daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Subways and Urban Transport

Subways and Urban Transport Metros, subways, light rail, trams, buses and other local transport systems



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old June 25th, 2009, 12:26 PM   #21
Tubeman
Jubilation
 
Tubeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London SE15
Posts: 18,973
Likes (Received): 3272

Quote:
Originally Posted by bayviews View Post
Glascow's circular underground, now that's got to one of the oldest & most unique & quaint subways anywhere in the world!
Third oldest I think, after London and Budapest

I'd love to ride on it one day
Tubeman no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old June 25th, 2009, 02:38 PM   #22
andysimo123
wind-up merchant
 
andysimo123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 15,960
Likes (Received): 83

Quote:
Originally Posted by lightrail View Post
Have yu ever ridden the underground - most of it is on the surface. There's nothing different between the London Underground and the Merseyside's Wirral and Northern Lines, except the rolling stock.
Not really because as I said the Underground was designed to be underground. The Northern line is undeground from between Morden(its Starting station) and then between Hamsted and golders Green if you go West. Going East the its over from Highgate. The over piece track to Edgware is an extension as is the track to Morden. The other over pieces of track North of Highgate, existed all already ready but were only added to the system on a later date. Its nothing like the Northern Line.
andysimo123 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 25th, 2009, 08:09 PM   #23
Republica
BUND
 
Republica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 4,036
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by andysimo123 View Post
In the UK no new metro systems underground have never really happened for over 100 years which some people would find a huge shock. Glasgow and London are the only places with true underground systems and everywhere else has never had the chance and won't have the chance any time soon.

I don't know about car parks, nearly every new building in central Manchester has underground parking but shopping? I've no idea why'd you want an underground shopping centre?
Go to Germany, you'll see what I mean. U bahn / s bahn stations underground have shopping attached to them, and are also used as huge underground pedestrian links. In addition, loads of towns in Germany (and also Spain ive noticed) have underground parking with pedestrianised areas above. It means no huge open spaces with car parks above ground or ugly multi storey car parks.
__________________
Rant
Republica no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 25th, 2009, 10:54 PM   #24
lightrail
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 205
Likes (Received): 16

Quote:
Originally Posted by andysimo123 View Post
Not really because as I said the Underground was designed to be underground. The Northern line is undeground from between Morden(its Starting station) and then between Hamsted and golders Green if you go West. Going East the its over from Highgate. The over piece track to Edgware is an extension as is the track to Morden. The other over pieces of track North of Highgate, existed all already ready but were only added to the system on a later date. Its nothing like the Northern Line.
You've lost me. I said that Merseyside's metro (operated by Mersey rail) is like the London Underground generally - not specifically the London Underground Northern Line. My reference to Northern Line is Liverpool's Northern Line, not Londons'.

I don't see any difference. Both systems run trains on the surface in the suburbs and underground in the centre. Both systems use electric heavy rail trains. Both systems run on tracks shared with other trains (yes, the Underground does too on several lines). The BIG difference is that Merseyside trains are part of the National Rail Network, whereas London Underground trains are not (though they do run on some tracks that are owned by National Rail).
lightrail no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2009, 01:41 AM   #25
Cherguevara
Registered User
 
Cherguevara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 9,887
Likes (Received): 3547

Quote:
Originally Posted by lightrail View Post
I don't see any difference. Both systems run trains on the surface in the suburbs and underground in the centre. Both systems use electric heavy rail trains. Both systems run on tracks shared with other trains (yes, the Underground does too on several lines). The BIG difference is that Merseyside trains are part of the National Rail Network, whereas London Underground trains are not (though they do run on some tracks that are owned by National Rail).
People in Liverpool don't use Merseyrail like a Metro which is really the only major but all important difference. It's used for commuter journeys and nothing else.
Cherguevara no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2009, 04:41 PM   #26
andysimo123
wind-up merchant
 
andysimo123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 15,960
Likes (Received): 83

Quote:
Originally Posted by lightrail View Post
You've lost me. I said that Merseyside's metro (operated by Mersey rail) is like the London Underground generally - not specifically the London Underground Northern Line. My reference to Northern Line is Liverpool's Northern Line, not Londons'.

I don't see any difference. Both systems run trains on the surface in the suburbs and underground in the centre. Both systems use electric heavy rail trains. Both systems run on tracks shared with other trains (yes, the Underground does too on several lines). The BIG difference is that Merseyside trains are part of the National Rail Network, whereas London Underground trains are not (though they do run on some tracks that are owned by National Rail).
I thought you where comparing one of Liverpools lines with one of Londons lines. Clearly no you weren't but I made my point, how the systems were originally designed to be totally different. If you can't see that, I've leave it at that. To me Liverpools Mersey Rail is just an converted British/National Rail lines like London Overground with a different name. Its not a purpose built Underground Metro, Like London, Moscow, Paris, New York, Glasgow etc.
andysimo123 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2009, 08:03 PM   #27
sotonsi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,563

you do realise that a great amount of the London Underground is former BR lines plugged into tunnels. It's quite similar to Liverpool in some ways - more so than the Overground which are just NR lines that TfL are the franchiser for. Liverpool had purpose built underground to link several stations (Wirral line oop tunnel) and also to put a terminus underground (Northern line link tunnel) - this is like London.

That said, Liverpool isn't a metro system - London is rather anomalous in that it's both a Stadtbahn/RER type system and an underground metro at the same time!
sotonsi no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2009, 08:50 PM   #28
sarflonlad
Registered User
 
sarflonlad's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: London
Posts: 1,086
Likes (Received): 68

Quote:
Originally Posted by andysimo123 View Post
I think argument is those aren't really seen in the same light as the London Underground or Glasgows Underground. Two systems specify designed mostly to be underground, against two system systems which mostly run overground. If Manchester trams in the Centre went underground I wouldn't start calling it a fully fledged underground Metro system.
Most of London Underground runs overground. You go underground to avoid congestion and by pass the need to knock things down to create through services. You do not go underground to impress people and call yourselves a "true" metro.

Quote:
When you hear the word tram don't straight away think Amsterdam or San Francisco. Most of the system runs at 50 mph on old national railway lines. I wouldn't argue against the case for an Underground section through the City Centre. It would clearly improve the system but its not going to happen.
Is it not the case that the first metrolink line which took over NR is actually a lot slower for the commuters there compared to the train which ran their before?

Anyway. Besides the point. Street running = tram. Unless it's 100% fully segregated. So that's why it needs to go underground least not to allow for faster speeds and possibly even variants within the city centre itself - you know, a system to get around Manchester on - not in to and out of.
sarflonlad no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2009, 09:42 PM   #29
Gareth
Keltlandia
 
Gareth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 8,879
Likes (Received): 66

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotonsi View Post
you do realise that a great amount of the London Underground is former BR lines plugged into tunnels. It's quite similar to Liverpool in some ways - more so than the Overground which are just NR lines that TfL are the franchiser for. Liverpool had purpose built underground to link several stations (Wirral line oop tunnel) and also to put a terminus underground (Northern line link tunnel) - this is like London.

That said, Liverpool isn't a metro system - London is rather anomalous in that it's both a Stadtbahn/RER type system and an underground metro at the same time!
Yeah, bascially, Liverpool's system developed more or less the same as London's - suburban lines initially ran by separate companies were merged with a purpose-built underground section. Yes, it's on a much smaller scale, but relative to the size difference between Liverpool and London. In essence, the Merseyrail lines are very similar to the London underground's subsurface lines, though the Wirral Line's underground section would be what is generally considered 'deep level'.

I'd like to actually know how a 'metro' is used differently from commuter rail. People use the London Underground to commute, as well as go shopping, visiting friends and relatives in other parts of the city, but this happens in Liverpool to.

I really do think the S-bahn/U-bahn thing is very continental European. I don't think the UK has ever had such cut & dry distinctions between the two, nor much of the rest of the world.

Last edited by Gareth; June 26th, 2009 at 11:05 PM.
Gareth no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2009, 10:32 PM   #30
lightrail
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 205
Likes (Received): 16

I don't think it's worth making the distinction between metro and rail generally. They all do the same job - move people from where they are, hopefully, to where they want to be. National Rail trains run underground if needed (look at the electrics in Glasgow) and on the surface where possible.

The British national rail network all operates more like a national metro - with trains running generally frequently, and with station stops measured in a few minutes and sometimes (a lot of times) in seconds. Through ticketing from any station to any station via any reasonable route.

Anyway, where I live we have one train a day, running on dilaidated tracks that haven't seen any maintenance in 30 years and if it was in the UK, the HSE wouldnt' see fit to allow freight trains to run on them. The train only stays on the track due to its weight (1950s Budd railcar) and has a maximum speed of 60km/h - slower in most places.

But I'm getting off topic, where was I?
lightrail no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 27th, 2009, 02:06 PM   #31
Cherguevara
Registered User
 
Cherguevara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 9,887
Likes (Received): 3547

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarflonlad View Post
Is it not the case that the first metrolink line which took over NR is actually a lot slower for the commuters there compared to the train which ran their before?

Anyway. Besides the point. Street running = tram. Unless it's 100% fully segregated. So that's why it needs to go underground least not to allow for faster speeds and possibly even variants within the city centre itself - you know, a system to get around Manchester on - not in to and out of.
It depends what you mean by slower. The time sat on the tram might be a bit longer, but because of increased service frequency (every 6 minutes compared to every 15) door to door journey times are improved. Also this makes it possible to use the tram to get around in the suburbs, whereas it wasn't useful to do this with the previous British Rail service.

I suppose that is how I'd characterise a rapid transit system versus a commuter system. RT you can use both to get into the centre and around the suburbs whereas commuter is only really useful to get into and out of the city. So the Underground is heavy rail rapid transit, Metrolink light rail rapid transit, Tyne and Wear Metro light rail rapid transit and Merseyrail heavy rail commuter rail. I suppose it's a grey area though.

You don't really need a system to get around Manchester city centre (which is fairly small) but then very few people would use the Underground to get around the city of London (which is of a similar size). There is an emerging central Manchester area (which is referred to officially as the 'Regional Centre') which is more analagous to London zone 1. This area probably does need a rapid transit solution to facillitate intra-centre journeys. This doesn't need to be underground though, and a future tram extension towards Salford in the north west and the university district in the south east would connect most of this area to the expanded network currently under construction.
Cherguevara no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 27th, 2009, 05:00 PM   #32
andysimo123
wind-up merchant
 
andysimo123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 15,960
Likes (Received): 83

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarflonlad View Post
Most of London Underground runs overground. You go underground to avoid congestion and by pass the need to knock things down to create through services. You do not go underground to impress people and call yourselves a "true" metro.
If you didn't read my last few posts don't read them but most of it was designed to run underground with the over ground sections being added later. That's why its called the 'London Underground' and not the 'London Overground'. Liverpools so called 'Liverpool Underground' runs all the way to Chester. My view again, Liverpools system is not an fully flegded underground metro system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarflonlad View Post
Is it not the case that the first metrolink line which took over NR is actually a lot slower for the commuters there compared to the train which ran their before?

Anyway. Besides the point. Street running = tram. Unless it's 100% fully segregated. So that's why it needs to go underground least not to allow for faster speeds and possibly even variants within the city centre itself - you know, a system to get around Manchester on - not in to and out of.
Your point was that Manchester trams run at 10-20 mph generally, my point was they don't, apart from in the City Centre.
andysimo123 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 27th, 2009, 06:39 PM   #33
Gareth
Keltlandia
 
Gareth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 8,879
Likes (Received): 66

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cherguevara View Post
I suppose that is how I'd characterise a rapid transit system versus a commuter system. RT you can use both to get into the centre and around the suburbs whereas commuter is only really useful to get into and out of the city. So the Underground is heavy rail rapid transit, Metrolink light rail rapid transit, Tyne and Wear Metro light rail rapid transit and Merseyrail heavy rail commuter rail. I suppose it's a grey area though.
Just wondering what you would consider Liverpool suburbs. Birkenhead? Bootle? Hunts Cross? It's as if you see only people from Chester or Southport using the system.
Gareth no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 27th, 2009, 06:42 PM   #34
Gareth
Keltlandia
 
Gareth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 8,879
Likes (Received): 66

Quote:
Originally Posted by andysimo123 View Post
If you didn't read my last few posts don't read them but most of it was designed to run underground with the over ground sections being added later. That's why its called the 'London Underground' and not the 'London Overground'. Liverpools so called 'Liverpool Underground' runs all the way to Chester. My view again, Liverpools system is not an fully flegded underground metro system.
And London's so-call 'London Underground' runs all the way to Watford. I don't see how any of what you've written is relevent to what a metro is. For a start, a metro can be entirely above ground. I also don't see how what order the London Underground was constructed has any relevence to the analysing the system as it is today.
Gareth no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 27th, 2009, 08:33 PM   #35
Cherguevara
Registered User
 
Cherguevara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 9,887
Likes (Received): 3547

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth View Post
Just wondering what you would consider Liverpool suburbs. Birkenhead? Bootle? Hunts Cross? It's as if you see only people from Chester or Southport using the system.
Heh? I don't think you've understood what I'm saying, which is fair enough as I didn't express it particularly well. So to try again, a system is rapid transit if the service is regular enough to support a significant number of journeys against the direction of the typical commuter flow, between suburbs and throughout the day.

Think about London Underground. It's busiest at peak hours going into and out of the centre of London. However it is relatively busy throughout the day with people going from Ealing to Hammersmith, or Barking to Mile End or Bank to Kensington. It can serve this market because it is regular enough to make it a viable journey choice. The Metrolink has been designed to provide a similar service (although obviously at a much lower capacity) with both heavy peak time commuter flows and local all day journeys popular. Because Merseyrail can't support this kind of service I wouldn't consider it a rapid transit system, but that's just my view.

Obviously if Manchester's unconvertable commuter lines benefitted from a similar arrangement under the city centre I would be very pleased, so I'm not trying to do down Merseyrail. I just don't ascribe to the view that tunnels make a metro, but that rather it's patterns of use that do.

Anyway, Metrolink will soon be providing this level of service to a greater range of areas, and hopefully its success will prove that transit systems are viable in Britain's provincial cities. I'm sure we can all agree that that would be a good thing?
Cherguevara no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2009, 02:55 PM   #36
andysimo123
wind-up merchant
 
andysimo123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 15,960
Likes (Received): 83

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth View Post
And London's so-call 'London Underground' runs all the way to Watford. I don't see how any of what you've written is relevent to what a metro is. For a start, a metro can be entirely above ground. I also don't see how what order the London Underground was constructed has any relevence to the analysing the system as it is today.
Its very very relevant. You have to look at the past to look at the current! If you don't you'd be making some huge mistakes in every single area. The system is defined by its history and the FACT IS alot of it ran underground before being extended outwards to places like Watford. Big example is the Londons Northern Line. That loop thing in Liverpool was only built in the 1970s. Its nothing like anything in London, you can go from South Wimbledon to Highgate Underground, its something like 14 miles of tunnels one just part of one line! Whats Liverpools whole system, something like 4-5 miles max? Try using the Northern Line in London just once. Liverpool doesn't have anything that compares.
andysimo123 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2009, 08:39 PM   #37
lightrail
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 205
Likes (Received): 16

Quote:
Originally Posted by andysimo123 View Post
Its very very relevant. You have to look at the past to look at the current! If you don't you'd be making some huge mistakes in every single area. The system is defined by its history and the FACT IS alot of it ran underground before being extended outwards to places like Watford. Big example is the Londons Northern Line. That loop thing in Liverpool was only built in the 1970s. Its nothing like anything in London, you can go from South Wimbledon to Highgate Underground, its something like 14 miles of tunnels one just part of one line! Whats Liverpools whole system, something like 4-5 miles max? Try using the Northern Line in London just once. Liverpool doesn't have anything that compares.
This argument is a waste of time.

It doesn't fricken matter - who cares!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
lightrail no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2009, 08:48 PM   #38
andysimo123
wind-up merchant
 
andysimo123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 15,960
Likes (Received): 83

Quote:
Originally Posted by lightrail View Post
This argument is a waste of time.

It doesn't fricken matter - who cares!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I made all that clear about 10 posts ago!

To make up for the London Vs Liverpool thing.. heres what this thread is all about.....

Manchester Tracks being dug up taken by Frankie Roberto from Flickr
image hosted on flickr

Last edited by andysimo123; June 28th, 2009 at 08:56 PM.
andysimo123 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2009, 02:06 AM   #39
Tom 958
Registered User
 
Tom 958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: near Atlanta
Posts: 786
Likes (Received): 163

to Manchester!

Is there a map of how the finished system will cover the Manchester area, other than this annoying .pdf version?
Tom 958 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2009, 02:49 AM   #40
andysimo123
wind-up merchant
 
andysimo123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 15,960
Likes (Received): 83

How good am I.


This is what is funded atm. Sooner than later the 2nd city crossing will have its route and stations named.
andysimo123 no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 10:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium