Why do no other metro system (that I can think of in the world) other than Glasgow and London use ‘Tube’ trains?

[Transilien]

I’ve always wondered why no other city went for the small tube design considering how famous the London Underground is.

 

[HSTEd]

The small tube was mostly a result of early construction of the system and a medieval street plan forcing bored rather than cut-and-cover tunnels.

I'm not sure many other cities had these characteristics during the critical early years of metro construction.

 

[Transilien]

That makes sense. Also why did London Transport stick with the small bore design for the Victoria line rather than a sub-surface size of train considering technology had moved on from the early 1900’s?

 

[edwin_m]

Central London was densely built up and founded on clay which was ideal for tunneling with a shield. The UK was also the primary industrial power in Victorian times. So they had the ingenuity, the need and the cash to try something other than cut and cover. After the trauma of building cut and cover in what was then the less dense fringes of the city, it's unlikely Parliament would have approved any attempt to extend this further.

However, funding wasn't unlimited and with this type of tunnelling, and before mechanisation the costs depend strongly on the cross-section. So the Tube lines were built to take the smallest train size that could be operated on the standard gauge, though the later ones were a bit larger than the original City and South London which was later enlarged to match.

I'm not sure what the geology was in Glasgow but the other circumstances were similar, and they went even smaller with narrow gauge.

As to the Victoria line, I guess it could have been partly a case of "always done it this way". But one factor might be that cross-platform connections were provided at several interchanges with other lines. This was done by running the Victoria in one direction through one bore of the other line's station, and building two new bores and platforms nearby for the other direction of both lines. So some of the Victoria was actually re-using small sized tunnels and stations, and this was obviously much easier if using Tube-sized trains.

 

[D7666]

Berlin has small and large sized trains - kleinprofil (small profile) U1, U2, U3 ,U4) and großprofil (large profile) U5, U6, U7, U8 and U9

Pretty sure some of the Paris metro lines are to a smaller load gauge.

I think trying to categorise the train size difference by use of the word tube is not quite right - tube is the form of tunnel construction - there is not really a limit on the size of a tube - the channel tunnel is a tube in the construction sense and look how big that is and how big the trains are.

 

[30907]

As to the Victoria line, I guess it could have been partly a case of "always done it this way". But one factor might be that cross-platform connections were provided at several interchanges with other lines. This was done by running the Victoria in one direction through one bore of the other line's station, and building two new bores and platforms nearby for the other direction of both lines. So some of the Victoria was actually re-using small sized tunnels and stations, and this was obviously much easier if using Tube-sized trains.

Victoria Line trains also access the rest of the network (ie Acton Works) by connections to the Piccadilly at Finsbury Park (one of the interchanges mentioned).
More generally, the tube model "worked" and building a 50% larger tunnel (eg 14ft vs 11ft diameter) would have blown the economics. So unless you were planning to run mainline sized trains...
The Jubilee Line marks a change of approach - tube trains, but much more spacious stations.

 

[brad465]

I don't know what the train size is, but the Pyongyang metro in North Korea is one of the deepest in the world so was definitely not a cut and cover job. This was partly because the stations double as bomb shelters.

 

[D7666]

I don't know what the train size is, but the Pyongyang metro in North Korea is one of the deepest in the world so was definitely not a cut and cover job. This was partly because the stations double as bomb shelters.

Prag is likewise deep with large size tube tunnel and planned double as bomb shelters.

 

[edwin_m]

Victoria Line trains also access the rest of the network (ie Acton Works) by connections to the Piccadilly at Finsbury Park (one of the interchanges mentioned).

That's true, although if it had been "main line" gauge then Northumberland Park depot could have been connected to the adjacent main line network for trains to make their way to Acton by some convoluted route.

Incdentally, at Finsbury Park and Highbury & Islington I believe the Victoria took over at least one of the old Northern City platforms, which were built to the main line gauge.

 

[30907]

That's true, although if it had been "main line" gauge then Northumberland Park depot could have been connected to the adjacent main line network for trains to make their way to Acton by some convoluted route.

Indeed.

Incdentally, at Finsbury Park I believe the Victoria took over at least one of the old Northern City platforms, which were built to the main line gauge.

Yes, and I think at Highbury?

 

[edwin_m]

Indeed.

Yes, and I think at Highbury?

Yes, just checked on Carto Metro and edited accordingly

 

[signed]

Pretty sure some of the Paris metro lines are to a smaller load gauge.

No, they are all at a 2.40m loading gauge.

The blocky construction of the MF67 (used on 3, 3bis, 10 and 12) does make the impression it's smaller, but it's not

 

[Wolfie]

I’ve always wondered why no other city went for the small tube design considering how famous the London Underground is.

Budapest Metro line 1 has a smaller loading gauge.

 

[swt_passenger]

Indeed.

Yes, and I think at Highbury?

I think yes, definitely enough adapted stations to make it stay tube sized.

 

[Sorcerer]

Aside from historical reasons such as costs and technological constraints, there are also clear limits to what you can do with tube-shaped trains. The Piccadilly Line stock had to sacrifice some window space to make way for the new air conditioning, and by the very nature of the shape you'll have more cramped conditions. All things considered if you're building a modern metro system, you would be wise not to opt for a tube-shape like that of London and Glasgow even if the loading gauge would still be more restricted than the national network.

 

[Nick Ashwell]

I don't know what the train size is, but the Pyongyang metro in North Korea is one of the deepest in the world so was definitely not a cut and cover job. This was partly because the stations double as bomb shelters.

The people there also don't eat, if larger than the lower level lines it's worth remembering that simple fact.

No, they are all at a 2.40m loading gauge.

The blocky construction of the MF67 (used on 3, 3bis, 10 and 12) does make the impression it's smaller, but it's not

I'm asking as someone with no clue, what's the age difference? I feel like the underground is incredibly old and therefore it was easier to dig smaller tunnels

 

[Mikey C]

The Victoria Line tunnels are actually slightly larger than the other tube tunnels, something exploited when they replaced the original trains with the 2009 stock, which are slightly fatter than the rest of the tube trains. This is noticeable inside, but means that they can't now access the rest of the tube network.

I imagine making the tunnels full size would have cost a lot more, and money was very tight in the 1960s.

 

[D7666]

No, they are all at a 2.40m loading gauge.

The blocky construction of the MF67 (used on 3, 3bis, 10 and 12) does make the impression it's smaller, but it's not

ahh yes, it is the MF67s I am thinking of.

 

[signed]

what's the age difference?

10 years, first line (now part of Line 1) was put in service in 1900, when the C&SLR (first deep-level tube line) was put in service in 1890.

But way more if you count the sub-surface lines in London, of which the first opened in 1863

 

[etr221]

That's true, although if it had been "main line" gauge then Northumberland Park depot could have been connected to the adjacent main line network for trains to make their way to Acton by some convoluted route.

There was a connection to BR at Northumberland Park when the Victoria Line was being built - at least some of the 1967 stock was delivered that way.

The Victoria Line tunnels are actually slightly larger than the other tube tunnels, something exploited when they replaced the original trains with the 2009 stock, which are slightly fatter than the rest of the tube trains. This is noticeable inside, but means that they can't now access the rest of the tube network.

My understanding is that the 2009 stock are within loading guage for the Piccadilly Line connection, and I think one train did come that way: the issue was rather that the requirements for them to come that way (whatever these were) fell foul of disagreements between the TfL/LUL (or whatever it was at the time) and the than Tube Infracos (more than one was involved IIRC) - not everyone was prepared to play ball...

 

[Irascible]

It is a little odd how the tube system grew given the Northern City opened in 1904, but given the dodgy finances of a lot of the backers at the time it's probably better we got a lot of small tube rather than not so much big tube... I forget how much was built before UERL appeared but anyone with a passing knowledge of London Transport can appreciate why UERL might have tried to economise...

As a rapid transit system I've always found the tube just fine space-wise ( albeit I'm 5' 10" ) - I used to have more trouble with Routemasters because I'm about the height of the upper deck roof, so I never ducked enough & if the bus hit a bump I'd rebound off the roof in sympathy with the suspension movement! If you've got luggage ( more than a rucksack ) then it's a major pain, but I've never tried to use a tube to get to somewhere with a lot of luggage - there's plenty of other ways to move around London.

I also found the impression of speed in such a small tunnel pretty useful to keep me feeling like I was going somewhere - using the sub-surface lines always felt so slow.

 

[Vespa]

Liverpool city has an underground section, it's a mix of legacy construction and modern tunnel section operating on a W6 loading gauge.

 

[The exile]

No, they are all at a 2.40m loading gauge.

The blocky construction of the MF67 (used on 3, 3bis, 10 and 12) does make the impression it's smaller, but it's not

Carriage width is 2.4m, but it’s not main line loading gauge. The Metro was originally intended to be metre gauge. Unlike London, very little of the original tunneling was done with shields.

 

[Transilien]

I get the feeling that the heat problems of the tube come from the tunnel size (a lack of circulation in Tunnels) and the lack of air conditioning resulting from that.

 

[Ken H]

Isnt some of Tyne and Wear Metro bored round tunnels?
I think Moscow is bored tunnels. Bomb shelters...

Victoria Line was built to 12' diameter to keep in the clay layer and to allow cross platform interchanges at Oxford Circus, Euston , Highbury and islington and Finsbury Park. It was possible to squeeze a 12' tube in but any bigger and you cant build the interchanges. Its busy down in the clay layer. Oxford Circus had the Bakerloo and Central and all the access shafts, the Post Office Railway and the foundations of the then Peter Robinson department store to avoid.

 

[AM9]

In the early '60 I was regularly given copies of the London Transport magazine, - an in-house publication for staff. There were several articles about the planning of the new tube line (no name at the time) discussing the option of SSL sized vs. deep tube sized bored tunnels. There was comparison of passenger capacity and construction cost. I remember figure of about 1000 passengers for the 12ft tunnel stock whereas the larger SSL stock accommodated about 10% more.*
Tunnelling costs were proportional to cross sectional area, meaning that a small tube was about half the cost of a full sized circular bore, (12ft dia. = 113ft ^2 vs. 17ft dia. = 227ft ^2). The thinking was that the fledgling automatic train control systems in development would allow tighter headways, mitigating the slightly lower train capacity.
* This assessment was made comparing the experience of then latest stock in use '59/62 for deep tube and R59 for 'cut and cover' trains.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

I don't know what the train size is, but the Pyongyang metro in North Korea is one of the deepest in the world so was definitely not a cut and cover job. This was partly because the stations double as bomb shelters.

The people there also don't eat, if larger than the lower level lines it's worth remembering that simple fact.

@Nick Ashwell. Sorry, don't follow. Could you clarify?

 

[The exile]

10 years, first line (now part of Line 1) was put in service in 1900, when the C&SLR (first deep-level tube line) was put in service in 1890.

But way more if you count the sub-surface lines in London, of which the first opened in 1863

At the early stages of a concept (“underground railways”), 10 years is an eternity. I doubt anyone in London envisaged mass use of the C&SLR. By the time Paris was planning (note that as well - planning - not leaving it up to private enterprise), it was clear which way the wind was blowing. Once again, we have to live with the consequences of being first out of the blocks.

 

[Sun Chariot]

the later ones were a bit larger than the original City and South London which was later enlarged to match.

Going OT slightly...

The City & South London line (1890) and the Waterloo & City line (1894) were bored using the "Greathead Shield".
It was an update of an engineering solution devised by Marc Isambard Brunel (to tunnel under the Thames for a pedestrian walkway at the outset, it was latterly used for the East London Line then London Overground), comprised a sturdy metal tube in which workers could dig at a much deeper level - installing the iron tunnel lining behind them as they went.

During the construction of the Docklands Light Railway, part of Greathead’s shield was found - buried in the earth beneath Bank.
This surviving piece is at Bank station and the red iron arch is incorporated within the subsurface walkway linking the DLR to the Waterloo & City.

 

[Ken H]

Going OT slightly...

The City & South London line (1890) and the Waterloo & City line (1894) were bored using the "Greathead Shield".
It was an update of an engineering solution devised by Marc Isambard Brunel (to tunnel under the Thames for a pedestrian walkway at the outset, it was latterly used for the East London Line then London Overground), comprised a sturdy metal tube in which workers could dig at a much deeper level - installing the iron tunnel lining behind them as they went.

During the construction of the Docklands Light Railway, part of Greathead’s shield was found - buried in the earth beneath Bank.
This surviving piece is at Bank station and the red iron arch is incorporated within the subsurface walkway linking the DLR to the Waterloo & City.

The 7' diameter Tower Subway is a round tube built 1869. It had a cable railway when first opened so is a candidate for the first tube railway. Still there but it carries water mains and communication cables now.