Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) - Latest plans & speculation

[Purple Orange]

Uh? What improvements are those you've been waiting for? What concrete plans have been binned in the 30 years (don't forget 13 of the 30 years (ie. since 1991) have been a Labour government, so Tory or not doesn't really come in to this).

Off-hand, I can think of electrification of Forster Square and the Ilkley/Skipton network, that was in 1994 - under the Tories. I can't think of any other changes that have happened, but neither can I think of any that were seriously proposed and that have been binned by either party (or the coalition).

It depends on where you live. Some areas have seen significant improvements in rail infrastructure while others have not. Some cities have adequate (or even excellent) rail infrastructure in some respects, but poor in another. I.e, Liverpool has an excellent heavy rail metro network; Manchester does not. Manchester has a very good intercity network; Liverpool does not. Manchester has an good light rail metro network; Leeds does not. It could be arguedthat some cities have fantastic provision for their needs: Newcastle for instance.

 

[Jozhua]

Some of us have been waiting 30 years for substantive improvements that were binned to save money by the Tories. If levelling up actually means anything they need to deliver those improvements now

I feel you there - I could perhaps live without MML electrification if I got the Eastern leg of HS2, but looks like we're to get neither...

"Transport is one of the supreme leveller-uppers and we are making the big generational changes shirked by previous governments.
We will do Northern Powerhouse rail, we will link up the cities of the Midlands and the North, we will restore those sinews of the union that have been allowed to atrophy.
The A1 north of Berwick and on into Scotland; the A 75 in Scotland that is so vital for the links with northern Ireland and the rest of the country; the North Wales corridor."

Something for everyone, and for all parts of the UK, it seems.
He's still left us guessing about an HS2b/NPR route, but there's scope to leave out the eastern leg without lying.
Cardiff will be baffled by the "North Wales corridor" unless he means electrification and maybe a few road upgrades.
He's also forgotten that the 2012 (CP5) HLOS was pretty ambitious (MML, electric spine, wires to Bristol/Swansea etc) and yet he says it was "shirked by previous governments".
The industry let that plan atrophy with excessive costs.

HS2 is a bit of a hot potato, so I can see why he might not want to mention it directly in the speech. Despite the fact that NPR would be identical in terms of cost and environmental impact, it garners much more public support.

I don't think the costs are entirely the industry's fault - they were trying to carry out electrification projects at a time where pretty much all the skills and supply chain had atrophied. Projects like Manchester - Blackpool electrification were a cost and delay disaster, but the finished product is of high quality and made for a significant improvement in journey quality - especially after the introduction of 331's. I'm sure the people who worked/managed the project learned a lot of good lessons they can carry forwards for TRU. Ultimately if the government wants to do infrastructure cheap, they have to see it as a rolling program (not only electrification, but also new alignments) including standardised designs for stations, bridges, etc.

It depends on where you live. Some areas have seen significant improvements in rail infrastructure while others have not. Some cities have adequate (or even excellent) rail infrastructure in some respects, but poor in another. I.e, Liverpool has an excellent heavy rail metro network; Manchester does not. Manchester has a very good intercity network; Liverpool does not. Manchester has an good light rail metro network; Leeds does not. It could be arguedthat some cities have fantastic provision for their needs: Newcastle for instance.

Newcastle is pretty good, but the Metro is definitely showing it's age - I've heard it can be pretty unreliable from a friend up there and indeed I have been stuck waiting on platforms for quite a while before!

I hope the new rolling stock will help resolve a number of the issues, but a proper modernization of the system is likely in need!

 

[LittleAH]

Uh? What improvements are those you've been waiting for? What concrete plans have been binned in the 30 years (don't forget 13 of the 30 years (ie. since 1991) have been a Labour government, so Tory or not doesn't really come in to this).

Off-hand, I can think of electrification of Forster Square and the Ilkley/Skipton network, that was in 1994 - under the Tories. I can't think of any other changes that have happened, but neither can I think of any that were seriously proposed and that have been binned by either party (or the coalition).

Firstly, lets not forget those electrification projects were done by local authorities. Claims they are by X party is a complete misnomer. Driven by local want then, devolution in these times, will be key.

Secondly, just off the top of my head I can think of the electric transpennine 2000 vision presented in the early 1990s. Problem is we've had woeful governments when it's come to transport policy for 50 years. Bar the development of HS1, which was a mad box of frogs, and proposal of HS2 in the Brown era - there's never been any sustained vision for rolling electrification and continental europe style vision of high speed rail. Interesting that TPE's new MD was interviewed and mentioned such a topic this week in the Yorkshire Post. Additionally, you can argue the breaking up of the railways didn't really help with long-term plans either. Plus the DfT and Treasury who are awful too.

Thirdly, we need to get rid of this idea that we can't afford HS2/NPR etc. Despite austerity politics, the deficit had more than doubled under the Tories and productivity weaker than Germany/France etc. Key driving forces around productivity is skills, infrastructure and social mobility - all of which we've not invested in. High speed rail is a small cog in that machine and we can afford it as there's a massive difference between capex and opex, which far too many seem to be completely unaware of. And ways to reduce deficits often revolve around productivity, investment and social mobility - all of which HS2/NPR provides.

Let's be frank - those running the country are not leaders, they're singing to the tune of their donors. If they lead, we'd have a coherent vision - especially with carbon neutral targets, domestic aviation policy and rail freight in mind. This week has been a complete shambles by Johnson, Schapps etc. As Jen Williams in the MEN posted on Twitter - there was supposed to be a big northern announcement - it never came.

 

[Purple Orange]

Newcastle is pretty good, but the Metro is definitely showing it's age - I've heard it can be pretty unreliable from a friend up there and indeed I have been stuck waiting on platforms for quite a while before!

I hope the new rolling stock will help resolve a number of the issues, but a proper modernization of the system is likely in need!

Yeah the rolling stock is showing its age. However a bad day on the metro is far better than most days elsewhere. A couple of metro trains could be cancelled in succession and you could still have a better service than a 2 tph heavy rail station in another city.

Back to NPR, I’d agree that the South Yorkshire is getting overlooked here. Indeed the concept of NPR seems like it will be binned off. There may well be a new line between Manchester & Leeds, but it I suspect it will be for North-South traffic to London and Birmingham, incorporating Trans Pennine traffic that flows between Newcastle, York & Leeds to Manchester.

 

[D6130]

Firstly, lets not forget those electrification projects were done by local authorities. Claims they are by X party is a complete misnomer. Driven by local want then, devolution in these times, will be key.

Secondly, just off the top of my head I can think of the electric transpennine 2000 vision presented in the early 1990s. Problem is we've had woeful governments when it's come to transport policy for 50 years. Bar the development of HS1, which was a mad box of frogs, and proposal of HS2 in the Brown era - there's never been any sustained vision for rolling electrification and continental europe style vision of high speed rail. Interesting that TPE's new MD was interviewed and mentioned such a topic this week in the Yorkshire Post. Additionally, you can argue the breaking up of the railways didn't really help with long-term plans either. Plus the DfT and Treasury who are awful too.

Thirdly, we need to get rid of this idea that we can't afford HS2/NPR etc. Despite austerity politics, the deficit had more than doubled under the Tories and productivity weaker than Germany/France etc. Key driving forces around productivity is skills, infrastructure and social mobility - all of which we've not invested in. High speed rail is a small cog in that machine and we can afford it as there's a massive difference between capex and opex, which far too many seem to be completely unaware of. And ways to reduce deficits often revolve around productivity, investment and social mobility - all of which HS2/NPR provides.

Let's be frank - those running the country are not leaders, they're singing to the tune of their donors. If they lead, we'd have a coherent vision - especially with carbon neutral targets, domestic aviation policy and rail freight in mind. This week has been a complete shambles by Johnson, Schapps etc. As Jen Williams in the MEN posted on Twitter - there was supposed to be a big northern announcement - it never came.

In a nutshell....got it in one. I fully agree with all of the above.

 

[Jozhua]

Firstly, lets not forget those electrification projects were done by local authorities. Claims they are by X party is a complete misnomer. Driven by local want then, devolution in these times, will be key.

Secondly, just off the top of my head I can think of the electric transpennine 2000 vision presented in the early 1990s. Problem is we've had woeful governments when it's come to transport policy for 50 years. Bar the development of HS1, which was a mad box of frogs, and proposal of HS2 in the Brown era - there's never been any sustained vision for rolling electrification and continental europe style vision of high speed rail. Interesting that TPE's new MD was interviewed and mentioned such a topic this week in the Yorkshire Post. Additionally, you can argue the breaking up of the railways didn't really help with long-term plans either. Plus the DfT and Treasury who are awful too.

Thirdly, we need to get rid of this idea that we can't afford HS2/NPR etc. Despite austerity politics, the deficit had more than doubled under the Tories and productivity weaker than Germany/France etc. Key driving forces around productivity is skills, infrastructure and social mobility - all of which we've not invested in. High speed rail is a small cog in that machine and we can afford it as there's a massive difference between capex and opex, which far too many seem to be completely unaware of. And ways to reduce deficits often revolve around productivity, investment and social mobility - all of which HS2/NPR provides.

Let's be frank - those running the country are not leaders, they're singing to the tune of their donors. If they lead, we'd have a coherent vision - especially with carbon neutral targets, domestic aviation policy and rail freight in mind. This week has been a complete shambles by Johnson, Schapps etc. As Jen Williams in the MEN posted on Twitter - there was supposed to be a big northern announcement - it never came.

Another 'like' on this!

Weak productivity is absolutely one of the reasons why the UK's economy is in shambles. Just the released capacity for freight will be a massive boost to the economy post HS2. I'd love to see more rail freight go through the Chunnel - there is a massive opportunity for shifting a ton of stuff through there overnight!

 

[Roast Veg]

We would like to apologize for the late arrival ... but ...

Integreated Rail Replacement Bus Plan?

 

[fishwomp]

Firstly, lets not forget those electrification projects were done by local authorities. Claims they are by X party is a complete misnomer. Driven by local want then, devolution in these times, will be key.
[..]

Was *it* really? If it was, I have forgotten.

Did WYPTE pay for Leeds-Bradford/Ilkley/Connonley? Any sources for that? I know they "bought" units like the 158/9s and 155s, but they seemed to still be given to the ROSCOs at privatization time..

Did North Yorkshire CC pay for the wires into Skipton? That'd be out of character..

I do remember that we had the 307s for a few years because the wires were done without the rolling stock having funding. To be honest, that at least is better than the IEP project where there were variation orders due to change in the wires coverage, and stock stuck idle awaiting electrification to complete - that would've been expensive..

 

[WAO]

The significant number of electrification projects through the Thatcherite 1980's to just before Major's privatisation were funded by the (now) DfT and Treasury after approval of investment proposals submitted by BRB.

The North Leeds wiring was certainly helped in formulation by W Yorks, then chaired then by a very able and articulate train driver. BR got loan sanction for the wiring but not the rolling stock probably (IIRC) because of the crisis caused by the 1992 ERM folly (remainers note).

NPR has to come (eventually) from central government.

WAO

 

[YorksLad12]

Did WYPTE pay for Leeds-Bradford/Ilkley/Connonley? Any sources for that? I know they "bought" units like the 158/9s and 155s, but they seemed to still be given to the ROSCOs at privatization time..

WYPTE (WYPTA really) paid for seven class 155 sets and the centre cars on the class 144s. They also I think paid for the fourth cars on half of the 333s, DfT funding the others (there was an issue where DfT wanted to stop funding their bits, which would have left a mixed fleet).

They retained ownership of the 155s and centre cars post-privatisation and only sold them in the mid-2010s to help pay for Low Moor Station (but on the proviso that they would still be available for Northern to use in West Yorkshire).

 

[D6130]

Did WYPTE pay for Leeds-Bradford/Ilkley/Connonley? Any sources for that? I know they "bought" units like the 158/9s and 155s, but they seemed to still be given to the ROSCOs at privatization time..

IIRC, West Yorkshire PTE funded the resignalling of the Leeds NW lines, but the electrification was funded through the DfT. (happy to be corrected).

Did North Yorkshire CC pay for the wires into Skipton? That'd be out of character..

No. Skipton was part of the overall funding package for the operational convenience of having a terminating station and depot there.

I do remember that we had the 307s for a few years because the wires were done without the rolling stock having funding.

That would be 308s in the case of Leeds NW. The 307s were used as a stopgap on the Leeds-Doncaster line, prior to the 321s being built.

 

[mwmbwls]

The focus of these attempts at extra-territoriality is his "Union Connectivity Review" chaired by Sir Peter Hendy, the interim report of which in March produced this response from the Scottish transport minister in a letter to Grant Shapps:

https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/49505/letter-to-grant-shapps-mp.pdf

So, a detailed response indicating the profound dissatisfaction of the SNP Government in Scotland with the Government meddling on their devolved turf. The Scottish Transport Minister signs off his letter "Best Wishes" IIRC, whereas the Duke of Wellington, once signed a letter, " I remain your obedient servant (which you know well) - I am not". PEST analysis theory (Political,Economic,Social and Technical) suggests that all four business cases must align for the execution successful major construction projects.What this suggests is that nothing will get done.

 

[Purple Orange]

So, a detailed response indicating the profound dissatisfaction of the SNP Government in Scotland with the Government meddling on their devolved turf. The Scottish Transport Minister signs off his letter "Best Wishes" IIRC, whereas the Duke of Wellington, once signed a letter, " I remain your obedient servant (which you know well) - I am not". PEST analysis theory (Political,Economic,Social and Technical) suggests that all four business cases must align for the execution successful major construction projects.What this suggests is that nothing will get done.

Perhaps I am being ignorant, but what impact would that have on NPR?

 

[hwl]

Perhaps I am being ignorant, but what impact would that have on NPR?

E.g. the high cost all new build Manchester - Leeds via Bradford schemes wouldn't pass all four.

 

[Purple Orange]

E.g. the high cost all new build Manchester - Leeds via Bradford schemes wouldn't pass all four.

There is nothing about that line in the letter though.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Is 55 minutes, REALLY so terrible a journey time to Manchester. As for GC they are a joke, but its partly down to every Northern Town wanting a direct service to London, Mirfield and Pontefract for example. Just change at Leeds.

Do the intermediate calls in West Yorkshire actually add much to the journey time? It's hardly a fast route even non-stop. Sure, if the Pontecarlo stop was omitted it could run via Hare Park, but that aside I doubt you'd save more than 15mins.
The Mirfield stop was added later to give better connections to Huddersfield and Dewsbury, not because Mirfield itself is so important. The call that sticks out as possibly unnecessary is Low Moor, though even that serves the towns of Heckmondwike and Cleckheaton more so than simply giving a minor suburb a London service.

 

[WestRiding]

Do the intermediate calls in West Yorkshire actually add much to the journey time? It's hardly a fast route even non-stop. Sure, if the Pontecarlo stop was omitted it could run via Hare Park, but that aside I doubt you'd save more than 15mins.
The Mirfield stop was added later to give better connections to Huddersfield and Dewsbury, not because Mirfield itself is so important. The call that sticks out as possibly unnecessary is Low Moor, though even that serves the towns of Heckmondwike and Cleckheaton more so than simply giving a minor suburb a London service.

Not so much the stops, but the massively pointless and slow route around West Yorkshires former coal fields. Serve Wakefield, and get onto the West Riding at Hare Park. Its actually quicker to change at Leeds, by upto 20 mins. Though not competitive in price I have to admit.

 

[snowball]

Perhaps I am being ignorant, but what impact would that have on NPR?

Probably none, but I couldn't let the words "Something for everyone, and for all parts of the UK, it seems" in #530 pass without comment.

 

[hwl]

There is nothing about that line in the letter though.

It was a comment on mwmbles comment on PEST analysis:

PEST analysis theory (Political,Economic,Social and Technical) suggests that all four business cases must align for the execution successful major construction projects

 

[Purple Orange]

It was a comment on mwmbles comment on PEST analysis:

That can be applied to any project going, there not unique to NPR.

The NPR business case is obviously not in the public domain, but I would guess that the strength of the business case for a new-build line between Manchester & Leeds is bolstered considerably and probably stronger than HS2 eastern branch, if the NPR line is to be used for London & Birmingham services.

In either scenario, Manchester-Leeds traffic is catered for, but with the original purpose it would also have had Liverpool bound passengers too, whereas if NPR is commandeered for HS2 services, those Liverpool passengers are replaced by London & Birmingham passengers. This is assuming that the only section of NPR is between Manchester & Leeds.

 

[Austriantrain]

In either scenario, Manchester-Leeds traffic is catered for, but with the original purpose it would also have had Liverpool bound passengers too, whereas if NPR is commandeered for HS2 services, those Liverpool passengers are replaced by London & Birmingham passengers. This is assuming that the only section of NPR is between Manchester & Leeds.

Why wouldn’t Leeds - Liverpool traffic go via Piccadilly, MAN Airport and HS2 and connections to Liverpool? Wasn’t that always the plan? Even if the Manchester branch of HS2 has the London - Leeds traffic too, some HS2 trains from London will still serve Liverpool and Scotland, so there should be spare paths available for Manchester - MIA - Liverpool?

 

[hwl]

Why wouldn’t Leeds - Liverpool traffic go via Piccadilly, MAN Airport and HS2 and connections to Liverpool? Wasn’t that always the plan? Even if the Manchester branch of HS2 has the London - Leeds traffic too, some HS2 trains from London will still serve Liverpool and Scotland, so there should be spare paths available for Manchester - MIA - Liverpool?

Agreed Liverpool - Manchester is most likely to get new build as ~45% is part of HS2 phase 2b, so not much extra new build and it solves some of the Castlefield corridor issues (fast CLC and Chat Moss - Airport).

TRU delivers ~55% of the reduction in journey times that NPR new build would on Manchester-Leeds compared to present day. The obvious bit of low hanging fruit for journey time reduction post TRU is in east Manchester as there is plenty of 30-60mph speed restrictions in places is also another ~10%.

 

[Purple Orange]

Why wouldn’t Leeds - Liverpool traffic go via Piccadilly, MAN Airport and HS2 and connections to Liverpool? Wasn’t that always the plan? Even if the Manchester branch of HS2 has the London - Leeds traffic too, some HS2 trains from London will still serve Liverpool and Scotland, so there should be spare paths available for Manchester - MIA - Liverpool?

For that to happen it requires the line to Liverpool to be built from the HS2 line, yet the rhetoric has all been referencing Manchester to Leeds, with nothing ever mentioned by the government concerning Liverpool.

If the line is to accommodate London-Leeds and Birmingham-Leeds, then we should expect a full new line built, but the NPR plans have scoped capacity to be a maximum of 8 NPR trains each hour between Manchester & Leeds. If that is to remain to be the case, and planned HS2 capacity is delivered, we need to see:

• 6 x 400m London-Manchester-Leeds and;
• 2 x 400m Birmingham-Manchester-Leeds services each hour.

That leaves no room for Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds, but it does accommodate the majority of trans penning traffic, especially if some services continue to York & Newcastle.

 

[Austriantrain]

For that to happen it requires the line to Liverpool to be built from the HS2 line, yet the rhetoric has all been referencing Manchester to Leeds, with nothing ever mentioned by the government concerning Liverpool.

Thank you. I always understood the NPR plan between Manchester and Liverpool to be to run from MAN via HS2 and MIA and then whatever route is finally decided upon to reach LIV.

 

[snowball]

For that to happen it requires the line to Liverpool to be built from the HS2 line, yet the rhetoric has all been referencing Manchester to Leeds, with nothing ever mentioned by the government concerning Liverpool.

However the plans for HS2 have been modified in the Knutsford-Lymm area to create stubs for lines to Liverpool via Warrington from both the Manchester direction and the Crewe direction, and to include a 3-level structure rather than the previous two-level one, so that the line from Crewe can trifurcate towards Manchester, Wigan and Liverpool.

 

[hwl]

For that to happen it requires the line to Liverpool to be built from the HS2 line, yet the rhetoric has all been referencing Manchester to Leeds, with nothing ever mentioned by the government concerning Liverpool.

If the line is to accommodate London-Leeds and Birmingham-Leeds, then we should expect a full new line built, but the NPR plans have scoped capacity to be a maximum of 8 NPR trains each hour between Manchester & Leeds. If that is to remain to be the case, and planned HS2 capacity is delivered, we need to see:

• 6 x 400m London-Manchester-Leeds and;
• 2 x 400m Birmingham-Manchester-Leeds services each hour.

That leaves no room for Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds, but it does accommodate the majority of trans penning traffic, especially if some services continue to York & Newcastle.

There was thread on this...

Have a look at HS2 website on Liverpool:

Homepage - HS2

Discover HS2, the UK's high-speed rail network transforming travel across the nation. Stay updated with the latest news, project developments, and travel information. Learn how HS2 is creating jobs, boosting the economy, and reducing carbon emissions. Explore routes, schedules, and benefits today.

www.hs2.org.uk

note the Liverpool - HS2 junction line for NPR in magenta

The phase 2B plans have draft revisions to provide the HS2 Wigan/Manchester branches junction near Lymm 3 way with a Liverpool - Manchester alignment too.

 

[Purple Orange]

However the plans for HS2 have been modified in the Knutsford-Lymm area to create stubs for lines to Liverpool via Warrington from both the Manchester direction and the Crewe direction, and to include a 3-level structure rather than the previous two-level one, so that the line from Crewe can trifurcate towards Manchester, Wigan and Liverpool.

There was thread on this...

Have a look at HS2 website on Liverpool:

Homepage - HS2

Discover HS2, the UK's high-speed rail network transforming travel across the nation. Stay updated with the latest news, project developments, and travel information. Learn how HS2 is creating jobs, boosting the economy, and reducing carbon emissions. Explore routes, schedules, and benefits today.

www.hs2.org.uk

note the Liverpool - HS2 junction line for NPR in magenta

The phase 2B plans have draft revisions to provide the HS2 Wigan/Manchester branches junction near Lymm 3 way with a Liverpool - Manchester alignment too.

I fully appreciate that the NPR plans incorporate Liverpool, but those plans don’t incorporate the idea of London & Birmingham services using the line between Manchester & Leeds and it assumes HS2 east is built. The point here is that the Integrated Rail Plan will move plans on and if the eastern leg is canned and London/Birmingham-Leeds services are routed via Manchester, there will be no capacity for Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds on the NPR line. TfN have scoped the proposals for NPR but none of it allows for at least 12 trains per hour as far as I can see.

The market to London from Leeds is far more significant to Leeds than the Liverpool-Leeds market. Therefore if a solution has been drawn up that is cheaper than the full-Y HS2 network and accommodates the principal passenger flows between Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham & London (plus extensions to Newcastle), I would expect that Liverpool’s inclusion will suffer the same fait as Sheffield.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Why would a new-build NPR not support the same capacity (possibly at a slower speed) as the rest of HS2?
With north-west/Scotland traffic leaving the line at Rostherne there should be plenty of scope for a Liverpool NPR service to Manchester and on to Leeds.

 

[edwin_m]

Why would a new-build NPR not support the same capacity (possibly at a slower speed) as the rest of HS2?
With north-west/Scotland traffic leaving the line at Rostherne there should be plenty of scope for a Liverpool NPR service to Manchester and on to Leeds.

Between the Birmingham north junctions and the Crewe area it would have to carry all the trains between London/Birmingham and Manchester/Liverpool/Leeds/NE/Scotland on one double track. This might even exceed the trains per hour planned south of Birmingham. The plans show four tracks from the Birmingham branch junction to the start of the Eastern leg, so if that is built there is no such two-track bottleneck because Birmingham-Eastern and London-NW trains can run parallel.

 

[Bald Rick]

For that to happen it requires the line to Liverpool to be built from the HS2 line, yet the rhetoric has all been referencing Manchester to Leeds, with nothing ever mentioned by the government concerning Liverpool.

If the line is to accommodate London-Leeds and Birmingham-Leeds, then we should expect a full new line built, but the NPR plans have scoped capacity to be a maximum of 8 NPR trains each hour between Manchester & Leeds. If that is to remain to be the case, and planned HS2 capacity is delivered, we need to see:

• 6 x 400m London-Manchester-Leeds and;
• 2 x 400m Birmingham-Manchester-Leeds services each hour.

That leaves no room for Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds, but it does accommodate the majority of trans penning traffic, especially if some services continue to York & Newcastle.

This makes the brave, some might say rash, assumption that there would be 6 London - Manchester - Leeds services an hour. This is extremely unlikely.

I would be very surprised if a new line from Liverpool to the HS2 mainline and the Manchester branch isn’t in the plans.