely no work being carried out most days. You can’t even get a train or tram from the airport during the night, when planes continuously land, which is staggering for a city that wants us out of our cars.

[@MikeWillSee]

Had a quick google but couldn't find the proposals you speak of. Where would one get more information?

[@AtoZbyLocalBus]

@ my comment was a joke, I put it up for fun. Sorry if you throught it was a real plan.

[@MikeWillSee]

@@AtoZbyLocalBus I'm not sure I thought it was a "real" plan per se, but people like to propose these things all the time. For example George Marshall has come up with some really interesting ideas and posted them on his twitter, so I thought this might be a similar non-official proposal!

[@Millennial_Manc]

@@AtoZbyLocalBus Oh! I thought it was a think tank proposal or something like that. Thanks for clarifying. Maybe I should be more pessimistic about anything like that ever realistically happening, at least by 2035!

[@GJMarshy]

Excellent video as always! You manage to make what's fairly abstract stuff to most people tangible! On the last question of why people are still campaigning or an "underground" it's actually a "relief tunnel" which is talked about. Ie the Ordsall Chord which you pointed out, only sees 1 train per hour! Castlefield is a notorious bottleneck affecting the whole North, and so a fast point-point east-west "relief" tunnel with a station at Piccadilly, and perhaps one in the west in Salford would be an absolute gamechanger! Then Oxford Rd, Deansgate, Salford Central, Victoria etc could all see metro-frequency trains all over the region. Essentially an inverted version of the tube. ;)

[@BeeHereNowuk]

Thank you. Yes totally agree. I didn't articulate the inadequacies of the Ordsall chord very well in the video

[@GJMarshy]

@@BeeHereNowuk Tbf the Ordsall Chord is probably an entire topic on its own, as is Castlefield! You'd need a separate video to cover that, but man I'd rather fewer high quality videos like this than trying to shoehorn everything in. In a way that's the great thing about this city, you never run out of stuff to unpack!

[@martinhowe1422]

Really enjoyable watch Ollie. You are an engaging and well researched presenter. I am a cockney who has been consistently visiting Manchester for 30 years on business. As a visitor, the tram system is fantastic...I get to see Manchester as I travel, as opposed to the London tube where you just pop up at a different destinations. You guys in the NW powerhouse should celebrate the uniqueness of the area. I travelled to the Etihad Campus last week from Piccadilly and it was so easy. Nothing is perfect pal and we are all living with the errors from the last 300 years. But you guys have plenty to be positive about. Viva Bee!!!

[@BeeHereNowuk]

Thanks that's really nice to hear 😁

[@mroscar323_6]

I agree with the idea that with the success of the tram system so far, it has put the idea of an underground on the shelf. I think Manchester could do with an underground system. Though an issue is that it would leave Manchester with two separate transport systems, a light rail/tram/city train and a deep-level metro. My idea for a Manchester Underground Phase 1 would start at Piccadilly station, through Victoria, then roughly follow Rochdale Road as far as Middleton, and then under Hollin Lane and Middleton Road towards Heywood. This would provide a much needed rail connections to these areas. Middleton's closest station is Mills Hill (1.4 miles, 32 min walk) and Heywood is on the East Lancs Railway which runs a more limited service and doesn't run early or late (understandably). Phase 2 would run under Wilmslow Road, past the University, Central Hospitals, then south towards West Didsbury, Wythenshawe, then terminating at the Airport, providing a more reliable service than heavy rail to the airport whilst being quicker than the tram. This would benefit those who work at the Central Hospitals and at the University, and would provide much needed public transport capacity along that route. I was a student at a college in Rusholme and sometimes would have to wait an hour to get on to a bus. I'm no expert in engineering but I can imagine this would cost quite a bit.

[@LancashireLass]

I can't imagine anyone ponying up the money to build the thing, sadly. Great video as always.

[@LancashireLass]

Tho' I did spit my tea out at that, erm, jazz tune...

[@ajmillinger1]

Why did the larger city of Birmingham never get an underground? They are still stuggling to get more than one tramline. Oh dear!

[@KJames2345]

Because it is mainly build over limestone and sandstone, building a underground needs a lot of reinforced concrete to make the tunnel stable enough instead of collapsing under it's own weight.

[@davestarkie9977]

Another great video!!! As other say the Ordsall Chord is underused... main reason is the massive congestion around Oxford Road.... only two lines for so many trains! If it was made 4 track it would solve a lot of capacity issues around the city centre. The proposed rebuild of Oxford Road won't resolve the real issue. One day it will happen but that'll be after London gets about 5 new lines first.

[@JackFifield]

Worth mentioning that TfGM's Greater Manchester Transport Strategy 2040, which was last updated in January 2021, talks about the potential need for inner city tunnels too. Personally I think they're much needed as the low speeds in the city centre severely hamper cross-city travel times and make motor transport too competitive!

[@Willettinho]

im not originally from manchester, i moved here 4 years ago and I genuinely find your videos so interesting about the place I now call home

[@sc4rf4ce1983]

Great editing in this video. Seamless transitions.

[@mrgreatauk]

I like the unofficial proposal some people have advanced that there should be a Piccadilly - Salford tunnel, with through running mainline trains ( connecting the lines into Picadilly to various points on the West side of Manchester depending on the variation chosen, including a potential northern powerhouse style line) that would help relieve the Castlefiled corridor, allow much more capacity on trains into Manchester, and also make that interchange between destinations served from Picadilly and those from Victoria a lot easier.

[@Leonardo_Congeni]

"the toxic gossip train" lol

[@Stephen.Gordon87]

I would agree that the city centre as a whole doesn’t need a rapid transit tunnel from Victoria to Piccadilly, especially to save a few mins, I’d be much in favour of ensuring all 10 boroughs are better connected either through Metrolink or some form of rapid transit. Things like the Leigh Guided Busway were such a missed opportunity to put some light rail into the Wigan borough for instance. One would hope that Bee Network Rail is a step in the right direction, but we’re decades away on any real change in the rail infrastructure.

[@choncord]

It's not a city centre underground Manchester needs but with the population boom all over greater Manchester and the creaking, congested slow main roads and motorways all over the GM area, it's a GM wide underground that's needed as the whole of the GM is underserved and poorly served by the current unreliable bus system and rail system and tram system. A GM underground would be financially feasible and not running at a loss like the trams. The economic boost and the development of whole of GM brought would be unimaginable.

[@watcherzero5256]

That 1902 proposal was very Glasgow Metro, a circle line not actually covering anywhere beyond the city centre. It would be useful for connecting between the different rail termini which was essential as the radiating lines weren't linked back then, but wouldn't be much use for getting into or around the city centre.

[@BogdanTheGeek]

As someone living in Manchester, I detest the London underground. Hot, smelly and full of rats and people rushing around. Now that we have a hop network with the bee line, busses + walking (trains/trams if you are rushing) is so much better. Once we finally move away from the 50yo diesel busses making the air so polluted you choke on it, we might even be able to cycle across the city. Wouldn't that be nice...

[@mikehindson-evans159]

Excellent historical document. Thanks.

[@petebrothwell2998]

Great video with a thoughtful conclusion, thank you.

[@inspirationalaries]

Really interesting film and loved the history side of the planning visions. The SELNEC interactive machine footage from the Manchester Museum of Transport brought back memories of my childhood. On another note, the reason London has an underground/tube system is due to its scale and density. Try walking from Kings Cross on one corner of the Central Line to Gloucester Road/Earls Court in the opposite corner and you'll certainly hit your daily step count. Manchester and London are 2 completely different beasts and their mass transit systems do not compare with one another for many different factors. The walkability of Manchester city centre negates the need for an underground system. Capping the number of residential building developments might be needed based on the density of inhabitants that has increased noticeably since the 80s.

[@BeeHereNowuk]

Thanks very much! 😊 Yeah London was crying out for mass transit from early on. Manchester got by because it could for so long

[@Millennial_Manc]

Manchester’s city centre is expanding with great rapidity, both in area and population. That small area we think of as the city centre needs to be broadened out now to Chapel St, Spinningfields, Regent Road, the Green Quarter etc.

[@lazrseagull54]

Many cities that have an underground network have a smaller city centre than Manchester and the underground parts are normally only under the city centre with only about 5 - 8 tube stations because it's the slowest part of the network for public transport to pass through at street level, but where the speed is most needed as the demand is at its highest there. The lines from Altrincham, Bury, East Didsbury and Rochdale are almost metro lines, with a key missing element being a central tunnel through the busy part of town. Manchester is actually the 3rd largest city in Europe with no form of underground local rail and when the Belgrade metro opens its first 2 lines at the end of this decade, it will be the 2nd largest after Birmingham.

[@leona_devon]

I see you filmed that on a day when it wasn't raining! I think that's the reason, the weather is sooo bad up there, people don't want to walk it. My partner lives there, so I do visit often, thanks for the video, always interested in transport and how thing evolved. I do like the tram, they are so cool.

[@georgeedwards4807]

Excellent video again. I read about The Picc-Vic line as the building I live in (Whitworth House) was apparently going to be demolished to create the Whitworth Station! I had no idea of the previous underground plans, very interesting tha ks for sharing 👍

[@r.markclayton4821]

Two main reasons. 1. Manchester already had numerous railway lines on viaducts. 2. Top secret Guardian telephone exchange and nuclear bunker was already there and in the way. Of course there was a cheaper solution, the Windsor link and Castlefield curve, the latter delayed decades and finally implemented as the Ordsall chord.

[@kevanhubbard9673]

That Pic/Vic system looks like it would have been a bit like the Merseyrail system in and around nearby Liverpool.Probably like Merseyrail it would have been run by British Rail.The Newcastle system is run by the local authority although based mainly on the electric system that BR inherited from the LNER.

[@iancharles6256]

I seem to remember in the early 1960s going with my Dad to Manchester Town Hall where they had a model of Manchester and it included plans for a monorail up Rochdale Road to Middleton or Rochdale. It coincided with the complete demolition & rebuilding of Miles Platting from Butler Street to Hulme Hall Lane and the extensive regeneration of Manchester’s inner suburbs.

[@markthomas2577]

I remember travelling Bury to London and London to Bury in the 70s .... having to walk between Victoria and Piccadilly

[@mikeclarke3882]

Nice one Ollie...personally, I'm not a fan of underground rail, anywhere, and I've travelled on a few. Great look at the situation though, and delivered with your usual down to earth, yet 'know what you're talking about' style. Cheers!

[@-Osiris-]

The worst thing Manchester ever did was to accept a tram network instead of a high capacity fully grade separated underground (in the centre at least) metro system. You might say 'it's better than nothing' and that's exactly why Manchester doesn't have the network it deserves

[@B1_66ER]

Great video. I've subscribed. As a Mancunian rail enthusiast I love our tram system but I would love a Mancunian Underground, like Berlin's, even more.

[@outofplacetom]

Enjoyed this video. As someone who now lives to north west of GM and previous lived to the NE of it, the lack of cross-city connectivity is not new to me. An underground link is one way to enable cross city journeys, along with getting something done on the Castlefield Corridor and platforms 15/16... We have had millions spent on the Ordsall chord but barely no trains able to use it!

[@marktownend8065]

Elizabeth Line deliberately limited the number of new stations in Central London. It has greater inter-station distances than early tube lines, but makes up for that to an extent by many stations being double-ended with separate entrances at opposite ends of the long platforms, sometimes emerging on different streets around 300 metres apart. The principle of greater station spacing was established on the Victoria Line in the late 1960s and continued in the Jubilee Line extension to Docklands and Stratford in the late 90s. Early tube lines have station spacing as short as 300m. Longer spacing decreases journey time as trains can accelerate to a higher speed in the tunnels between stations before having to start slowing down for the next stop. With underground stations often being the most expensive and challenging parts of transit, and then representing higher ongoing operating costs for staffing, having fewer of them reduces outlay significantly, although the EL approach of having two separate entrances can be costly. For fire regulations however you usually need a second emergency egress anyway, so planners figured they might as well make that a full public entrance and expand the walk-shed. I always felt the Picc Vic scheme had too many intermediate stations in the central area. Cutting back to just one double ender in the St Peter's Square area would have been sensible. You'd still need the low level platforms at Picc and Vic of course. In London, just like Metrolink, the Underground took over some former LNER suburban branch lines in outer London, notably the outer eastern reaches of the Central Line and the Barnet and Mill Hill branches of the Northern Line. On the Northern Line, LNER retained a residual freight service to a handful of important customers using full size heavy rail steam locomotives and wagons. running between the tube services on the same tracks.

[@thomastalbot1953]

this is a great point, one, multi entrance station would be suitable and speed it all up and lower costs

[@AndrewJohnson-ur3lw]

I often wonder if the ideas than many European cities do might work in the UK. They take the trams into a tunnel through the city centre so that they avoid other traffic confliction. Leeds had envisioned doing the same in the 1950's a bit like the one in London. Most cities seem to be banning road traffic and having large pedestrian areas reducing the need for underground routes to avoid traffic.

[@jasonsyers3948]

Great video & I agree a properly planned underground network connecting the 10 boroughs to the city centre would ease the current levels of congestion clogging up GM roads & worsening pollution levels. Love your content, well researched great to see those historic plans & mktg materials.

[@carltonleboss]

Fascinating video.

[@andrewnelson4057]

London, Glasgow, Newcastle and LIVERPOOL...

[@BeeHereNowuk]

Haha yes sorry I had to prioritise 😉

[@fndjfgsdk]

Liverpool is still national rail

[@andrewnelson4057]

@@fndjfgsdk Actually, Merseyrail are not National Rail: Merseyrail British train operating company owned by Serco-Abellio Merseyrail is an independent rail service operating in the Liverpool City Region, distinct from the National Rail network. It provides rail services across Merseyside and operates its own ticketing and service systems. Distinct Service Network: Merseyrail operates a separate network of services within the Liverpool City Region, serving areas such as Wirral and the Northern lines. It is not part of the broader National Rail network. Tap & Go Ticketing: Merseyrail is developing a Tap & Go ticketing system in partnership with the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority, which will be implemented across its Northern and Wirral lines. Station Recognition: The service has received recognition for its stations, with Hoylake station winning the best station in Wirral for a second consecutive year and Meols station securing the Best Kept Gardens award. Historic Significance: Liverpool Central station, a key hub for Merseyrail, celebrated its 150th anniversary in 2025, marking its importance in the region's rail history.

[@jaymurphy3877]

It comes under national rail funding yes but it functions as a local metro system

[@Eric_Hunt194]

I was not prepared for your choice of closing music... 😱💀

[@BeeHereNowuk]

Hahahaha it just makes me laugh when I hear it 😂

[@dblissmn]

They have to do something in Manchester because the capacity at Victoria is so constrained by the loss of platforms for the arena they've had to shove more through Castlefield than it can handle and they've punted on changes that would alleviate that jam as well like extra platforms at Piccadilly.

[@April2058]

A Cross Rail project for Manchester may be the likely scenario in the not too distant future along with expansion of the LRT network and more amenity for passive transit

[@awantamta]

A great discussion

[@AustinGoto]

Great vid! I've heard about some ideas around pedestrian subways to ease the pavement congestion, which I think is an idea that has legs

[@englishjona6458]

What a good video, I never even thought about other cities having an underground, I know Glasgow has one but that’s about it

[@kylelacy-andrews9017]

Something I don't see mentioned in these comments is the amount of residential development in the city centre. Population density is going through the roof which for me means that the city centre has to be as walkable and car free as possible. The focus would then be on getting people in and out of the centre as efficiently as possible, which the tram already does very well alongside existing main line trains which are due to be integrated in to a "bee network".

[@pauladdenbrooke1125]

As PiccVic was cancelled,the Treasury allowed much of the tram system to be built. They vert mush liked the conversion of the local railway lines, as this saved some subsidising of BR.

[@modelflugzuegsamlung]

More than anything we need more trains at existing stations! Manchester has a great rail network, but at many suburban stations, the trains are ao infrequent it's not worth bothering with.

[@Anonymoususer_8823]

I think that Jago Hazzard has also done a video on Manchester underground railway that never happened. And he also talked about how Manchester could have not afford to have its own tram system. But at least Manchester now has its own Metrolink tram system as well as trains and buses that serves other areas around Greater Manchester.

[@JuliusFawcett]

thanks so much for your video, really interesting

[@MikeWillSee]

The problem with the Ordsall Chord is that it only sees use by one train per hour as that's all that can be handled by the lines it connects to either side. The best way to relieve those lines is to take long-distance trains off them and onto a new line, allowing their use by local services. The new line for express trains could either be something quite large in scale like Northern Powerhouse Rail, or a smaller cross-city tunnel from Piccadilly to Salford, similar to the Crossnorth proposal. Whatever form it takes, that's the only real solution in the long term!

[@dblissmn]

I think you're asking the wrong question at the end about walkability. The issue is that the capacity bottlenecks at Victoria and on the Castlefield viaduct can no longer be overlooked as they're to the point where the Ordsall Chord is almost redundant. There are no more available train paths.

[@mmcdstudio]

Liverpool would have been the perfect example to discuss, Merseyrail (soon to be renamed 'Metro') is pretty much exactly when Manchester was next in line to get in the 1970's.

[@ffrancrogowski6263]

I remember the Picc-Vic proposals of the 1970s with working into the Manchester area on the railway at that time, Ollie. I heard many suggestions of even just having a direct underground link between the two stations (only). Another one would've been to have a train service from Piccadilly via the disused viaduct at Ardwick Junction, and on through Philips Park, Miles Platting and then down the bank into Victoria. It was all heresay. What is at present with the trams seems quite ok, I would say.

[@chrisadye1590]

I was amazed that the Picc-Vic tunnel had 5 stations in such a short distance. Underground stations are very expensive to build, often requiring compulsory purchase of buildings on the surface, and then dropping in a chamber the size of the station, or using mining techniques to build all the access tunnels and platforms. Building a tunnel without stations is comparatively cheap (although still way more than a tram line). In addition at that time there were fewer electrified routes and no hybrid diesel/electric technology meaning that significant electrification work would have been needed in the suburbs. So I'm not surprised it failed.

[@DC-YTC]

Should have just Waterloo & City it (a Underground line with 2 stops)

[@Stormy_69]

Excellent video, mate, thanks! Personally, I would like to see the Metrolink expanded throughout the boroughs of Greater Manchester. This could give the failing roads a much-needed rest from the buses in and around the town centres. Give Andy enough time, he might get it done 😊

[@Andrewjg_89]

I would say that Manchester could have had its own Underground system with new lines expanding all over Greater Manchester. But now you got the Manchester Metrolink that serves most parts of Greater Manchester. And to see the Metrolink extend to Stockport and Bolton.

[@reubenjelley3583]

Lovely edit/ pacing as always! Yes Manchester will get one, perhaps when a high speed cross country line burrows its way under they'll have to consider future heavy rail. So yeah you'll get one just wonder when, hopefully in our lifetimes. Can't have such a city being choked out by cars forever. Mint to see the map overlays aswell.

[@richardzimmermann9372]

It certainly makes sense to me to put the tram / lightrail between Piccadilly Gardens and St Peter's Square underground. It's only 1000 feet, so might not be too expensive. Traffic along Mosley Street is horribly crowded slow - you walk faster than the tram there - and the area could get some trees and a boulevard feel. In addition, it would be an economically rational way to start the dream of a Manchester underground and it might expand from there.

[@BeeHereNowuk]

Taking the trams underground at piccadilly gardens would also allow it to open up a bit more as a public space.

[@MrMWRMWR]

​@@BeeHereNowuk ...back to the 1970s when the gardens were looked after - reasonably safe in daytime iirc🤔

[@lazrseagull54]

If you only put the stops between Victoria and St. Peter's Square underground, then the lines to Rochdale, Bury, East Didsbury and Altrincham, which are mostly on former railway corridors almost become metro lines. Maybe also include a branch to Piccadilly so that tram-train vehicles can continue onto the suburban railways into southeast Manchester.

[@Croz89]

@lazrseagull54 I think a pre-metro tunnel between Piccadilly, Deansgate and Victoria would really help. It would fully grade separate the Bury and Altrincham lines from road traffic, the Rochdale line would only need a couple of extra tunnels in Oldham and Rochdale to be the same (which could be implemented later), and Trafford could probably be elevated (though it doesn't have that many road crossings to begin with). That only leaves Ashton, Eccles and Airport lines with significant street running that can't really be engineered away without redoing most of the track. Manchester could be like Stuttgart, start off with surface trams and gradually grade separate sections at strategic locations until eventually most of the street running is either gone or in dedicated lanes.

[@ce1834]

Comparing Manchester's trams to Lyon and Marseilles's metro, which have smaller populations, in France, shows the decades of underinvestment in infrastructure in the UK. Even HS2/Northern Powerhouse rail should have been built decades ago

[@MisterAshbrook]

A very informative video, thankyou. I have a copy of the 1945 plan, and often wonder what the city would look like had it been implemented at the time. It may well have been easier to build Pic-Vic or similar, following the ring road route. One can understand, though, there being no overground rail connection. We’d effectively have two city centres, with claims of businesses and homes being “on the wrong side of the tracks”.

[@frasermitchell9183]

The problem is that underground lines, especially 'heavy' rail are eye-wateringly expensive, and the potential traffic flows in Manchester just aren't sufficient to support the cost of building them. Manchester has done well to get the tramway-based Metro. This is a much more workable solution, because street running can be used where needed, and reservation and old railway formations used. The big pain of underground metros is actually getting to and from the trains ! With trams they are there on the street. The Germans introduced the concept of "Stadtbahn" which allows tram networks to be upgraded as traffic flows increase, and short tunneling in cities can be introduced. Of course with local authorities able to control access to city streets, the need for tunnels has tended to die out.

[@mubzytv]

Having an underground now would be useful to relieve congestion if we ever want to expand the Metrolink

[@stevejones4275]

Liverpool ran underground trains from 1836, did you forget?

[@Millennial_Manc]

Aren’t they below-ground and above-ground ordinary rail lines rather than a dedicated underground network?

[@NellyCelephant-f7e]

It goes under the Mersey and connects them with Birkenhead so I'd call it at least an honourable mention.

[@ajfrostx]

1886.

[@martinsloman6905]

@@ajfrostxThe original Mersey railway tunnel opened in 1886with the Loop and Link Line in 1977.

[@davidemmott6225]

@@Millennial_Manc how do you tell the difference? What about London's Metropolitan Line: basically a suburban commuter railway.

[@choco.__.cat8088]

close enough. welcome back jay forman

[@jethro1837]

The main issues with Metrolink are that it misses parts of GM (Oxford and Wilmslow Roads, Stockport for example), and that it just connects parts of GM to the city centre, not one town to others nearby. It'd be difficult to build a Metrolink line down Oxford Road at least, because those roads are needed of course, but building an underground line would be hard too, because I suppose you'd have to rip the whole road up. I dunno, seems like a tough one all round.

[@DubStu]

It’s always struck me as odd that as England’s second city, Manchester didn’t push for it harder. Especially since Glasgow (2nd city of the Empire at the time) was 3rd in the World to get there’s (just behind Budapest)

[@TalesOfWar]

Glasgow still hasn't had any expansion of it lol.

[@linguaste]

We need an underground, due to the atrocious weather in Manchester. I've lost count of the number of times I've got soaking wet or nearly blown away by gales leaving Piccadilly station and walking across the town centre. The metrolink is good, but too slow and not frequent enough. An underground system linking all the regions towns is what we need.

[@overshot3037]

Would love a greater Manchester underground, getting into Manchester is shocking

[@brunnian]

I think your final premise, that the city centre is walkable, is about right. I do like your borough link idea, though. It would be in competition with the metro link trams , but those are. At capacity morning and evening, and it's not clear how much more they can carry. I think some additional greater Manchester system will be needed in 15 years, so now is when to start.

[@metropleb]

To fix all the existing problems and bring Manchester's railways up to the ideal 21st standard that can be found in other cities (Europe, Asia), it actually needs 4 (!) tunnels. I know it won't happen, but that's not an exaggeration, just a perspective on how far behind we all are in the UK outside London. 1) The already proposed and cancelled HS2/NPR tunnel, to get bulk InterCity traffic off the local railways - connects fast to London, Birmingham, Liverpool and Leeds. 2) The proposed airport tunnel, to connect the dead-end of the Airport station into a through line to Cheshire. Provides much more capacity on the existing station line and links to Crewe, Chester, North Wales etc to give much more frequent trains there. 3) An east-west regional tunnel - Ardwick to Salford - to relieve the Castlefield mess, acting like a Crossrail or Thameslink for suburban and 'inter-town' journeys. 4) A north-south metro tunnel - Cornbrook to Collyhurst - to pull the bulk of the existing Metrolink traffic off the streets and allowing the services to be lengthened. We may get either 1) or 3) eventually, but not both. 2) was a real plan that seems to have been forgotten about. 4) is now being promoted locally. Who knows....

[@stanley3647]

Today what we need is: quadrupling Picadilly to Ordsall section with extra platforms at Picadilly. This stretch of railway is one of busiest in the country and has no available capacity for more trains...

[@KyrilPG]

The Pic-Vic project looked like an RER in some way, connecting rail lines with an underground central section. Manchester could very well build an underground today, just like Rennes in France has a 2-line fully automated metro that, despite its small infrastructure, packs a real punch with the equivalent of the city's population transported every day. Or like Toulouse with its 2 first metro lines and its new 3rd line being built as a mostly tangential / orbital line linking major industrial (mostly Airbus and aerospace), educational, and residential areas ; suburbs to suburbs and grazing the city center. Mixing tramway and metro lines works really well in several French cities, why not in Manchester? It doesn't need to have London Tube's infrastructure size, a smaller but super frequent automated metro would work wonders, heavily interlinked with tram lines. 2 or 3 radial lines traversing the entire city and suburbs, plus an orbital or loop line and voilà! It could be elevated in lower density areas above main thoroughfares, with nicely built viaducts like in Rennes (and their tree-like pillars). This could move over a million people a day and remove cars by the tens of thousands. Birmingham, too, by the way. It's incomprehensible that the second largest city in the country doesn't have any proper higher order of mass / rapid transit. It's like Marseille, second or third major city in France, depending on how one counts. It has the worst transit system of all major French cities with a very limited 2-line metro and small tram. Good and extensive transit shouldn't be only reserved to megacities.

[@elephantwater9929]

i was always told by folk who lived through these times that the reason it never got past the city centre was due to there being too many unmapped coal mines under the city - however I've never been able to find any information about that online!

[@michaelstarkie7088]

Metrolink in its current form is becoming overcrowded in the city centre. With new routes coming they will have to terminate early or make some provision for extra capacity. Its also limited to double trams which will become overcrowded as the network expands. Options could include an underground central section. Or they could upgrade one route to a metro format. Eg Bury - Altrincham. The Oxford road corridor is also surely busy enough for rapid transit. We need better connections between boroughs too takes ages to get from Bolton to Bury by public transport.

[@bernardmcmahon351]

There are too many tunnels, some going back over 150 years, when I was a lad I worked as an apprentice for Post Office Telephones for a few weeks I shadowed an engineer on “underground maintenance “ , on at least a couple of occasions we went down a man hole where there was access further down, I remember going down a man hole and coming into a cobblestone street with the “roof” bricked over in an arch style, this went on a gradient down towards the river Irwell ,obviously before the Irwell embankments were built up years later. This was in 1970

[@pgbaines65]

The cord should never been built cutting through two of Stevenson bridges. The expert that first looked into it said there was a better alternative and even took it to court.

[@mohammedfaiisal]

I wish Manchester or greater Manchester had an underground system. Would have been so cool and less obstructions to get to where you want to go. I've always wanted a train/tram going from Oldham straight to Ashton. Right now, you have to go through Manchester to go to Ashton

[@Millennial_Manc]

Metrolink needs an overground circle line next

[@mohammedfaiisal]

@ I'll take anything tbh. As long as it speeds transport from one town to another. Before 2014, I was able to get to Manchester 10 minutes faster. Because of the two tunnels between Freehold and Oldham Mumps original location. But they stopped that and made a new route. When in reality, they should have kept it as a second route. The original Oldham mumps was also about 3 minutes closer to home and I didn't need to cross the main road to get to the metrolink. It was very reliable so I miss that. I think about it every time I get on the tram. From leaving my house to getting to freehold, used to take me just over 10 minutes. Now it takes about 20 minutes. Made things very inconvenient for me and I assume many others. As there are many people that want to get to Manchester from Rochdale and Shaw or vice versa and they don't need to go through the town centre. The original tunnel route would have been perfect and smooth They also promised in 2016 a metrolink going from Oldham to Ashton with like 6 stops or something but that never happened and we need that. Then, they could add a further extension from Ashton to Stockport. Getting to Stockport from Oldham via Ashton, would be much quicker than getting to Stockport from Oldham via Manchester. There's old train routes that can still be used today as potential under ground or metrolink routes. For Oldham to ashton, it's through Alex park and then park bridge

[@Millennial_Manc]

@@mohammedfaiisal A metrolink to Stockport and other places like Cheadle (using the old disused railway line) is already under construction. I think they’ve built the transport interchange for it already but it’s just buses for now. It’ll be linked to the railway station and metrolink in due course. Maybe when that’s done they might build the original plan in reverse.

[@dangermouse2235]

I dont know if there are any more but there is apparently an already built underground station under the Arndale Centre. Built, Im told, when the AC was built in the 70s in anticipation of the PiccVic line. Maybe you could wangle your way in there so we could see it ?

[@BeeHereNowuk]

Yeah it's an empty void they found which they think might have been left in anticipation of a link to the nearby Royal Exchange underground station. I didn't include it because I don't think they really proved what it was for. But yeah it'll be good to get inside there.

[@southcalder]

Glasgow could very much use a link tunnel between Central and Queen Street. Imagine trains from maybe Ayrshire and Inverclyde, dropping into tunnel near Shields Depot, stopping at a new Central Low Level and Queen Street Low Level (beneath the current shallow sub surface stations), before surfacing near Springburn and carrying on to Cumbernauld and Falkirk. A far better Crossrail plan than the pie in the sky one that uses the City Union line that links into the already heavily congested North Clyde Line and still avoids both main stations.

[@lazrseagull54]

It would be so nice if more British cities had this kind of thing. UK cities with various types of underground networks: London (full metro and underground suburban rail) Liverpool/Birkenhead (underground suburban rail) Newcastle/Sunderland (light metro) Glasgow (full metro and underground suburban rail) German cities with various types of underground networks: Berlin (full metro and underground suburban rail) Hamburg (full metro and underground suburban rail) Munich (full metro and underground suburban rail) Cologne (underground trams) Frankfurt (underground trams and underground suburban rail) Stuttgart (underground trams and underground suburban rail) Düsseldorf (underground trams) Dortmund (underground trams) Essen (underground trams) Leipzig (underground suburban rail) Hannover (underground trams) Nuremburg/Fürth (full metro) Bochum/Herne (underground trams) Gelsenkirchen (underground trams) Duisburg (underground trams) Karlsruhe (underground trams) Bonn (underground trams) Bielefeld (underground trams) Mülheim an der Ruhr (underground trams) Many of these cities have a smaller city centre than Manchester and have 3x more tunnel than the Picc Vic project. Bochum, Gelsenkirchen, Bonn, Bielefeld and Karlsruhe are all similar in size to Brighton, Cardiff or Coventry and run their trams through tube lines under the busier parts of town. Lausanne, Switzerland is similar in size to Halifax, Telford or Cambridge and has a driverless full metro that runs every 4 minutes.

[@shaiyanomamo3705]

Exactly this. The real reason why Manchester doesn't have an underground metro is because it happens to be in Britain.

[@crystal_english_himeji]

The biggest problem is that Manchester Piccadilly is very constrained. Platform 13/14 carries too many train services, so Bolton to Manchester takes 22 minutes. It used to be 12! Yeah, an alternative metro system carrying passengers around Greater Manchester would help. Sadly, I think that will never happen. They should have an underground heavy rail system like the Elizabeth line connecting Liverpool - Man Pic - Man Vic - Leeds. It would free up space at the main stations and connect the two main stations.

[@ajdunlop]

The Ordsall Chord would be the answer if there was capacity either side of it for more than 1 train per hour. Manchester needs an underground line of some sort to get some train movements off the service to free up more space on the surface and to stop Metrolink becoming overwhelmed. Probably not a line with lots of close stations but something straight through to connect through the centre from one mainline to another.