Midlands and North - Rail Needs Assessment report

[Ianno87]

Only one small problem with that - plenty of people want to travel between Birmingham and Manchester, and Manchester and Leeds. So then you end up with the Birmingham-Leeds (and wider SW-NE) flow as well as the first two flows, all on the same train.

This is exactly the kind of issue that has resulted in XC's capacity crunch - failing to segregate short and long distance flows onto different services. It might be fine to begin with if you have 400m trains, but in the long term it's not a sustainable solution. T

Although, individually, Brum-Manchester and Manchester-Leeds and Leeds-Brum were probably always going to be 200m services anyway. Therefore 400m ought to be oodles of capacity. One 200m set for Brum-Leeds passengers, attached to a second 200m set for Leeds-Manc to be replaced with Manc-Brum passengers at Piccadilly. i.e. exactly the same level of capacity as would be available with the full Eastern leg.

 

[a_c_skinner]

A particular gripe of mine is the poor current journey time from huddersfield / Leeds / Bradford to Birmingham / Nottingham / Sheffield. How is this being addressed?

Apologies for a late arrival (!). Yes, from my rail roving trips the 40 miles Nottingham to Sheffield and similar on to Leeds seem awfully slow and poor trips for big cities close together. The M1 is an appealing alternative for most.

I could go on with a map and set of crayons but HS2 stopping in the EMP to Toton area plus making something of the existing routes from there to Leeds and Sheffield would improve more local links and make the most of HS2?

Do Nottingham and Derby need direct trains on HS2 if there is good parking and connectivity to a suitable station on a London-Sheffield route? Trent seems the obvious place for trains and trams to Nottingham and Derby but I have forsworn crayoning. EMP increasingly seems a solution looking for a problem.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do Nottingham and Derby need direct trains on HS2 if there is good parking and connectivity to a suitable station on a London-Sheffield route? Trent seems the obvious place for trains and trams to Nottingham and Derby but I have forsworn crayoning. EMP increasingly seems a solution looking for a problem.

But aren't we talking about ending the high speed line there, not terminating services there? That is, the trains would join the MML and continue? (Bonus: potentially that brings some MML electrification?)

 

[edwin_m]

Only one small problem with that - plenty of people want to travel between Birmingham and Manchester, and Manchester and Leeds. So then you end up with the Birmingham-Leeds (and wider SW-NE) flow as well as the first two flows, all on the same train.

This is exactly the kind of issue that has resulted in XC's capacity crunch - failing to segregate short and long distance flows onto different services. It might be fine to begin with if you have 400m trains, but in the long term it's not a sustainable solution. This is just an expensive way of kicking the can down the road.

It also means that you lose a lot of the journey time improvements on the Birmingham to Leeds (and wider SW-NE) corridor that HS2 was supposed to help fix. 75 minutes is over 50% longer than the 49 minute journey time people were promised, and changes Leeds from being in commutable (and day-trip) distance of Birmingham, to being beyond what most people would reasonably consider.

It's easy to say "there is no money" but recent months have proven that money in effect does grow on trees when there is the political will for it to exist. The harsh truth is that there aren't enough votes in HS2's Eastern leg for it to matter.

Birmingham-Manchester and Manchester-Leeds are both long distance flows - there would be stopping trains on both routes in addition, achieving that segregation.

It's legitimate to look at a solution like this, even if it includes imperfect features such as splitting/joining a Leeds portion at Manchester, as a partial alternative to spending tens of billions of taxpayers' money on the HS2 Eastern Leg. As I've already posted, perhaps where this report falls down is that it fails to make the point that there's another family of options, perhaps +75%, that would do "all of the above" if the Government chose to spend that sort of money.

How many people will want to commute from Leeds to do a full working day in Birmingham? Not many I guess, and probably not something that should be encouraged. It may be over 50% but the difference between 75min and 49min is under an hour on a return trip, and still makes it much easier for someone in Leeds to do a business meeting in Birmingham than it is today - which is probably the main means of stimulating economic benefit.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's easy to say "there is no money" but recent months have proven that money in effect does grow on trees when there is the political will for it to exist.

I think it's fair to say, though, that preventing economic collapse is rather higher a priority for doing that than building a railway which is very much a "nice to have".

 

[Bald Rick]

Only one small problem with that - plenty of people want to travel between Birmingham and Manchester, and Manchester and Leeds. So then you end up with the Birmingham-Leeds (and wider SW-NE) flow as well as the first two flows, all on the same train.

Not that many though, and lets be honest, almost every train in the country combines multiple flows, with Cross Country doing so more than most.

The cross country services from Birmingham to Manchester are busy, with a maximum of 500 seats per direction an hour. I’d be surprised if more than 20% of those seats are taken by passengers travelling from Birmingham (or south thereof) and Manchester, as a clear majority of passengers are boarding / alighting st Wolverhampton, Stafford, Stoke, Marc, Etc. Same for Birmingham - Leeds, but with lower numbers making the full trip. A 2tph Birmingham - Manchester - Leeds via HS2 with 200m trains - each with something like 5-600seats (more than double the capacity) would comfortably accommodate demand for the foreseeable future.

It's easy to say "there is no money" but recent months have proven that money in effect does grow on trees ...

It doesn’t. Government has chosen to borrow a lot of extra cash to save voters lives. Not just to save a very small proportion of voters 20 minutes on their trips between Leeds and Birmingham.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How many people will want to commute from Leeds to do a full working day in Birmingham? Not many I guess, and probably not something that should be encouraged. It may be over 50% but the difference between 75min and 49min is under an hour on a return trip, and still makes it much easier for someone in Leeds to do a business meeting in Birmingham than it is today - which is probably the main means of stimulating economic benefit.

Business meetings? What are they? Oh, you mean chatting on Teams while on the way to your hollibobs on the train?

The railway is, in my view, going to be primarily a leisure product in future. Some business meetings need to be in person, but a much, much smaller number than before, and certainly not something worth building an expensive high speed railway for.

 

[The Ham]

Only one small problem with that - plenty of people want to travel between Birmingham and Manchester, and Manchester and Leeds. So then you end up with the Birmingham-Leeds (and wider SW-NE) flow as well as the first two flows, all on the same train.

This is exactly the kind of issue that has resulted in XC's capacity crunch - failing to segregate short and long distance flows onto different services. It might be fine to begin with if you have 400m trains, but in the long term it's not a sustainable solution. This is just an expensive way of kicking the can down the road.

It also means that you lose a lot of the journey time improvements on the Birmingham to Leeds (and wider SW-NE) corridor that HS2 was supposed to help fix. 75 minutes is over 50% longer than the 49 minute journey time people were promised, and changes Leeds from being in commutable (and day-trip) distance of Birmingham, to being beyond what most people would reasonably consider.

It's easy to say "there is no money" but recent months have proven that money in effect does grow on trees when there is the political will for it to exist. The harsh truth is that there aren't enough votes in HS2's Eastern leg for it to matter.

Given that London Liverpool has a current hourly InterCity services of circa 230m I would be surprised if there were may routes where 400m trains started to struggle with capacity.

Of course it would also depends on the available capacity of the line as well. Currently the Birmingham Manchester section is going to be below the 18tph of the southern end of HS2. As such (and I accept that it's unlikely to be able to achieve that level) there's likely to be scope for extra services to be added.

However even if we do need extra capacity and HS2 doesn't provide all of it, we are likely to be 20-30 years (or more) down the line and so it's reasonable to be considering additional schemes. Of course the other thing to bear in mind is that all those extra passengers would be generating income for the railways and so chances are the business case would be good (unlike of we tried building something now for a possible future which we've got no idea if it's needed).

 

[Bletchleyite]

However even if we do need extra capacity and HS2 doesn't provide all of it

Unlikely:

• The need for travel will reduce further as remote conferencing facilities improve. We've been teleconferencing for years, but Teams is definitely loads better (much as I dislike many aspects of it) than dialling in on a landline phone to a bridge line then spending the first 10 minutes trying to get M$ Netmeeting to work. COVID has pushed technology on very quickly, and it'll only improve further.
• People will always have a range of budgets, so there can still be capacity running via the classic WCML/ECML/MML, albeit with more stops, so it's not just HS2. It might look more like a commuter line than a high speed one, with trains like Aventras rather than Pendolinos, but there seemed (pre COVID) to be no shortage of people willing to sit for nearly 5 hours on a 350/2 from Euston to Liverpool via everywhere because it only cost them a tenner, and with Pendolinos out of the way it'd be a choice between say an hour and a half (HS2) or three hours (classic line) which is a lot more palatable.

 

[DarloRich]

The ECML upgrade suggestion is perplexing. From the journey times it seems to suggests that most of the gain is north of Doncaster. As noted above the existing Newcastle journey times quoted are wrong, very - the best ‘clean’ time is 2h46 I think. Digging out the BR archives (British Rail, or Bald Rick, you decide ) I find that going to 140mph on the ECML was only possible on certain sections, and some of those needed major civils to make it so (notably Huntingdon to Peterborough). Even then, at best there is 4 minutes saving south of Doncaster and another 2 1/2 mins from Doncaster to Darlington. There’s another 5 minutes if you don’t stop the fastest trains at Darlington (which has by far the best business case, sorry @DarloRich). Then a couple more for better acceleration of the Azumas compared to the current timings, and a half minute from the new Kings Cross. Then you could just squeak under 2h30. So the 2h25 suggested seems a stretch, unless something is done with the Engineering allowances, removing the York call, or dare I say, ATO.

Outrageous. Not stopping at Darlington. Shocking

I am more worried there isn't, actually ,a leveling up plan from Johnson and his gang. it is just words and i remain very cynical despite this report and it's contents.

 

[quantinghome]

Business meetings? What are they? Oh, you mean chatting on Teams while on the way to your hollibobs on the train?

The railway is, in my view, going to be primarily a leisure product in future. Some business meetings need to be in person, but a much, much smaller number than before, and certainly not something worth building an expensive high speed railway for.

Ultimately no one really knows what things will look like, but basing future travel demand on the past few months' enforced isolation doesn't seem a sensible thing to do. Just because people are being forced to do something now doesn't mean it's a given in the future. A lot of people just hate working from home. Road traffic is already back to pre-covid levels, suggesting there will be no long term reduction in travel demand. The evidence of the last 200 years points to improved communications technology and travel progressing hand-in-hand. Remote working and conferencing will increase people's business network which may in turn induce further demand for travel.

 

[Bald Rick]

basing future travel demand on the past few months' enforced isolation doesn't seem a sensible thing to do.

Entirely agree, but similarly basing future travel demand on the years up until March 2020 doesn’t seem sensible either. We need another year at least before seeing how the market returns. Some decisions are going to have to wait.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A lot of people just hate working from home.

A lot of people love it, too. And many more (e.g. me) would ideally work in an office say 2 days a week (which, given that so many commuters already do Friday from home, and there's a decent reason for wanting to do any other pair of days so that will be evenly distributed, is an approximate halving of demand).

Also, with HSLs we aren't talking about commuters - people simply should not be encouraged to commute that far. We're talking about business travel for meetings. Companies don't like the cost of these, so do you think they will pay for them, whether the employee wants a jolly or not? I don't.

I agree, though, with the premise e.g. from @Bald Rick, that it might be worth kicking the can down the road a year or two and see how travel patterns actually change.

 

[WAO]

While Bald Rick's post #48 covers the report splendidly, I would only add that I liked the references to a "rolling program of electrification". the mutliple proposals for Midland lines' wiring and the point that regional connectivity has mostly more benefit than long distance prioritisation. I also liked the comparison of timings between Reading and London and Leeds and Manchester!

Greetings

WAO

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Now would be a marvellous time to pause HS2. Get the bulk of the ‘guaranteed’ infrastructure in, but strongly consider the phasing. If we’ve bought ourselves stacks of time and capacity through reduced services for a while, then we might want to start building to Manchester from the get go via the Crewe hub, as well as getting the East Midlands question answered.

There must now be no business case for coming onto the Trent Valley and running on conventional track, and therefore that funding could sensibly be re-allocated to something else, or just shaved from the project budget.

But what is clear is that an MML upgrade, and an ECML upgrade, is the best way to go. Same for hefty work TransPennine. But we also need to sense check what sort of services we devise both on the HS2 and legacy networks.

 

[Ianno87]

Also, with HSLs we aren't talking about commuters - people simply should not be encouraged to commute that far. We're talking about business travel for meetings. Companies don't like the cost of these, so do you think they will pay for them, whether the employee wants a jolly or not? I don't.

But if said companies can downsize offices, they may be more willing to pay for business travel to attend in-person meetings in situations where that adds the most value.

I agree, though, with the premise e.g. from @Bald Rick, that it might be worth kicking the can down the road a year or two and see how travel patterns actually change.

Yes, there is far from a clear picture of the actual future at this point in time. The only certainty we have is things have changed from the pre-March 2020 situation. We just don't know how and by what quantity in what parts of the market. Best thing for the time being is to keep options open, rather than close them down.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Dec 2020 ==

Now would be a marvellous time to pause HS2. Get the bulk of the ‘guaranteed’ infrastructure in, but strongly consider the phasing. If we’ve bought ourselves stacks of time and capacity through reduced services for a while, then we might want to start building to Manchester from the get go via the Crewe hub, as well as getting the East Midlands question answered.

Seems to my eyes, that it was never likely to be possible to either take through parliament, or build, both the western and eastern leg of Phase 2b at the same time.

So, if the Western Leg is being prioritised for a hybrid Bill, there's naturally a few years anyway to define what the optimum Eastern Leg should look like before it's time to go through parliament.

 

[30907]

Some tentative thoughts on this:
1. the Eastern leg suffers from the geographical location of the key cities en route. Neither Toton nor the original Meadowhall are ideal locations (they make good Parkway stations but are miles from city centres).

2. I can see the logic of splitting the route south of Toton to serve Nottingham and Derby separately. Centre-to-centre journey times should be around 60min.

3. I wonder whether Derby-Sheffield-Leeds would be best served by a substantially upgraded route (inevitably with a fair bit of new build and tunnelling, and probably underground platforms at Sheffield), capable of taking XC services as well as HS2. This might imply a lower maximum speed, but HS1 copes with 140mph Javelins in between Eurostars over similar distances.

4. The question then is what to do about Leeds and the NE. Would Leeds be as well served via Manchester (there would be a time penalty, but then I think I have slowed the Eastern leg too... on the other hand, whichever of Bradford and Huddersfield was the en route stop would benefit, and that gives access to a fair bit of West Yorks!)?
As for the NE - direct from Sheffield to Church Fenton perhaps? Obviously with a stop at Pontefract or Castleford This might have implications for the Sheffield-Leeds section in 3...

As to service patterns, I haven't got that far, but whatever impacts Covid has will be broadly similar across all routes, so I don't think it's worth second-guessing.

(PS - I am assuming an ECML upgrade to 140mph south of Doncaster is a non-starter).

 

[ChrisC]

Apologies for a late arrival (!). Yes, from my rail roving trips the 40 miles Nottingham to Sheffield and similar on to Leeds seem awfully slow and poor trips for big cities close together. The M1 is an appealing alternative for most.

I could go on with a map and set of crayons but HS2 stopping in the EMP to Toton area plus making something of the existing routes from there to Leeds and Sheffield would improve more local links and make the most of HS2?
.

Looking at this just from a Nottingham point of view, terminating HS2 at East Midlands Parkway could have advantages regarding journeys to/from Nottingham to London and Birmingham. London will be faster with a direct link to Nottingham and no need to first travel out to Toton and change trains. Birmingham will also be much quicker again without needing to change at Toton or the current slow journey via Derby. This will also have advantages for other journeys via Birmingham to the South West etc.

Terminating HS2 at EMP will not do anything to improve journey times to the north from Nottingham to Sheffield, Leeds and beyond to Newcastle and Scotland. I’m not sure if even retaining the full eastern section of HS2 would improve journey times much between Nottingham and Manchester and the North West.

If HS2 is to terminate at EMP if journeys north of there are to be improved and full advantage taken of the part of HS2 which is built there will need to be significant upgrading between EMP and Sheffield and Leeds. Would trains to Sheffield and beyond continue to run via Derby or could journey times to Sheffield be significantly reduced with a major upgrade of the Erewash Valley Line through Alfreton. If the Erewash Valley Line was electrified and upgraded to high speed running that may also improve journey times north from Nottingham.

 

[Robertj21a]

Ultimately no one really knows what things will look like, but basing future travel demand on the past few months' enforced isolation doesn't seem a sensible thing to do. Just because people are being forced to do something now doesn't mean it's a given in the future. A lot of people just hate working from home. Road traffic is already back to pre-covid levels, suggesting there will be no long term reduction in travel demand. The evidence of the last 200 years points to improved communications technology and travel progressing hand-in-hand. Remote working and conferencing will increase people's business network which may in turn induce further demand for travel.

Interestingly, I don't know a single person who doesn't love working from home. I recognise that it's not for everybody but a costly and frustrating commute into, say, London is also a massive deterrent to going back to how it was pre-Covid.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

There's an interesting remark about the relatively low usage of Parkway stations, with Liverpool South Parkway as an example.
So what most people consider a significant regional success, is regarded by the NIC as "poor value".
That's in the sense of extending journeys for most passengers in order to serve relatively few people whose journeys are shortened.

The report also, as far as I can see, doesn't offer any significant route details about the options, or compare the many potential alternative solutions
(eg a through route at Piccadilly rather than reversal at a terminus, or where the Liverpool terminal should be).
There is no Colne-Skipton option, nor anything resembling a "Woodhead" option.

 

[Ianno87]

Interestingly, I don't know a single person who doesn't love working from home. I recognise that it's not for everybody but a costly and frustrating commute into, say, London is also a massive deterrent to going back to how it was pre-Covid.

I know we've done this debate to death on other threads, but likeky reality is some blend of home working and trips to the office - everyone will have a personal preference on what works best for them on that spectrum.

I for one find day in, day out home working incredibly monotonous. At least 1-2 office days per week would break it up a little.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I know we've done this debate to death on other threads, but likeky reality is some blend of home working and trips to the office - everyone will have a personal preference on what works best for them on that spectrum.

I for one find day in, day out home working incredibly monotonous. At least 1-2 office days per week would break it up a little.

Pre COVID once a week in the office was worth £40 out of my own pocket, FWIW. But equally daily commuting literally nearly killed me on two occasions (through both stress due to severe tiredness and through a closely avoided (by the other driver) potentially serious car accident again due to tiredness) so I'd never want to go back to that unless it was local (about 30 minutes by any mode would be fine) or very short term.

 

[Norm_D_Ploom]

I for one find day in, day out home working incredibly monotonous.

^
THIS

I would prefer a maximum of 1 day a week at home

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Dec 2020 ==

Watching the local news in West Yorkshire last night the way the story was presented was as total doom and gloom that the full eastern leg was not being constructed.

Having had the chance to read the report today that is far from the case.

 

[Ianno87]

Pre COVID once a week in the office was worth £40 out of my own pocket, FWIW. But equally daily commuting literally nearly killed me on two occasions (through both stress due to severe tiredness and through a closely avoided (by the other driver) potentially serious car accident again due to tiredness) so I'd never want to go back to that unless it was local (about 30 minutes by any mode would be fine) or very short term.

Yes, duration of the commute will be a big factor. Those that can get into the office in about 30 minutes with at least of couple of trains per hour will be present most days.

Those will longer commutes will be the 1-2 days/week sorts, and work on the train.

 

[Llandudno]

There's an interesting remark about the relatively low usage of Parkway stations, with Liverpool South Parkway as an example.
So what most people consider a significant regional success, is regarded by the NIC as "poor value".
That's in the sense of extending journeys for most passengers in order to serve relatively few people whose journeys are shortened.

The report also, as far as I can see, doesn't offer any significant route details about the options, or compare the many potential alternative solutions
(eg a through route at Piccadilly rather than reversal at a terminus, or where the Liverpool terminal should be).
There is no Colne-Skipton option, nor anything resembling a "Woodhead" option.

Pre Covid Liverpool South Parkway generated 2.7million journeys per annum, not too shabby considering the fast London trains don’t call there.

 

[a_c_skinner]

Sorry, my eagerness to avoid needing extra crayons for Xmas has left me too brief and the wrong impression(s).

Yes, of course, HS2 to Toton then up the MML to Sheffield, which can accommodate four tracks from Trent northwards to Chesterfield.

Improvements to Leeds to Sheffield, Derby, Nottingham services would seem to me to be a good deal more valuable to the wider North of England than saving a modest amount of time on Leeds to London. Some of that would follow on from Trent to Sheffield improvements but Sheffield to Leeds is less obvious.

 

[Llandudno]

But aren't we talking about ending the high speed line there, not terminating services there? That is, the trains would join the MML and continue? (Bonus: potentially that brings some MML electrification?)

On balance, I tend to agree, I think HS2 will be better for East Midlands connectivity by actually serving Derby and Nottingham City Centres rather than a Park & Ride in the middle of nowhere.

Electrification of the entire MML will follow and should result in faster City Centre to City Centre journeys, subject to track upgrades, between Leeds-Sheffield-Derby/Nottingham as well as Birmingham and London.

May need more car parking spaces at existing stations though.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Dec 2020 ==

Sorry, my eagerness to avoid needing extra crayons for Xmas has left me too brief and the wrong impression(s).

Yes, of course, HS2 to Toton then up the MML to Sheffield, which can accommodate four tracks from Trent northwards to Chesterfield.

Improvements to Leeds to Sheffield, Derby, Nottingham services would seem to me to be a good deal more valuable to the wider North of England than saving a modest amount of time on Leeds to London. Some of that would follow on from Trent to Sheffield improvements but Sheffield to Leeds is less obvious.

Agreed!

I think this will benefit more passengers existing and potential and possibly take some cars off the A61, A38 and M1

 

[Dr Hoo]

There's an interesting remark about the relatively low usage of Parkway stations, with Liverpool South Parkway as an example.
So what most people consider a significant regional success, is regarded by the NIC as "poor value".
That's in the sense of extending journeys for most passengers in order to serve relatively few people whose journeys are shortened.

The report also, as far as I can see, doesn't offer any significant route details about the options, or compare the many potential alternative solutions
(eg a through route at Piccadilly rather than reversal at a terminus, or where the Liverpool terminal should be).
There is no Colne-Skipton option, nor anything resembling a "Woodhead" option.

I have only ever used Liverpool South Parkway for train > train interchange purposes but have never really thought of it as a 'parkway' in the true sense of the word. The car park seems to be quite small and (in normal circumstances) completely full from early in the morning. I would expect that there is a lot of 'frustrated demand' for parking that translates into using other stations like Warrington Bank Quay or Runcorn as railheads for longer distance journeys or else accessing LSP by bus or drop-off for more local commuting trips.

The place just doesn't feel like Bristol Parkway, Didcot P, Oxford P, Rugby and so on.

Meadowhall Interchange is another station in the North that has some pretensions to being a parkway but where finding a parking space is usually impossible.

If you are going to describe a concept as 'poor value' (as distinct from 'poorly planned' or 'poorly implemented') at least select some sensible case studies.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I have only ever used Liverpool South Parkway for train > train interchange purposes but have never really thought of it as a 'parkway' in the true sense of the word. The car park seems to be quite small and (in normal circumstances) completely full from early in the morning. I would expect that there is a lot of 'frustrated demand' for parking that translates into using other stations like Warrington Bank Quay or Runcorn as railheads for longer distance journeys or else accessing LSP by bus or drop-off for more local commuting trips.

Agreed, it was a bit of an odd name, "Liverpool South Interchange" would have been more descriptive of what it actually is.

 

[Gareth]

I'd have just called it Garston or Allerton personally.