GJMarshy
Member
Having spent extensive time analysing the population spread, density and travel patterns in and around the North (Specifically the North West), it seems clear that a "High Speed", one stop per city centre route seems highly illogical.
If the cities were much further apart, hypothetically let's say 80km between each city/town en-route with population density highest at their centres, the logic would stack up much better. However, given the proximity of Northern cities and towns, a railway with a dense core in each city, with fast running between each begins to make much more sense. You could draw parallels with Thameslink or Elizabeth Line here, but the main difference is they all feed into one city, with little end-end demand. This hypothetical railway would need to do both.
There's no question substantial new infrastructure would be required, especially to get through congested Manchester, but planned right might this phased, scalable, spatial planning based approach be made to work?
Let's take one "core" route through probably the most congested and high demand city on the route: Manchester.
You might have a fast line (which branches toward North Wales, Liverpool & Lancashire/Cumbria) feed into a new "core" route through the city, calling at major nodes. These represent a mix of areas with high TOD potential, existing but latent demand, PT connectivity & very high business/leisure demand.
As an example such a route would be (in tunnel) from the west:
Eccles - Media City - Salford Interchange (Connector with exiting surface lines toward North Manchester & TOD potential) - Central (Vicinity of Lincoln Square for access to Spinningfields & Civic Centre) - Manchester Piccadilly - Etihad Campus - Continue toward Yorkshire.
This would bring all those high-demand/population destinations within easy reach of the wider North, increasing the potential for agglomeration and economic growth. Journey times through Central Manchester may be slower than a single or 2 stop service, but factoring in door-door journey times (and lack of existing, adequate onward connections), it would make for a much more attractive customer proposition in most cases.
The alignment above is purely conceptual to demonstrate the concept, so take it with a grain of salt. You could of course have a junction after Piccadilly to allow services to access the politically attractiveManchester Airport and/or a connection to the Stockport line. It really depends on cost, defined outputs and engineering/operational complexity.
Something like this does seem a highly attractive option though compared to the previous NPR plan which has now been given a BCR of 0.4 (following the removal of HS2.) It would still be in the multiple £billions, but perhaps deliver more in terms of *takes a gulp* "Levelling up."
There's also potential for it to use mostly existing lines over the pennines, with TRU having capacity for 6tph, and Hope valley 3tph. Another 3tph might go to the airport (helping appease the politicians somewhat.)
Of course this fully relieves Castlefield also (which admittedly you could do with a lot less tunnelling and stations,) but perhaps, just maybe, if you're going to bite that bullet it'd be worth reassessing what NPR actually sets out to achieve and splash that cash on something that could see exponentially larger economic returns?
If the cities were much further apart, hypothetically let's say 80km between each city/town en-route with population density highest at their centres, the logic would stack up much better. However, given the proximity of Northern cities and towns, a railway with a dense core in each city, with fast running between each begins to make much more sense. You could draw parallels with Thameslink or Elizabeth Line here, but the main difference is they all feed into one city, with little end-end demand. This hypothetical railway would need to do both.
There's no question substantial new infrastructure would be required, especially to get through congested Manchester, but planned right might this phased, scalable, spatial planning based approach be made to work?
Let's take one "core" route through probably the most congested and high demand city on the route: Manchester.
You might have a fast line (which branches toward North Wales, Liverpool & Lancashire/Cumbria) feed into a new "core" route through the city, calling at major nodes. These represent a mix of areas with high TOD potential, existing but latent demand, PT connectivity & very high business/leisure demand.
As an example such a route would be (in tunnel) from the west:
Eccles - Media City - Salford Interchange (Connector with exiting surface lines toward North Manchester & TOD potential) - Central (Vicinity of Lincoln Square for access to Spinningfields & Civic Centre) - Manchester Piccadilly - Etihad Campus - Continue toward Yorkshire.
This would bring all those high-demand/population destinations within easy reach of the wider North, increasing the potential for agglomeration and economic growth. Journey times through Central Manchester may be slower than a single or 2 stop service, but factoring in door-door journey times (and lack of existing, adequate onward connections), it would make for a much more attractive customer proposition in most cases.
The alignment above is purely conceptual to demonstrate the concept, so take it with a grain of salt. You could of course have a junction after Piccadilly to allow services to access the politically attractiveManchester Airport and/or a connection to the Stockport line. It really depends on cost, defined outputs and engineering/operational complexity.
Something like this does seem a highly attractive option though compared to the previous NPR plan which has now been given a BCR of 0.4 (following the removal of HS2.) It would still be in the multiple £billions, but perhaps deliver more in terms of *takes a gulp* "Levelling up."
There's also potential for it to use mostly existing lines over the pennines, with TRU having capacity for 6tph, and Hope valley 3tph. Another 3tph might go to the airport (helping appease the politicians somewhat.)
Of course this fully relieves Castlefield also (which admittedly you could do with a lot less tunnelling and stations,) but perhaps, just maybe, if you're going to bite that bullet it'd be worth reassessing what NPR actually sets out to achieve and splash that cash on something that could see exponentially larger economic returns?
