10 private-financed rail proposals in frame for Government Backing

[Jorge Da Silva]

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/la...rticle?blocktitle=Top-Stories&contentID=18359

Ten privately-financed rail proposals are still in the running for government backing as part of the Department for Transport’s (DfT) call for ideas.

A letter from rail minister Andrew Jones to Transport Committee chair Lilian Greenwood reveals that the department is engaged in conversations with backers of 10 proposals submitted as part of the market led proposal (MLP) competition which took place last year.

The letter also reveals that 30 ideas were tabled, with the DfT rejecting two-thirds out of hand.

“The department received 30 responses to this call for ideas covering a wide range of railway enhancements,” Jones said in his letter. “My officials responded to promoters in December 2018 and continue to engage with 10 proposals.”

The DfT launched the call for ideas for market led proposals (MLPs) in March last year in a bid to build more privately financed rail schemes in the UK.

The nature of the 10 schemes has been kept under wraps, with the DfT saying that the submissions had been made in confidence and “disclosure at this stage may prejudice the commercial interests of the proposers”.

However, New Civil Engineer understands that proposed schemes may include a local authority project in the north east, the reopening of the Matlock to Buxton line which closed in the 1960s and a scheme in Canary Wharf.

The scheme was also open to technology improvements in the railway and therefore might include submissions from the likes of software developers Resonate and Siemens and Thales for digital railway projects.

The scheme has not been without controversy with one entrant, which was rejected in December last year, branding the government’s vision for MLP projects a “utopian dream”.

Any Thoughts?

 

[Clip]

What on earth would Canary Wharf want another one for? And is there any room

 

[furnessvale]

I have posted before that Matlock-Buxton (more correctly Matlock-Blackwell Vale) could see 10 freight trains a day taken off the Hope Valley line freeing up capacity. IMO even more freights would use the reopened line as the economics for railfreight v road would improve by avoiding a long trek north then east or west, before eventually turning south.

I have no information on passenger potential, but the level of potential freight use can only help the case for reopening compared to other, purely passenger, schemes.

 

[Bald Rick]

10 freight trains a day are never, ever, going to pay for a new line between Matlock and Buxton.

 

[ainsworth74]

10 freight trains a day are never, ever, going to pay for a new line between Matlock and Buxton.

Seem like they could be a tipping point though if the case is close but not close enough on the potential passenger usage? Though I heartily agree that by itself the freight services per day are never going to do the trick!

 

[Bald Rick]

Seem like they could be a tipping point though if the case is close but not close enough on the potential passenger usage? Though I heartily agree that by itself the freight services per day are never going to do the trick!

Very unlikely passenger numbers would be enough to even get close to making the case either.

 

[ainsworth74]

Very unlikely passenger numbers would be enough to even get close to making the case either.

I mean if you're going to shut it down from everyone angle how is one supposed to use their crayons to draw lines on a map for routes that should reopen

 

[Bald Rick]

I mean if you're going to shut it down from everyone angle how is one supposed to use their crayons to draw lines on a map for routes that should reopen

Find routes where there *is* likely to be worthwhile traffic!

 

[furnessvale]

Find routes where there *is* likely to be worthwhile traffic!

I mean if you're going to shut it down from everyone angle how is one supposed to use their crayons to draw lines on a map for routes that should reopen

In this case it seems the DfT are the ones wielding the crayons.

As for this particular scheme, I did say freight could "help the case". There is also the angle of relieving the Hope Valley. We are not talking branch line. In the not too distant past this line relieved the WCML with direct Manchester to London trains. I believe the government are now spending £50bn on another method of relieving the WCML, not that I am directly comparing the two.

 

[The Planner]

Where are those 10 trains going once they get to Matlock?

 

[furnessvale]

Where are those 10 trains going once they get to Matlock?

The 10 trains are 5 in each direction. Without going back into the timetable, there are various locations further south, eg Luton. Most already use the MML from Chinley, Totley then south. At least one heads west from Chinley before going south on the WCML to Bletchley, Southampton etc.

As you know not every destination is served every day but 5 a day is an average. As previously stated, I believe more traffic would be on offer if it didn't take a lengthy detour north then east/west first.

 

[tbtc]

There is also the angle of relieving the Hope Valley

As I always say when the Matlock - Buxton scheme is brought up, and therefore feel contractually obliged to bring up here, the Hope Valley line generally sees the following each hour:

1. Northern - two coach DMU - almost hourly
2. TPE - three coach DMU - hourly
3. EMT - four coach DMU - hourly

...if Hope Valley capacity is seen as a priority (and as someone who knows people who commute in both directions over the Pennines, I'd humbly suggest that it is a priority), you could pretty much double capacity over the line by increasing the train lengths before you hit problems with platform capacity at the relevant stations (Sheffield, Stockport, Piccadilly etc).

Removing roughly five freight trains per day isn't going to free up an extra hourly path over the Hope Valley, as far as I can see things (and will cause big problems on the single track Matlock branch).

Sticking in a second platform at Dore will make a huge difference, sticking in a couple of loops (as planned when the "Manchester Hub" was expanded into the less-parochial sounding "Northern Hub") will make a big difference to the Hope Valley, extending the Piccadilly - New Mills "short" through to Sheffield (so that there can be two skip-stopping services for local stations) would also free up capacity.

The merits of the Buxton idea should really be debated on their own (rather than using the minor improvement to the Hope Valley as justification).

 

[yorksrob]

The merits of the Buxton idea should really be debated on their own (rather than using the minor improvement to the Hope Valley as justification).

Nonsense.

When considering the merits of the Buxton project, we should consider both the benefits to the route itself, and the benefits to the surrounding network.

After all, isn't one of the main justifications for HS2 the capacity released on the classic network ?

 

[tbtc]

Nonsense.

When considering the merits of the Buxton project, we should consider both the benefits to the route itself, and the benefits to the surrounding network.

After all, isn't one of the main justifications for HS2 the capacity released on the classic network ?

Apples and not-apples...

HS2 is needed because there's no simple way to increase capacity on the ECML/WCML (eleven coach 390s with coaches up to 25m long, twelve coach 350s, ten coach IET with 26m long coaches... these lines have such fast trains up to every three minutes... there's no low hanging fruit left, hence the huge cost of the Norton Bridge flyover for relatively marginal benefits).

There are plenty of ways to improve capacity on the Hope Valley line - like not using two/three coach DMUs on "fast" services, like building the second platform at Dore, like loops at somewhere like Grindleford/ Bamford, like removing the obvious bottlenecks at each end... to bring the Hope Valley up to supposedly justify a line from Buxton to Matlock just shows how desperately week the case for such a line is. We'd still be struggling with all of the slow cement trains to/from Hope (and no magic line through Buxton will remove that).

 

[yorksrob]

Apples and not-apples...

HS2 is needed because there's no simple way to increase capacity on the ECML/WCML (eleven coach 390s with coaches up to 25m long, twelve coach 350s, ten coach IET with 26m long coaches... these lines have such fast trains up to every three minutes... there's no low hanging fruit left, hence the huge cost of the Norton Bridge flyover for relatively marginal benefits).

There are plenty of ways to improve capacity on the Hope Valley line - like not using two/three coach DMUs on "fast" services, like building the second platform at Dore, like loops at somewhere like Grindleford/ Bamford, like removing the obvious bottlenecks at each end... to bring the Hope Valley up to supposedly justify a line from Buxton to Matlock just shows how desperately week the case for such a line is. We'd still be struggling with all of the slow cement trains to/from Hope (and no magic line through Buxton will remove that).

Well, removing bottlenecks etc could well be worthwhile in the scheme of things, however that won't reduce the number of slow moving freights from a double track main line.

Are all of these cumulative improvements also not partially justified in terms of network benefits ? When we remove the bottleneck at Dore, are we not also considering the effect that delayed Hope Valley services have on Sheffield - London expresses ?

It's not a good enough reason to ignore the network benefits of reopened routes, just because you don't like reopening routes.

 

[tbtc]

Well, removing bottlenecks etc could well be worthwhile in the scheme of things, however that won't reduce the number of slow moving freights from a double track main line.

Are all of these cumulative improvements also not partially justified in terms of network benefits ? When we remove the bottleneck at Dore, are we not also considering the effect that delayed Hope Valley services have on Sheffield - London expresses ?

It's not a good enough reason to ignore the network benefits of reopened routes, just because you don't like reopening routes.

By all means include "cumulative improvements" (or some other warm sounding words like "holistic approach" or "bigger picture" or whatnot) if it's relevant to the scheme in question.

So, to use your example, HS2 from will provide faster trains from Leeds/ Manchester to London (than the ECML/ WCML) and significantly longer too (400m long), so it seems relevant to use the freed up capacity on the ECML/ WCML as part of the benefit of HS2 - whether that's passengers doing Milton Keynes to London or Fitzwilliam to Leeds (in both cases, removing the non-stop trains from that section of line frees up space for stoppers).

But, the Hope Valley line is pretty tangential to Buxton - Matlock. Freeing up a handful of freight services a day isn't going to permit many more passenger services from Sheffield to Manchester - as normal on such threads, there's a fairly simple list of cheaper/ easier/ better improvements that we could make before we have to start re-opening failed lines - the kind of excuses for why we apparently need a new line through the Peak District show how weak the actual everyday case for such a line is - if it can't stand up on its own merits then you've got to admit that it's a weak scheme.

In contrast, whilst I've argued in favour of a second platform at Dore (and a third and fourth, ideally!), the main justification is to remove an obvious bottleneck on the Hope Valley route (putting a platform on a single track chord that sees half a dozen passenger services most hours plus occasional freight is a recipe for disaster) - if a business case revolves around a couple of freight trains a day or being a potential diversionary route on a couple of weekends a year then you deserve to be at the back of the queue - we've got much bigger fish to fry (but I appreciate that a simple answer like "providing six coaches on all fast Hope Valley services" isn't going to get the nostalgists excited).

 

[yorksrob]

By all means include "cumulative improvements" (or some other warm sounding words like "holistic approach" or "bigger picture" or whatnot) if it's relevant to the scheme in question.

So, to use your example, HS2 from will provide faster trains from Leeds/ Manchester to London (than the ECML/ WCML) and significantly longer too (400m long), so it seems relevant to use the freed up capacity on the ECML/ WCML as part of the benefit of HS2 - whether that's passengers doing Milton Keynes to London or Fitzwilliam to Leeds (in both cases, removing the non-stop trains from that section of line frees up space for stoppers).

But, the Hope Valley line is pretty tangential to Buxton - Matlock. Freeing up a handful of freight services a day isn't going to permit many more passenger services from Sheffield to Manchester - as normal on such threads, there's a fairly simple list of cheaper/ easier/ better improvements that we could make before we have to start re-opening failed lines - the kind of excuses for why we apparently need a new line through the Peak District show how weak the actual everyday case for such a line is - if it can't stand up on its own merits then you've got to admit that it's a weak scheme.

In contrast, whilst I've argued in favour of a second platform at Dore (and a third and fourth, ideally!), the main justification is to remove an obvious bottleneck on the Hope Valley route (putting a platform on a single track chord that sees half a dozen passenger services most hours plus occasional freight is a recipe for disaster) - if a business case revolves around a couple of freight trains a day or being a potential diversionary route on a couple of weekends a year then you deserve to be at the back of the queue - we've got much bigger fish to fry (but I appreciate that a simple answer like "providing six coaches on all fast Hope Valley services" isn't going to get the nostalgists excited).

Buxton - Matlock isn't an isolated section of track, it would be part of a new route from the North West to the East Midlands, which would release capacity from the existing route between the North West and the East Midlands - the Hope Valley. There is nothing tangential about it.

BTW, I would welcome six carriages on TPE's Hope Valley services, then I wouldn't have to avoid them all the time.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Buxton - Matlock isn't an isolated section of track, it would be part of a new route from the North West to the East Midlands, which would release capacity from the existing route between the North West and the East Midlands - the Hope Valley. There is nothing tangential about it.

BTW, I would welcome six carriages on TPE's Hope Valley services, then I wouldn't have to avoid them all the time.

This is correct: arguably the ability to provide a much quicker service between Manchester and Derby / Nottingham by avoiding Sheffield is key.

To give an example, at the moment the passenger services are as follows at peak times:
-1tph Piccadilly - Stockport - Sheffield - Alfreton - Nottingham (and beyond)
-1tph Piccadilly - Stockport - Sheffield - Doncaster (and beyond)
-1tph Piccadilly - Marple - New Mills - Sheffield (stopping)
-1tph Piccadilly - Marple - New Mills - Chinley
-2tph Piccadilly - Stockport - Buxton
-1tph Blackpool North - Hazel Grove

So by using a bit of ‘jiggery pokery’, there’s a few options here including with the use of 769s such to make that all work in a different way. Example:
-Extend the Blackpool North - Hazel Grove service to Buxton calling at the busiest stations only to achieve the best journey times.
-Turn the faster Piccadilly - Buxton path into a Piccadilly - Nottingham service with only ‘busy station’ calls (including Belper, Derby and maybe Long Eaton) with an option to extend eastbound.
-Retain the stopping Piccadilly - Buxton with the option of extending via Bakewell to be the ‘Matlock - Derby stopper’ south of Matlock.
-Retain the existing Liverpool Lime Street - Piccadilly - Stockport - Sheffield path but use much more suitable and lengthy rolling stock with the option of extensions eastwards from Sheffield to, for example, Lincoln.
-Retain the existing Piccadilly - Stockport - Sheffield - Doncaster (etc) to Cleethorpes or wherever is felt best.
-To keep a half-hourly service on the Erewash, extend the Norwich - Nottingham service up to Sheffield allowing connections with all relevant destinations including Manchester (which could also be achieved via the Matlock route).
-Speed up the Piccadilly - Marple - Sheffield with skip-stopping east of New Mills.
-Extend the Piccadilly - Marple - Chinley east to Sheffield with further skip-stopping.

So, as you see, it’s not just about a bit of freight but as part of the ‘bigger picture’ it could in fact cause vastly improved connectivity to the East Midlands supplying Derby (for example) with a direct fast train to Manchester; making Sheffield’s services better (and maybe improving connectivity in the North), and acting as impetus for better local services too.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Canary Wharf Scheme which is the one being considered for private funding:

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/la...ks-about-rail-link-to-euston/10041923.article

A new underground rail line connecting High Speed 2 services at Euston Station in north London to Canary Wharf in east London is being considered by the government, New Civil Engineer understands.

The proposal to build the line was submitted by developer Canary Wharf Group as part of the government’s call for ideas for market led proposals (MLPs) – a mechanism to invite more private sector funding of rail projects in the UK.

The scheme is believed to be one of the 10 which are being considered and taken forward. Thirty schemes were initially submitted to the government as part of the call for ideas, with the list whittled down in December last year.

In a letter - seen by New Civil Engineer - sent to the London Borough of Southwark planning department, the developer states that it had entered the new line from Euston to Canary Wharf via the City into the MLP process. The new stretch of railway, it stated would ease congestion on the Jubilee Line.

New Civil Engineer also understands that should Crossrail 2 not be built, the new line would ease pressure at Euston with the arrival of the High Speed 2 services in 2026.


It would also provide additional capacity at Canary Wharf with the arrival of Crossrail and the development of Wood Wharf, a new district to the east of Canary Wharf. When complete in 2023, the new district would provide over 3,300 new homes, nearly 2M.ft2 of office space, and a further 490,000 ft2 of shops, restaurants and community uses.

It is understood that the new line will be tunnelled and be around 8.5km in length.

The scheme is likely to cost in excess of £5bn, considering the Northern Line Extension is coming in at around £1.2bn for 3.2km of tunnelling, and the Bakerloo Line Extension is pegged at £3.1bnfor 7.5km of tunnel.

Any thoughts?

 

[ABB125]

Canary Wharf Scheme which is the one being considered for private funding:

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/la...ks-about-rail-link-to-euston/10041923.article




Any thoughts?

I would suggest combining this tunnel with HS2 so that there can be through trains to Canary Wharf from HS2. How easy/difficult this would be I don't know though.
It's only about 4 miles from Canary Wharf to HS1 too...

 

[4-SUB 4732]

I would suggest combining this tunnel with HS2 so that there can be through trains to Canary Wharf from HS2. How easy/difficult this would be I don't know though.
It's only about 4 miles from Canary Wharf to HS1 too...

Would need a lot of platforms and such to make sure that trains can arrive, clean and depart again. If they want a meaningful route, I assume they're going to be after something like the Waterloo & City.

 

[MarkyT]

Canary Wharf Scheme which is the one being considered for private funding:
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/la...ks-about-rail-link-to-euston/10041923.article
Any thoughts?

It could be a vehicle for improved covered pedestrian links between Euston and St Pancras.

It could be a stand alone express metro line or integrated with something else.

By extending to Old Oak Common it could incorporate Heathrow Express and some other Thames Valley regional expresses. It might be combined with Heathrow.
Southern to provide direct connections to Woking, Guildford, Basingstoke.

It could incorporate a City station with direct interchange to Liverpool Street terminus for Great Eastern and West Anglia connections.

It might take over Crossrail tracks eastward from Canary Wharf (with the Elizabeth line accommodated in a new terminus alongside), and then be extended into Kent,
perhaps to Ebbsfleet, Gravesend and Medway Towns to provide alternative paths into London and beyond for expresses that currently run on HS1, thus making more space on HS1 for traffic growth towards Ashford.

By moving Heathrow Express and some Thames Valley expresses out of Paddington, room could be made for Chiltern long distance via Old Oak Common, which could release capacity at Marylebone for more Aylesbury line services and shorter distance locals to High Wycombe.

So a new regional express route, crossing London from Kent and Docklands in the east via the City to the major airport and Thames Valley in the west, interchanging with every single northern, western and continental long distance main line en route.

 

[MarkyT]

I would suggest combining this tunnel with HS2 so that there can be through trains to Canary Wharf from HS2. How easy/difficult this would be I don't know though.
It's only about 4 miles from Canary Wharf to HS1 too...

Although I've nothing against through trains from elsewhere running onto the new infrastructure, preferably those of a 'regional express' character (see my other post), providing new facilities for full length high speed trains at each station would be excessive, and the trains wouldn't load and unload quickly enough for a metro type operation. It'd be like trying to land A380s at London City on a domestic shuttle operation.

 

[sprunt]

Isn't HS2 already (or will, god willing, be by the time HS2 opens) linked to Canary Wharf via Crossrail from Old Oak Common? And where exactly would a new Euston to Canary Wharf line go? Is there an underground route available without various other tunnels in the way?

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Isn't HS2 already (or will, god willing, be by the time HS2 opens) linked to Canary Wharf via Crossrail from Old Oak Common? And where exactly would a new Euston to Canary Wharf line go? Is there an underground route available without various other tunnels in the way?

I do not know why this line is needed as you said Old Oak Common will provide that link to HS2 from Canary Wharf. Why Canary Wharf, it’s not as if it is already served and what stations would it serve.

 

[MarkyT]

I do not know why this line is needed as you said Old Oak Common will provide that link to HS2 from Canary Wharf. Why Canary Wharf, it’s not as if it is already served and what stations would it serve.

It would provide the direct link to Canary Wharf from the other WC trains at Euston that don't stop at OOC, and from MML, ECML and Thameslink services as well if properly linked to St Pancras as well as Euston, as planned for CR2.

 

[Bald Rick]

The journo concerned is joining up a lot of dots to get that picture, and eve then it’s a picture drawn with crayons.

Two rather significant issues:

1) The only space left under Euston at a reasonable depth is safeguarded for Crossrail 2. Such a metro station would have to be off to the west or south somewhere.

2) the cost

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

https://www.citymetric.com/transport/could-london-get-new-tube-line-canary-wharf-euston-4576

A new underground rail line connecting High Speed 2 services at Euston Station in north London to Canary Wharf in east London is being considered by the government, New Civil Engineer understands.

The proposal to build the line was submitted by developer Canary Wharf Group as part of the government’s call for ideas for market led proposals (MLPs) – a mechanism to invite more private sector funding of rail projects in the UK.

In all, there are 10 projects being considered, whittled down from 30 submissions to the government.

The idea of a better link between Euston and Canary Wharf makes a certain amount of sense. Despite the fact the latter is now the capital’s second business district it’s surprisingly awkward to get there from the mainline stations of the Euston Road that are the gateway to London for a lot of the country. Obviously the city can live without it – but if you were planning on building a whole new tube route, this is one you might think about.


The idea of letting property developers decide where new tube lines should go sounds crazy at first. Major infrastructure schemes of this sort cost a fortune and create major disruption, including to people who won’t benefit directly. Why on earth would we allow already massively rich people any more influence on such decisions than they already have on the world by virtue of being, as I may have mentioned, massively rich?

Except, two things. Firstly: whisper it soft, but most of the tube network was privately built. The network was only taken into public ownership in the early 1930s, and the first entirely new line to be built by the state was the Victoria line, which opened in 1968. What’s more, many of those private companies which built the early tube were really property businesses, which saw new tube lines as a way of getting people to those lovely new homes they were developing.

Secondly, the private sector is already playing a role in determining which expensive new tunnels London builds. Crossrail has been partly funded by private money. So is the Northern line extension to Battersea. Crossrail 2 is extremely unlikely to happen without it.

So there is a precedent. But never mind that now, let’s get the crayons out and ask where would the new line go?

On Twitter, Canary Wharf councillor Andrew Wood said that documents he’s seen show the new route would have one intermediate station. The New Civil Engineer story suggests that the London Borough of Southwark is affected in some way. That to me points to a southern route. Perhaps the intermediate station would be at Blackfriars, providing an easy change from Thameslink services:



Image: Google.

That said, were it up to me, and bearing in mind I’ve thought about this for all of three minutes, I’d take a more direct route via Shoreditch High Street, to improve access to both the City and the tech industry based by Old Street roundabout. You can even throw in an extra stop on the Central line if you’re feeling flush.



Image: Google.

Drawing lines on maps is fun, is what I’m saying here.

More info. One intermediate stop. Euston-Shoreditch/Blackfriars-Canary Wharf?

 

[MarkyT]

https://www.citymetric.com/transport/could-london-get-new-tube-line-canary-wharf-euston-4576
More info. One intermediate stop. Euston-Shoreditch/Blackfriars-Canary Wharf?

Interesting. A Shoreditch site could connect to LO's Shoreditch High Street as well as a new north entrance for Liverpool Street.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Interesting. A Shoreditch site could connect to LO's Shoreditch High Street as well as a new north entrance for Liverpool Street.

However in that particular instance it is excessive duplication of Crossrail which will serve Whitechapel (LO connections such as Shoreditch) and Liverpool Street.

The Blackfriars idea is arguably the most sensible: rapid connectivity to Blackfriars gets you connections then to Gatwick and Luton airports as well as swathes of the South East.