NPR will it ever happen?

[Bantamzen]

I've often wondered about the proximity of Deansgate and Oxford Road, problem is Deansgate is now the tram interchange. My own view is you would be better having local service round Ordsal, maybe a Stalybridge - Airport service once wires reach there

So you're replacing TPE services with local services using identical paths. Surely it would just be better to sort out punctuality issues of TPE, and have a more useful (and probably more profitable) service then? As for Metrolink is there any reason why this can't be done at Piccadilly?

If we have anything on it I'd agree it should be part of an "S-Bahn". Stalybridge to Manchester Airport twice an hour might be a reasonable bet, with long layovers at both ends so it always makes its paths, and a single crew working it throughout, so we pretty much know if it leaves one end on time it will arrive at the other on time.

We've discussed it before, but the cross Manchester regional and long distance services need a solution before you can hand over the existing infrastructure for a Manc-Bahn style service, not the other way around. If there is a desperate need for Mancunians to get from suburb to another across the city then Metrolink is going to be a far better solution.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We've discussed it before, but the cross Manchester regional and long distance services need a solution before you can hand over the existing infrastructure for a Manc-Bahn style service, not the other way around. If there is a desperate need for Mancunians to get from suburb to another across the city then Metrolink is going to be a far better solution.

TPE does not need to serve Manchester Airport, and would be much more punctual if it did not. For North TPE, 2 to Liverpool via Vic and 2 to Picc P1/2 is fine.

 

[Manutd1999]

There is currently 1ph TPE from the Airport across the Pennines. Removing this would make very little difference to capacity through Castlefield.

The bigger constraints are the Scotland (TPE), Barrow (Northern) and North Wales (ATW) services. Moving them to Victoria would be an option, but that comes with its' own drawbacks.

 

[Bantamzen]

TPE does not need to serve Manchester Airport, and would be much more punctual if it did not. For North TPE, 2 to Liverpool via Vic and 2 to Picc P1/2 is fine.

TPEs problems don't just lie at the airport. When they used to run to Liverpool via Piccadilly it was very common to lose a whole bunch of time standing at Ardwick waiting for a gap to cross to P14. More recently when TPE started with the stoppers the fast would often get held up behind late running ones when they ran Leeds through to Manchester. Even the Piccadilly terminators often found themselves fighting for a platform in the shed. But from my experiences most of the problems lay east of Leeds, it is not uncommon for them to lose a whole bunch of time there, then find themselves wedged behind a stopper going west. Sort out that problem and TPEs stand a much better chance of arriving at Castlefield on time where they won't cause issues.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Its probably worth reminding that there are four options for NPR.

We don't even know which option Liz Truss was promising to construct as the 3rd and 4th options both included Hull!

Im just hoping it hasn't been scaled back to 'Upgrades Only Network'

 

[javelin]

Im just hoping it hasn't been scaled back to 'Upgrades Only Network'

You think we're still getting all the upgrades?!

I love an optimist.

 

[mike57]

Surely it would just be better to sort out punctuality issues of TPE

Yes it would, but a train but a train on a 150 mile journey from Newcastle is far more likely to be delayed than a local service from Stalybridge. In addition you have long distance services from the WCML, North Wales and the East Midlands all running through Castlefield, all at risk of delay well away from Manchester, and you get into a situation where a problem anywhere over a very wide area will impact services through Castlefield. So my view would be only route things through Castlefield that have to pass through, if there are alternatives, which in TPE case means dont serve the airport, then for reliabilty of all services in the area its probably the best solution.

Local services tend to be more frequent and not prone to impacts from outside the immediate area so are a better fit for the current infrastructure. And to go back to the OPs original question, I reckon the likelyhood of any further improvements given the current economic outlook are zero, so we need to come up with a way to make the best use of what is there.

 

[Manutd1999]

Its probably worth reminding that there are four options for NPR.

We don't even know which option Liz Truss was promising to construct as the 3rd and 4th options both included Hull!

Im just hoping it hasn't been scaled back to 'Upgrades Only Network'

The "core network" option would be a good compromise, especially if it includes a 'Golborne spur' replacement from the Airport to the WCML.

 

[mike57]

Its probably worth reminding that there are four options for NPR.

I would replace are with were, given the current outlook I reckon even the cheapest option is in doubt with anything not started (i.e. Dewsbury Hudderfield) being postponed until things improve, which based on Bank of England thoughts could be 2 years of recession.

 

[david1212]

Nowhere near as much of a problem as the Chord has caused and is causing. It really should never have been built.......

..... without adding two tracks to Picadilly and two more platforms there. Yet another half-a-job with no definite funding and outline plan for completion even in the pipeline.

 

[Bletchleyite]

..... without adding two tracks to Picadilly and two more platforms there. Yet another half-a-job with no definite funding and outline plan for completion even in the pipeline.

Yep. Probably fairer to say that if only one of the three Castlefield jobs was going to be done, it was the wrong one.

 

[Sonik]

View attachment 123402

Its probably worth reminding that there are four options for NPR.

We don't even know which option Liz Truss was promising to construct as the 3rd and 4th options both included Hull!

Im just hoping it hasn't been scaled back to 'Upgrades Only Network'

I understood that the plan was 'core network' as the baseline funded in the IRP, with 'potential wider network' including various unfunded later additions.

It's worth noting that 'core network' as shown only seems to include about 12Km of additional new line (from High Leigh to WBQ) and since it's rumored that the 'alternative Golbourne' would go WBQ to Preston, there would be no part of the additional new line where NPR is not shared with HS2.

Even as a bare minimum option, this removes NPR trains entirely from Castlefield/Victoria, removes HS2 trains from WCML entirely between Crewe and Preston, and provides a much faster route for HS2 trains to Liverpool.

Given these rather comprehensive benefits for just 12Km of additional new line, I would be very surprised if at least this much didn't get built.

Manchester to Marsden is another question (perhaps the diagram is deliberately vague) but since we recently learned that three tracking will be done under TPU from Marsden to Huddersfeild, it would appear that it all joins up.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Just thinking of the tunneling between Diggle and Marsden that took place for the Huddersfield Narrow Canal and for the original railway line, are there any geological problems and deep underground natural watercourses that could be encountered in any new tunneling in the general area?

 

[L+Y]

I might be missing something, but aside from a few vague statements by Truss, has the basic IRP as agreed to last autumn (by Sunak as Chancellor, let's remember) ever been dropped?

My expectation is that the Government will just return to last year's proposals.

 

[zwk500]

Just thinking of the tunneling between Diggle and Marsden that took place for the Huddersfield Narrow Canal and for the original railway line, are there any geological problems and deep underground natural watercourses that could be encountered in any new tunneling in the general area?

Is there going to be any new tunnelling? The suggestion of 3-tracking only to Marsden suggests not.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Is there going to be any new tunnelling? The suggestion of 3-tracking only to Marsden suggests not.

From what Shapps said the otherday I wouldn't have thought so.

Im beginning to wonder if the government have now decided to scaled back NPR to 'Upgrades Only' option instead of the 'Core Network'.

 

[A0]

Is there going to be any new tunnelling? The suggestion of 3-tracking only to Marsden suggests not.

Though there are two un-used tunnel bores at least one of which could be brought back into use - AIUI that option was looked not too long ago (either by Railtrack or NR) but discounted at the time.

 

[mike57]

Is there going to be any new tunnelling? The suggestion of 3-tracking only to Marsden suggests not.

What would be involved in bringing one of the two single track Standedge bores into use. From what I have read one bore is in considerably better condition than the other. Would it have to be freight only?

 

[zwk500]

What would be involved in bringing one of the two single track Standedge bores into use. From what I have read one bore is in considerably better condition than the other. Would it have to be freight only?

Probably reboring and maybe relining. Freight-only wouldn't really be any better as the big problem for freight is clearance, modern standards mean that there's no real difference track/signalling wise between passenger or freight-only.

 

[Grimsby town]

From what Shapps said the otherday I wouldn't have thought so.

Im beginning to wonder if the government have now decided to scaled back NPR to 'Upgrades Only' option instead of the 'Core Network'.

Personally, I still think Shapps was talking about reverting to the IRP proposals. He mentioned a 33 minute journey time which is the expected journey time with the tunnel to Marsden. There's no way 33 minutes is going to be possible with upgrades. That would require a 16 or 17 minute journey time from Huddersfield to Manchester which isn't far off an average speed of 100mph so will need long sections of railway at or above 110mph linespeeds.

 

[mike57]

Probably reboring and maybe relining.

Which leads nicely into the next question, how much would that cost and would it be cheaper than a new bore on a similar alignment.

He mentioned a 33 minute journey time which is the expected journey time with the tunnel to Marsden.

What could be acheived I wonder assuming Dewsbury - Huddersfield 4 track improvements go ahead, and keeping other improvements to those that can be delivered within the existing railway boundary. Current best time for Leeds Manchester seems to be around 52 minutes. Its 43 miles so if that could be got down to 43 mins for an average speed of 60mph, more if you count stops, but surely that could be acheivable, and could be delivered a lot quicker than a new route

 

[61653 HTAFC]

What would be involved in bringing one of the two single track Standedge bores into use. From what I have read one bore is in considerably better condition than the other. Would it have to be freight only?

The one that's in better condition is that way because it's used as an emergency access point for the canal tunnel (I believe this was necessary to allow the canal excursions when the canal tunnel was restored). Reopening this tunnel for rail traffic would presumably have implications for the canal tunnel. I suspect that if either of the disused bores were to be used by the railway again, the other disused bore would need to be refurbished- either for railway use or as a replacement emergency access tunnel if the current one was returned to railway use. Reopening both disused bores for the railway is almost certainly a non-starter.

As for reboring, you'd probably need to do so for electrification, but not for reopening without wires. The lining of the current emergency tunnel is probably in decent shape, but I dread to imagine what the other is like.

 

[zwk500]

The one that's in better condition is that way because it's used as an emergency access point for the canal tunnel (I believe this was necessary to allow the canal excursions when the canal tunnel was restored). Reopening this tunnel for rail traffic would presumably have implications for the canal tunnel. I suspect that if either of the disused bores were to be used by the railway again, the other disused bore would need to be refurbished- either for railway use or as a replacement emergency access tunnel if the current one was returned to railway use. Reopening both disused bores for the railway is almost certainly a non-starter.

Agreed. I suspect the work required for at least one of the single line bores would be enough to end any grandfather rights as well. If that happened it might even be cheaper to build a 'Standedge Base Tunnel' and ease the hill.

 

[HSTEd]

What could be acheived I wonder assuming Dewsbury - Huddersfield 4 track improvements go ahead, and keeping other improvements to those that can be delivered within the existing railway boundary. Current best time for Leeds Manchester seems to be around 52 minutes. Its 43 miles so if that could be got down to 43 mins for an average speed of 60mph, more if you count stops, but surely that could be acheivable, and could be delivered a lot quicker than a new route

I doubt it - and given the recent record of upgrades I no longer really believe that it would be faster than a new route.

 

[Grimsby town]

Which leads nicely into the next question, how much would that cost and would it be cheaper than a new bore on a similar alignment.

What could be acheived I wonder assuming Dewsbury - Huddersfield 4 track improvements go ahead, and keeping other improvements to those that can be delivered within the existing railway boundary. Current best time for Leeds Manchester seems to be around 52 minutes. Its 43 miles so if that could be got down to 43 mins for an average speed of 60mph, more if you count stops, but surely that could be acheivable, and could be delivered a lot quicker than a new route

43 minutes sounds right from the information I've seen. The upgrade from Huddersfield to Leeds is expected to reduce journey time to around 14 minutes. It takes around 30 minutes from Huddersfield to Manchester currently and there's not likely to be significant realignment on this section so an additional saving of around 3 minutes from the small schemes at Miles Platting/Stalybridge and better acceleration after electrification.

The time savings from a tunnel are relatively small. 10 minutes isn't worth the billions and won't make a successful business case. The case is likely to be built on capacity for more freight trains across pennines and more local services within Manchester. It'd be possible to run via the current lines into Piccadilly HS2 platforms but that would probably end TfGMs plans for metro/tram train ambitions to Glossop/Rose Hill.

 

[matacaster]

The one that's in better condition is that way because it's used as an emergency access point for the canal tunnel (I believe this was necessary to allow the canal excursions when the canal tunnel was restored). Reopening this tunnel for rail traffic would presumably have implications for the canal tunnel. I suspect that if either of the disused bores were to be used by the railway again, the other disused bore would need to be refurbished- either for railway use or as a replacement emergency access tunnel if the current one was returned to railway use. Reopening both disused bores for the railway is almost certainly a non-starter.

As for reboring, you'd probably need to do so for electrification, but not for reopening without wires. The lining of the current emergency tunnel is probably in decent shape, but I dread to imagine what the other is like.

Could the better single tunnel be used for electric passenger trains by lowering track base? One of the double tunnel lines being for freight (as larger bore) and the other for passenger traffic.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Could the better single tunnel be used for electric passenger trains by lowering track base? One of the double tunnel lines being for freight (as larger bore) and the other for passenger traffic.

In theory I imagine it could, but the canal tunnel situation would still need solving which won't be cheap.

 

[HSTEd]

Once you start paying for any kind of major renovations to these tunnels, the supposed price advantages over just starting fresh vanish awfully quick.

 

[mike57]

Once you start paying for any kind of major renovations to these tunnels, the supposed price advantages over just starting fresh vanish awfully quick.

I wasnt aware of the implications for the canal tunnel, I can see that sorting both bores out would add to the cost of bringing the better one back into use. What are the problems with the poorer of the two? could a solution be to line with 'tube tunnel' sized segments resulting in a smaller bore and grout behind them to stabilise everything. The resulting tunnel would be fine for man access but obviously useless for rail use, it wouldnt even need to perfectly straight or level if only used for evacuations. Or is it damaged even beyond that sort of solution.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I wasnt aware of the implications for the canal tunnel, I can see that sorting both bores out would add to the cost of bringing the better one back into use. What are the problems with the poorer of the two? could a solution be to line with 'tube tunnel' sized segments resulting in a smaller bore and grout behind them to stabilise everything. The resulting tunnel would be fine for man access but obviously useless for rail use, it wouldnt even need to perfectly straight or level if only used for evacuations. Or is it damaged even beyond that sort of solution.

It was that particular matter that I had in mind when I made my recent posting, in which I made reference to the Huddersfield Narrow Canal.