Etihad Campus, Stadium and Collar Site Development Thread
- Thread starter Danamy
- Start date
nmc
Well-Known Member
I goes underground between Jesmond and Haymarket and comes out to cross the Tyne running north to south and the branch off to St James is underground. Like all metro systems they only need to go underground in the City Centre - see Koln for example. Manchester metro link falls apart trying to cross the City Centre and when it gets routed down busy streets. Metrolink was constructed on the cheap and it has faults that undermine it but these could be ironed out.
nmc
Well-Known Member
No. Haymarket to Monument to Central Station is over a mile.
bobbyowenquiff
Well-Known Member
As well as Liverpool, Glasgow, and Newcastle they have central underground systems in scores of European cities. They can’t all be wrong.
eyalluvitt
Well-Known Member
Anyone over 5ft 6” on that Glasgow underground feels like Gulliver in Lilliput
nmc
Well-Known Member
The clockwork orange has new trains. Jimmy Krankey thinks they are spacious.
Two lines go underground - from Manors to St James and from Jesmond to the station. I think it goes underground on the Gateshead side for a bit but I never go there.
Basically where an overground line would cause too much disruption. Arguably what Manchester should've done in the first place.
BrianW
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 Mar 2006
- Messages
- 6,557
- Team supported
- There's Only One City
The original bit of Metrolink was done very much on the cheap. Even the number of trams was inadequate, the trams themselves were shit quality and much of the permanent way needed relaying. But it was Thatcher-time and it was a miracle anything was built at all.
As I never tire of reminding people, the choice was not between Metrolink and something better. It was between Metrolink and nowt.
The Oldham/Rochdale line, for example. It was falling apart at the seams and major investment was needed if it was not to close. Some people say the trains were better, but new/improved trains were not on offer. It was Metrolink or closure on the grounds of decrepitude.
Metrolink eliminated what was previously a huge revenue subsidy. That's all that made it feasible, albeit on the basis of higher fares and (arguably) poorer quality carriages.
If the day ever dawns when the people of the UK are happy to pay higher taxes in exchange for a really excellent public transport system, we may see an upgrade. But I for one do not expect to live to see that day dawn.
As I never tire of reminding people, the choice was not between Metrolink and something better. It was between Metrolink and nowt.
The Oldham/Rochdale line, for example. It was falling apart at the seams and major investment was needed if it was not to close. Some people say the trains were better, but new/improved trains were not on offer. It was Metrolink or closure on the grounds of decrepitude.
Metrolink eliminated what was previously a huge revenue subsidy. That's all that made it feasible, albeit on the basis of higher fares and (arguably) poorer quality carriages.
If the day ever dawns when the people of the UK are happy to pay higher taxes in exchange for a really excellent public transport system, we may see an upgrade. But I for one do not expect to live to see that day dawn.
My guess would be Piccadilly station to Victoria station, as the proposed new underground train station and transport hub will be at Piccadilly station, and further lines to the new Circus stadium in Trafford, and the Etihad and the Holt Town proposal next to the Etihad.
Sheikh Rattle n Roll
Well-Known Member
Way, way back in the day, I worked at an Architects in Manchester called EGS Design (Jack Bogle of G-MEX fame), they did all the work for GMPTE as was, bus stations, the lot. As a young lad I was probably the most photographed person in the city centre, having to hold a large measurment pole against all the buildings through the city where the line was going to pass, the bosses wanted an idea of where the fixings would go on the buildings to support the electric overhead cables. There was no digital photography back then. There was very little funding back then for LRT as it was called back then. A monorail was looked at the city centre and the underground idea was explored, but there was zero chance of Manchester getting money from central government back then to fund such expensive options.
The stations on the route between Bury and Altincham had the crappiest of upgrades, with the cheapest lifts installed where applicable and some of the most ridiculous ramp systems installed for disabled users.
This was around the time we were working on a concept 80,000 seat stadium to be built in Pilsworth for one of the Olympic bids.
The stations on the route between Bury and Altincham had the crappiest of upgrades, with the cheapest lifts installed where applicable and some of the most ridiculous ramp systems installed for disabled users.
This was around the time we were working on a concept 80,000 seat stadium to be built in Pilsworth for one of the Olympic bids.
Gray
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 May 2004
- Messages
- 28,710
- Team supported
- ABU & The Bus Wreckers
Just back from two nights in London, now that is a proper transport system. Any really large investment in the UK is invariable within the Capital is it any wonder people voted for Brexit?
Marvin.
Well-Known Member
I am not against underground travel but the geography of Manchester City centre makes it pointless here.
Manchester city centre's outer boundary is the inner ring road of Trinity Way, Great Ancoats St and the Mancunian way. I frequently travel into Manchester Piccadilly, it never even crosses my mind to go to platform 14 or to get the Metrolink to trave across the city centre because it is quicker to walk. An underground isn't going to change this.
Marvin.
Well-Known Member
London's geography is completely different to Manchester, and that makes a comparison of its transport system difficult. I would like to see many improvements in national and local transport infrastructure but a Manchester Underground seems like a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I want to travel to London fast, and to be able to travel to a city like Leeds for example in 20 minutes.
From a City perspective, an Underground in Manchester would not produce any better outcome than the tram which effectively goes underground. City fans in London should be able to travel to watch Manchester City outside of 3pm on a Saturday. There are chronic infrastructure problems in the UK but a Manchester Underground is not going to fix any problems as far as I can see.
BrianW
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 Mar 2006
- Messages
- 6,557
- Team supported
- There's Only One City
They voted themselves out of EU Regional Funding, which at least gave some funding to deprived areas. (The UK has some of the most deprived areas in Northern Europe.)
The Tories hated the system as it meant they could not redirect the money to Tunbridge Wells and Guildford. It had to be spent in the deprived areas, which were chosen on objective, not political, criteria.
Norman kneejerk
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jan 2011
- Messages
- 1,514
There are also the disused lines that's could be brought back to life in a fraction of the time and cost and also run near the Etihad .
If I'm not mistaken one wheels away to Victoria near Oldham Road or very close whilst also being connected to Ashburys and Piccadilly.
Citizen of Legoland
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 11,939
They’re not disused. Quite the opposite actually as they’re required for goods traffic, contingency routing, moving of essential equipment and access to the various rail engineering facilities.
Citizen of Legoland
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 11,939
To be a world class destination a city needs a world class public transport system. Manchester is fast growing and must plan for the future. They have realised trams that share roads with other vehicles are a cheapskate, 3rd rate idea - this was the opinion of many back in 1990 when Metrolink was being cobbled together but the city couldn’t demand anything else at the time.
We are conditioned to think that London is deserved of having the best of everything and everywhere else must wait their turn. It is what holds up the rest of the country. Well we have an opportunity to ditch that idea and do what’s right for Manchester and the rest of the North.
Fast movement will be needed to get to the various parts of the conurbation - Atom Valley, airport, Salford Quays etc. Expecting people to take up to an hour from the city centre to get there is NOT world class. Arriving in Euston, walking 10 mins to Kings Cross St Pancras to get a regular direct connection to Gatwick Airport is. Arriving in Euston, picking up the underground to London Victoria and then a Gatwick Express train is too. I did both those journeys regular for a while and the difference is night and day, travelling through the capital was an absolute breeze.
Gray
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 May 2004
- Messages
- 28,710
- Team supported
- ABU & The Bus Wreckers
I also don't think an underground in Manchester is the answer.
But there is no denying that the London transport system overall is far superior to the rubbish we have to tolerate in Greater Manchester.