Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) - Latest plans & speculation

[Glenn1969]

The London to (intermediate stations) train can go to Hull or York and the Leeds to (intermediate stations) train can go to Cambridge, Ipswich or Norwich instead of the current trains from Birmingham, Peterborough or Nottingham. Isn't this the whole point of both HS2 and NPR to allow different links on the classic services?

The same applies on NPR. If NPR provides the through service, the stopping trains don't need to - eg Leeds to Huddersfield fast can go onto the Penistone line and Manchester to Huddersfield fast can go to Brighouse / Halifax / Bradford because the fast link between Leeds and Manchester is on the new line.

but if NPR is non stop a fast service is needed at least Stalybridge- Huddersfield- Dewsbury- Leeds

 

[WestRiding]

Why don't we just wait until the Integrated Rail Plan is published. This is exhausting and all hypothetical. Ifs and buts.

 

[edwin_m]

Yes, the plans I found show a four-track section, but the "fast" centre lines are not accessible to either of Bham-NE or London-NW traffic, so these routes would conflict on the "slow" outer lines

The later plan linked by Bald Rick is less clear about the actual track layout, but it's pretty clear there are parallel routes, as a minimum, between Curzon Street and the NE and between London and the NW (not stopping at Interchange, therefore on the inner tracks at the right hand edge).

 

[Bald Rick]

Why don't we just wait until the Integrated Rail Plan is published. This is exhausting and all hypothetical. Ifs and buts.

Agreed. Not long now, if you believe ‘sources’.

 

[Purple Orange]

Why don't we just wait until the Integrated Rail Plan is published. This is exhausting and all hypothetical. Ifs and buts.

You don’t need to read the thread if you don’t find it interesting.

but if NPR is non stop a fast service is needed at least Stalybridge- Huddersfield- Dewsbury- Leeds

I would have thought that would continue anyway. For instance it seems unlikely that Scarbororough or Middlesbrough would be served by a high speed NPR line, so you’d still need a Liverpool, Newton, Victoria, Staly, Hudd, Dewbury, Leeds, onwards service.

 

[WestRiding]

You don’t need to read the thread if you don’t find it interesting.

I would have thought that would continue anyway. For instance it seems unlikely that Scarbororough or Middlesbrough would be served by a high speed NPR line, so you’d still need a Liverpool, Newton, Victoria, Staly, Hudd, Dewbury, Leeds, onwards service.

It's all speculation. Though it appears only certain forum members get pulled up for speculation.

 

[Purple Orange]

It's all speculation. Though it appears only certain forum members get pulled up for speculation.

I’d argue in the case of NPR, it is completely valid to speculate. Due to the way the giver is going about it there is nothing you can talk about with NPR that isn’t speculation. All we know is that Johnson has committed at the conference to building NPR, the eastern branch may be cancelled and the focus from the government perspective is Manchester-Leeds with regards to NPR.

 

[class26]

Agreed. Not long now, if you believe ‘sources’.

Well sources in "New Civil Engineer" are saying October 18

 

[nr758123]

I’d argue in the case of NPR, it is completely valid to speculate.

Speculation is what fills the space where information ought to be.

The senior managers in a former employer of mine used to get upset at its staff speculating about what was going to happen, whilst simultaneously:
- indulging in unwarranted self-congratulation about their culture of openness and honesty; and
- concealing information about their intentions.

 

[HSTEd]

So the problem here seems to be people arguing over how many trains per hour need to run London-Manchester-Leeds and possibly beyond to cover demand. Some say 4, some say 6 etc.

We then getg into an argument about NPR being only designed for 8 and therefore there aren't enough.

But do we have any idea how much it would cost to get a couple extra trains per hour through NPR?

But even if we accept that we need 6tph London-Manchester-Leeds, which I don't - you still have two trains per hour, so you could put 2x200m sets per hour from Birmingham to Leeds and Liverpool to Leeds.

But I think 4x400m trains per hour would be adequate with less first class and no enormously space intensive catering service....

 

[Austriantrain]

So the problem here seems to be people arguing over how many trains per hour need to run London-Manchester-Leeds and possibly beyond to cover demand. Some say 4, some say 6 etc.

We then getg into an argument about NPR being only designed for 8 and therefore there aren't enough.

But do we have any idea how much it would cost to get a couple extra trains per hour through NPR?

But even if we accept that we need 6tph London-Manchester-Leeds, which I don't - you still have two trains per hour, so you could put 2x200m sets per hour from Birmingham to Leeds and Liverpool to Leeds.

But I think 4x400m trains per hour would be adequate with less first class and no enormously space intensive catering service....

What I didn’t take into account yesterday when acting very clever is that of course NPR trains will have to continue on the classic network, so 200m trains will be the limit. That might make a difference in whether 4 or 6 trains an hour are needed (for capacity; for connectivity, 4 tph should be enough).

I don’t think that should be an issue though. A new infrastructure should be able to take more than 12 tph; so 6 tph London - Manchester - Leeds (if needed - Manchester trains will be 400m and until Leeds, Provision for long trains could/should probably be made; or a single set might continue from Manchester) and another 6 tph for NPR should be feasible. You would then even have 12 tph between Manchester and Leeds; almost like a metro service

 

[Class 170101]

There aren’t 3tph Leeds services on the ECML, and there will still be a need for at least 1tph London - Leeds on the ECML to pick up the local connectivity.

The most recent franchise bid / timetable specification was thinking of 3tph to Leeds to be fair although removed for May 2022 (pushed back 12 months at least).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Oct 2021 ==

No, it’s to provide more capacity on the busiest links.

Isn't this the whole point of both HS2 and NPR to allow different links on the classic services?

HS2 and NPR would do this by default surely? More capacity on the busiest links via HS2 / NPR releasing capacity for new services on classic lines.

 

[Austriantrain]

Absolutely no point what so ever. Its a rediculous concept.

I would argue that having London - Leeds in 105 minutes via Manchester vs more than two hours now (as the deferred ECML timetable has shown, a 120 Minutes timing is not easy to achieve) is more than worthwhile if it happens on new infrastructure that is being built anyway. What it certainly wouldn’t be worth is having extra investments on top for such a tiny time saving.

The real issue, I suspect, would be that there would not be any capacity relief for the ECML.

 

[HSTEd]

The real issue, I suspect, would be that there would not be any capacity relief for the ECML.

Would removing the vast majority of the Leeds-London passengers not provide capacity relief?

Running 2tph all-ICEC stations from London-Leeds, splitting at Doncaster to also provide trains to York and points north seems reasonable to me?

With some relatively minor rebuilding at York and Newcastle you could also run trains London-Manchester-Leeds-York-Newcastle without enormous difficulty

 

[Austriantrain]

With some relatively minor rebuilding at York and Newcastle you could also run trains London-Manchester-Leeds-York-Newcastle without enormous difficulty

Such a service would be slower than the current ECML fasts, so I doubt it would make sense. And therefore you would still have to accommodate Fasts and semi-fasts on the ECML, which is a capacity headache.

 

[HSTEd]

Such a service would be slower than the current ECML fasts, so I doubt it would make sense. And therefore you would still have to accommodate Fasts and semi-fasts on the ECML, which is a capacity headache.

It wouldn't be dramatically slower and in any case replaces the TPE/XC paths on the northern ECML, not the conventional London paths.

If we assume they manage 105 minutes to Leeds as someone upthread suggested, you can reach York about 127 minutes after leaving London.

Whilst it is true that some York-London trains are faster at as little as 113 minutes, some trains between York and London are slower than this and a more normal York-London journey time appears to be about 123 minutes.

It may not be faster but I don't think it is grossly uncompetitive.

 

[Class 170101]

Would removing the vast majority of the Leeds-London passengers not provide capacity relief?

Running 2tph all-ICEC stations from London-Leeds, splitting at Doncaster to also provide trains to York and points north seems reasonable to me?

With some relatively minor rebuilding at York and Newcastle you could also run trains London-Manchester-Leeds-York-Newcastle without enormous difficulty

And its why you need Phase 2B Eastern to release capacity on the ECML south of York and arguably the MML south of Derby / Nottingham / Leicester.

What also no one has mentioned as far as I can see is that it releases capacity between Birmingham and Derby / Nottingham and Sheffield as XC no longer need to run as many services via Tamworth.

 

[Purple Orange]

So the problem here seems to be people arguing over how many trains per hour need to run London-Manchester-Leeds and possibly beyond to cover demand. Some say 4, some say 6 etc.

We then getg into an argument about NPR being only designed for 8 and therefore there aren't enough.

But do we have any idea how much it would cost to get a couple extra trains per hour through NPR?

But even if we accept that we need 6tph London-Manchester-Leeds, which I don't - you still have two trains per hour, so you could put 2x200m sets per hour from Birmingham to Leeds and Liverpool to Leeds.

But I think 4x400m trains per hour would be adequate with less first class and no enormously space intensive catering service....

If the eastern leg was built, and a direct London-Leeds service existed calling at Old Oak Common and Birmingham Interchange, woukd demand be satisfied with one 400m train? That's the incremental uplift on the Manchester services if four 400m services ran to Leeds.

However if the Leeds passengers on the eastern branch accounted for 60% of demand on the 3 tph, you could have 6x400m tph run to Piccadilly then split to Leeds. That would cover all planned demand for Manchester and Leeds from London and half the planned demand for trans pennine passengers.

 

[HSTEd]

If the eastern leg was built, and a direct London-Leeds service existed calling at Old Oak Common and Birmingham Interchange, woukd demand be satisfied with one 400m train? That's the incremental uplift on the Manchester services if four 400m services ran to Leeds.

However if the Leeds passengers on the eastern branch accounted for 60% of demand on the 3 tph, you could have 6x400m tph run to Piccadilly then split to Leeds. That would cover all planned demand for Manchester and Leeds from London and half the planned demand for trans pennine passengers.

I'm not sure there is much need to split trains to be honest.

The only platforms that need lengthening would be at Leeds, York and possibly Newcastle - and even then the lengthening is not drastic.
~340m sets could be run as it is - and those wouldn't have that much less capacity than a pair of 200m sets once the cab and crash problems are dealt with.

[This is limited by the need for two platforms at Leeds, if one platform could be lengthened (or at least the track cleared of neighbouring overlaps] then the only work necessary is moving signals at York to and you can push to ~360m, limited by a platform at Newcastle]

 

[adrock1976]

I'm not sure there is much need to split trains to be honest.

The only platforms that need lengthening would be at Leeds, York and possibly Newcastle - and even then the lengthening is not drastic.
~340m sets could be run as it is - and those wouldn't have that much less capacity than a pair of 200m sets once the cab and crash problems are dealt with.

[This is limited by the need for two platforms at Leeds, if one platform could be lengthened (or at least the track cleared of neighbouring overlaps] then the only work necessary is moving signals at York to and you can push to ~360m, limited by a platform at Newcastle]

Regarding platform lengthening at Newcastle, the present platforms have curves at both the Berwick and London ends.

Should we be trying to avoid curved platforms as much as possible nowadays?

 

[xotGD]

Getting passengers from Leeds to Manchester, Birmingham and London all catching the same train doesn't sound ideal.

And anyone making a connection at St Pancras would still be better off travelling to King's Cross.

 

[Purple Orange]

Getting passengers from Leeds to Manchester, Birmingham and London all catching the same train doesn't sound ideal.

And anyone making a connection at St Pancras would still be better off travelling to King's Cross.

It wouldn’t be a case of them all catching the same train. I suspect the following could work:

• 3 x 400m London-Birmingham (as planned)
• 6 x 400m London-Manchester-Leeds
  • This service would split at Piccadilly giving London-Manchester the equivalent of 3x400m tph (as planned).
  • Continuing 6x200m tph from Manchester to Leeds would accommodate the equivalent of 2x400m tph for London-Leeds and 2x200m tph Manchester-Leeds.
• 2 x 400m Birmingham-Manchester-Leeds-Newcastle
  • This service would split at Piccadilly giving Birmingham-Manchester the equivalent of 2x200m tph (as planned).
  • Continuing 2x200m from Manchester to Leeds & Newcastle.

 

[Bald Rick]

Getting passengers from Leeds to Manchester, Birmingham and London all catching the same train doesn't sound ideal.

Why not? Conceptually it’s no different to passengers from Edinburgh, Newcastle and York catching the same train.

 

[class26]

Link to article in the Independent -

Rail ‘betrayal’ for north and Midlands despite Boris Johnson levelling-up promises

Local transport chiefs now expect to receive a severely pared-back version of the Northern Powerhouse Rail scheme, and for ministers to effectively shelve plans for a high-speed cross-country link through the east Midlands.

The government has been drawing up plans for new connections outside London in consultation with local leaders – but insiders familiar with discussions now expect virtually every major city across the north and Midlands to be left disappointed.

“It will be bad news for Liverpool, Manchester and West Yorkshire. And not great for the northeast either,” one source said.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Getting passengers from Leeds to Manchester, Birmingham and London all catching the same train doesn't sound ideal.

And anyone making a connection at St Pancras would still be better off travelling to King's Cross.

This. The idea of serving London to Leeds via Manchester is utter madness dreamt up by accountants with no understanding of the real world. The Eastern leg of HS2 is the only practical solution to capacity on the ECML.

I hope those short-sighted Sheffield folk who insisted on a city centre station rather than Meadowhall are pleased with themselves now, they've cut off their noses to spite their faces.

Well Done! ***slow clap***

 

[ohgoditsjames]

I hope those short-sighted Sheffield folk who insisted on a city centre station rather than Meadowhall are pleased with themselves now, they've cut off their noses to spite their faces.

Well Done! ***slow clap***

Rubbish. An out of town station in a polluted area with roads that are already packed with traffic from one of the busiest sections of the M1, shopping centre, arena, centertainment with rail services that are frequently clogged up at the Northern throat of Midland station is anything but ideal. Meadowhall was a terrible idea unless billions were to be spent on upgrading the surrounding area too.

 

[Killingworth]

This. The idea of serving London to Leeds via Manchester is utter madness dreamt up by accountants with no understanding of the real world. The Eastern leg of HS2 is the only practical solution to capacity on the ECML.

I hope those short-sighted Sheffield folk who insisted on a city centre station rather than Meadowhall are pleased with themselves now, they've cut off their noses to spite their faces.

Well Done! ***slow clap***

Sad to say, not only their own noses! But Meadowhall would be of little help to me.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Rubbish. An out of town station in a polluted area with roads that are already packed with traffic from one of the busiest sections of the M1, shopping centre, arena, centertainment with rail services that are frequently clogged up at the Northern throat of Midland station is anything but ideal. Meadowhall was a terrible idea unless billions were to be spent on upgrading the surrounding area too.

Meadowhall might not be perfect, but a damn sight easier to fit 400m platforms than the crowded Midland site. The use of space at Sheffield Midland is already poor, with four tracks between each island when three or even two would be fine... if only there were stabling points elsewhere. Fitting HS2 Platforms in there will also cost billions, probably far more than it would to do a bit of landscaping at Tinsley.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Oct 2021 ==

Sad to say, not only their own noses! But Meadowhall would be of little help to me.

Indeed. Sheffield's refusal to compromise means Yorkshire as a whole misses out.

 

[Purple Orange]

Link to article in the Independent -

Rail ‘betrayal’ for north and Midlands despite Boris Johnson levelling-up promises

No underground station in Manchester is no big deal. What the article is suggesting seems reasonable predictable.

 

[LittleAH]

This. The idea of serving London to Leeds via Manchester is utter madness dreamt up by accountants with no understanding of the real world. The Eastern leg of HS2 is the only practical solution to capacity on the ECML.

I hope those short-sighted Sheffield folk who insisted on a city centre station rather than Meadowhall are pleased with themselves now, they've cut off their noses to spite their faces.

Well Done! ***slow clap***

Really? I don't think it particularly has any relevance to the entire eastern leg of HS2 being canned. In fact, I wonder how they can remotely now improve cross-Pennine services from Manchester.