Publication of Integrated Rail Plan for the North and Midlands

[Peterthegreat]

I think that the way I would probably phrase it now is that the journey times under the new plan for Sheffield to London Euston have a credibility problem.

And to those who might retort that it is in an official government document, I would say that this increases rather than decreases the doubt about its accuracy, for obvious reasons!

I can't disagree with that!

 

[Starmill]

OK. Back on the topic of this thread, i.e. the IRP, does anybody know what the next step is? I.e. does this report get put on a shelf in Whitehall until the next government in 2024 commissions a "Digital Network Connectivity Review" (or whatever buzzword name they give it)? And then says the same things again, with a few tinkering at the edges?

Or are shovels going in the ground in a few weeks time?

What is happening with this plan?

The next step ought to be for government to bring forward a hybrid bill such as a High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) bill. Alternatively there may be a round of consultation for new sections of new build line.

We don't yet know how much work has been done for the latter but we can guess at not very much. We also don't know precisely which elements of Crewe - Manchester will go into the new draft text and which might be tabled later. This all puts things in doubt for a little while longer.

We don't yet know for certain but it seems likely that the objectives of Ministers is still that a Crewe - Manchester Act will receive Royal Assent in this Parliament, which will expire no later than 2024.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

OK. Back on the topic of this thread, i.e. the IRP, does anybody know what the next step is? I.e. does this report get put on a shelf in Whitehall until the next government in 2024 commissions a "Digital Network Connectivity Review" (or whatever buzzword name they give it)? And then says the same things again, with a few tinkering at the edges?
Or are shovels going in the ground in a few weeks time?
What is happening with this plan?

Shapps claimed work would start before Christmas - in fact on the Kettering-Market Harborough electrification which looked 99% likely anyway.
The plan allocates funding for a number of major projects, but it's not really clear in what timescale, and if/how Network Rail can tool up for those multiple projects.
There will have to be new programmes for ECML, MML and TRU (the classic part of NPR), virtually all of which is in one NR Region (Eastern).
HS2 Ltd can forget about Yorkshire and concentrate on developing hybrid bills to reach Manchester and East Midlands Parkway, and planning the new sections of NPR.

Page 134 of the IRP has a vague timescale for delivery, mostly in the 2030s, but the new lines are into the 2040s.
However the dates are only "potential", as no specific projects have yet been fully approved.
The bulk of the NR work will find its way into the CP7 (2024-29) and CP8 (2029-34) enhancement budgets.

 

[MattRat]

I think that the way I would probably phrase it now is that the journey times under the new plan including Sheffield to London Euston have a credibility problem.

And to those who might retort that it is in an official government document, I would say that this increases rather than decreases the doubt about its accuracy, for obvious reasons!

Compounded by the Leeds situation. If the MML 'upgrades' won't provide capacity for Leeds trains on the MML, then I wouldn't call them 'upgrades'. The only thing I see them doing is the frankly necessary electrification on the line which should have been done years ago anyway. Unless they plan to buy bi mode trains for HS2 of course, to further 'cut costs'.

 

[TravelDream]

OK. Back on the topic of this thread, i.e. the IRP, does anybody know what the next step is? I.e. does this report get put on a shelf in Whitehall until the next government in 2024 commissions a "Digital Network Connectivity Review" (or whatever buzzword name they give it)? And then says the same things again, with a few tinkering at the edges?

Or are shovels going in the ground in a few weeks time?

What is happening with this plan?

Given so much of the document is itself a touch speculative, I think very little is actually in concrete.

What likely comes next are further consultations and reviews, and then 'refinements' of the plan. Most of the things in the document have targets for completion in the 2030s and 2040s so quite some time away yet.

As this will affect trains to Scotland and North Wales, nothing can really be done until the Union Connectivity Review reports too.

Legislation will be put through parliament and funding through Network Rail's Control Periods will have to be put in place.

 

[andyjd70]

The "Integrated Rail Plan" would be better described as the "No Idea, Can't Be Arsed".

I was expecting detailed plans of expected service patterns in 2030, 2040, etc. Instead we're left with "we might do this" "could probably do that" "uuuh this should do"...

To be successful, the IRP should have followed a general cohesive strategy, with certain stated goals. I would have chosen the following:
-To increase capacity to cope with the record passenger demand being seen, with scope for selling more, cheaper seats.
-To modernise the railway to make it more operationally efficient, more accessible and more resilient.
-To enable the railways to better compete with road and air transport.

With these goals in mind, I would then build the perfect service pattern. What level of service do different towns/cities need, how fast should they be and how much capacity will be required?

Once this is completed, you should bring the plans back to reality - figure out the most effective way of delivering as much of this as reasonably possible. You can create different plans based on the funding available.

Rather, government seems to have done it all backwards. No concrete plans for the actual service they want to run - they don't even know how fast this Transpennine "Upgrade" will be? There are so many gaps, so much uncertainty in a document designed to bring certainty.

For a government obsessed with controlling costs, they have unwittingly backed themselves into a tricky corner. It's going to be very difficult for the industry to deliver these plans in a cost-effective manner when government cannot commit to anything. Multiple billion pounds have been wasted on designing HS2 east, now with nothing to show for it. Maybe if government should decide what it wants before it does things - once it has made a commitment, it should stick to it.

I am looking forward to getting my hands on a copy of the IRP, if not because I am in need of some new toilet paper.

Playing the North and South off against each other is a genuis ploy on the side of the government. An indifferent Midlands/North when London sees transport finding cut to the bone is very valuable politically.

Most people don't live in the city centre anyway. Toton was always a compromise, but overall journeys were to be considerably shorter - especially going Northwards to Leeds and beyond, which is currently very poorly served.

Lots of planning was done in the region around maximising the benefits of the location in Toton, now it is to all be binned. Services between Nottingham/Derby will likely also suffer, now that they will have to share tracks with more high speed trains.

Toton was always a bad idea , especially given it is only 3 miles from an existing parkway station which apparently has had disappointing footfall so far.

 

[21C101]

Given so much of the document is itself a touch speculative, I think very little is actually in concrete.

Yes there is a lot to come out of the wash still.

For example they promise KX to Leeds in 113 minutes after an east coast upgrade.

Yet the published journey times on HS2 journey planner for London to Manchester are 1h 11m and in the government report for Manchester to Leeds are 33 minutes.

Combining them (and allowing a five minute call at Piccadilly) works out at 109 minutes, four minutes faster than the post ECML upgrade time of 113mins (which, even if achievable, would run the ECML at its limits to accomodate such fast Leeds services with those timings; leaving little scope for expanded services to Hull etc).

So I suspect there is an awful lot of water to flow under the bridge before anything becomes definitive.

 

[snowball]

Did Shapps say anything on Thursday about when the HS2 Crewe-Manchester Bill will be published? A few weeks ago they were talking about early 2022 for that. Since the IRP only confirms what we were expecting about that section, perhaps it will be published as expected.

 

[Bald Rick]

There will have to be new programmes for ECML, MML and TRU (the classic part of NPR), virtually all of which is in one NR Region (Eastern).

There are already well established programmes for MML electrification and TRU.

 

[ChrisC]

The IRP document text which refers to the Midlands Rail Hub plans doesn't mention Leicester. They will fix Nottingham to Birmingham (rightly) within HS2 so it appears they aren't bothered about Leicester to Birmingham unfortunately.

In comparison to Leicester, Nottingham does appear to do well out of this with faster journeys to London, and especially to Birmingham. However, it does not do much to improve timings from Nottingham to the north especially if there is no upgrading of the Erewash Valley Line. Journeys times to Sheffield, Leeds and Manchester will still be very slow for the distances involved. Full MML electrification is a good thing but journeys north from Nottingham will still have to rely on diesel power. The timescales to deliver some of this is unbelievably long. I’m in my mid 60’s and get the impression that I will probably always be going to St Pancras and will not live long enough to see Nottingham to Euston or to get a fast journey to Birmingham.

 

[Neen Sollars]

In comparison to Leicester, Nottingham does appear to do well out of this with faster journeys to London, and especially to Birmingham. However, it does not do much to improve timings from Nottingham to the north especially if there is no upgrading of the Erewash Valley Line. Journeys times to Sheffield, Leeds and Manchester will still be very slow for the distances involved. Full MML electrification is a good thing but journeys north from Nottingham will still have to rely on diesel power. The timescales to deliver some of this is unbelievably long. I’m in my mid 60’s and get the impression that I will probably always be going to St Pancras and will not live long enough to see Nottingham to Euston or to get a fast journey to Birmingham.

Just been having a look at Bham to Leicester. I will post this whilst Yorkie is having his nap. Nottingham and Derby sorted with HS2. Only XC running Bham to Leics? and only between Bham to Leics? See Midlands Connect report: https://www.midlandsconnect.uk/projects/rail/ Only the southern/western chord needed at Bordesley. Must be capacity created at New Street by HS2? Simply run more trains to Leicester from New Street? More frequent without the need for more speed? Saw a comment on a report about potential for travelling north through Moor Street and Snow Hill to Shrewsbury. Crayon Alert! Not possible without a chord from Stourbridge Line at Winson Green. Cuts across Handsworth New Road, sacrifices a small industrial estate and about 10 houses. But seen something similar at Gavrey Junction at Bicester?

edit this is better but not the one I viewed earlier. https://www.midlandsconnect.uk/media/1571/midlands-rail-hub-summary-report-final-june-2019.pdf

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Nov 2021 ==

 

[Acfb]

Toton was always a bad idea , especially given it is only 3 miles from an existing parkway station which apparently has had disappointing footfall so far.

Isn't that partly to do with it being poorly served?

Also Toton is in a better location for Nortingham's western suburbs and would presumably have still had connecting trains to Nottingham running into it.

I don't think HS2 especially the Eastern leg is ideal but HS2 Ltd seems to have made a complete hash of promoting it. Particularly the non London journeys aspect of it which would have increased capacity on Midlands-NE journeys. It even could have had the potential for Manchester to Toton journeys via Birmingham interchange which would have been little over an hour with good connections at Birmingham Interchange.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I think that the way I would probably phrase it now is that the journey times under the new plan including Sheffield to London Euston have a credibility problem.

And to those who might retort that it is in an official government document, I would say that this increases rather than decreases the doubt about its accuracy, for obvious reasons!

I can't disagree with that!

Me neither. The level of cynicism has grown to YesMinister levels. Nobody knows who to trust anymore

 

[21C101]

The thing that surprises me most is that the journey time from London to Sheffield via Derby is 87 minutes under the revised plans, exactly the same as it would have been without a Derby call if HS2 east had been built fully.

The claimed 87 minute journey time under the original plans backed up by the HS2 Journey Planner.

Journey time under the revised plan to Derby is 58 minutes so Derby to Sheffield is 29 minutes meaning no speed upgrade north of Derby (the existing services regularly do it in 30).

No wonder that HS2 east has been canned north of Trent if doing so made no difference to the London to Sheffield journey time and doing so meant it could do it in that journey time despite calling additionally at Derby which would not have been served at all under the original plans.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Nov 2021 ==

I think that the way I would probably phrase it now is that the journey times under the new plan including Sheffield to London Euston have a credibility problem.

I think I would say it is the old plan that had the credibility problem.

As I point out in the post above the new plan has 58 minutes to Derby and 87 to Sheffield.

Given the current journey time from Derby to Sheffield is 30 minutes that element is certainly credible.

The original plans were 52 minutes from London to Toton, so provided there is a decent junction in the Long Eaton area from HS2 to the Derby Line, 58 minutes seems plausible.

So the question has to be, what on earth were they thinking with the original plans? Avoiding Derby with an expensive flying junction and branch south of Chesterfield to serve Sheffield, when it was just as fast if they actually served Derby using existing tracks.

Cynically, I suspect the problem was partly that; if under the original plans, the Sheffield services had turned off at Trent, not south of Chesterfield; the Trent to Clayton section would not have had enough trains to make it a viable proposition (just 6 or 7 an hour each way). So did they bypass Derby with an expensive spur branch south of Chesterfield, despite no additional time gain to Sheffield by doing so, in a vain attempt to make HS2 east seem viable and get it up from 6/7 an hour to 9/10?

If so, it has met the fate it deserved.

 

[Peterthegreat]

The thing that surprises me most is that the journey time from London to Sheffield via Derby is 87 minutes under the revised plans, exactly the same as it would have been without a Derby call if HS2 east had been built fully.

The claimed 87 minute journey time under the original plans backed up by the HS2 Journey Planner.

Journey time under the revised plan to Derby is 58 minutes so Derby to Sheffield is 29 minutes meaning no speed upgrade north of Derby (the existing services regularly do it in 30).

No wonder that HS2 east has been canned north of Trent if doing so made no difference to the London to Sheffield journey time and doing so meant it could do it in that journey time despite calling additionally at Derby which would not have been served at all under the original plans.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Nov 2021 ==



I think I would say it is the old plan that had the credibility problem.

As I point out in the post above the new plan has 58 minutes to Derby and 87 to Sheffield.

Given the current journey time from Derby to Sheffield is 30 minutes that element is certainly credible.

The original plans were 52 minutes from London to Toton, so provided there is a decent junction in the Long Eaton area from HS2 to the Derby Line, 58 minutes seems plausible.

So the question has to be, what on earth were they thinking with the original plans? Avoiding Derby with an expensive flying junction and branch south of Chesterfield to serve Sheffield, when it was just as fast if they actually served Derby using existing tracks.

Cynically, I suspect the problem was partly that; if under the original plans, the Sheffield services had turned off at Trent, not south of Chesterfield; the Trent to Clayton section would not have had enough trains to make it a viable proposition (just 6 or 7 an hour each way). So did they bypass Derby with an expensive spur branch south of Chesterfield, despite no additional time gain to Sheffield by doing so, in a vain attempt to make HS2 east seem viable and get it up from 6/7 an hour to 9/10?

If so, it has met the fate it deserved.

You seem to forget Leeds and York (and beyond) were also objectives.

 

[greyman42]

The Prime Minister specifically said that the Eastern Leg would be built.

But then he also specifically said that the 'triple lock' on state pensions would be maintained, that national insurance rates wouldn't rise and that the foreign aid budget would maintain it's 0.7% of GNI floor. He also very specifically promised a number of other items which just aren't happening like "40 new hospitals" and so on.

I think Covid and furlough might have something to do with it.

 

[21C101]

You seem to forget Leeds and York (and beyond) were also objectives.

Not at all. The problem is that three trains an hour to Leeds and three trains an hour to York and beyond isn't enough to justify about 90 miles of new build high speed railway.

 

[tomuk]

So the question has to be, what on earth were they thinking with the original plans? Avoiding Derby with an expensive flying junction and branch south of Chesterfield to serve Sheffield, when it was just as fast if they actually served Derby using existing tracks.

I think the thing your forgetting was when HS2 was originally conceived it was seen as almost a different mode of transport to rail, modelled on the Japanese Shinkansen which runs on almost completely dedicated lines.

 

[Peterthegreat]

Not at all. The problem is that three trains an hour to Leeds and three trains an hour to York and beyond isn't enough to justify about 90 miles of new build high speed railway.

So in your view 6 trains per hour is not enough to justify a new line. How many do you think will run over the (new) eastern leg? Or Crewe to Manchester? Or indeed how many trains run on HS1 (pre-Covid)?

 

[BrianW]

Interesting to note how the discussion on this thread has developed over time. From initial 'off the cuff' responses almost inevitably and invariably 'negative', via some, though fewer and less strident more considered and supportive comments to now, some 900 contributions in, more reflective and looking back to what the objectives might have been and/or might yet be.

Meantime, I have put time to a bit of 'textual analysis'. This may be oveer-simplifying, but gives a picture of a kind of 'priorities'. Wordcounts (Control F) reveal these numbers of use of the word, or a plural or related. eg Econom includes economy and economical:

Connect /ion/ ivity 137
Commut/ er/ ing 19
Econom ... 69
Electrif ... 66
Decarb ... 24
Agglomeration 9
London 133 (+ Euston 6 + St Pancras 4 + Kings Cross 4)
Birmingham 110; Manchester 276; Leeds 206; Bradford 49
Newcastle 50; Liverpool 88; York 40; Nottingham 76; Derby 48; Sheffield 62; Leicester 9
Huddersfield 29; Chesterfield 15; Wakefield 8; Dewsbury 5
Crewe 51; Doncaster 11; Darlington 17; Durham 4; Sunderland 0; Middlesbro 0, Morpeth 0; Berwick 0
Scotland 22; Edinburgh 8,; Glasgow 9; Union 10
Tamworth 5;Stafford 4; Stoke 2; Shrewsbury 0; Wolverhampton 2; Coventry 4; Rugby 0
Newark 6; Retford 2; Rotherham 1; Cleethorpes 0;Grimsby 0; Scunthorpe 0
Cardiff 5,; Bristol 6; Cheltenham 1; Worcester 6; Hereford 4
Hope Valley 10; Keighley 2, Pudsey 2
Carlisle 5; Preston 5Blackpool 0; Southport 0; Windermere 0

EDIT- HULL 17

 

[tomuk]

Not at all. The problem is that three trains an hour to Leeds and three trains an hour to York and beyond isn't enough to justify about 90 miles of new build high speed railway.

It was 8tph for the eastern leg. 4tph to Leeds and 4tph York/Newcastle.

The manchester spur was only going to be 5tph before NPR came along.

 

[Watershed]

Not at all. The problem is that three trains an hour to Leeds and three trains an hour to York and beyond isn't enough to justify about 90 miles of new build high speed railway.

Not enough for 90 miles, perhaps. But I'd certainly have thought it's enough to justify a high speed line from near Sheffield to Leeds and Church Fenton, which would only be around 40 miles of railway - bearing in mind that Crewe-Manchester (a similar distance) is being built for fewer tph.

 

[21C101]

Not enough for 90 miles, perhaps. But I'd certainly have thought it's enough to justify a high speed line from near Sheffield to Leeds and Church Fenton, which would only be around 40 miles of railway - bearing in mind that Crewe-Manchester (a similar distance) is being built for fewer tph.

Yes I agree. I was disappointed that Clayton to Leeds got canned, especially as earlier leaks indicated it would survive.

 

[Class 170101]

There are already well established programmes for MML electrification and TRU.

But is the money just as well established despite Thursday's announcement?

 

[MattRat]

Or Crewe to Manchester?

Exactly. The Eastern Leg provides far more value than the Western Leg, and yet Manchester seems more important to the Government. Maybe they are secretly part of the club?

 

[Bald Rick]

But is the money just as well established despite Thursday's announcement?

The budget is now confirmed by Thursday‘s announcement.

 

[Starmill]

I think Covid and furlough might have something to do with it.

That's not their line though is it? If they were honest about the tax rises needed in order to provide the necessary services we need as a country (for everything from the aging population and its growing healthcare needs, to the cost of decarbonisation and climate change mitigation) I think people would be able to treat them maturely. Instead they go for regressive rises and make cuts motivated by Daily Express headlines. It's also not a settled upon view that we need to reduce the budget deficit whatsoever, so that in itself is a political choice. We could instead primarily purse a falling debt to GDP ratio, or a host of other options. But we don't have a mature discussion about any of this, we just have top-level corruption cashing in on public money and people at the bottom stuck desperately trying to get access to the vital services they need which are grossly underfunded.

 

[takno]

I'm not sure, something between York - Darlington will most certainly happen. I suppose it will depend on what NR, the DfT and the various contractors and designers can devise in terms of scheduling the tranches of upgrades.

As regards East Linton I don't think it will be 'unusable' for too long, much can be constructed offline and a footbridge installed over a long possession - say Christmas time. I do share your cynicism regarding outputs though, it smacks awfully of the Railtrack ECML upgrade with the potential for the business case to evaporate and the descoping to begin. Hopefully the flat crossing at Newark will go...

I honestly don't recall ever having been delayed by Newark flat crossing. Replacing it mostly seems to offer potential for an upgrade to the Lincoln line, which nobody seems especially interested in doing. Personally I'd use the money to buy an electric cattle prod and use it to encourage the signallers at Peterborough to prioritize the Edinburgh fasts, but I do appreciate that that wouldn't really help fill the devastation that cancellation of HS2 east has caused to Yorkshire.

 

[Austriantrain]

I think the thing your forgetting was when HS2 was originally conceived it was seen as almost a different mode of transport to rail, modelled on the Japanese Shinkansen which runs on almost completely dedicated lines.

It is ironic that it has now come (almost) full circle with a very European HSL network well integrated with classic lines.

Mind, nobody knows what the Japanese would have done if their legacy network hadn’t been narrow-gauge. In any case, I think the demographics are not comparable and the new focus in Britain is much besser suited to it.

 

[Bald Rick]

Bald Rick how do you see the three tranches on the ECML upgrade being split up; by geography, by remaining asset life, or a bit of both?

No idea.