Showing posts with label Piccadilly. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Piccadilly. Show all posts

Friday, 4 September 2020

Pre-metro for Manchester

Trams are pretty great. The resurgence of tram construction in the past three decades has been a great success. Trams can go almost anywhere, do not require reserved rights of way, are easy to access and relatively cheap to build.

They can also be slow and cumbersome. They can congest busy intersections in city centres, get snarled up in vehicular traffic, and to some, with their pantographs and power lines, are something of an eyesore. In some cases, the urban geography simply prohibits tram routes.

This is why many cities across Europe have reached the conclusion that to remove efficiency bottlenecks, eventually the trams have to go underground. Stadtbahn networks in many German cities have begun as trams (strassenbahn) and have been upgraded by plunging central sections into tunnel under city centres and busy neighbourhoods. This way the trams are no longer held up by street traffic, do not inconvenience vehicles on the road and no longer impinge on the visual real estate of historic townscapes.

"...to remove efficiency bottlenecks, eventually the trams have to go underground."

Often the intention is to develop into a fully-fledged mass transit metro, but often this is either not necessary or too costly. Elsewhere the network can continue as normal, operating on-street, or on segregated rights of way. It is a hybrid multi-modal solution for medium-sized cities with grand aspirations but limited funds.

And so to Manchester. Although the UK's record on urban transit outside London is  just woeful (as we all know), the Metrolink network has been a prominent success story. It has been growing rapidly over the last 28 years, on-street and on existing disused railway lines and viaducts. A truly versatile light rail system.

It is far from complete, however. Large areas of the city centre and inner city do not yet benefit from the network (although many towns and neighbourhoods far out from the centre do). 

"Large areas of the city centre and inner city do not yet benefit from the network."

Added to this, Manchester is a conurbation of quite some size, just shy of three million. This is no small provincial town. Manchester is a developing metropolis, which needs and deserves proper mass transit.

The tram network, as it stands will never fulfil this function. At some point Manchester must go underground. In the current climate, the idea of a full metro being built in a British provincial city seems hopelessly optimistic. The money always seems to go to London, as we all know. 

"Manchester is a developing metropolis which needs and deserves proper mass transit."

But pre-metro - light rail which goes underground where it needs to - could fit the bill for Manchester and need not cost the earth (ask Madrid Metro how to do it). Once tunnels are dug  (with the right forethought), they can be upgraded at any point in the future to full metro, if this is desired.

This scheme envisages two new tunnel sections, running roughly north-south under prime real estate in central Manchester and the inner city, and connecting to existing Metrolink tracks at either end. 

The western route would go from Prestwich (where it could potentially share existing track as far as Bury), down to Withington, for interchange with existing routes to Chorlton, Stockport and the airport.

The southern portion would follow the axis of Princess Road, where the width of the road allows a segregated right of way in between vehicular traffic. At some point in Hulme, the line would drop into tunnel and eventually cross the existing route at Deansgate, for a low-level interchange. Continuing via an underground station at Quay street, it would then provide mainline interchange at Salford Central. 

Further underground stations are envisaged at Victoria/AO Arena and Strangeways, before the line emerges onto Bury New Road at some convenient parkland site. On-street running takes it to Prestwich.

Not related to this new line, it is also recommended that a new station be built at Dawson Street, on the existing line between Deansgate and Cranbrook. 

The eastern route would run from Newton Heath (again with trams potentially running as far as Rochdale), south to an unused section of the Fallowfield Loop, between Withington and Hyde Road. As the route is broken at Fallowfield, a new underground station is envisaged there.

The route shares a section of track along Princess Road, before diverting east, to eventually turn north again at Whitworth Park, through a new station at the Whitworth museum and an important new underground station in the heart of Manchester University. 

The tunnel would continue to Princess Street (not to be confused with Princess Road) and then Piccadilly, for interchange with mainline and surface Metrolink services. It would then continue to the busy neighbourhood of Ancoats, thereafter emerging from tunnel to a new surface stop at Miles Platting. 

It would then rejoin the existing Rochdale line, as mentioned before.

In all, this scheme proposes 25+ new stations, of which 11 would be underground, with around nine Km of new tunnel. 


New pre-metro routes for Manchester Metrolink with underground stations marked solid red. (Click to expand map)

"...25+ new stations, of which 11 would be underground."

The key benefits of this scheme are:

  • Faster services between north-central-south Manchester due to unhindered tunnel routing.
  • Metrolink services delivered to important sites, such as Manchester University, Ancoats and Salford Central station.
  • Brings services to 'forgotten' inner city areas, such as Hulme, Moss Side, Rusholme, Strangeways and Levenshulme, giving a boost to local economies.
  • Convenient interchanges at Deansgate, Salford, Piccadilly and Victoria.
  • Massive Relief for the congested existing city centre bottleneck routes.
  • System can be upgraded to more pre-metro in-tunnel operations or full metro as required, and as budget allows.
  • Makes use of existing trackbed on Fallowfield Loop.
  • Services can run through to Rochdale, Bury and Stockport.
  • Brings Metrolink a step closer to being 'complete', i.e. a system that can take you 'anywhere', which is highly attractive to passengers.







Monday, 6 October 2008

THE CASE FOR YORK ROAD

If you have ever taken the Piccadilly Line north from King's Cross you may have noticed the lengthy interval before you arrive at the next station (Caledonian Road). It's almost a mile and a half. A similar distance on the parallel Northern Line (Mornington Crescent branch) has two intermediate stations. Leaving such a gap in inner London seems like an odd planning decision. But it was not always thus.

York Road is a disused station on London Underground's Piccadilly Line. It opened in 1906 but never saw a high volume of traffic. Eventually Sunday services were withdrawn and it closed completely in 1932. The station catchment suffered due to being on the edge of a large area of goods depots and marshalling yards behind King's Cross station with no habitation and little commuter traffic. This despite being about 1km from the adjacent stations on the line (King's Cross and Caledonian Road) and on the edge of central London.


How York Road appeared on the Tube Map in the 1920s.


To the east of the station is the run-down residential neighbourhood of West Barnsbury, in the Borough of Islington. This neighbourhood is an excellent example of an area that fails to thrive precisely because of poor transport links. It would benefit greatly in prestige and development by having a local tube station.

York Road station on the Piccadilly Line. Closed since 1932, current evidence suggests it would now be very useful.

The case for reopening the station has not previously been strong. That is until the King's Cross Railway Lands Development scheme was announced (now called King's Cross Central). This scheme involves the mixed-use development of 65 acres of land to the north of King's Cross station - precisely the area of depots that have been the vacuum in York Road's catchment until now. This should bring thousands of new jobs and residents to the area. Preliminary work has begun.

A 1930s map of the area, showing the location of Maiden Lane station (1) and York Road (2)

The reopening of York Road and also the construction of a new York Way station on the North London Line (London Oveground) close to the site of the former Maiden Lane station a little way to the north, have already been suggested by concerned parties (see map) though both Islington and Camden councils would seem to be in favour of the latter option.



As is clear from the map, the York Road station is ideally placed for the northernmost part of the King's Cross central development (bound by Wharf Road). Pedestrian distances from the nodal centre of the site are far shorter than walking to King's Cross (250m as opposed to 808m). A viability study performed by London Underground found the station would attract about 3.2m passenger journeys/year.

However on a cost:benefit analysis the idea was rejected for two reasons:

1. Inconvenience of longer journey times for the 38.4m through journeys/year

2. Station refurbishment would be too expensive


Let us investigate the evidence for this:

1. The extra station would add around 30 seconds to through journeys in standing time and deceleration/acceleration. Multiplied by 38.4m this is a total time loss of 320,000 hours/year.

Now, analysing the mean walking distances of passengers on the northern sector of Kings Cross central we see that the absence of York Road means average additional walking distances of 558m to reach the next nearest station (King's Cross St. Pancras) instead (808m-250m). At a walking speed of 4.5 km/h this is a 7.4 minute walk. Let us take this as the average additional distance for all passengers on our notional York Road station. Extrapolated over 3.2m passengers this represents a loss of 395,000 hours/year - 75,000 hours more than the delay to through passengers.




Furthermore if we compare the station usage of adjacent stations:

Kings X/St Pancras 66.36m/year on 6 lines
York Road (projected) 3.2m/year on 1 line
Caledonian Road (actual) 5.33m/year on 1 line
Holloway Road (actual) 7.49m/year on 1 line
Arsenal 2.73m/year on 1 line
Finsbury Park 24.8m/year on 2 lines

* Tube entry and exit statistics 2007


what is clear is that York Road, although not on the scale of King's Cross or Finsbury Park would have a passenger traffic comparable to the next three stations on the line, and indeed greater than Arsenal station. In fact it would have passenger figures higher than 17 other stations that uniquely serve the Piccadilly Line. By London Underground's logic shouldn't they be all closed down?

2. York Road is a station already constructed. Lift shafts, ticket office etc. exist already. The station would need major refurbishment and new platforms, but minor structural works. London Underground has the money to rebuild Shepherd's Bush (£65m) and Camden Town (£135m), compared to which the refit of York Road would be pocket change (LUL estimates for reopening South Kentish Town are £12m). King's Cross Central is a multi-billion pound development and the developers ought to be able to contribute. Reopening York Road would be in their interests. Long-term, running costs of the station would be no more than any other small Piccadilly line station though York Road would generate more revenue than many.

The reasoning against reopening the station appears to be very weak.

The advantages would be:
  • Convenience to King's Cross Central development
  • Relief of congestion at King's Cross
  • Revitalisation of a forgotten corner of Islington, very close to central London.
The alternative

The alternative proposal - to construct a York Way North London Line Overground Station near the site of the former station called Maiden Lane, has the backing of Islington and Camden councils. Being around 350m metres apart there would be no practical interchange component if the two stations were open. Whilst on its own Maiden Lane would undoubtedly be advantageous, it suffers compared to York Road on six counts:

1. It is further from the King's Cross Central development
2. It is further from the unserved catchment of West Barnsbury
3. It is located in an industrial area with low passenger demand
4. Services on the North London Line are oriented East-West and are not convenient for services to or via central London
5. Lower train frequencies

The other alternative

There is a further, more costly option. That is to leave York Road abandoned, and York Way/Maiden Lane forgotten, and instead create a new interchange station between the NLL and Piccadilly Lines. This would be somewhere towards the back of Bunning Way, alongside the Eurostar Tracks out of St Pancras. As it currently stands station access to this site would be poor and would require major works. Further, the station would impact the viability of Caledonian Road & Barnsbury Station, 400m along the line to the east. The interchange component of such a station would be extremely useful however.

Wednesday, 1 October 2008

PICCADILLY LINE EXTENSION FROM HOLBORN TO PECKHAM



View Larger Map

The Aldwych spur from Holborn was originally conceived to be extended south of the river. As with so many schemes it never came to fruition and the service to Aldwych operated as a single track shuttle until closure in the 1990s (despite having twin tunnels). Some modification of Holborn would be necessary and this could be run as a spur of the Piccadilly line with trains direct from Cockfosters or be a self-contained line terminating at Holborn.

Aside from connecting Peckham to the network this would usefully serve the major development area around Elephant & Castle, serving not just Elephant & Castle but also Walworth Road, some way north of the proposed Thameslink station. A new station on the South Bank opens up access to major leisure facilities there.

Estimated cost to Madrid Metro specs 273m Euros; to JLE specs £1.4bn