New Birmingham to Manchester link proposed- post NPR

[ABB125]

I've drawn a few straight lines on a map between the end of HS2 phase 1 and just north of Wigan (for connection into the WCML north - I can't foresee any high speed line being built further north, ever), along with Crewe, Manchester, Manchester Airport, Liverpool (just off the edge) and Huddersfield. A few observations:

• Going via Crewe isn't much of a dogleg for Manchester, and it also permits fairly direct access to both Liverpool and Wigan (with the political bonus of easy access to North Wales)
• A straight line between Crewe and Manchester passes right by the Airport
• Going in a straight line from HS2 to Manchester Airport is basically the same as to Wigan, with a shorter route to Manchester. Liverpool is still fairly direct, but not quite as much as a Crewe route
• Going in a straight line from HS2 to Manchester city centre still allows a fairly direct route to Wigan, but leaves Liverpool out on a long spur, which won't be politically acceptable. However, it does provide a better connection towards Leeds, if there was desire to run London-Leeds services along this line
• Manchester to Liverpool via the Airport is quite a dogleg compared with direct
• Going via Crewe and Manchester starts to be a bit of a dogleg for Wigan (and thus Scotland), so I don't think this would be workable
• All three lines that don't go to Crewe pass to the east of Stoke on Trent. This is rather more challenging countryside to build a railway through compared to the west of stoke (see screenshot from OpenTopographyMap) and gets perilously close to the Peak District
• It would seem remiss to not serve Stoke in some way, given its proximity to the lines and far greater catchment than Crewe

Screenshot from OpenRailMap with some straight lines drawn
Screenshot from OpenTopographicMap

Assuming that there is going to be a joined-up, complete network with a long-term vision that won't be cancelled half way through (ha, fat chance!):

• I'd go straight from HS2 to Manchester Airport. This station would become a high-speed hub (a bit like Frankfurt Airport station), a crossroads between Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds and London-Scotland. From Manchester Airport, high speed lines would be built towards Liverpool, Wigan (branching off from the Liverpool line) and Manchester (and onwards towards Leeds)
• The junction between the Wigan and Liverpool branches would be a triangle, allowing services from Liverpool and Manchester to both head towards Scotland
• The track layout at Manchester Airport would permit London to Liverpool, Wigan and Manchester services. Assuming all services call at the Airport, one or more of these service groups would require a reversal at the Airport (realistically, your choices are either Liverpool and Wigan reverse, or Manchester reverse. Not sure which of these is worse politically!)
• Alternatively, there would be a triangular junction near the Airport so that neither London service group would have to reverse, but at the expense of only one group being able to call at the Airport
• Despite my preference to run more frequent trains that stop more frequently (if only Birmingham had had a through station in the city centre, we could then have had (for example) 6tph London-Birmingham-Manchester, that would be basically turn up and go and absolutely transformative!), I think I would personally choose the triangular junction option because, although the London trains wouldn't all service the Airport, the Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds service pattern would fill in any connectivity gaps
• Similarly, I don't think routeing all services HS2-Airport-Manchester city centre-Wigan is feasible, great though it would be. This option also has the political disbenefit of Liverpool losing the opportunity for high speed services to Scotland
• North Wales and Stoke would be served by trains using the Handsacre link. Where my proposed HS2-Airport high speed line crosses the existing Crewe-Manchester line, I'd add a connection allowing services from Crewe to join the high speed line northwards (and possible also a connection where the line north of Stoke crosses my new line, but this would be less important)

The downside of the above is that it doesn't work if any part of the plan is removed Let's say the Wigan branch is cancelled. How are trains going to get to Scotland? Handsacre...). Therefore, I'd suggest that going via Crewe is the "safe" option because it can be built one small section at a time, each of which has a benefit, rather than requiring an "all or nothing" approach

 

[cinders&ashes]

Even if the HS2 tracks don’t get any further North than Handsacre, you still need somewhere to send the trains. Especially if they’re still sticking with 400m trains that won’t fit in the existing stations.

They will use single 200m sets north of Handsacre, so there will be less seats than at present to places like Manchester. 400m sets will run to Birmingham. It is entirely possible to use the HS2 sets on any electrified UK line given they're capable of running on standard track, provided maintenance facilities are available.

 

[fishwomp]

At least they didn't do the usual and announce various upgrades already in progress related to the Transpennie Upgrade as new things.

You spoke too soon... Peston last night interviewed the Chancellor.

[.]
We are going to make sure this delivers in full. I want people in the North to know, you don't have to wait until the 2030s, we are upgrading the TransPennine right now, with £11billion investment. We have already managed to upgrade it between Manchester and Stalybridge to electrify it, we are doing the same with Huddersfield to Leeds and that's that chunk in the middle.

So real tangible improvements to people's journeys now and then that transformational investment, £45b, for that new Northern powerhouse rail.

Both of those were approved and started before the election - and Manchester - Stalybridge was as good as finished. "We" is doing a lot of lifting here .. You could argue she didn't cancel them (or have the wires removed before final entry into service).. and that fundamentally the current government pays for the commitments of the previous so it's a "we", but it's stretch - I guess it'll look good on the CV

 

[cinders&ashes]

You spoke too soon... Peston last night interviewed the Chancellor.

Both of those were approved and started before the election - and Manchester - Stalybridge was as good as finished. "We" is doing a lot of lifting here .. You could argue she didn't cancel them (or have the wires removed before final entry into service).. and that fundamentally the current government pays for the commitments of the previous so it's a "we", but it's stretch - I guess it'll look good on the CV

get your point but they did commit the latest funding to TRU (unlike MML electrification, sadly). I'm surprised TRU wasn't declared the 1st phase (of 4) of NPR, along with the
Wigan to Bolton electrification, the new stations at Elland, Haxby, White Rose and the Forster Sq upgrade. Not to mention the metro investments in Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds-Bradford, Teeside & Tyneside. My understanding of the NPR programme was that it was a holistic attempt to improve:

1. Connections spanning the region
2. Connections between neighbouring cities & towns
3. Connections within cities & towns

 

[Technologist]

I don't think that it's particularly political issue. Its a resource issue. We simply don't have the construction capability to deliver TRU, HS2 phase 1 and NPR/phase 2 at the same time. If politics come into its probably more that NPR has more support rather than HS2 being toxic.

It is entirely a political issue, resource issues are a very short term problems. History is littered with examples of countries building much more infrastructure than 3 railway lines at the same time. There are 70 million of us, finding 100,000 people is not that difficult and it only really takes 6 months or so take somebody who has an adjacent skill and "sectorise" it, only a tiny minority of new people on a project are graduates or apprentices. There might be a ramp up of ~5 years but once you go through that we could build as many simultaneous large infrastructure projects as you want. We've managed exponential growth in telecoms, internet, AI related industries.

The reason these things take till 2050 is because the process assumes massive delays in all the government approvals and then the project duration extends to fill the available time. If you actually used the new planning bill and the discretionary powers that ministers already have then we can do things much more rapidly. Speed cures virtually every problem.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jan 2026 ==

Basically this, but in addition FPTP and poor accountability channels for politicians. If we had a system where coalitions are almost always required, destroying something is much harder than if one party had all the power. There is also increased confidence and certainty in a project if a system exists that makes its premature cancellation less likely, increasing the chance of a project being delivered. As for accountability, the media don't do enough to hold politicians to account for stuff they're required to deliver but won't see the end result for.

The major issue with accountability is the centralisation of the UK's system. Costs are added locally and paid for centrally with the cost of any one project rarely being a national voting issue.

When the people receiving the benefits are the people paying for it expect to see a lot more pragmatic on specifications, routes and mitigations. The same needs to be done with bodies like Natural England where there is no scope for local politicians to overrule them or even just to decide that 6 badgers aren't more important than thousands of people.

 

[edwin_m]

Assuming that there is going to be a joined-up, complete network with a long-term vision that won't be cancelled half way through (ha, fat chance!):

• I'd go straight from HS2 to Manchester Airport. This station would become a high-speed hub (a bit like Frankfurt Airport station), a crossroads between Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds and London-Scotland. From Manchester Airport, high speed lines would be built towards Liverpool, Wigan (branching off from the Liverpool line) and Manchester (and onwards towards Leeds)
• The junction between the Wigan and Liverpool branches would be a triangle, allowing services from Liverpool and Manchester to both head towards Scotland
• The track layout at Manchester Airport would permit London to Liverpool, Wigan and Manchester services. Assuming all services call at the Airport, one or more of these service groups would require a reversal at the Airport (realistically, your choices are either Liverpool and Wigan reverse, or Manchester reverse. Not sure which of these is worse politically!)
• Alternatively, there would be a triangular junction near the Airport so that neither London service group would have to reverse, but at the expense of only one group being able to call at the Airport
• Despite my preference to run more frequent trains that stop more frequently (if only Birmingham had had a through station in the city centre, we could then have had (for example) 6tph London-Birmingham-Manchester, that would be basically turn up and go and absolutely transformative!), I think I would personally choose the triangular junction option because, although the London trains wouldn't all service the Airport, the Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds service pattern would fill in any connectivity gaps
• Similarly, I don't think routeing all services HS2-Airport-Manchester city centre-Wigan is feasible, great though it would be. This option also has the political disbenefit of Liverpool losing the opportunity for high speed services to Scotland
• North Wales and Stoke would be served by trains using the Handsacre link. Where my proposed HS2-Airport high speed line crosses the existing Crewe-Manchester line, I'd add a connection allowing services from Crewe to join the high speed line northwards (and possible also a connection where the line north of Stoke crosses my new line, but this would be less important)

The downside of the above is that it doesn't work if any part of the plan is removed Let's say the Wigan branch is cancelled. How are trains going to get to Scotland? Handsacre...). Therefore, I'd suggest that going via Crewe is the "safe" option because it can be built one small section at a time, each of which has a benefit, rather than requiring an "all or nothing" approach

This broadly reflects the thought process that went into HS2 phase 2 western leg and NPR. It ended up with a triangle south-west of Manchester Airport and a connection from this area towards Liverpool, though I don't recall if a Crewe-Liverpool curve was included and I think a Manchester-Wigan curve was dropped when the depot was moved from Golborne to north of Crewe. I'd expect the alignments to stick pretty closely to those already designed and in some cases agreed by Parliament, although an underground Manchester station could throw some of this back into the melting pot.

They will use single 200m sets north of Handsacre, so there will be less seats than at present to places like Manchester. 400m sets will run to Birmingham. It is entirely possible to use the HS2 sets on any electrified UK line given they're capable of running on standard track, provided maintenance facilities are available.

This is true for the route as currently funded, but are you referring to the new proposal? I haven't seen anything like that level of detail. I think it would be very short-sighted not to build new infrastructure for 400m trains, considering a downsized Euston will probably restrict the number of trains on the southern section more than originally intended and there's little point in building anything (especially if no longer at HS2 speeds) without delivering a big rail capacity uplift.

 

[JamesT]

This broadly reflects the thought process that went into HS2 phase 2 western leg and NPR. It ended up with a triangle south-west of Manchester Airport and a connection from this area towards Liverpool, though I don't recall if a Crewe-Liverpool curve was included and I think a Manchester-Wigan curve was dropped when the depot was moved from Golborne to north of Crewe. I'd expect the alignments to stick pretty closely to those already designed and in some cases agreed by Parliament, although an underground Manchester station could throw some of this back into the melting pot.

I found this document dating from 2022: https://assets.publishing.service.g...l_interfaces_with_Phase_2b_Western_Leg_v2.pdf

The NPR interfaces on the Phase 2b Western Leg are as follows:
 Crewe Northern Connection (active provision);
 London to Liverpool Junction (passive provision);
 Manchester to Liverpool Junction (passive provision);
 Manchester Airport High Speed station (active provision);
 Manchester Piccadilly High Speed station (active provision); and
 Manchester to Leeds Junction (passive provision).

But that assumed HS2 would be built first, and NPR would be left to build future links into the HS2 line running through the Airport.

 

[J s]

Interesting bit of background here from an FT journalist: https://bsky.app/profile/jenwilliamsft.bsky.social/post/3mch322twqc2i

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jan 2026 ==

Most interesting point I suppose is that some of the £45bn will be released in the 2027 spending review

 

[Senex]

When nothing's going to be started during this parliament and probably not during the next either, and when no parliament is bound by its predecessors, what status do these grand plans have? They seem to be based on the assumptions that (a) Labour will manage to remain in power, and (b) in these policies Labour will desist from U-turns. Would anyone like to put money on either of those? And how might the national outlook change by 2035 and any potential starting-time for these works?

 

[HSTEd]

The downside of the above is that it doesn't work if any part of the plan is removed Let's say the Wigan branch is cancelled. How are trains going to get to Scotland? Handsacre...). Therefore, I'd suggest that going via Crewe is the "safe" option because it can be built one small section at a time, each of which has a benefit, rather than requiring an "all or nothing" approach

It may be safe in this sense (although I think you coudl phase a direct-to-Manchester route to gain benefits with each step), but it is unsafe in that it requires wholesale acceptance of the existing Phase 2a work.

That work was done by the same processes that designed Phase 1, and there is significant risk that the same choices that drove much of the runaway cost spiral on Phase 1 are present in that work too. Or at least, the risk that it will be percieved that way by important stakeholders.

I would suggest the phasing on a direct to Manchester route would go something like:

Phase 1: Manchester-Manchester Airport-Warrington-Liverpool and connection to Mid Cheshire Line -> Benefit of cutting travel times between Manchester and Liverpool, somewhat relieving castlefield.
Phase 2: connection from vicinity Warrington to the WCML (probably from-Manchester direction or maybe both directions) -> Further relief of castlefield
Phase 3: NPR from Manchester-Leeds-(York?) -> completion of NPR core
Phase 4: Manchester Airport-Handsacre -> Completion of HS2 services to Manchester, Liverpool and Leeds, journey time reductions on North WCML. Diversion of north ECML traffic via HS2.

EDIT:
Edited to clarify.

 

[cinders&ashes]

This broadly reflects the thought process that went into HS2 phase 2 western leg and NPR. It ended up with a triangle south-west of Manchester Airport and a connection from this area towards Liverpool, though I don't recall if a Crewe-Liverpool curve was included and I think a Manchester-Wigan curve was dropped when the depot was moved from Golborne to north of Crewe. I'd expect the alignments to stick pretty closely to those already designed and in some cases agreed by Parliament, although an underground Manchester station could throw some of this back into the melting pot.

This is true for the route as currently funded, but are you referring to the new proposal? I haven't seen anything like that level of detail. I think it would be very short-sighted not to build new infrastructure for 400m trains, considering a downsized Euston will probably restrict the number of trains on the southern section more than originally intended and there's little point in building anything (especially if no longer at HS2 speeds) without delivering a big rail capacity uplift.

Yes I just meant prior to the new MCR-BIR line. Given there'll be few stops maybe longer platforms make sense, but we can change trains faster than networks - even if these sets can't be changed without penalties we're only talking 20-25yrs before replacement anyway. BTW, Euston is being designed as 6-platform but with future extensibility (although I don't know if that means 2, 4 or 5 extra possible platforms).

 

[Chester1]

You spoke too soon... Peston last night interviewed the Chancellor.

Both of those were approved and started before the election - and Manchester - Stalybridge was as good as finished. "We" is doing a lot of lifting here .. You could argue she didn't cancel them (or have the wires removed before final entry into service).. and that fundamentally the current government pays for the commitments of the previous so it's a "we", but it's stretch - I guess it'll look good on the CV

I am sure Reeves wouldn't exaggerate anything on her CV....

TRU will make a huge difference so continuing to fund it until next general election is very important but its not her achievement.

 

[cinders&ashes]

When nothing's going to be started during this parliament and probably not during the next either, and when no parliament is bound by its predecessors, what status do these grand plans have? They seem to be based on the assumptions that (a) Labour will manage to remain in power, and (b) in these policies Labour will desist from U-turns. Would anyone like to put money on either of those? And how might the national outlook change by 2035 and any potential starting-time for these works?

The funding period up to 2029 will only have £1.1bn for planning, design, refinement plus preparatory works. The design, timeline and savings should be locked down and land and permissions issues all sorted. The 1st phase is meant to be delivered in the 30s, likely will start from 2029, which is also the likely next parliamentary term. A new station or an electrified line takes a few years rather than many years like TRU/HS2 So works will happen (and be delivered) by the end of the next parliament unless a) it is cancelled, or b) we end up with a load of govts like in 2016-2020.

 

[The Planner]

I would suggest the phasing on a direct to Manchester route would go something like:

Phase 1: Manchester-Manchester Airport-Warrington-Liverpool and connection to Mid Cheshire Line -> Benefit of cutting travel times between Manchester and Liverpool, somewhat relieving castlefield.
Phase 2: connection from vicinity Warrington to the WCML (probably from-Manchester direction or maybe both directions) -> Further relief of castlefield
Phase 3: NPR from Manchester-Leeds-(York?) -> completion of NPR core
Phase 4: Manchester Airport-Handsacre -> Completion of HS2 services to Manchester, Liverpool and Leeds, journey time reductions on North WCML. Diversion of north ECML traffic via HS2.

EDIT:
Edited to clarify.

Why would you connect to the Mid Cheshire line?

 

[HSTEd]

Why would you connect to the Mid Cheshire line?

It wouldn't require much track to do it, and once you do that you remove the Northern train from the Stockport viaduct, and provide a fairly competitive route to Chester that allows the TfW Llandudno-Airport trains to be taken off castlefield whilst still reaching Piccadilly and the Airport. Journey times from Manchester to the Cheshire line stations are slashed because you avoid the long drag through Stockport to Altrincham.

Faster trains on the Mid Cheshire do Ashley to Chester in about 48 minutes, suggesting a Manchester Piccadilly-Chester time of around an hour.
Which is about the same as the Llandudno-Manchester Airport trains manage today.

 

[The Planner]

It wouldn't require much track to do it, and once you do that you remove the Northern train from the Stockport viaduct, and provide a fairly competitive route to Chester that allows the TfW Llandudno-Airport trains to be taken off castlefield whilst still reaching Piccadilly and the Airport. Journey times from Manchester to the Cheshire line stations are slashed because you avoid the long drag through Stockport to Altrincham.

Faster trains on the Mid Cheshire do Ashley to Chester in about 48 minutes, suggesting a Manchester Piccadilly-Chester time of around an hour.
Which is about the same as the Llandudno-Manchester Airport trains manage today.

That would last about one sift in a value management exercise.

 

[cinders&ashes]

It wouldn't require much track to do it, and once you do that you remove the Northern train from the Stockport viaduct, and provide a fairly competitive route to Chester that allows the TfW Llandudno-Airport trains to be taken off castlefield whilst still reaching Piccadilly and the Airport. Journey times from Manchester to the Cheshire line stations are slashed because you avoid the long drag through Stockport to Altrincham.

Faster trains on the Mid Cheshire do Ashley to Chester in about 48 minutes, suggesting a Manchester Piccadilly-Chester time of around an hour.
Which is about the same as the Llandudno-Manchester Airport trains manage today.

As well as agreeing it'd be a good idea to do this, I think this is the idea - hence why Chester appeared in the plans under 'improved service'.
It's literally just 1200m track that already exists from north of Acton Grange Viaduct to just SE of Warrington Bank Quay, mostly not electrified but sets using North Wales line, Chester–Warrington line and Mid-Cheshire line are Diesel or biMode right now.

Warrington.gov quote the times from their proposed station as potentially reaching Manchester Airport in 8 minutes, Liverpool or Manchester Piccadilly in 15 minutes
Chester to Manchester is ~1hr at the mo, but to Warrington just ~0.5hr - given it'd be avoiding that station and heading on, if the above times are added it's potentially 38min to Manchester Airport and 45min to Piccadilly. This might require some trains to be replaced as slower 75mph ones could hold up the new line and not make the time difference.

For services from N.Wales, as well as the time savings there is also the perception they've been left out or short changed on rail - delivering faster services from that area to a key airport directly and then on to Manchester would help assuage these perceptions.

 

[ABB125]

It wouldn't require much track to do it, and once you do that you remove the Northern train from the Stockport viaduct, and provide a fairly competitive route to Chester that allows the TfW Llandudno-Airport trains to be taken off castlefield whilst still reaching Piccadilly and the Airport. Journey times from Manchester to the Cheshire line stations are slashed because you avoid the long drag through Stockport to Altrincham.

Faster trains on the Mid Cheshire do Ashley to Chester in about 48 minutes, suggesting a Manchester Piccadilly-Chester time of around an hour.
Which is about the same as the Llandudno-Manchester Airport trains manage today.

This has the added benefit of reconnecting North Wales to the high speed network (at Manchester Airport) as a replacement for Crewe (though realistically I'm pretty sure any new line will go through Crewe regardless of whether a blank sheet approach would be better)

 

[stephen rp]

Surely there is a more or less known design for previous 2a scheme so you'd only even think to deviate from this if you were very sure you can find some significant savings worth to go through a certain amount of re-design

The route is known all the way to Piccadilly, and much of it acquired.

The cost of changing any thing (smaller radius curves?) to match a lower speed railway (which in the future could be upgraded to the original intended speed) seems a bit daft.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jan 2026 ==

Land already purchased doesn't need to be CPO'd going forward though. The question remains: will the government extend the CPO powers so that they can complete the job of acquiring land along the entire route?

Wasn't the deal that for any land so blighted a landowner could require the government to acquire the land at market rate?

 

[edwin_m]

The cost of changing any thing (smaller radius curves?) to match a lower speed railway (which in the future could be upgraded to the original intended speed) seems a bit daft.

A lower top speed might allow reductions in things like track spacing, tunnel cross-section, specification of OLE. But I agree it would be a bit marginal.

 

[Nottingham59]

A lower top speed might allow reductions in things like track spacing, tunnel cross-section, specification of OLE. But I agree it would be a bit marginal.

The HS2 alignment from the delta junction at High Legh to Piccadilly had a design speed of 230km/h. I don't suppose there will be any savings to be made from reducing that.

But I think there a lot of potential savings to be made of the fast section (400km/h design speed) between Handsacre and High Legh, not least of which is whether or not to tunnel under Crewe.

 

[Palmerston]

Interesting bit of background here from an FT journalist: https://bsky.app/profile/jenwilliamsft.bsky.social/post/3mch322twqc2i

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jan 2026 ==

Most interesting point I suppose is that some of the £45bn will be released in the 2027 spending review

She expects the new Bradford station will be in the 2027 spending review and part of phase 1. Given how controversial it is here, be interesting if this is one of the things they build first. This is probably the wrong thread though.

 

[cinders&ashes]

She expects the new Bradford station will be in the 2027 spending review and part of phase 1. Given how controversial it is here, be interesting if this is one of the things they build first. This is probably the wrong thread though.

Interesting to read that as obvs the council are v.much for - is the objection based on it being further away and the area it is in? My understanding is that the area will be redeveloped and it'll be on the tram route so well connected.

Are there rival proposals to this by those who object?

 

[fishwomp]

nAre there rival proposals to this by those who object?

There are heaps of rival proposals to spend on - many of which would even be useful. Stations in towns without stations that have been postponed for decades - like Elland.

 

[cinders&ashes]

There are heaps of rival proposals to spend on - many of which would even be useful. Stations in towns without stations that have been postponed for decades - like Elland.

Elland is getting a station, think it is a couple of years away. 1 of 4 new stations in the Bradford/Leeds area, including the airport parkway station which is a bizarre proposal.

I wondered if there was a different plan for Bradford that would deal with the perceived issues a different way. For example, there is a chance to add a 5th platform to boost capacity at the station.
Or another driver could board the stop before Bradford and get set up, so that the dwell time at Interchange is reduced and the original driver just gets off.

Normally if people don't like a plan there is a rival proposal, hence the question.

 

[Northerngirl]

BBC Manchester's Facebook post about the announcement has used an very appropriate picture to illustrate the item, it is of 377141

BBC Manchester

HS2 is currently tens of billions of pounds over budget and around a decade behind schedule. Read more here: https://bbc.in/3Z9wjjV

www.facebook.com

View attachment 195905
Image from Facebook shows a Class 377 EMU in Southern livery alongside the headline "New Birmingham - Manchester rail link to be proposed"

It adds up, they could be sent up here like the 319s, fantastic new trains

 

[MPW]

Can anyone please share some industry expert articles or analysis of the latest announcement?

One thing that confuses me is Burnhams claim that manchester picc underground station is back on the cards but the actual cross pennine phase of NPR (phase 3) is the furthest out... so would picc underground platforms just be for trains to terminate for the first decade? It doesnt make any sense to have it underground without direct through running into a new tunnel beyond Piccadilly.

Delivering Northern Powerhouse Rail

Transport Secretary outlines a multi-billion-pound drive to transform rail and growth in the North of England.

www.gov.uk

Sorry I cant find a direct quote from Burnham, I heard it on a podcast or YouTube. Essentially just that the government is taking it seriously again.

 

[Nottingham59]

One thing that confuses me is Burnhams claim that manchester picc underground station is back on the cards but the actual cross pennine phase of NPR (phase 3) is the furthest out... so would picc underground platforms just be for trains to terminate for the first decade? It doesnt make any sense to have it underground without direct through running into a new tunnel beyond Piccadilly.

There has been talk of an underground station, on the same footprint as the proposed HS2 station at Piccadilly, but I've not seen anything more definite than crayon lines on a map.

Home

Northern business leaders back an underground NPR-HS2 Piccadilly station

www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk

It looks like the latest initiative is to develop plans for an underground alternative, for better evaluation of that option.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/697cea45f0e5cf1ed2612d5b/gmca-npr-compact-agreement.pdf

 

[MPW]

There has been talk of an underground station, on the same footprint as the proposed HS2 station at Piccadilly, but I've not seen anything more definite than crayon lines on a map.

Home

Northern business leaders back an underground NPR-HS2 Piccadilly station

www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk

It looks like the latest initiative is to develop plans for an underground alternative, for better evaluation of that option.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/697cea45f0e5cf1ed2612d5b/gmca-npr-compact-agreement.pdf

Thank you

 

[edwin_m]

I would assume trains via the airport would enter the underground station from the east using the same horizontal alignment as the HS2 tunnel design. Thus to continue towards Leeds they would have to make a turn of not far off 180 degrees in tunnel beneath the city centre. Without this tunnel they would have to reverse in the underground station to continue eastwards, probably by reinstating the four-track formation via Guide Bridge or possibly taking a new route to join the line from Miles Platting to Ashton. Having to reverse would increase the number of platforms needed for the underground station.

The other option would be to re-route the tunnel from the airport to take a more westerly course and enter the site from the west, with slightly less (but still significant) tunneling under the centre. This might allow the eastern end of the underground station to ramp up onto the former four-track formation towards Guide Bridge or perhaps more northerly alignment to pick up the line from Miles Platting to Ashton.

Either is a major change to the alignments already developed for HS2 and is likely to create a significant delay while the new alignment goes through the various design stages. Building at least part of the surface HS2 station avoids this, and note that a stub junction was added to the design between the station and the tunnel mouth that would be the jumping-off point for a new or exiting route towards Leeds.