The other problem in Leeds is the suburban train network is pretty thin on the ground (in terms of frequency and stations). Similar for Bristol although improving at a slow pace there.
The Tyne and Wear Metro is a bit different, because it doesn’t have street-running. All of it is grade-separated: it took over a few suburban railway lines which were linked together with a couple of km of tunnels.
I fully agree about Leeds’ suburban network. I will at some point write about this. West Yorkshire actually has a really dense railway network, and there are some low(ish) cost ways of improving it!
Bristol probably has the worst suburban network of any city in Britain. Poor coverage, entirely diesel (Leeds has a few electrified lines!) and Temple Meads station is far from the centre.
Sneak preview of something I’m writing: British cities have some of the densest railway networks in the world. They just don’t use them effectively.
I can’t do tables in comments but:
Manchester has 2.8m people within 20km. 20 railway lines (several of them part of Metrolink), 131 stations
Glasgow – 1.5m – 22 – 125
Munich – 2.3m – 12 – 93
Kyoto – 2.5m – 11 – 103
What we need is electrification, and for the lines to run through the city centre and out the other side, rather than terminate in congested stations like Manchester Piccadilly. More stations in some places would also be a plus.
Looking forward to it, I'm sure it will be a good read. I'd be intetested to see how Birmingham compares to Glasgow and Manchester?
I'm guessing less stations and lines but with almost everything (local and intercity) runs through, and at least the New Street lines electrified (can't remember re Moor St/Snow hill lines), so maybe more used/efficient?
A few medium/ smaller cities around junctions could do with suburban stations in the same manner as Exeter.
Why not just have a very short, very frequent metro type service in the centre instead, linked to solid bus interchanges (weather protected), and then build out from there.
A vehicle every 3 minutes level of frequent, fully automated (may need tight turning loops at each end, or multiple reversing sidings/boarding platforms at each end).
Yes lack of single seat transport is less convenient, but can use the flexibility of bus services to work out the best route for tram extension before committing.
Alternatively, have BRT tunnels in the centre with frequent through service, convert to metro/tram later.
Sounds a lot like the Tyne and Wear Metro.
The other problem in Leeds is the suburban train network is pretty thin on the ground (in terms of frequency and stations). Similar for Bristol although improving at a slow pace there.
The Tyne and Wear Metro is a bit different, because it doesn’t have street-running. All of it is grade-separated: it took over a few suburban railway lines which were linked together with a couple of km of tunnels.
I fully agree about Leeds’ suburban network. I will at some point write about this. West Yorkshire actually has a really dense railway network, and there are some low(ish) cost ways of improving it!
Bristol probably has the worst suburban network of any city in Britain. Poor coverage, entirely diesel (Leeds has a few electrified lines!) and Temple Meads station is far from the centre.
Thank you for the in depth response!
Makes sense in hindsight regarding Tyne and Wear.
Quite a few GB cities seem like they could be improved with two or three extra suburban stations and more frequent local trains.
Agree regarding Bristol, for a place with an outwardly green reputation it has pretty dire public transport.
Sneak preview of something I’m writing: British cities have some of the densest railway networks in the world. They just don’t use them effectively.
I can’t do tables in comments but:
Manchester has 2.8m people within 20km. 20 railway lines (several of them part of Metrolink), 131 stations
Glasgow – 1.5m – 22 – 125
Munich – 2.3m – 12 – 93
Kyoto – 2.5m – 11 – 103
What we need is electrification, and for the lines to run through the city centre and out the other side, rather than terminate in congested stations like Manchester Piccadilly. More stations in some places would also be a plus.
Looking forward to it, I'm sure it will be a good read. I'd be intetested to see how Birmingham compares to Glasgow and Manchester?
I'm guessing less stations and lines but with almost everything (local and intercity) runs through, and at least the New Street lines electrified (can't remember re Moor St/Snow hill lines), so maybe more used/efficient?
A few medium/ smaller cities around junctions could do with suburban stations in the same manner as Exeter.
Why not just have a very short, very frequent metro type service in the centre instead, linked to solid bus interchanges (weather protected), and then build out from there.
A vehicle every 3 minutes level of frequent, fully automated (may need tight turning loops at each end, or multiple reversing sidings/boarding platforms at each end).
Yes lack of single seat transport is less convenient, but can use the flexibility of bus services to work out the best route for tram extension before committing.
Alternatively, have BRT tunnels in the centre with frequent through service, convert to metro/tram later.
Porto is another good example of such a system that was designed recently-ish.