Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) - Latest plans & speculation

[jonesy3001]

Simple solution but one for the fantasy thread.
Reopen the woodhead route might have to bore a new tunnel and change the route slightly though due to housing estates being built like.

 

[daodao]

Link to article in the Independent -

Rail ‘betrayal’ for north and Midlands despite Boris Johnson levelling-up promises

The article states that:

The announcements are due in the government’s Integrated Rail Plan, which is expected in the next two weeks, before Rishi Sunak’s autumn spending statement. Another source said: “Boris wants to build everything, but Treasury is putting the brakes on.”

Given previous stupid proposals by Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson (such as the Foulness airport and a fixed link from Scotland to the 6 counties), it is good that the sensible Treasury view is likely to prevail. Frankly, it would be best for the country's finances if HS2 stopped just north of Crewe (i.e. none of phase 2b is ever built) and that TRU is considered adequate to improve Manchester-Leeds journeys.

As the Integrated Rail Plan is likely to be published soon, further speculation on what it will actually contain is a futile waste of words.

 

[nr758123]

Given previous stupid proposals by Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson (such as the Foulness airport and a fixed link from Scotland to the 6 counties), it is good that the sensible Treasury view is likely to prevail. Frankly, it would be best for the country's finances if HS2 stopped just north of Crewe (i.e. none of phase 2b is ever built) and that TRU is considered adequate to improve Manchester-Leeds journeys.

The fixed link to Northern Ireland was merely a fantasy idea designed to convince some of the more gullible unionists that B Johnson was their friend. Probably even he never thought it was a serious proposal.

Increasing capacity between Crewe and Manchester, and between Manchester and Leeds, on the other hand, would meet a genuine transport need. It's wrong to conflate the two.

 

[Ianno87]

.

Increasing capacity between Crewe and Manchester, and between Manchester and Leeds, on the other hand, would meet a genuine transport need. It's wrong to conflate the two.

I'm still awaiting a credible capacity solution for Crewe-Stockport-Manchester (which is full), if Phase 2b does not reach Manchester.

 

[Grimsby town]

I'm still awaiting a credible capacity solution for Crewe-Stockport-Manchester (which is full), if Phase 2b does not reach Manchester.

Its full already and that's discounting the fact that a third fast train from Sheffield is desired never mind the Northern service improvements that never happened. I don't think the article is pretty clear. For example it says that Liverpool to Manchester won't get a new line but line upgrades. This could just be a misunderstanding of using the existing alignment into Lime Street from around Widnes with a new line from HS2 via Warrington to this point being part of NPR. On the other hand it could refer to an upgrade of Chat Moss in which case the north really is in trouble.

 

[daodao]

I'm still awaiting a credible capacity solution for Crewe-Stockport-Manchester (which is full), if Phase 2b does not reach Manchester.

There needs to be a capacity solution for Crewe-Stockport even if Phase 2b eventually reaches Manchester, for the period of up to 10 years between completing phases 2a and 2b (western leg). It would be preferable if this is on the table before work proceeds with phase 2b, to assess whether it is a viable long-term alternative to building phase 2b (western leg).

 

[Ianno87]

There needs to be a capacity solution for Crewe-Stockport even if Phase 2b eventually reaches Manchester, for the period of up to 10 years between completing phases 2a and 2b (western leg). It would be preferable if this is on the table before work proceeds with phase 2b, to assess whether it is a viable long-term alternative to building phase 2b (western leg).

OK, so what is it then? What could be delivered that can be done in time to provide a meaningful capacity uplift and payback period before Phase 2b renders it redundant?

Frankly, doing Phase 2b (which is close to being ready to go to Bill deposit), will be faster than anything via Stockport, which has zero development done on it to date (and will also need powers).

Phase 2b *is* the solution at this point. It's the fastest to deliver, and minimal (if any) disruption to the existing network during construction. Unlike anything via Stockport. And the biggest capacity uplift of two entirely new tracks into Central Manchester.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Oct 2021 ==

Its full already and that's discounting the fact that a third fast train from Sheffield is desired never mind the Northern service improvements that never happened.

It's been full since 2008. And serious HS2 development started very soon after that.

 

[BigVern]

Been there, done that, got the assurance from the minister - everything will be fine!

 

[Killingworth]

Truth is that almost every 'solution' has been classed as too difficult for decades. We've seen bits and pieces improved as funds and public opinion allow - rather like the building of most of the railway network 150-200 years ago only on a very much smaller scale. No national plan.

That history is at the seat of our problems, compounded by massive cut backs over the last 70 years. But we are as they say, where we are.

I look at a journey my wife and I used to make quite often, Sheffield to Newcastle. According to what I saw in the HS2 publicity journey times for the fastest connection would be a few minutes slower than they were then, 2 or 3 years ago. Today frequency has been reduced by half and the fastest services are cut to one or two a day, the majority taking an extra 20 minutes. That's not levelling up by improving connectivity across the North.

Talking about connectivity that sometimes seems to be overlooked. Most of us don't Iive alongside a city centre station. Any new stations need to connect with people. I've lived in Sheffield for over 40 years but have never got a train to London from there. Chesterfield is far more convenient. (XC didn't stop enough of their trains there for it ever to have been practical to go to Newcastle.) An HS2 station at Meadowhall would be of little benefit to me at the opposite side of the city. I might even be better going to Manchester and catching the western leg there!

Its a lovely day today here in South Yorkshire, almost in the Peak District, but we miss the sea. Cleethorpes, Bridlington, Southport or Blackpool? Cleethorpes would win for journey time on best connections, Southport second, Blackpool third with the Yorkshire resort last. Then there's pricing........

And that sort of scenario will be played out for very many journeys. Change the overall journey time, frequency of services, ability to get a seat, and price (including any parking) and the markets will change. Speed on one section isn't the be all and end all.

Said after making a connection at Sheffield yesterday requiring a 47 minute wait and watching 3 very heavily loaded trains heading the other way towards Manchester. Our Lincoln service was quite busy too.

 

[Ianno87]

Been there, done that, got the assurance from the minister - everything will be fine!
View attachment 103805

Very simplistically, during Phase 2a, all HS2 does is replace 3tph Avanti via the WCML to Euston calling at Stockport with 3tph via HS2 to Euston calling at Stockport, so is no more demanding on capacity than the current timetable. I could imagine it will continue to involve some compromises here and there, of course. Just like the current timetable.

Until 2b comes along and fixes it.

.

I look at a journey my wife and I used to make quite often, Sheffield to Newcastle. According to what I saw in the HS2 publicity journey times for the fastest connection would be a few minutes slower than they were then, 2 or 3 years ago. Today frequency has been reduced by half and the fastest services are cut to one or two a day, the majority taking an extra 20 minutes. That's not levelling up by improving connectivity across the North.

HS2 doesn't connect Sheffield and Newcastle to each other (directly), so I'm unsure why you're expecting it to reduce journey times in that particular case?

It will, however, take Birmingham-York/Darlington/Newcastle passengers off the existing XC service.

 

[Glenn1969]

Very simplistically, during Phase 2a, all HS2 does is replace 3tph Avanti via the WCML to Euston calling at Stockport with 3tph via HS2 to Euston calling at Stockport, so is no more demanding on capacity than the current timetable. I could imagine it will involve some compromises here and there, of course. Just like the current timetable.



HS2 doesn't connect Sheffield and Newcastle to each other (directly), so I'm unsure why you're expecting it to reduce journey times in that particular case?

It will, however, take Birmingham-York/Darlington/Newcastle passengers off the existing XC service

It only benefits Sheffield if 2b is built. Which no one expects to happen in my lifetime (I'm 52 so that probably takes you to 2040)

 

[Killingworth]

HS2 doesn't connect Sheffield and Newcastle to each other (directly), so I'm unsure why you're expecting it to reduce journey times in that particular case?

It will, however, take Birmingham-York/Darlington/Newcastle passengers off the existing XC service.

Precisely. Connectivity between Sheffield, York and Newcastle is not going to improve with either HS2 or NPR, it's getting worse.

 

[Ianno87]

Precisely. Connectivity between Sheffield, York and Newcastle is not going to improve with either HS2 or NPR, it's getting worse.

Can I suggest this thread doesn't descend into yet another "I don't support HS2 because it doesn't go to Lowestoft"-style debate.

HS2 is part of the solution to connectivity across the network as whole. It cannot, and should not, be expected to solve everything in isolation.

If the Integrated Rail Plan is done right, that ought to show how the entire jigsaw fits together.

 

[Glenn1969]

Can I suggest this thread doesn't descend into yet another "I don't support HS2 because it doesn't go to Lowestoft"-style debate.

HS2 is part of the solution to connectivity across the network as whole. It cannot, and should not, be expected to solve everything in isolation.

but only if it is built in full AND classic lines are upgraded to maximize connectivity and reduce connection times. This upgrade should include electrification of primary and main secondary routes

 

[Ianno87]

but only if it is built in full AND classic lines are upgraded to maximize connectivity and reduce connection times. This upgrade should include electrification of primary and main secondary routes

Which is, hopefully, what the Integrated Rail Plan will propose. A coherent strategy for network-wide interventions.

 

[BigVern]

Very simplistically, during Phase 2a, all HS2 does is replace 3tph Avanti via the WCML to Euston calling at Stockport with 3tph via HS2 to Euston calling at Stockport, so is no more demanding on capacity than the current timetable.

Except that all 3 will be routed via HS2 phase 2a through Crewe. Unlike now when 2 are routed via Stoke.
"Some compromises" - I wonder what they will be.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Very simplistically, during Phase 2a, all HS2 does is replace 3tph Avanti via the WCML to Euston calling at Stockport with 3tph via HS2 to Euston calling at Stockport, so is no more demanding on capacity than the current timetable. I could imagine it will continue to involve some compromises here and there, of course. Just like the current timetable.

Until 2b comes along and fixes it.

Except it doesn't - 1tph on the classic line is expected to remain, so MKC doesn't lose its Manchester service.

 

[Roast Veg]

Except it doesn't - 1tph on the classic line is expected to remain, so MKC doesn't lose its Manchester service.

I used this only last week - not sure what I would have done without it!

 

[geoffk]

I look at a journey my wife and I used to make quite often, Sheffield to Newcastle. According to what I saw in the HS2 publicity journey times for the fastest connection would be a few minutes slower than they were then, 2 or 3 years ago. Today frequency has been reduced by half and the fastest services are cut to one or two a day, the majority taking an extra 20 minutes.

And we have no Manchester - Bristol service at all at the moment.

 

[Ianno87]

Except that all 3 will be routed via HS2 phase 2a through Crewe. Unlike now when 2 are routed via Stoke.
"Some compromises" - I wonder what they will be.

3tph HS2, 1tph South Wales, an hourly freight and a couple of stopping services ought to be do-able on a two track railway. It'll be a full bit of railway, don't get me wrong.... (But only for the few years until 2b opens).

Hypothesising about what a timetable might look like:

3tph HS2 means roughly every 20 minutes, so 3 gaps for "other" stuff each hour:

-1 gap for an all stations stopper
-1 gap for a freight
-1 gap for the semi-fast stopper, which provides the space for the South Wales to be flighted as well

An Alderley Edge starter would fit into the spare space in the stopper/ freight window (especially if the freight disappears via Styal)

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

So dashed hopes all round then - at least places will be equally levelled to more or less where they are...

If no new line to Liverpool is built, a west-facing junction from HS2 with either the CLC or Chat Moss lines would be possible on Risley Moss.
But whether that is any better than the current Weaver Jn-Edge Hill route is doubtful.
Reversing in Piccadilly for Leeds seems a throw-back to the hated pre-Ordsall Curve operation, with the prospect of continuing to navigate Guide Bridge and Stalybridge at 25mph.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I used this only last week - not sure what I would have done without it!

Changing at Crewe off the Chester once running again would also work, but every proposal I have seen keeps an hourly Euston-MKC-Manchester in some form.

 

[Killingworth]

but only if it is built in full AND classic lines are upgraded to maximize connectivity and reduce connection times. This upgrade should include electrification of primary and main secondary routes

Connectivity issues are at the very crux of the whole HS2 and NPR improvements. We don't all want to go from A to B or X to Y but fast services between them need easy changes to less major destinations.

We still need major investment on existing lines to improve many bottlenecks where hold ups regularly occur. A 3 minute headway for most of a route, but 6 minutes over a 4 mile stretch. Reducing 3 minutes to maybe 2 or less. Nowhere for a slow passenger or freight service to be overtaken. Lack of routes for major freight flows limited by gauge. Too short or too few platforms. Plenty of platforms but conflicting track layouts meaning queues to use them. Flyovers and unders - although Werrington makes that look very difficult/expensive for most places they might benefit.

Lots of small changes but for effective electrification they need doing at the same time, if not sooner.

 

[Purple Orange]

If the article in the Independent is correct about HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR), several factors jump out.

1. A partial new-build NPR line would need to be built on the basis of relieving capacity in Manchester around Castlefield and improving journey times between Leeds & Manchester.
2. If Manchester to Leeds is to be a partial new build line, it means that NPR trains must run on to the existing Trans Pennine Mainline before reaching Leeds. This means the capacity of the NPR services will be capped at the capacity of the existing mainline after Trans Pennine Route Upgrade (TRU) has been completed.
3. Liverpool-Leeds services will need to stay on the existing Trans Pennine main line all the way to Manchester.
4. That means that no more than 4 tph can use the NPR infrastructure in to Manchester Piccadilly HS2, therefore it would be unlikely that the partial NPR/TRU line would carry London-Leeds services.
5. A partial new-build line does not exclude the possibility of completing the line to Leeds at a future date. This would need to be based upon relieving capacity in to Leeds and increasing frequency between Manchester & Leeds on the NPR line.

So, with 4 tph that can’t go to Liverpool and won’t go to London, what services will the NPR infrastructure facilitate?

In this context I think we could see Birmingham-Newcastle services routed via Manchester & Leeds, which will effectively replace the Cross Country services north of York.

 

[BrianW]

Connectivity issues are at the very crux of the whole HS2 and NPR improvements. We don't all want to go from A to B or X to Y but fast services between them need easy changes to less major destinations.

We still need major investment on existing lines to improve many bottlenecks where hold ups regularly occur. A 3 minute headway for most of a route, but 6 minutes over a 4 mile stretch. Reducing 3 minutes to maybe 2 or less. Nowhere for a slow passenger or freight service to be overtaken. Lack of routes for major freight flows limited by gauge. Too short or too few platforms. Plenty of platforms but conflicting track layouts meaning queues to use them. Flyovers and unders - although Werrington makes that look very difficult/expensive for most places they might benefit.

Lots of small changes but for effective electrification they need doing at the same time, if not sooner.

If the article in the Independent is correct about HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR), several factors jump out.

1. A partial new-build NPR line would need to be built on the basis of relieving capacity in Manchester around Castlefield and improving journey times between Leeds & Manchester.
2. If Manchester to Leeds is to be a partial new build line, it means that NPR trains must run on to the existing Trans Pennine Mainline before reaching Leeds. This means the capacity of the NPR services will be capped at the capacity of the existing mainline after Trans Pennine Route Upgrade (TRU) has been completed.
3. Liverpool-Leeds services will need to stay on the existing Trans Pennine main line all the way to Manchester.
4. That means that no more than 4 tph can use the NPR infrastructure in to Manchester Piccadilly HS2, therefore it would be unlikely that the partial NPR/TRU line would carry London-Leeds services.
5. A partial new-build line does not exclude the possibility of completing the line to Leeds at a future date. This would need to be based upon relieving capacity in to Leeds and increasing frequency between Manchester & Leeds on the NPR line.

So, with 4 tph that can’t go to Liverpool and won’t go to London, what services will the NPR infrastructure facilitate?

In this context I think we could see Birmingham-Newcastle services routed via Manchester & Leeds, which will effectively replace the Cross Country services north of York.

I'm starting (!) to feel uncertainties rising again. The PM chose to mention NPR in his party conference speech; and he chose not to mention HS2.
A number of smaller 'improvements' in junction/ route capacity could enable some 'quick wins' (once the disruption's over). There will stil be uncertainty (Fuelled by the rail industries failures to deliver on time/ budget (GW electrification; Crossrail; ...)(not politicians fault!!). But possibly in time for next general election?

 

[JonathanH]

OK, so what is it then? What could be delivered that can be done in time to provide a meaningful capacity uplift and payback period before Phase 2b renders it redundant?

A junction to the east (north) of Wilmslow to allow the Styal platforms to be a loop for the Stockport route might help. It looks long enough that a stopper could be looped whilst a HS2 fast went through Wilmslow non stop.

A lot cheaper than HS2 Phase 2b to provide additional capacity for Crewe to Manchester.

Even better if Wilmslow to Alderley Edge could be three-track but the bridge over Pendleton Way and other development appears to preclude that.

 

[Purple Orange]

A junction to the east (north) of Wilmslow to allow the Styal platforms to be a loop for the Stockport route might help. It looks long enough that a stopper could be looped whilst a HS2 fast went through Wilmslow non stop.

A lot cheaper than HS2 Phase 2b to provide additional capacity for Crewe to Manchester.

Even better if Wilmslow to Alderley Edge could be three-track but the bridge over Pendleton Way and other development appears to preclude that.

And what about the Birmingham HS2 services? You simply can’t have 5 HS2 services running between Crewe & Manchester, plus the stoppers and TfW service. No chance - failure to build the western branch ensures that Curzon Street only serves 4 trains each hour. Just 4 trains at a 7 platform station. It’s a non-issue anyway, because the western branch is progressing.

 

[HSTEd]

1. That means that no more than 4 tph can use the NPR infrastructure in to Manchester Piccadilly HS2, therefore it would be unlikely that the partial NPR/TRU line would carry London-Leeds services.
2. A partial new-build line does not exclude the possibility of completing the line to Leeds at a future date. This would need to be based upon relieving capacity in to Leeds and increasing frequency between Manchester & Leeds on the NPR line.

So, with 4 tph that can’t go to Liverpool and won’t go to London, what services will the NPR infrastructure facilitate?

In this context I think we could see Birmingham-Newcastle services routed via Manchester & Leeds, which will effectively replace the Cross Country services north of York.

Why can't 4tph allow London-Manchester trains to go to Leeds in the short to medium term?
That is enough trains in the short to medium term to carry the loadings if they are run at the maximum possible length.

I can see arguments for forcing Birmingham-Leeds passengers to change trains at Manchester rather than London Leeds ones - for one thing the former will still see huge journey time improvements even with a change.

 

[fishwomp]

Can I suggest this thread doesn't descend into yet another "I don't support HS2 because it doesn't go to Lowestoft"-style debate.

That's the wrong thread - surely as the UK's most easterly station, you should be in a thread about East West Rail and get them under the trade descriptions act?

 

[Purple Orange]

Why can't 4tph allow London-Manchester trains to go to Leeds in the short to medium term?
That is enough trains in the short to medium term to carry the loadings if they are run at the maximum possible length.

I can see arguments for forcing Birmingham-Leeds passengers to change trains at Manchester rather than London Leeds ones - for one thing the former will still see huge journey time improvements even with a change.

If the NPR line is to be a full new build line and if Leeds station was adapted to take 400m trains, perhaps there would be a case, although that does not seem to be happening. If the Independent report is correct, the the government has shown its hand in terms of investment east of Huddersfield - I.e. no investment.

A line that consists of new-build through East Manchester to the trans pennine mainline might result in Leeds-Manchester journey times of 35 minutes with 200m trains. It will also be constrained by the capacity of the TRU, but by allocating the 4 tph to Leeds-London passengers you’re not catering for Leeds-Manchester, let alone passengers from Newcastle & York.

Plus 4x400m tph between London and Leeds via Manchester is simply not enough capacity. London-Manchester alone is meant to be 3x400m tph, and then you have to allow for trans pennine passengers. Under that plan you’re effectively reducing the London-Manchester capacity down to 2x400 tph.