Midlands and North - Rail Needs Assessment report

[Bald Rick]

The National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) has this morning published the above report. It makes recommendations to Government on the priorities for major rail projects in the regions, given likely capital constraints.

From a quick read, it seems that delivering both the HS2 eastern branch and NPR in full is unlikely to be affordable. Recommendations are made on differing levels of potential funding, with choices around whether regional or long distance links are prioritised. It suggests that regional links will offer better benefits. All options see HS2 get to Manchester, and a Transpennine upgrade, but the ‘regional link’ options see the eastern leg of HS2b truncated somewhere near East Mids parkway, with funding used instead on a new line from Manchester to somewhere near Marsden (and possibly on to Leeds) plus upgrades to the ECML, the Midlands Rail hub, electrification of the MML (the latter proposed in all options, I think, if not explicitly in the ‘upgrades only’).

I assume Government will now consider this before making announcements next year on the future of HS2 and NPR. Meanwhile, there could be some ‘interesting’ meetings with politicians, as it’s clear that everyone can’t have everything they wanted.

The full report (104 pages) is here:

https://nic.org.uk/app/uploads/RNA-Final-Report-15122020.pdf

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Not really that happy with it. Why would you terminate at East Midlands Parkway

 

[Bald Rick]

Not really that happy with it. Why would you terminate at East Midlands Parkway

From my reading of it, it’s not terminating, just the end of the new line. I assume that means HS2 services could then serve Nottingham and Derby directly, each of which could then be a little over an hour from London.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

From my reading of it, it’s not terminating, just the end of the new line. I assume that means HS2 services could then serve Nottingham and Derby directly.

Yes but Parkway just seems like a bad location.

 

[LittleAH]

It reads as if those who wrote it have never been further north than the Watford Gap and the treasury don't want to spend the money, which is stupid given negative interest rates.

 

[Iskra]

How many reports do we need for something can actually be built?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Can't believe they want 140mph with an ECML upgrade for some of the +50% options.
That undermines the eastern leg of HS2, by retaining long distance services on MML/ECML.
On the WCML there are references both to axing the Golborne link, and extending the junction further north on the WCML, presumably by-passing Preston.
They put the skids under Toton with an HS2 connection at East Mids Pkwy and the upgrade of existing lines to Derby/Notts/Sheffield.

A new line via Bradford is part of the +50% options, so not at all a fixture in the NPR plan.

I haven't yet seen the government take much notice of the NIC, which generally looks beyond immediate funding plans.
History suggests the Treasury/DfT will press on with its vision, whatever that is.

 

[WideRanger]

Yes but Parkway just seems like a bad location.

If, instead of saying 'East Midlands Parkway' they wrote 'just south of Trent Junction', would that seem better?

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

If, instead of saying 'East Midlands Parkway' they wrote 'just south of Trent Junction', would that seem better?

Basically near Toton. Ending it halfway is bad idea to leave it as a new main line allows capacity to be released

 

[WideRanger]

Basically near Toton. Ending it halfway is bad idea to leave it as a new main line allows capacity to be released

East Midlands Parkway is near Toton. It is about 4 miles away as the crow flies, and in between is Trent Junction which is where any splitting of the service to Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield, would logically take place. If it ended at Toton (without an additional junction), trains wouldn't be able to run through to Nottingham or Derby.

 

[Ianno87]

East Midlands Parkway is near Toton. It is about 4 miles away as the crow flies, and in between is Trent Junction which is where any splitting of the service to Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield, would logically take place. If it ended at Toton (without an additional junction), trains wouldn't be able to run through to Nottingham or Derby.

In essence there's a fundamental strategic choice here.

1. Make use of the existing Parkway station and operate HS2 services into Derby and Nottingham existing station. Obviously lower cost, but Down side is that the current Parkway station is remote from the area of population and business (which shows today with its poor usage), and would *probably* rule out ever doing the full Eastern Leg

2. Use East Midlands Hub (on a full Easter Leg) with a station better located for the population, but at the cost of city centre services.

...A strategic priorities circle that is pretty tricky to 'square'.

 

[WideRanger]

In essence there's a fundamental strategic choice here.

1. Make use of the existing Parkway station and operate HS2 services into Derby and Nottingham existing station. Obviously lower cost, but Down side is that the current Parkway station is remote from the area of population and business (which shows today with its poor usage), and would *probably* rule out ever doing the full Eastern Leg

2. Use East Midlands Hub (on a full Easter Leg) with a station better located for the population, but at the cost of city centre services.

...A strategic priorities circle that is pretty tricky to 'square'.

Although the report suggests stopping trains at East Midlands Parkway, if they are running through to Nottingham Derby or Sheffield, then I don't see any real demand or other economic reason to stop the trains there. As @Ianno87 says, if there was demand there, trains would already be popular, and a stop there would make a serious dent to running times from Nottingham or Derby.

Ironically, I could see this idea resulting in a much quicker journey to London from Nottingham or Derby, albeit with less effective frequency (because of trains being able to run direct to the City Centres) to Southern HS2 destinations than if the Eastern Leg was delivered in full. However, areas of Nottingham and Derby around the Erewash Valley, Chesterfield and Sheffield would clearly be worse off.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Can't believe they want 140mph with an ECML upgrade for some of the +50% options.
That undermines the eastern leg of HS2, by retaining long distance services on MML/ECML.
On the WCML there are references both to axing the Golborne link, and extending the junction further north on the WCML, presumably by-passing Preston.
They put the skids under Toton with an HS2 connection at East Mids Pkwy and the upgrade of existing lines to Derby/Notts/Sheffield.

A new line via Bradford is part of the +50% options, so not at all a fixture in the NPR plan.

I haven't yet seen the government take much notice of the NIC, which generally looks beyond immediate funding plans.
History suggests the Treasury/DfT will press on with its vision, whatever that is.

Strangely it makes perfect sense.

Trains from London to Leeds and Newcastle then don’t “chew up” capacity on the HS2 Trunk, meaning space is saved for Nottingham and Derby (and the West Coast) from London. And, Midlands to North East via Manchester or East Mids Parkway.

The only real shame is that they’ll get stuck in the melee with the Thameslink stuff at Woolmer Green, unless that’s what the significant upgrade resolves.

 

[Bald Rick]

My guess is joining the MML somewhere between Kegworth and Ratcliffe. Loads of capacity there, especially on the ‘slows’. The HS2 trains don’t have to call at EMP, obviously.

 

[Ianno87]

St

Trains from London to Leeds and Newcastle then don’t “chew up” capacity on the HS2 Trunk, meaning space is saved for Nottingham and Derby (and the West Coast) from London. And, Midlands to North East via Manchester or East Mids Parkway.

Although the HS2 trunk is designed for 18tph specifically to be able to accommodate Leeds, Newcastle etc. services.

 

[Bald Rick]

The only real shame is that they’ll get stuck in the melee with the Thameslink stuff at Woolmer Green, unless that’s what the significant upgrade resolves.

Welwyn does get a mention. However. As we know that doesn’t do anything for capacity unless other issues are sorted as well.

 

[ABB125]

I think that the full eastern leg of HS2 should be built, as it has some of the biggest non-London benefits. However, I could concede that the East Midlands - Sheffield section could be delayed so long as provision was made for the full route, until such a time as completing the route becomes the priority. My suggestion would be for a connection to the MML just south of East Midlands Parkway, designed in such a way as the full route north would be the main line, with the connection being just that, a connection (my suggestion would be a stub of the main line to be built, so that the full route could be built without disrupting the existing bit).
HS2 between Sheffield and Leeds would then be redesigned and integrated into NPR.

 

[Ianno87]

I think that the full eastern leg of HS2 should be built, as it has some of the biggest non-London benefits. However, I could concede that the East Midlands - Sheffield section could be delayed so long as provision was made for the full route, until such a time as completing the route becomes the priority. My suggestion would be for a connection to the MML just south of East Midlands Parkway, designed in such a way as the full route north would be the main line, with the connection being just that, a connection (my suggestion would be a stub of the main line to be built, so that the full route could be built without disrupting the existing bit).
HS2 between Sheffield and Leeds would then be redesigned and integrated into NPR.

You then end up with a problem that, if, in the interim phase, you have an HS2 Euston-Derby/Nottingham service. What *then* happens when the full Eastern Leg opens? You'll need to take the Derby/Nottingham paths away to enable Leeds/Newcastle etc. services.

 

[ABB125]

You then end up with a problem that, if, in the interim phase, you have an HS2 Euston-Derby/Nottingham service. What *then* happens when the full Eastern Leg opens? You'll need to take the Derby/Nottingham paths away to enable Leeds/Newcastle etc. services.

There should be spare capacity on the eastern leg, to I'd switch the destination from London to Birmingham (ie: Nottingham to Birmingham, rather than London). Leeds would then take over the London paths. (Might annoy a few people though... )

Of course, by the time this happens a new ECML bypass high speed line will be in progress, meaning that Leeds trains won't need to use HS2...

 

[Roast Veg]

This is extraordinarily disappointing, and the culmination of the fears raised as soon as phase 2b was to be broken up.

 

[quantinghome]

This is extraordinarily disappointing, and the culmination of the fears raised as soon as phase 2b was to be broken up.

Got to agree. It's a fundamentally wrong-headed report. The "prioritise long-distance" option i.e. build HS2, doesn't include the regional connectivity benefits built into it from the start. So the report is presenting a false choice between the two priorities. You're never going to get regional connections right if you don't build new lines to take the high speed services.

 

[HSTEd]

Can't believe they want 140mph with an ECML upgrade for some of the +50% options.
That undermines the eastern leg of HS2, by retaining long distance services on MML/ECML.
On the WCML there are references both to axing the Golborne link, and extending the junction further north on the WCML, presumably by-passing Preston.
They put the skids under Toton with an HS2 connection at East Mids Pkwy and the upgrade of existing lines to Derby/Notts/Sheffield.

A new line via Bradford is part of the +50% options, so not at all a fixture in the NPR plan.

I haven't yet seen the government take much notice of the NIC, which generally looks beyond immediate funding plans.
History suggests the Treasury/DfT will press on with its vision, whatever that is.

None of the proposed upgrades will actually happen.

The NIC was instructed to produce a report justifying the axing of the majority of the eastern branch, so they produced a report that does so.

 

[Nym]

Would it not be cheaper to connect into the line via Burton on Trent and use splitting services to serve Nottingham and Derby?

These could be split at West Mids Parkway or Burton.

For those wondering, one could send the Nottingham services via the Chellaston Loop to reach Nottingham without making a rather large diversion around Derby, hence keeping a half decent potential journey time to Sheffield. Hence, with 2tph one could achieve;

2ph of;
Euston - OOC - W Mids Parkway (SPLIT) -
--- Derby - Sheffield (200mm CC Stock)
--- Burton on Trent - Nottingham

This would just need the main junction work to be built as is, then a small (and slightly tight) cord from the main alignment to the Birmingham - Tamworth line. Then of course electrifying from there (and ideally Birmingham) to Derby, onwards to Sheffield and from Willington / Stenson to Trent Jcns via Chellaston Loop, ideally also Derby to Nottingham via Spondon.

If running via E Mids Parkway, then the use of splitting services could bring some significant benefits, (as would also have been the case if EMR where to do so, if they had ordered more Class 810 units).

 

[HST43257]

By not building the full Eastern HS2 leg you, once again, have a situation where the North East is left behind. The area is re-growing post-deindustrialisation and to cut the Eastern Leg at/before Toton puts a major spanner in the works. The ECML can’t upgrade much more if the 2 tracks at Welwyn don’t become 4. Closing Welwyn North is the other option as that’d free up a couple more paths but that’s probably increasing car journeys from that area. You can’t create new and/or more frequent ECML services to more places if there’s no pressure relief. HS2 Eastern Leg is definitely needed, even if it is in a new phase 3 or 2c. The paths on HS2 are there for it and the paths for new ECML services are not there.

 

[The Planner]

This would just need the main junction work to be built as is, then a small (and slightly tight) cord from the main alignment to the Birmingham - Tamworth line. Then of course electrifying from there (and ideally Birmingham) to Derby, onwards to Sheffield and from Willington / Stenson to Trent Jcns via Chellaston Loop, ideally also Derby to Nottingham via Spondon.

If running via E Mids Parkway, then the use of splitting services could bring some significant benefits, (as would also have been the case if EMR where to do so, if they had ordered more Class 810 units).

Wouldn't be that tight, just turn left north of Kingsbury where the route crosses the M42 and Birmingham Derby line anyway.

 

[NoRoute]

In essence there's a fundamental strategic choice here.

1. Make use of the existing Parkway station and operate HS2 services into Derby and Nottingham existing station. Obviously lower cost, but Down side is that the current Parkway station is remote from the area of population and business (which shows today with its poor usage), and would *probably* rule out ever doing the full Eastern Leg

2. Use East Midlands Hub (on a full Easter Leg) with a station better located for the population, but at the cost of city centre services.

...A strategic priorities circle that is pretty tricky to 'square'.

The Victorian solution was Trent station, in the middle of Trent junction allowing an interchange between East-West services between Nottingham and Derby, and North-South services along the Erewash valley. I rather think it was a better solution than both Parkway and the East Midlands Hub as both have significant disadvantages.

 

[Bald Rick]

By not building the full Eastern HS2 leg you, once again, have a situation where the North East is left behind.

Not picking on you specifically, but I suggest anyone who thinks similarly reads the report. It makes it clear that from the analysis done, it is better for the North East, and the rest of the North, to spend the money on improved connections between the Northern Cities than to spend the money on linking the NE and Yorkshire to HS2.

So, rather than being left behind, it gets a better deal than if ‘just’ the HS2 eastern branch is built.

 

[HSTEd]

Not picking on you specifically, but I suggest anyone who thinks similarly reads the report. It makes it clear that from the analysis done, it is better for the North East, and the rest of the North, to spend the money on improved connections between the Northern Cities than to spend the money on linking the NE and Yorkshire to HS2.

So, rather than being left behind, it gets a better deal than if ‘just’ the HS2 eastern branch is built.

Assuming ofcourse, we believe the report is in good faith and those upgrades will ever actually happen.

I am rather skeptical.
Huge political capital was expended to get this scheme, now this scheme is axed in return for a promise that maybe they will give us a better scheme some time in the future.

Oh, and even if that does happen, it depends on the railway actually delivering upgrades on budget, which is.... yeah.

 

[Bald Rick]

Assuming ofcourse, we believe the report is in good faith

I do.

 

[edwin_m]

It reads as if those who wrote it have never been further north than the Watford Gap and the treasury don't want to spend the money, which is stupid given negative interest rates.

As mentioned, if the government decides to spend the +50% figure it is presented with a choice between NPR and the HS2 eastern leg but not both. It could of course choose to spend more than that to get both. The report should probably say that, unless its remit constrained it to the +50% funding limit.

Many of the suggestions match what I've been proposing on this forum, and I live well north of the Watford Gap!

Can't believe they want 140mph with an ECML upgrade for some of the +50% options.
That undermines the eastern leg of HS2, by retaining long distance services on MML/ECML.

If it's a better use of taxpayers' money then why not?

In essence there's a fundamental strategic choice here.

1. Make use of the existing Parkway station and operate HS2 services into Derby and Nottingham existing station. Obviously lower cost, but Down side is that the current Parkway station is remote from the area of population and business (which shows today with its poor usage), and would *probably* rule out ever doing the full Eastern Leg

2. Use East Midlands Hub (on a full Easter Leg) with a station better located for the population, but at the cost of city centre services.

...A strategic priorities circle that is pretty tricky to 'square'.

I would question whether Toton is a significantly better site. It's obviously better for the immediate vicinity which is more built up than around Parkway, but Parkway is better for whatever development happens on the power station site, as well as the significant employment around the airport. Road access is about equal - a short distance by dual carriageway off the M1. Parkway is much better for public transport access to the region, as passing trains already serve all the major centres in the East Midlands, whereas serving Toton requires some already fairly slow locals to be diverted or capacity found for extra ones.

Although the report suggests stopping trains at East Midlands Parkway, if they are running through to Nottingham Derby or Sheffield, then I don't see any real demand or other economic reason to stop the trains there. As @Ianno87 says, if there was demand there, trains would already be popular, and a stop there would make a serious dent to running times from Nottingham or Derby.

Ironically, I could see this idea resulting in a much quicker journey to London from Nottingham or Derby, albeit with less effective frequency (because of trains being able to run direct to the City Centres) to Southern HS2 destinations than if the Eastern Leg was delivered in full. However, areas of Nottingham and Derby around the Erewash Valley, Chesterfield and Sheffield would clearly be worse off.

The figures in the report quote a significant time saving for London-Nottingham so I think this is what is intended.

Although the HS2 trunk is designed for 18tph specifically to be able to accommodate Leeds, Newcastle etc. services.

The changes to reduce it by a couple of TPH would result in only a small cost saving, and in any case are part of Phase 1 that's already under construction.

You then end up with a problem that, if, in the interim phase, you have an HS2 Euston-Derby/Nottingham service. What *then* happens when the full Eastern Leg opens? You'll need to take the Derby/Nottingham paths away to enable Leeds/Newcastle etc. services.

I think the idea is that the ECML upgrades would make it faster than (or at least similar journey time to) HS2 between London and York, so those trains would remain on the ECML in the long term. The Sheffield paths would go via Derby and Nottingham paths could replace the Newcastle ones out of Euston.

Would it not be cheaper to connect into the line via Burton on Trent and use splitting services to serve Nottingham and Derby?

These could be split at West Mids Parkway or Burton.

For those wondering, one could send the Nottingham services via the Chellaston Loop to reach Nottingham without making a rather large diversion around Derby, hence keeping a half decent potential journey time to Sheffield. Hence, with 2tph one could achieve;

2ph of;
Euston - OOC - W Mids Parkway (SPLIT) -
--- Derby - Sheffield (200mm CC Stock)
--- Burton on Trent - Nottingham

This would just need the main junction work to be built as is, then a small (and slightly tight) cord from the main alignment to the Birmingham - Tamworth line. Then of course electrifying from there (and ideally Birmingham) to Derby, onwards to Sheffield and from Willington / Stenson to Trent Jcns via Chellaston Loop, ideally also Derby to Nottingham via Spondon.

If running via E Mids Parkway, then the use of splitting services could bring some significant benefits, (as would also have been the case if EMR where to do so, if they had ordered more Class 810 units).

I suggested something like this in an earlier thread. You could also construct a couple of miles east-west take the Chellaston line over and around the Trent junctions and drop the trains onto the Nottingham line somewehre towards Attenborough. That would be cheaper but a bit less journey time saving. Without the services to Leeds and beyond there would be enough paths out of London to run separate trains to Nottingham and Derby - in fact the Derby ones would probably continue to Sheffield.