Integrated Rail Plan for North and Midlands

[Snow1964]

Government has just published (22nd March) Integrated Rail plan for North and Midlands

Haven’t attempted to read it as it is 160 pages, but seems to be a rework of one from last November

Integrated Rail Plan for the North and Midlands

The government’s plan for delivering and sequencing major rail investment in the North and Midlands.

www.gov.uk

 

[zwk500]

Government has just published (22nd March) Integrated Rail plan for North and Midlands

Haven’t attempted to read it as it is 160 pages, but seems to be a rework of one from last November

Integrated Rail Plan for the North and Midlands

The government’s plan for delivering and sequencing major rail investment in the North and Midlands.

www.gov.uk

Judging by the dates on the website, it's just an update to the one from before.

 

[Glenn1969]

They have published a correction slip indicating they got some of their sums wrong for journey time predictions

 

[WatcherZero]

This is the correction slip. Basically they are admitting they ****ed up the journey times.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1062166/integrated-rail-plan-for-the-North-and-Midlands-correction-slip.pdf

Correction: Correct new journey time from Leeds to Manchester before NPR upgrades Text currently reads: (Page 14) reduce journey times from Manchester to Leeds from 55 now to 33 minutes. Once the newbuild high speed line between the Standedge area and Manchester Piccadilly opens, under later NPR phases, it will further reduce the journey to 33 minutes and increase seat capacity by over 300%.
This text should be amended: (Page 14) reduce journey times from Manchester to Leeds from 55 now to 41 minutes. Once the newbuild high speed line between the Standedge area and Manchester Piccadilly opens, under later NPR phases, it will further reduce the journey to 33 minutes and increase seat capacity by over 300%.

Correction: Correct Post IRP Journey Time figure on graph for Birmingham-Leeds Text currently reads: (Page 59) Figure 4 GRAPH, Post IRP Journey Time (mins), Birmingham–Leeds 67
This text should be amended: (Page 59) Figure 4 GRAPH, Post IRP Journey Time (mins), Birmingham-Leeds 79–89* *Via NPR based on indicative train service and depending on whether train calls at Crewe

(Examples, several more in slip)

 

[Cheshire Scot]

They have published a correction slip indicating they got some of their sums wrong for journey time predictions

Journey time correction Manchester to Leeds reduces from 55 mins to 33 mins amended to reduces from 55 mins to 41 mins.
OK so current timings may well be 55 minutes but these are slower than pre Covid TT changes Manchester to Leeds when was around 50 minutes and possibly some trains slightly less.

 

[Starmill]

Journey time correction Manchester to Leeds reduces from 55 mins to 33 mins amended to reduces from 55 mins to 41 mins.
OK so current timings may well be 55 minutes but these are slower than pre Covid TT changes Manchester to Leeds when was around 50 minutes and possibly some trains slightly less.

48 - 51 minutes was the regular time between Manchester Piccadilly and Leeds until 2018, going back I think to 2008. After 2015 there were more trains that did it in 48 minutes including some from Manchester Victoria.

 

[Purple Orange]

People are so unforgiving. All this appears to stress is that before NPR, journey times between Leeds & Manchester will be 41 mins and 33 mins after NPR. Nothing new there, as it is in line with the Trans Pennine Route Upgrade. Then we have clarity on the Birmingham-Leeds journey times ranging from 79-89 minutes and Birmingha-Manchester ranging from 41-51 minutes depending upon a stop at Crewe.

 

[Glenn1969]

People are so unforgiving. All this appears to stress is that before NPR, journey times between Leeds & Manchester will be 41 mins and 33 mins after NPR. Nothing new there, as it is in line with the Trans Pennine Route Upgrade. Then we have clarity on the Birmingham-Leeds journey times ranging from 79-89 minutes and Birmingha-Manchester ranging from 41-51 minutes depending upon a stop at Crewe.

I admit I'm one of the unforgiving ones and still think there's nothing in the IRP for most of Yorkshire. Plus given that Castlefield was congested 10 years ago why are we still waiting for action ?

 

[Purple Orange]

I admit I'm one of the unforgiving ones and still think there's nothing in the IRP for most of Yorkshire. Plus given that Castlefield was congested 10 years ago why are we still waiting for action ?

You just need to look to central government and there is your answer.

However the cost of NPR is deemed to be £17.2bn to deliver a 6 min journey time saving compared to the full electrified trans pennine route. I'm starting to think that building phase 2b west and full trans pennine route upgrade is the way to go, then spend the £17.2bn in another way.

 

[Starmill]

You just need to look to central government and there is your answer.

However the cost of NPR is deemed to be £17.2bn to deliver a 6 min journey time saving compared to the full electrified trans pennine route. I'm starting to think that building phase 2b west and full trans pennine route upgrade is the way to go, then spend the £17.2bn in another way.

Without Phase 2b West (frustratingly silly name) it's very difficult to realise the capacity benefits of the route. It only relieves London - West Midlands / Crewe. Indeed it would decrease capacity between Crewe and Manchester and between Crewe and Wigan / Liverpool, because HS2 services would eat it up. It would be likely for example that service to the stations between Handforth and Sandbach inclusive, and between Hartford and Runcorn inclusive, would need to take a cut to frequency. Acton Bridge, Chelford, Goostrey might need to be closed completely.

The government aren't going to give up the revenues from the faster, higher capacity Manchester - London services come what may, as losing those benefits would make the value for money of Phase 1 + 2a drop significantly. Before the pandemic Manchester - London was the highest grossing flow in the county.

 

[Purple Orange]

Without Phase 2b West (frustratingly silly name) it's very difficult to realise the capacity benefits of the route. It only relieves London - West Midlands / Crewe. Indeed it would decrease capacity between Crewe and Manchester and between Crewe and Wigan / Liverpool, because HS2 services would eat it up. It would be likely for example that service to the stations between Handforth and Sandbach inclusive, and between Hartford and Runcorn inclusive, would need to take a cut to frequency. Acton Bridge, Chelford, Goostrey might need to be closed completely.

The government aren't going to give up the revenues from the faster, higher capacity Manchester - London services come what may, as losing those benefits would make the value for money of Phase 1 + 2a drop significantly. Before the pandemic Manchester - London was the highest grossing flow in the county.

I am saying build phase 2b west.

 

[Class 170101]

Is this the route they are talking about for Liverpool to Manchester High Speed Rail (from about 14:00)

If so I wouldn't have thought there was enough width for a High Speed line between 15:00 and 18:00 mins or so due to structures.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Is this the route they are talking about for Liverpool to Manchester High Speed Rail (from about 14:00)
If so I wouldn't have thought there was enough width for a High Speed line between 15:00 and 18:00 mins or so due to structures.

Yes, that's the one.
NR is supposed to upgrade the existing line, with HS2 Ltd building the onward connection to HS2.
The Timperley-Ditton line was only ever a low-grade freight route with a few local passenger trains.
The line dog-legs though Warrington and crosses the Mersey just beyond where the driver changes ends in the vid at Arpley, with a couple of run-round sidings beyond.
There is then a high viaduct (still in situ, but disused) over the Manchester Ship Canal before the country opens out at Thelwall.
It will be interesting to see how NR re-engineers the existing infrastructure into a reasonably fast line for NPR.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Today the Transport Select Committee has published its report into the IRP.
A skimmed reading suggests they have captured most of the issues with the IRP, and are asking the government to provide justification for its strategic decisions by March 2023 (these decisions now including dropping the Golborne Link from the HS2b Bill).

https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/23270/documents/169740/default/

The conclusions are too extensive to quote, but the following is the summary of them (p33):

1. We welcome the scale of the Government’s promised spending on improving rail in the North and the Midlands. £96 billion is a very substantial sum; it has the potential to transform rail travel for future generations and make a significant contribution to levelling up the country. (Paragraph 4)
2. Nonetheless, there is still a need for prioritisation and hard choices, and the proposals set out in the Integrated Rail Plan have already left some towns and cities very disappointed. It is crucial that the Government bases its decisions on how to spend this investment on the fullest possible evidence for what will bring the greatest overall benefit to rail services, to the economy, to the environment and to communities across the North and Midlands. (Paragraph 5)
3. Whilst we recognise that the Golborne link was not perfect, and faced substantial local opposition, given its importance in terms of unlocking capacity for passengers and freight, and reducing journey times to Scotland, we are concerned that it has been cancelled without an alternative being proposed. The Department for Transport should set out alternative plans which add similar capacity as a minimum by March 2023. (Paragraph 18)

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Today the Transport Select Committee has published its report into the IRP.
A skimmed reading suggests they have captured most of the issues with the IRP, and are asking the government to provide justification for its strategic decisions by March 2023 (these decisions now including dropping the Golborne Line from the HS2b Bill).

https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/23270/documents/169740/default/

With the summer recess fast approaching, when might this matter be dealt with?

 

[SteveL9]

We're basically already in Summer Recess, no more business will get done until at least September, when they'll be more pressing stuff to deal with. This will be kicked in to the long grass.

 

[Class 170101]

What, if any, powers does the TSC have though to compel the DfT to act on its findings at any time nevermind March 2023?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What, if any, powers does the TSC have though to compel the DfT to act on its findings at any time nevermind March 2023?

There are times when you wonder if anyone can "compel" the DfT...

 

[Starmill]

What, if any, powers does the TSC have though to compel the DfT to act on its findings at any time nevermind March 2023?

That's not really the role of the Select Committee. Ministers should take careful note of the findings of the Committee, and appear before them or submit answers as requested. However, in general, there's no power to compel the Minister.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jul 2022 ==

There are times when you wonder if anyone can "compel" the DfT...

The Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer most certainly can.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer most certainly can.

With the current political situation as it is, would either of these postholders be mindful to "compel the DfT"?

 

[Bald Rick]

The Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer most certainly can.

Actually, they can’t, at least not easily. Such decisions are taken at Cabinet. It is a brave PM who takes a decision that is against the wishes of the majority of cabinet.

 

[zwk500]

Actually, they can’t, at least not easily. Such decisions are taken at Cabinet. It is a brave PM who takes a decision that is against the wishes of the majority of cabinet.

Or a foolish idiot...

 

[Senex]

Actually, they can’t, at least not easily. Such decisions are taken at Cabinet. It is a brave PM who takes a decision that is against the wishes of the majority of cabinet.

When the PM has appointed a cabinet of sycophantic yes-(wo)men, unlikely to get a job in anyone else's cabinet, he's unlikely to face a challenge to his wishes in any case.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

When the PM has appointed a cabinet of sycophantic yes-(wo)men, unlikely to get a job in anyone else's cabinet, he's unlikely to face a challenge to his wishes in any case.

Is that in the time of Johnson, because if you make reference to his successor, your use of the male wording in the final part of the sentence should recognise there is a male and a female candidate now involved in a bid to become the next Prime Minister.

 

[Starmill]

Actually, they can’t, at least not easily. Such decisions are taken at Cabinet. It is a brave PM who takes a decision that is against the wishes of the majority of cabinet.

Some PMs are braver than others! I'm not sure Cabinet has performed this function properly since at least 2016 unfortunately. Regardless the new leader will have only just chosen a completely fresh Cabinet. They will have their honeymoon period and transport policy is unlikely to be particularly contentious compared to other things.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Some PMs are braver than others! I'm not sure Cabinet has performed this function properly since at least 2016 unfortunately. Regardless the new leader will have only just chosen a completely fresh Cabinet. They will have their honeymoon period and transport policy is unlikely to be particularly contentious compared to other things.

Indeed so. In the real world, the Transport ministry is seen as one of the lower-ranked political appointments.

 

[snowball]

Allegedly the prime minister and the chancellor were fighting each other over the content of the IRP on the evening before its day of publication.

 

[Bald Rick]

Allegedly the prime minister and the chancellor were fighting each other over the content of the IRP on the evening before its day of publication.

not quite. Their advisors were (allegedly).