Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
How many voters would consider better bus and local train services (which can include quality as well as quantity) in the coming years as less important for levelling up vs barely completed legislation for HS rail (or 140mph NPR) that remains 10 or 15 years away?
To deliver improved bus travel the national government would have to provide ongoing funding to local authorities.
They are not always of the same colour as the MPs, as such the local authorities may invest in buses in a red area which the nearby blue MPs can't claim credit for. As although they provided the funding their constituents would say that their taxes were being used elsewhere.
As such all very political.
Having said that, we do need both, as without local travel options people will keep their cars, whilst without long distance travel people will keep their cars.
The way to overcome these issues is to provide funding for local buses which is controlled by another group which are set up to deliver improved local public transport to connect with rail which is then due to be delivered down the line.
The funding, through the delivery group, is therefore linked to something now and the cancellation would be seen as harming the local area and so locals would likely be more supportive of the bigger project.
And also needs to ve considered what high speed is in the context of a Manchester to Leeds route. In many regards, Manchester to Leeds has the required frequency, just not the speed.
Post TRU the journey times will be 41 minutes, therefore what journey time is desirable and how can that be delivered? If it is 33-35 minutes, does it need to be a full new line? Could a line from Piccadilly HS2 to the Diggle tunnel do the job?
It seems to me that the only reason for a full NPR line is to act as an alternative to the eastern HS2 leg, which really isnt what NPR is all about.
Indeed. We also need to recognise that a NPR fast line will have exactly the same 'waste of money' complaints as HS2 - eg who wants to get from Manchester to Leeds in 20 minutes when it will still take over an hour to get from Oldham to Bradford, not to mention opposition to building it, just like any other infrastructure project in the natural environment.
Indeed. We also need to recognise that a NPR fast line will have exactly the same 'waste of money' complaints as HS2 - eg who wants to get from Manchester to Leeds in 20 minutes when it will still take over an hour to get from Oldham to Bradford, not to mention opposition to building it, just like any other infrastructure project in the natural environment.
I don't think you're alone; one major reason I left my job in 2008 was because it had turned into almost totally working from home. I need the contact.
But there will equally have been many employers "appalled" by the concept of working from home who have discovered, now they've been forced to implement it, that it's workable. My partner's company had a cock-up with the number of VPN licenses it had paid for, but then all worked fine.
So a new balance will be struck.
During the pandemic I've worked occasionally and had meetings by video conference. It's really hard, I find I can't switch off in the same way that I need to in a real meeting because in an actual meeting there are many visual and audio cues which switch me back on again, but the brain needs its idle periods which are hard to come by on video conference. Earlier, audio-conferences by telephone were a waste of time because nobody took any notes and then forgot about what was said as they "rushed" to their next meeting.
If people are rushing to the next meeting so fast that they don't have time to make notes, what on earth makes you think they're ever going to watch a meeting back again? Besides which, recording meetings is another growth of creepy surveillance culture which prevents honest dialogue and turns the whole thing into a performance. None of this has anything to do with the topic, but I suspect you know that and are rather enjoying derailing the conversation.
The point about conferences is not the plenary sessions and signature speeches, but it’s about building connections and sharing of ideas. This happens far more fluidly through human interaction than it does through a screen. Human, face-to-face, communication is invaluable.
Indeed. We also need to recognise that a NPR fast line will have exactly the same 'waste of money' complaints as HS2 - eg who wants to get from Manchester to Leeds in 20 minutes when it will still take over an hour to get from Oldham to Bradford, not to mention opposition to building it, just like any other infrastructure project in the natural environment.
I think the trans pennine time factor is on a much more stronger footing than HS2’s “just to get to Birmingham 20 minutes faster”.
Firstly, people are frustrated with how long it takes to travel between Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool & Sheffield. Secondly, NPR doesn’t suffer from a London centric dynamic of “why would we want to go to Birmingham at all?” HS2 has the baggage of a London centric media and attitude of only looking at life through a London lens. Thirdly, Birmingham’s reputation doesn’t help itself with easing the moans I cited above.
However, NPR should not be co-opted as a section of line that serves London in the main. It must do the job of being a high frequency, high capacity route between Leeds & Manchester.
However, NPR should not be co-opted as a section of line that serves London in the main. It must do the job of being a high frequency, high capacity route between Leeds & Manchester
If anything by having London at the southern end of 4 Leeds services as well as Birmingham at the southern end of 2 or 3 (probably 2 but longer trains) that's going to ensure at least 6 services an hour between Leeds and Manchester.
If it's a high speed line, or at least with capacity to cater for 400m trains, that's likely to mean at least 5,500 seats an hour between the two in each direction.
However even if it's only capable of 200m trains that's still 3,300 (however because the trains are shorter then it may well be that the 3rd Birmingham starter is used when there's been enough growth and that would provide 3,850).
Now whilst several of those will be occupied by London/Birmingham travelers, the current 3tph between Manchester and London have up to 1,800 seats so there'll need to be a lot of growth before things start to be too much of an issue.
If anything by having London at the southern end of 4 Leeds services as well as Birmingham at the southern end of 2 or 3 (probably 2 but longer trains) that's going to ensure at least 6 services an hour between Leeds and Manchester.
If it's a high speed line, or at least with capacity to cater for 400m trains, that's likely to mean at least 5,500 seats an hour between the two in each direction.
However even if it's only capable of 200m trains that's still 3,300 (however because the trains are shorter then it may well be that the 3rd Birmingham starter is used when there's been enough growth and that would provide 3,850).
Now whilst several of those will be occupied by London/Birmingham travelers, the current 3tph between Manchester and London have up to 1,800 seats so there'll need to be a lot of growth before things start to be too much of an issue.
Whilst HS2 was very gung-ho about 400m train carrying "upto 1100 passengers", that was largely a fiction used to overcome the limitations of the demand modelling, which assumed that once trains reached a certain % of their maximum capacity then passengers would choose to travel by other means. By inflating the theoretical seating capacity to a higher number, the limitations of the demand model could be circumvented. As far as I am aware, no train manufacturer has yet produced a realistic design for a capacity of 550 passengers per 200m train (= 1100 per 400m train) with 2+2 in Standard and 2+1 in First, as is the norm in the UK. So treat such numbers with caution.
If anything by having London at the southern end of 4 Leeds services as well as Birmingham at the southern end of 2 or 3 (probably 2 but longer trains) that's going to ensure at least 6 services an hour between Leeds and Manchester.
If it's a high speed line, or at least with capacity to cater for 400m trains, that's likely to mean at least 5,500 seats an hour between the two in each direction.
However even if it's only capable of 200m trains that's still 3,300 (however because the trains are shorter then it may well be that the 3rd Birmingham starter is used when there's been enough growth and that would provide 3,850).
Now whilst several of those will be occupied by London/Birmingham travelers, the current 3tph between Manchester and London have up to 1,800 seats so there'll need to be a lot of growth before things start to be too much of an issue.
The trouble is that NPR has been framed as a trans pennine route with 6 tph exclusive to the northern cities, not sharing that space with London & Birmingham traffic.
The current TPE plan is for 2x802, 2xMk5a, 1 double 185 and 1 single 185, which provides 1,812 seats per hour. If London & Birmingham to Leeds is added to that line, we need to consider the current XC and LNER provision. XC (a double 4-car voyager) provides 400 seats per hour. LNER (two 9-car 801s) provides 1,222 seats per hour. That is a total of 3,434 seats per hour - without investing in any infrastructure.
So, forcing an NPR line to take London & Birmingham passengers as well as trans pennine passengers means we need to do far better. A line capable of 8 x 200m classic compatible trains would carry 4,400 seats per hour would represent a 28% increase in capacity. It would be better to keep London-Leeds traffic on the ECML.
The trouble is that NPR has been framed as a trans pennine route with 6 tph exclusive to the northern cities, not sharing that space with London & Birmingham traffic.
The current TPE plan is for 2x802, 2xMk5a, 1 double 185 and 1 single 185, which provides 1,812 seats per hour. If London & Birmingham to Leeds is added to that line, we need to consider the current XC and LNER provision. XC (a double 4-car voyager) provides 400 seats per hour. LNER (two 9-car 801s) provides 1,222 seats per hour. That is a total of 3,434 seats per hour - without investing in any infrastructure.
So, forcing an NPR line to take London & Birmingham passengers as well as trans pennine passengers means we need to do far better. A line capable of 8 x 200m classic compatible trains would carry 4,400 seats per hour would represent a 28% increase in capacity. It would be better to keep London-Leeds traffic on the ECML.
We can do a lot better than 200m trains even with no infrastructural changes at all?
Assuming we have to fit two platforms at Leeds the limit is 342m.
A 342m train would be something like a 13 car Class 800.
That sort of train is going to have on the order of 920 seats.
Just because the baseline is 2 x 200m formations, does not mean it is required to be this.
The cost of modifying the rolling stock contract is negligible next to the rest of this.
EDIT:
ANd it looks like at Huddersfield you could have trains significantly longer than that without fouling pointwork on at least one platform in each direction!
Whilst HS2 was very gung-ho about 400m train carrying "upto 1100 passengers", that was largely a fiction used to overcome the limitations of the demand modelling, which assumed that once trains reached a certain % of their maximum capacity then passengers would choose to travel by other means. By inflating the theoretical seating capacity to a higher number, the limitations of the demand model could be circumvented. As far as I am aware, no train manufacturer has yet produced a realistic design for a capacity of 550 passengers per 200m train (= 1100 per 400m train) with 2+2 in Standard and 2+1 in First, as is the norm in the UK. So treat such numbers with caution.
Up to 1,100 in 400m is 2.75 seats per meter, the current class 390's manage 2.32/m whilst the class 80x's when they are 9 coaches manage 2.77/m.
As such the full length trains are likely to be there or there abouts, however even if we ended up with (say) 2.63/m that's still going to be 1,050 and not a significant impact on the overall number.
The trouble is that NPR has been framed as a trans pennine route with 6 tph exclusive to the northern cities, not sharing that space with London & Birmingham traffic.
The current TPE plan is for 2x802, 2xMk5a, 1 double 185 and 1 single 185, which provides 1,812 seats per hour. If London & Birmingham to Leeds is added to that line, we need to consider the current XC and LNER provision. XC (a double 4-car voyager) provides 400 seats per hour. LNER (two 9-car 801s) provides 1,222 seats per hour. That is a total of 3,434 seats per hour - without investing in any infrastructure.
So, forcing an NPR line to take London & Birmingham passengers as well as trans pennine passengers means we need to do far better. A line capable of 8 x 200m classic compatible trains would carry 4,400 seats per hour would represent a 28% increase in capacity. It would be better to keep London-Leeds traffic on the ECML.
Indeed, however I wasn't counting any of the TPE type services which would also be needed to run, probably at least 2 (so that there wasn't need for significant numbers of people to change at Manchester).
Which leads to the question, how many of those 6 TPE services serve York? As my numbers didn't count those HS2 services which would serve York/Newcastle, and so would be in addition to that.
Manchester/Liverpool to the NE capacity would likely be 10tph (maybe even as high as 12tph), however even at 8tph and 550 seats/train this would be 4,400 seats per hour (+28%) and we're likely to be able to do much better than that.
The other factor is that at least some of the capacity into Leeds from LNER or XC is needed for those joining North of London or Birmingham, who would no longer be able to do so on the HS2/NPR services, as such some of that capacity wouldn't be needed on those HS2/NPR services and would stay on the existing LNER/XC services.
The other thing to highlight, is that even if we stuck with an upgraded 80x platform with train lengths of 10 coaches (single unit), at a length of 260m (much of the infrastructure could cope with no upgrades) that's 650/train (which is the same as the 9 coach versions to allow for even longer noses) those 8 services used in the example above would then jump to 5,200 seats per hour which is 51% more than the limit in the above post, but still doesn't allow for any of the retained capacity.
We can do a lot better than 200m trains even with no infrastructural changes at all?
Assuming we have to fit two platforms at Leeds the limit is 342m.
A 342m train would be something like a 13 car Class 800.
That sort of train is going to have on the order of 920 seats.
Just because the baseline is 2 x 200m formations, does not mean it is required to be this.
The cost of modifying the rolling stock contract is negligible next to the rest of this.
EDIT:
ANd it looks like at Huddersfield you could have trains significantly longer than that without fouling pointwork on at least one platform in each direction!
You’re not going to be able to run 300m trains because south of Manchester, at least 400m services will be needed. Immediately you’re in the territory of either running 200m or 400m trains (8-car or 16-car 25m carriages).
However with a constraint of 14 tph (max on phase 2b) and 8 tph across the Pennines (max planned for full NPR), what service pattern satisfies all the expected demand for passengers travelling between Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham & London?
Remember that the current plan (including NPR and HS2 east) is to see:
3 x 400m London-Manchester
2 x 400m London-Leeds
1 x 200m London-Leeds
2 x 200m Birmingham-Manchester
2 x 200m Birmingham-Leeds
4 x 200m Liverpool-Manchester
6 x 200m Manchester-Leeds
How would that fit in to a HS2/NPR route via Manchester Piccadilly?
Added to this is that HS2 are unlikely to be revising plans again for phase 2b west, which means Piccadilly is a 6-platform surface station.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The trouble is that NPR has been framed as a trans pennine route with 6 tph exclusive to the northern cities, not sharing that space with London & Birmingham traffic.
The current TPE plan is for 2x802, 2xMk5a, 1 double 185 and 1 single 185, which provides 1,812 seats per hour. If London & Birmingham to Leeds is added to that line, we need to consider the current XC and LNER provision. XC (a double 4-car voyager) provides 400 seats per hour. LNER (two 9-car 801s) provides 1,222 seats per hour. That is a total of 3,434 seats per hour - without investing in any infrastructure.
So, forcing an NPR line to take London & Birmingham passengers as well as trans pennine passengers means we need to do far better. A line capable of 8 x 200m classic compatible trains would carry 4,400 seats per hour would represent a 28% increase in capacity. It would be better to keep London-Leeds traffic on the ECML.
It's not quite that bad, as many of the passengers on the existing trains would be going to or from stations not served by a Manchester-Leeds routeing, and would have to remain on the existing route. Also the same seats can be filled twice on Birmingham-Manchester-Leeds. However I do agree that if this becomes the main route for London-Leeds journeys, it would be under severe capacity pressure.
You’re not going to be able to run 300m trains because south of Manchester, at least 400m services will be needed. Immediately you’re in the territory of either running 200m or 400m trains (8-car or 16-car 25m carriages).
However with a constraint of 14 tph (max on phase 2b) and 8 tph across the Pennines (max planned for full NPR), what service pattern satisfies all the expected demand for passengers travelling between Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham & London?
Remember that the current plan (including NPR and HS2 east) is to see:
3 x 400m London-Manchester
2 x 400m London-Leeds
1 x 200m London-Leeds
2 x 200m Birmingham-Manchester
2 x 200m Birmingham-Leeds
4 x 200m Liverpool-Manchester
6 x 200m Manchester-Leeds
How would that fit in to a HS2/NPR route via Manchester Piccadilly?
Added to this is that HS2 are unlikely to be revising plans again for phase 2b west, which means Piccadilly is a 6-platform surface station.
There's no "at least" about it, 400m is the maximum train length for HS2.
Adding the above together I think you'd get:
3 x 400m London-Manchester
2 x 400m Birmingham-Manchester-Leeds
4 x 200m Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds
Without London-Leeds and if 400m trains can use NPR, that's only 6TPH on NPR and 9TPH through Manchester Airport. NPR in isolation could probably accommodate 3TPH London-Leeds, perhaps with extra platforms at Piccadilly and any intermediate stations, but HS2 southwards from Manchester couldn't.
If it's considered worthwhile to eliminate much or all of the eastern leg, then extra spend on more and longer platforms might be justified.
Up to 1,100 in 400m is 2.75 seats per meter, the current class 390's manage 2.32/m whilst the class 80x's when they are 9 coaches manage 2.77/m.
As such the full length trains are likely to be there or there abouts, however even if we ended up with (say) 2.63/m that's still going to be 1,050 and not a significant impact on the overall number.
Remember that the HS2 trains are built as 200m sets, so with a 400m train you will have two intermediate coaches that could only have passenger accommodation in about 50% of their length. In round number guesses, that loses you 20 - 25 metres worth of seating, compared with a single 400m unit.
I'd aim for 1000 seats per train, and any more is a bonus.
Remember that the HS2 trains are built as 200m sets, so with a 400m train you will have two intermediate coaches that could only have passenger accommodation in about 50% of their length. In round number guesses, that loses you 20 - 25 metres worth of seating, compared with a single 400m unit.
I'd aim for 1000 seats per train, and any more is a bonus.
You also have to consider catering, which accounts for over half a car in a LNER 9-car Azuma. That might be necessary on a London-Scotland HS2 service, but maybe not for shorter journey times such as London to Leeds. Although they may not want to create sub-fleets with and without it.
I did live in Cheshire for many years (as a young child) before moving down south. We always understood it to be in the north-west. The Midlands began with Staffordshire. Derbyshire, at least the Dark Peak part, was also understood to be the north-west even though by admin boundaries it's classed as the Midlands.
Perhaps more generally IMO: if an area looks to Manchester or Liverpool as its local major conurbation, it's north-west, if it looks to Birmingham, it's West Midlands, and if it looks to Nottingham or Leicester, it's East Midlands.
In that respect (Cheshire=NW), the current administrative boundaries align well with my own understanding; down south, where there is a SE and SW with no 'Central South'/'Wessex', I'm not so sure as I have always identified Hampshire and even the western part of West Sussex, as well as south-eastern Wiltshire and most of Dorset, as neither SE nor SW but something in between.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The whole High Peak area is officially in the Midlands but is sandwiched between Manchester and Sheffield/South Yorkshire and is effectively in the North.
As in the other post, I would place the Dark Peak (north and west of Buxton) as north-west as it looks to Manchester, but the White Peak (south and east of Buxton) in the east Midlands as it looks to Derby. Buxton is the change-over point. Also the Dark Peak is more 'gritty' and typically northern with high moors and potential severe weather conditions while out walking in high, isolated country; while the White Peak is more green and gentle (though still relatively hilly); Midlands-like. But I am not a local so this is merely an opinion based on the geography of the area.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I suspect marginal constituencies (all of the above are, I think, in the sense that they have had a non-Tory MP at some point since 1997) are the ones which will gain the most attention.
Anything safely Tory (as in, never went Labour even in 1997) won't get so much attention as the Tories see it as safely 'theirs' and don't feel the need to buy votes to win the seats.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The point about conferences is not the plenary sessions and signature speeches, but it’s about building connections and sharing of ideas. This happens far more fluidly through human interaction than it does through a screen. Human, face-to-face, communication is invaluable.
That's the point. Once Covid is no longer seen as a significant threat, I suspect people will clamour to live in the 'real' world again. People will want to travel to interesting conferences to see people, and talk to them, face-to-face which is much more comfortable than Zoom and so on. People will want the nice little extras of conferences, such as visiting an interesting city or the post-conference social events.
If the 'powers that be' try to restrict real work-related human interaction for non health-related reasons, I suspect there will be a strong push-back. I suspect I am not alone in my fear of, and opposition to, a post-Covid 'brave new world'. Do many of us really want to be just living in a constant 'bubble' all the time, and lose the richness of life? I certainly don't.
You’re not going to be able to run 300m trains because south of Manchester, at least 400m services will be needed. Immediately you’re in the territory of either running 200m or 400m trains (8-car or 16-car 25m carriages).
There is no law of physics that says that all trains running on HS2 need to be 400m.
It appears to be prima facie somewhat wasteful, but you are only sacrificing something like 150-200 seats to run a 340m unit versus a pair of 200m units.
Given that we will have more paths available on HS2 Phase 1 than we thought given the axing of the eastern leg (or the bulk of it) - its not unreasonable.
Ultimately the most important factor will be the cost of platform extensions for 400m at (at least Leeds and York and probably Newcastle)
Well yes, an underground station is a catastrophic waste of money anyway.
6 Platforms is quite a lot though, especially given the intense service over a small number of routes would enable something resembling London Underground practice - with drivers rotating through trains to save the time necessary to walk the length of the platform.
There is no law of physics that says that all trains running on HS2 need to be 400m.
It appears to be prima facie somewhat wasteful, but you are only sacrificing something like 150 seats to run a 340m unit versus a pair of 200m units.
Given that we will have more paths available on HS2 Phase 1 than we thought given the axing of the eastern leg (or the bulk of it) - its not unreasonable.
Ultimately the most important factor will be the cost of platform extensions for 400m at (at least Leeds and York and probably Newcastle)
Well yes, an underground station is a catastrophic waste of money anyway.
6 Platforms is quite a lot though, especially given the intense service over a small number of routes would enable something resembling London Underground practice - with drivers rotating through trains to save the time necessary to walk the length of the platform.
If you’re running a 300m train in to Euston, you’re immediately sacrificing 100m capacity. With 200m units, you’re at least giving yourself the flexibility to split trains.
However the question still remains, how do you sequence services in and out of Piccadilly that meets the demand that HS2 and NPR expect to see? I suspect the answer will involve routing Liverpool-Leeds through Victoria.
If you’re running a 300m train in to Euston, you’re immediately sacrificing 100m capacity. With 200m units, you’re at least giving yourself the flexibility to split trains.
But if you can't push 400m through to the destination, you immediately lock yourself into 200m only, which may not be sufficient in capacity terms?
It will be years before the 400m length is needed on this alignment, which is years you can use to campaign to obtain the funds for the requisite platform extensions. At York it appears likely to be only necessary to move signals (or wait for ETCS to save us!)
However the question still remains, how do you sequence services in and out of Piccadilly that meets the demand that HS2 and NPR expect to see? I suspect the answer will involve routing Liverpool-Leeds through Victoria.
This option is clearly suboptimal, but we don't have the resources for optimal in this situation - although maybe breaking Liverpool trains at Manchester (and going for maximum intensity to enable easy changes) is the better choice if not for political concerns.
Given there appears to be no movement on a new line to Liverpool, it won’t be a problem, but it will probably mean Liverpool loses a Newcastle connection.
Concerning capacity, would it also not be more impacted by the proportion of 1st/premium class & standard class? If it was limited to 300m trains, all sets would likely be 300m too. Would 6 tph between London & Leeds via Manchester with 750 seats cater appropriately for demand? You’d then have another 2-3 tph between Birmingham & Newcastle via Manchester with 750 seats.
A subscription to the Financial Times provides you with the insights and perspective you need to succeed, now.
giftarticle.ft.com
Britain’s most expensive infrastructure project...is set to be radically scaled back, as the Treasury attempts to control public spending that has ballooned during the Covid crisis.
The FT is saying the eastern leg will be "curtailed or mothballed", which appears to be Treasury speak for axed.
The Treasury is worried about "ballooning costs" and poor public finances as a result of the pandemic and want to save £40bn by scrapping the Birmingham-Leeds leg
As a railway supporter this is all very depressing, especially when so much public money has been wasted over the past 12 months.
It also flies in the face of the government's "levelling up" agenda.
Wood's comments come amid growing fears for the eastern leg of HS2 Phase 2b, after an anonymous Whitehall source said that “there’s no way we’re going to
Although trip provide some balance others are reporting the HS2 minister as saying:
He said: "At the moment as you will know, we are working on the Integrated Rail Plan looking at the sequencing of investment in the north and the midlands.
"That will come out soon and will give people that clear direction of travel from the Government. I am very keen to get that published soon but I am firmly committed to ensuring that Yorkshire and the East Midlands benefit from high speed rail services."
All being well, the Treasury will win out, and the whole of HS2 phase 2b will be shelved. The UK is financially challenged for a variety of reasons (including Covid, the EU and poor governance) and has to cut its coat according to the available cloth.
All being well, the Treasury will win out, and the whole of HS2 phase 2b will be shelved. The UK is financially challenged for a variety of reasons (including Covid, the EU and poor governance) and has to cut its coat according to the available cloth.
Conversely it could be argued that by building infrastructure it stimulates the economy and therefore the treasury could still think that it's worth doing.
Whilst it would increase our borrowing it's a one off cost unlike (say) paying subsidy to TPE.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
