Any new underground systems planned?

[Vespa]

As per the title, to my knowledge there is four cities with an underground system to date.

London
Liverpool
Newcastle
Glasgow

Were there any serious plans for or realistic proposals to create a new underground system in Britain ?

 

[Neptune]

Leeds

This is the extensive Leeds underground system that was never built

Leeds once came close to getting an underground metro system which would likely have still been operational today.

www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk

 

[Kingston Dan]

The Pic-Vic line in Manchester.

 

[danielcanning]

Does any other city in the U.K. need a new underground line? The 2nd largest city is Birmingham with a population of only 1 million, light rail is good enough outside London…

 

[deltic]

Many cities have proposed underground systems at some stage, Southampton and Cambridge being two recent examples

Does any other city in the U.K. need a new underground line? The 2nd largest city is Birmingham with a population of only 1 million, light rail is good enough outside London…

Its population density rather than size that makes an underground viable. UK cities tend to be sprawled out. London's underground serves only a small part of Greater London. Other cities the size of Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds in Europe have undergrounds.

Lille, for example, has a population of 1m and a 60 station underground network

 

[PTR 444]

As per the title, to my knowledge there is four cities with an underground system to date.

London
Liverpool
Newcastle
Glasgow

Were there any serious plans for or realistic proposals to create a new underground system in Britain ?

Only London and Glasgow are true underground systems. Newcastle is light rail with short underground sections in the city centre, while Liverpool is similar but as heavy rail and part of the National Rail network rather than being a standalone metro operation.

 

[MattRat]

Crossrail 2? If that ever actually goes ahead.

 

[willgreen]

Only London and Glasgow are true underground systems. Newcastle is light rail with short underground sections in the city centre, while Liverpool is similar but as heavy rail and part of the National Rail network rather than being a standalone metro operation.

In fairness isn't more than half of the London Underground above ground?

 

[adamedwards]

One could argue that Birmingham almost has an underground given the tunnels around New Street!

 

[swt_passenger]

Crossrail 2? If that ever actually goes ahead.

That wouldn’t count as a “new system” surely? Even if you decided Crossrail 1 wasn’t part of the traditional underground, wouldn’t Crossrail 2 still be a part of a Crossrail system?

 

[Arkeeos]

There's been some push for an underground system in Bristol. Although this isn't very likely.

Bristol underground: Mayor says studies show it is viable

Bristol's mayor says two new studies show his proposal for a new transport network is viable.

www.bbc.co.uk

And Transport for greater Manchester mentioned something along the lines of connecting the Warrington line to the Glossop line via an underground tunnel.

I think an underground for Manchester is the most likely out of all of them as its the logical evolution of some of the tram lines, since the old heavy rail lines are basically almost there already, just replace the street running with tunnels.

Those I suppose would be the only recent proposals made by governing bodies.

 

[Vespa]

In fairness isn't more than half of the London Underground above ground?

That's true

For true total underground Glasgow would win this, only the depot is above ground.

 

[317 forever]

That's true

For true total underground Glasgow would win this, only the depot is above ground.

I think the same is true of London's Victoria Line too.

 

[AM9]

Its population density rather than size that makes an underground viable. UK cities tend to be sprawled out. London's underground serves only a small part of Greater London.

Actually, the London Underground north of the Thames does cover pretty well all of Greater London - each line terminates in the outermost borough. Additionally the eastern terminus of the Central and western end(s) of the Met. penetrate some way into Essex and Buckinghamshire respectively.
South of the river is different for geological constraints, that although having been solved by the mid 20th century, by then was already a comprehensive electrified metro network courtesy of the Southern Railway.

 

[Ken H]

Actually, the London Underground north of the Thames does cover pretty well all of Greater London - each line terminates in the outermost borough. Additionally the eastern terminus of the Central and western end(s) of the Met. penetrate some way into Essex and Buckinghamshire respectively.
South of the river is different for geological constraints, that although having been solved by the mid 20th century, by then was already a comprehensive electrified metro network courtesy of the Southern Railway.

Prior to the 30's the tube didn't go far from London, except the Metropolitan, which had main line aspirations.
Then there was the unemployment relief plan and the tube was extended north by taking over or building alongside existing steam worked railways. Very little new right of way was created. The Southern regarded commuters as bread and butter. North of the river commuters were regarded as something of a nuisance. (Liverpool St and Fenchurch St lines were an exception)

 

[Andrew S]

There's Ipswich.

Ipswich Underground

 

[Dr Day]

Not UK, but within the geographic British Isles, Dublin's plans for a predominantly underground metro to the airport are fairly well advanced. Must admit I'm sceptical whether it really needs to be underground or whether the Luas tram network could be extended (possibly via a number of dedicated routes with high priority over other traffic) to serve the airport and the north side of Dublin but there have been plenty of studies which seem to suggest the benefits outweigh the capital and operational costs of an underground system. Population and employment densities in Dublin would generally be more in line with many UK cities rather than those elsewhere in Europe where culturally many more families are happy to live in apartments.

 

[swt_passenger]

There's Ipswich.

Ipswich Underground

It’s worth reading the details included with the individual Flickr photos, where former passengers have added their recollections of using the system…

 

[MattRat]

That wouldn’t count as a “new system” surely? Even if you decided Crossrail 1 wasn’t part of the traditional underground, wouldn’t Crossrail 2 still be a part of a Crossrail system?

OP included Liverpool and Newcastle. I think Crossrail 2 fits their criteria.

 

[Vespa]

Ipswich Underground now that is a surprise to me

 

[Basil Jet]

I think the same is true of London's Victoria Line too.

And the Waterloo and City, where even the depot is underground and there is no way for trains in or out except by crane.

 

[Kingston Dan]

Not UK, but within the geographic British Isles, Dublin's plans for a predominantly underground metro to the airport are fairly well advanced. Must admit I'm sceptical whether it really needs to be underground or whether the Luas tram network could be extended (possibly via a number of dedicated routes with high priority over other traffic) to serve the airport and the north side of Dublin but there have been plenty of studies which seem to suggest the benefits outweigh the capital and operational costs of an underground system. Population and employment densities in Dublin would generally be more in line with many UK cities rather than those elsewhere in Europe where culturally many more families are happy to live in apartments.

Scottish cities have very much higher densities than elsewhere and European type levels of apartment dwelling - probably due to the different property laws and non-existence of leasehold.

 

[AM9]

Prior to the 30's the tube didn't go far from London, except the Metropolitan, which had main line aspirations.
Then there was the unemployment relief plan and the tube was extended north by taking over or building alongside existing steam worked railways. Very little new right of way was created. The Southern regarded commuters as bread and butter. North of the river commuters were regarded as something of a nuisance. (Liverpool St and Fenchurch St lines were an exception)

Take a look at the UERL map of 1908 here and compare it with that of 'London' at the time here. The UERL map was issued just 20 years after the LCC was formed and it shows that most of the lines (including the two south of the Thames) were providing services into the centre of London as fast as capital was available.
Fast forward to 1933, - the political boundary of London was still that of 1889, but it was becoming clear that the demand for travel into the centre was rapidly growing outside that area, hence the 'New Works' expansion utilising existing surface lines of the big four that in many cases were unsuitable for increasing commuting.
Roll forward to 1965 when the administrative area of London was expanded for =m the LCC boundary to the current GLC/GLA boundary. By then the New works had extended the original lines to reach out to and beyond the GLC border.
So in terms of coverage, the, now, TfL Underground railway cover most part of the region north of the Thames within the M25, (south of the river still being served mainly by the 3rd rail services of National Rail).
London, as a Metropolitan region is still expanding and a combination of TfL and National Rail services is still providing as far as is affordable, metro services. Crossrail is the latest to add to cross region connectivity to the centre, - maybe Crossrail 2 will be the next.

 

[Parjon]

Without drastically reducing the cost of developing this kind of thing in the UK, combined with an equally drastic change in how the UK government perceives "value", there is no prospect of this happening.
The cost overruns of underground London projects has not helped.

 

[AM9]

Without drastically reducing the cost of developing this kind of thing in the UK, combined with an equally drastic change in how the UK government perceives "value", there is no prospect of this happening.
The cost overruns of underground London projects has not helped.

Cost overruns of major projects are a feature of UK business in general, like the NW electrification and probably the TRU. About 65% or the latest total figure of £18.7bn was funded by London business and its residents, i.e not from any national governmental sources, so in the case of Crossrail, the cost overrun was not as serious as projects elsewhere.

 

[A0wen]

It’s worth reading the details included with the individual Flickr photos, where former passengers have added their recollections of using the system…

Mmm. I think the Ipswich Underground may have been designed by the same people as tge Northampton Underground......

 

[Parjon]

Cost overruns of major projects are a feature of UK business in general,

I think you mean public sector business. No average private sector business can afford to overspend in this way.

As I say, however. These public sector spends have not helped. But it is the inflated cost itself, and the government's view of "value" which are the fatal factors.

 

[Ken H]

I think you mean public sector business. No average private sector business can afford to overspend in this way.

Ha ha. Project I am on (IT private sector) was due to be delivered 1/7/22. I reckon earliest date to go live is sometime in Feb 23. My stuff has been largely been ready since May 22.
Private sector projects go wrong too.

 

[AM9]

I think you mean public sector business. No average private sector business can afford to overspend in this way.

As I say, however. These public sector spends have not helped. But it is the inflated cost itself, and the government's view of "value" which are the fatal factors.

Well most significant infrastructure projects are organised by public entities but use commercial suppliers. The problem originates in the over-optimistic estimating used to gain initial project approval, and the inability of governments to acknowledge the true cost of large infrastructure, particularly involving mixed green and brownfield works.

 

[chr]

Many cities have proposed underground systems at some stage, Southampton and Cambridge being two recent examples


Its population density rather than size that makes an underground viable. UK cities tend to be sprawled out. London's underground serves only a small part of Greater London. Other cities the size of Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds in Europe have undergrounds.

Lille, for example, has a population of 1m and a 60 station underground network

Southampton and Portsmouth are the 3rd and 2nd most densely populated cities in the UK after London, both having geographic features that keep the majority of the city in a relatively confined area. They are also both part of the South's second largest urban area after London (over 800k). Neither have a tram, underground, or anything similar. Definitely potential for something!