Northern Hub?

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Both the north and south have had projects put on hold for some time. However this decade will see significant investment on infrastructure in northern England (mainly in and around Manchester, but some improvements elsewhere too).

What was worrying to me was the amount of queries that were being raised on certain parts of the Northern Hub project proposals....let us not forget that they were only proposals.

What financial figure should be put against both the Thameslink and the Crossrail projects and has there recently been any Governmental statements by a Minister that parts of either of these projects should be viewed in financial cost benefits, as does seem to be the case with the Northern Hub.

 

[Eagle]

Similarly Crossrail was a long time in coming (first proposed in the 1940s AFAICS)...

Although in its current form its first full proposal was around 1989 (I've seen NSE-branded mockup maps with pretty much the same station list as today). Even the specifications for the new stock (345s) are taken directly from NSE's specifications (341s).

 

[Viscount702]

Paul

I think the point you are making is valid.

I haven't heard any mention of either of the Southern schemes being queried whereas Northern Hub is. In fact having regard to my post above I think we can assume the Standedge tunnels will not reopen or at least not under the current Northern Hub and as a result the Hub is being cut back through the back door. The argument by NR is that electrification means they don't need the loops and hence the tunnels.That may well be a valid argument. Will this mean that the remaining parts of the Hub will be funded. I don't know' but one thing I am clear about is that the Governments decision (all be it very welcome) to wire NTP has meant many assumptions under the Hub are no longer valid and NR is being told or at least is having to look at everything again to see what is needed and how to carry through what has been funded so far and perhaps reduce the cost to allow more for the remainder to be done at a lower contribution from Government. We will have to wait and see.

 

[tbtc]

Paul

I think the point you are making is valid.

I haven't heard any mention of either of the Southern schemes being queried whereas Northern Hub is

Crossrail and "Thameslink 2000" will both have been delayed by at least a generation by the time they are fully open - there have been tweaks/ changes/ reassessments in that time.

If anything the Northern Hub plans seem to be coming along faster than I expected them to (e.g. electrification of the Diggle line was not expected to be announced when it was)

 

[Viscount702]

Northern hub is not coming along faster. The NTP electrification is not and never was part of the Hub. It was a possible scheme for CP5 but no more. The decision to give funding now for the Electrification now although very welcome is in fact causing problems for the Hub for the reasons mentioned. It is in my view meaning a re think to justify the money which the Government is clearly baulking at. What it is doing so far is drip feeding money for the elements it feels justify the money within the overall scheme of things but not for others particularly elements which are directly affected by electrification. Also the drip feed means that planning the most cost effective way of doing things is difficult. Ie the interaction of the Chord on Electrification etc

 

[northwichcat]

Similarly Crossrail was a long time in coming (first proposed in the 1940s AFAICS), so the fact that it is now being built doesn't hide the fact that it has been postponed more times than many schemes.

The 1948 Crossrail proposals included 7 possible routes. Proposal C went ahead but in the form of an additional London Underground line, which work started on in 1962

This was actually very similar to the proposal in the late 1960s for a "Picc Vic Tunnel" in Manchester, which got scaled down to a light rail line which work started on in 1989. The tunnel plans seemed to include electrification of Manchester to Bolton as well.

Neither a London Underground line nor a tram line can provide the same level of capacity and destination flexibility that the more expensive heavy rail proposals could.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Crossrail and "Thameslink 2000" will both have been delayed by at least a generation by the time they are fully open - there have been tweaks/ changes/ reassessments in that time.

Be that as it may, the year is 2012 and we should be looking at comparisons that exist at this current point in time. I have been reading a detailed technical bulletin where it is stated that the current cost of the Crossrail project is in the area of £1 BILLION to cover the capital cost of the purchase of the required rolling stock, of which a figure of £50 million is quoted for new depot facilities that will be required.

 

[tbtc]

Be that as it may, the year is 2012 and we should be looking at comparisons that exist at this current point in time. I have been reading a detailed technical bulletin where it is stated that the current cost of the Crossrail project is in the area of £1 BILLION to cover the capital cost of the purchase of the required rolling stock, of which a figure of £50 million is quoted for new depot facilities that will be required.

Yes, it's 2012, and the London area schemes (which have been on the agenda for at least a generation) still aren't built. That's why I can't agree with the complaints about the "delay" to the Northern Hub proposals.

Just because Crossrail is being built at the moment (though won't be open for a while), and the Northern Hub hasn't been built yet doesn't mean that "the south" can just click its fingers and get things built. Any large infrastructure project takes time.

 

[HSTEd]

Yes, it's 2012, and the London area schemes (which have been on the agenda for at least a generation) still aren't built. That's why I can't agree with the complaints about the "delay" to the Northern Hub proposals.

Just because Crossrail is being built at the moment (though won't be open for a while), and the Northern Hub hasn't been built yet doesn't mean that "the south" can just click its fingers and get things built. Any large infrastructure project takes time.

I concur,

Just look at when concrete planning work for Crossrail and Thameslink started.

And the original name of the Thameslink programme when it was first proposed prior to privatisation.

 

[northwichcat]

Why is everyone comparing the Northern Hub with Crossrail and Thameslink? The total scope and cost of the Northern Hub is a small fraction of Crossrail and Thameslink.

If we want to compare the Northern Hub with something in the South, the Docklands Light Railway is a more sensible comparison. If we used today's money DLR has probably had more investment than the Northern Hub is set to get.

 

[Viscount702]

I am now convinced that the Hub will not go ahead as planned.

The elements not affected by electrification will probably be OK. Ie the Chord, the Hope Valley works, the Rochdale line works and what seem to be new line speed works on the Bolton line all of which are now already funded.

The problem is the works to be done for Victoria - Leeds which have been serious affected by the Electrification works. It now looks as I have posted before that NR do not consider loops etc on this line as being necessary any longer. So the Dewsbury and Standedge Tunnel works may not go ahead.We will see. If these works aren't done this makes the Scheme cheaper (which is what the Government want). This may make it perhaps more likely that whats left ie Platforms 15 & 16 at Piccadilly and platform 4 at the Airport along with the other capacity and line speed improvements in the Hub not mentioned above are funded. Even though this may cause a delay now (which I think it is) it is better to get it right and not have to undo something you have just done in order to do the next bit or duplicate things which makes everything more expensive.

 

[tbtc]

Why is everyone comparing the Northern Hub with Crossrail and Thameslink? The total scope and cost of the Northern Hub is a small fraction of Crossrail and Thameslink.

If we want to compare the Northern Hub with something in the South, the Docklands Light Railway is a more sensible comparison. If we used today's money DLR has probably had more investment than the Northern Hub is set to get.

...because it appears that this is another North/South divide story (though it isn't)

I am now convinced that the Hub will not go ahead as planned

Bear in mind that what we call the "Northern Hub" is a big wishlist (initially based in/around Manchester, but expanded in scope), not all of which was ever funded/ guaranteed/ committed to.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

...because it appears that this is another North/South divide story (though it isn't)

Surely this is worthy of a geographical area discussion as the Northern Hub is a northern cross-Pennine project whereas Crossrail is a cross-London project, that links areas of both environs. One would never decry the benefits accruing to either project, but it does seem, from Ministerial issued statements, that the northern based project does indeed seem to be subject to more in-depth fiscal examination than the southern project.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I suspect because the cost:benefit ratio is much smaller (i.e. VFM) for the Northern Hub than it is for a lot of Southern projects, ergo a deeper look is needed.

 

[142094]

However it has been widely reported that the Cost-benefit analysis that the DfT perform is flawed and needs looked at again.

 

[Viscount702]

Bear in mind that what we call the "Northern Hub" is a big wishlist (initially based in/around Manchester, but expanded in scope), not all of which was ever funded/ guaranteed/ committed to.

Agreed that the Hub is a big wish list but it is a distinct list for which funding is being sought in total. It may not all have been funded but that was the hope.

Many posters on this and other forums, the Media and also may I add NR seem to call any rail improvement in and around Manchester as part of the Hub which it isn't. None of the electrification schemes were part of the Hub even Liverpool- Manchester as that was already announced and was to have been completed by end of CP4 which was the baseline for the Hub. The extension to Preston Blackpool etc and NTP is extra and a welcome extra.

The North needs what the Hub was to provide namely better services across the North. Because of the extra electrification a number of assumptions in the Hub are no longer valid. ie with the exception of Liverpool - Manchester everything would be operated by DMU. The wish list which forms the Hub needs to be reviewed ( which I think NR are doing probably under pressure from DfT) to cater for the revised position. Nonetheless any revision should ideally give the improvements that the Hub (in its original form) would have delivered.

Even if the Hub in a revised form is funded in total to achieve the same end then a significant revision is going to be needed to the services to account for electric traction on more lines apart from finding electric units of hopefully a suitable type to run them. The assumption still seems to be 319's or similar for most services but something like 350's or perhaps better for Liverpool-Newcastle etc.

 

[tbtc]

Surely this is worthy of a geographical area discussion as the Northern Hub is a northern cross-Pennine project whereas Crossrail is a cross-London project, that links areas of both environs. One would never decry the benefits accruing to either project, but it does seem, from Ministerial issued statements, that the northern based project does indeed seem to be subject to more in-depth fiscal examination than the southern project.

The Northern Hub is primarily a Manchester area wishlist, which gets much smaller the further away you go.

It may appear to be subject to more in-depth fiscal examination than the southern projects (Crossrail and Thameslink) because the southern projects have both been planned for a lot longer (e.g. Thameslink 2000), so have already been through these processes. Crossrail and Thameslink have been back to the drawing board several times (e.g. the scaling back of Crossrail's ambitions to just a Maidenhead/Heathrow - Abbey Wood/ Shenfield "shuttle").

If it appears that the Northern Hub is suffering growing pains in its "in-depth fiscal examination" then that's only because the southern schemes have already been through this (and been postponed/ revised/ cut down).

 

[John55]

Surely this is worthy of a geographical area discussion as the Northern Hub is a northern cross-Pennine project whereas Crossrail is a cross-London project, that links areas of both environs. One would never decry the benefits accruing to either project, but it does seem, from Ministerial issued statements, that the northern based project does indeed seem to be subject to more in-depth fiscal examination than the southern project.

I have not heard of any delay to any Northern Hub project. In fact there are I think 3 elements which are approved already;
1 Liverpool - Manchester speed enhancement plus Manchester - Leeds speed enhancement. This is a CP4 scheme.
2 Orsall Chord approved earlier than expected.
3 Manchester - Blackpool & Manchester - Sheffield improvements also approved earlier than expected.

2 & 3 were expected to be CP5 schemes but are approved already so no delay there and in fact over 40% of the Northern Hub is now funded.

Can I remind you all of what happened when the current Government completed its comprehensive spending review in 2010.

Crossrail was changed to be delivered over a longer time period ( i.e. delayed) to cut costs by £1 billion and the North West electrification was allowed to proceed and since then North Trans-Pennine has been added.

Can I also point out as far as rail transport is concerned there is a tiny little project going ahead in Greater Manchester which is costing more than Northern Hub or any electrification project.

 

[northwichcat]

Bear in mind that what we call the "Northern Hub" is a big wishlist (initially based in/around Manchester, but expanded in scope), not all of which was ever funded/ guaranteed/ committed to.

Yes and it originally started as DfT looking at Thameslink proposals and realising they will have over 300 non-life expired EMU vehicles surplus to requirements in the South East and if they wanted Thameslink to go ahead then they needed to electrify lines elsewhere.

Northern, TPE and FGW were all due to get new DMU vehicles for extra capacity due to passenger growth so DfT decided that those would be the areas to look at for electrification.

The released DMUs could be used to lengthen existing services or to run extra services. The Northern Hub favours the latter but that's the more costly option.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I have not heard of any delay to any Northern Hub project.

So the first batch of 319s will be at the Allerton depot fully refurbished for the May 2014 timetable change? If not there is a delay.

Ms Villiers did say at a conference in Leeds that the project may not go ahead in full.

Can I also point out as far as rail transport is concerned there is a tiny little project going ahead in Greater Manchester which is costing more than Northern Hub or any electrification project.

As I pointed out already the entire budget for the whole Northern Hub in today's money is less than the DLR.

The Northern Hub gives no guarantee of new rolling stock or even to refurbish older diesel stock. While Pacers are expected to be withdrawn this decade it's not impossible that they'll be replaced by cascaded units and low cost replacements like tram-trains, opposed to something like 172s.

 

[John55]

Yes and it originally started as DfT looking at Thameslink proposals and realising they will have over 300 non-life expired EMU vehicles surplus to requirements in the South East and if they wanted Thameslink to go ahead then they needed to electrify lines elsewhere.

Northern, TPE and FGW were all due to get new DMU vehicles for extra capacity due to passenger growth so DfT decided that those would be the areas to look at for electrification.

The released DMUs could be used to lengthen existing services or to run extra services. The Northern Hub favours the latter but that's the more costly option.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


So the first batch of 319s will be at the Allerton depot fully refurbished for the May 2014 timetable change? If not there is a delay.

Ms Villiers did say at a conference in Leeds that the project may not go ahead in full.



As I pointed out already the entire budget for the whole Northern Hub in today's money is less than the DLR.

The Northern Hub gives no guarantee of new rolling stock or even to refurbish older diesel stock. While Pacers are expected to be withdrawn this decade it's not impossible that they'll be replaced by cascaded units and low cost replacements like tram-trains, opposed to something like 172s.

There is complete confusion in this posting between Northern Hub and North West Electrification which started as completely separate ideas but will eventually be implemented at the same time.

The Manchester Hub (now renamed Northern Hub) is option 2 of the Manchester Hub Rail Study Report produced by Network Rail in 2009. This was almost complete when the unexpected announcement of the Chat Moss electrification was made and the report states quite reasonably that the plans would have to be reviewed in the light of the electrification announcement.

Therefore Northern Hub predates electrification and none of its objectives are dependant on methods of powering the trains, but the methods of achieving those objectives may. The North West electrification may well be inter-related with the Thameslink project but it is not part of the Northern Hub option 2 schemes which are listed below.

- Platforms 15 & 16 at Manchester Piccadilly
- Improved headways at Manchester Victoria
- Manchester Victoria western bay platforms
- Improved passenger environment at Manchester Victoria station
- Ordsall Chord
- Marple linespeed improvements
- Four track Broad Green - Huyton
- Oxford Road platform and signalling improvements
- Chinley loops
- Grindleford loops
- Dore Jn redoubling
- Four track Marsden – Diggle
- Dewsbury Up Loop
- Signalling headway improvements on the Chat Moss route at Astley
- Chat Moss route linespeed improvements
- Manchester Airport additional platform
Rochdale bay platform

The delivery of class 319s is needed for the December 2014 timetable change but this is part of the NW electrification. It is pretty clear the 319s will not be in time but that’s nothing to do with Northern Hub it is down to agreeing the price of the contract for the new Thameslink trains.

Theresa Villiers did not say that Northern Hub may not go ahead in full she said it would not be given a block approval and each part would have to be appraised separately which is not the same thing at all. This was explained to you on 26/10/11 in a post in a thread about her speech to the Northern Rail Conference last year after you had posted a comment made by Cllr James Lewis under a headline alleging it was said by Ms Villiers. As we saw at the last Budget another £130 million worth of work was approved with no suggestion that the rest might not be approved.

So what if the Northern Hub costs less than the DLR? DLR is essentially a new urban railway and Northern Hub is an enhancement to the existing lines to better use their potential capacity. The fact that DLR carries as many passengers as Northern, or Merseyrail and Tyne and Wear Metro combined suggests there were good reasons for spending the money.

Will the full Manchester Metrolink be better value for money than the DLR? I look forward to your analysis of the cost and likely passenger traffic.

 

[VTPreston_Tez]

I'm excited for 2 new platforms at Manchester Piccadilly. I don't know how it's going to be pulled off but past experience has told me to avoid using 13 and 14 especially at peak times and after concerts. I hope that new platforms will spread out the passengers more and reduce overcrowding.
The Manchester Victoria improvements and the Airport new platforms will hopefully be a success and it looks very interesting.

 

[northwichcat]

The Manchester Hub (now renamed Northern Hub) is option 2 of the Manchester Hub Rail Study Report produced by Network Rail in 2009.

This was almost complete when the unexpected announcement of the Chat Moss electrification was made and the report states quite reasonably that the plans would have to be reviewed in the light of the electrification announcement.

The Northern Hub is more than just a renaming of the Manchester Hub. As you have said yourself the Manchester Hub didn't include electrification. Now any rail improvements in the North seem to be put under the 'Northern Hub' category.

There were actually 3 separate rail projects proposed by the previous government for the North of England, in addition to the Manchester Hub:
1. Improvements to the 10 worst mainline stations in the country, which were mainly in the North, such as Manchester Victoria. This was cancelled by the Coalition government, however, some of the Victoria improvements are going ahead under the Northern Hub.
2. Procurement of new DMU vehicles for extra capacity to be in service by December 2012. This was cancelled as a result of a realisation that if new vehicles were ordered for Thameslink that there would be numerous vehicles sitting around spare unless they were put to use.
3. North West Electrification and refurbishment and cascade of existing Thameslink EMUs to North West.



Therefore Northern Hub predates electrification and none of its objectives are dependant on methods of powering the trains, but the methods of achieving those objectives may. The North West electrification may well be inter-related with the Thameslink project but it is not part of the Northern Hub option 2 schemes which are listed below.

- Four track Marsden – Diggle
- Dewsbury Up Loop

A recent post quoting a PTE states these will not be going ahead as it will be possible to achieve up to 6 fast services on North TPE without these.

The delivery of class 319s is needed for the December 2014 timetable change but this is part of the NW electrification.

They are needed before then. TPE services will be diverted away from Bolton in the May 2014 timetable change, or possibly December 2013 if TPE get approval. The DMUs released off Chat Moss are needed to plug this gap. If there are no EMUs to replace the DMUs on Chat Moss then it causes all kinds of problems.

Originally the 319s were supposed to start being replaced in 2012, to give time for refurbishment and crew training prior to going in to service in the North West in 2013: http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...rification-planning-to-start-immediately.html

So what if the Northern Hub costs less than the DLR? DLR is essentially a new urban railway and Northern Hub is an enhancement to the existing lines to better use their potential capacity.

The reason I brought up DLR is because it is a much more sensible comparison for the Northern Hub, opposed to Thameslink or Crossrail.

The hugely exaggerated myth that DLR carries as many passengers as Northern, or Merseyrail and Tyne and Wear Metro combined suggests there were good reasons for spending the money.

Corrected that sentence for you.

Daily ridership of DLR is 192,000.
Daily ridership of Tyne and Wear Metro is 113,000.
Daily ridership of Merseyrail was over 100,000 before the frequency of Chester services was doubled.

Northern Rail are very short of capacity on their rolling stock and the total capacity of all their rolling stock is more than double what DLR have so I very much doubt the daily ridership on DLR is higher than Northern alone.

Will the full Manchester Metrolink be better value for money than the DLR? I look forward to your analysis of the cost and likely passenger traffic.

If you look at my previous posts on here the only tram lines I support in Manchester are the city centre lines and the line out to Salford Quays.

 

[OxtedL]

The reason I brought up DLR is because it is a much more sensible comparison for the Northern Hub, opposed to Thameslink or Crossrail.

I'm intrigued by this.

The DLR is a self contained urban rapid transit system (or words to that effect), using modern automated rolling stock, running on "driverless" signalling technology on specially constructed/reconstructed routes. It has no conflicting interfaces with other systems from the point of view of train operation, and has been reasonably sensibly designed pretty much from scratch, as evidenced by the way it is almost entirely grade separated and has been electrified from the beginning.

Thameslink and Crossrail on the other hand both make extensive use of existing heavy rail infrastructure (both being heavy rail systems), relying on upgrades (less so with Crossrail, but still there). They see great and conflicting interface with other trains on the network (less so with Crossrail), indeed they will both be sharing tracks with other trains including likely freight at their extremities. Only Crossrail sees significant new electrification on existing routes. Thameslink relies heavily on resignalling and associated infrastructure modification.

The Northern Hub on the other hand: makes heavy use of existing infrastructure, relying on upgrades; is a heavy rail project; sees continuing conflict between different trains on the network including freight; and sees no direct electrification on existing routes. It's also not an urban rapid transit system, or any words to any effect even remotely similar to that.

I'm not completely convinced the DLR is a better comparison, but that could just be me.

I will concede that Thameslink and Crossrail aren't particularly good comparisons though, both being coordinated projects rather than a big collection of sub-projects.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I will concede that Thameslink and Crossrail aren't particularly good comparisons though, both being coordinated projects rather than a big collection of sub-projects.

I think the matter of both Crossrail and Thameslink was introduced solely to highlight the total "southern based" grant and financial costings of both these projects when compared to the amount of finance required to fund the Northern Hub project, as all three are heavy rail projects.

 

[northwichcat]

I'm not completely convinced the DLR is a better comparison, but that could just be me.

If the whole of the current DLR was built now it would require around the same amount of money that the Northern Hub will get if it goes ahead in full, that's why I think it's a better comparison.

If you cut the budget to £500m for Thameslink or Crossrail what will that give you? Probably nothing useful but it gives you the whole Northern Hub scheme.

Finding £500m of tax payers money should be considerably easier than finding £6bn of tax payers money.

 

[OxtedL]

I take it you've used public transport in London?

 

[Stats]

If the whole of the current DLR was built now it would require around the same amount of money that the Northern Hub will get if it goes ahead in full, that's why I think it's a better comparison.

Considering the two most recent extensions alone cost nearly £400m I think your estimates are slightly out. The extension from King George V to Woolwich Arsenal cost £180m. The Stratford International extension £211m.

 

[PR1Berske]

RE: The new Manchester Piccadilly platforms. I have no idea how they're going to do it. There is no chance, in my mind, of the project being started in the near future.

If HS2 ever gets here, wasn't there an argument that the platforms would be "north south" rather than "east west"?

 

[snail]

Improvements to the 10 worst mainline stations in the country, which were mainly in the North, such as Manchester Victoria. This was cancelled by the Coalition government, however, some of the Victoria improvements are going ahead under the Northern Hub.

Not so. The 'better stations' scheme was contributing something like £5M out of a total cost of £30M. Most of the funding was from NR directly, plus Manchester council and GMITA (now TfGM). The shortfall has now been covered, but plans will have changed again with the electrification schemes. The initial proposals in 2006 were for private investment including office and retail developments but these collapsed along with the economy.

 

[jonesy3001]

RE: The new Manchester Piccadilly platforms. I have no idea how they're going to do it. There is no chance, in my mind, of the project being started in the near future.

If HS2 ever gets here, wasn't there an argument that the platforms would be "north south" rather than "east west"?

Dont see why they cant use the old mayfield station and build a bridge from there and connecting up to the oxford road line.