Proposal for alternative to Northern Powerhouse Rail

[Bletchleyite]

Well just because someoen spent some money on it does not mean it should be sacrosanct forever.
If a fast line is opened the line, as it exists now or after the upgrade, will have lost its primary reason to exist.

You think we should close the likes of Milton Keynes Central and Rugby once HS2 opens?

The line might be pared back a bit but it certainly shouldn't be closed as it would continue to serve local travel demands.

 

[HSTEd]

You think we should close the likes of Milton Keynes Central and Rugby once HS2 opens?

No? Those aren't remotely comparable to this situation?
I've not proposed closing a single railway station (except for conversion to Metrolink).

The line might be pared back a bit but it certainly shouldn't be closed as it would continue to serve local travel demands.

Local travel demands overwhelmingly relate to travel to the dominant local urban centre. Conversion of the line west of Marsden to Metrolink would allow it to more efficiently serve those demands, being able to abandon the Standedge tunnels would be a significant bonus in that regard. A new line would be so much faster that even people travelling from Marsden to Manchester would be better off doublign back from Huddersfield than they would be on today's direct route.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No? Those aren't remotely comparable to this situation?
I've not proposed closing a single railway station (except for conversion to Metrolink).

What exactly do you mean by "rationalise" then?

Local travel demands overwhelmingly relate to travel to the dominant local urban centre.

The North has a web-like commuting pattern that isn't like the South East. Thus a Merseyrail like frequent local EMU service would be of more benefit here.

 

[nr758123]

So in the real world the Trans Pennine route is bing improved and electrified but you think it should be rationalised in the future?
How stupid is that?

You're looking for stupidity. Try this.

[In the context of passengers from Marsden and Slaithwaite who currently commute into Manchester]

Or they drive (a car, e-bike or similar) to the Metrolink stations on the west side of the Pennines.

I’m going to assume you are not trolling, because this is Railforums and it’s not a place for trolling.

Clearly you are unfamiliar with the Pennine weather or the distances involved.

I can barely contain my enthusiasm for an 8 to 10 mile bike ride over the moors on unlit fogbound and sometimes icy roads. During the time spent cycling over the moors on my newly expensively acquired e-bike, I can contemplate a range of things.

Firstly, that in the bad old days, it was possible to get a train into Manchester in 36 minutes, pretty much door-to-door, and now it takes as long as that to cycle to a railhead in Diggle or Greenfield, and timewise I'm still further away from Manchester than I would have been when there was a direct train service. BY that point I may also be displaying the symptoms of hypothermia.

Secondly, that there’s a perfectly good tunnel under the moors, but instead it’s considered a good idea to expose passengers to the weather conditions for a considerable time by making them cycle over the moors instead.

the railway could rid itself of the Standedge tunnels entirely and turn the stub of line up to Diggle into a Metrolink route - which would serve the ribbon development up there far better than the railway ever would.

Might be worse in some ways but better in others - see the example I give of Metrolink conversion tos erve the people along the route.

Metrolink works well over fairly short distances, but is seriously uncompetitive on journey times over longer distances. Currently Metrolink to Ashton takes about 30 minutes. Extend that to Greenfield and that would increase to between 50 and 60 minutes. But passengers at Greenfield can currently get a train taking 24 minutes, so rather than benefitting them you have just doubled their journey time each way. There's no case for extending Metrolink beyond Stalybridge. Most of the ribbon development you refer to is on the opposite side of the valley (Millbrook, Carrbrook), nowhere near the railway line. Your idea would make it worse for everywhere between Stalybridge and Huddersfield.

Local travel demands overwhelmingly relate to travel to the dominant local urban centre. Conversion of the line west of Marsden to Metrolink would allow it to more efficiently serve those demands

Except that the biggest single passenger flow from Marsden is to Manchester, and you're suggesting severing the railway line and telling them to buy e-bikes.

 

[Northumbriana]

Post NPR new line the existing TPE main line would be useful for 4tph all stations services from Huddersfield to Manchester and Huddersfield to Leeds. And alongside that maybe 2tph semi-fast from Manchester - Stalybridge - Mossley - Huddersfield - Dewsbury - Leeds.

 

[HSTEd]

I can barely contain my enthusiasm for an 8 to 10 mile bike ride over the moors on unlit fogbound and sometimes icy roads. During the time spent cycling over the moors on my newly expensively acquired e-bike, I can contemplate a range of things.

In this scenario the Metrolink station would probably be in Diggle, so its barely eight kilometres, let alone eight miles. And thats if I start the journey at Marsden railway station rather than at the centre of population.

Firstly, that in the bad old days, it was possible to get a train into Manchester in 36 minutes, pretty much door-to-door, and now it takes as long as that to cycle to a railhead in Diggle or Greenfield, and timewise I'm still further away from Manchester than I would have been when there was a direct train service. BY that point I may also be displaying the symptoms of hypothermia.

Or, if you don't want the cycle or car journey, as I noted, you take a train to Huddersfield in 11 minutes, change and then take a train from Huddersfield to Manchester in 12 further minutes.

You arrive about the same time or faster as now.

Metrolink works well over fairly short distances, but is seriously uncompetitive on journey times over longer distances. Currently Metrolink to Ashton takes about 30 minutes. Extend that to Greenfield and that would increase to between 50 and 60 minutes. But passengers at Greenfield can currently get a train taking 24 minutes, so rather than benefitting them you have just doubled their journey time each way.

I don't think you'd operate the service as a simple extension of the Ashton tram.
You'd convert Glossop/Hadfield and the line via Hyde to Rose Hill Marple at the same time, then utilise the existing alignment into Manchester.

Except that the biggest single passenger flow from Marsden is to Manchester, and you're suggesting severing the railway line and telling them to buy e-bikes.

Or you take the other options I listed in my post, which you have completely ignored
The cycle wasn't even the first thing on the list!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Sep 2025 ==

What exactly do you mean by "rationalise" then?

Standedge tunnel gone, line via Hyde, line to Glossop and Hadfield and line to Diggle converted to Metrolink.
Track on the Marsden side of the Pennines set up to support whatever the decided local service is.

The North has a web-like commuting pattern that isn't like the South East. Thus a Merseyrail like frequent local EMU service would be of more benefit here.

Unfortunately a Merseyrail like service is impossible because we don't have an underground metro segment in Manchester and are extremely unliekly to get one. The only available Merseyrail equivalent is Metrolink.
Of course that depends on how important you believe the city centre access is to the success of Merseyrail, I guess.

Also this is rather wandering off the topic.

 

[nr758123]

In this scenario the Metrolink station would probably be in Diggle, so its barely eight kilometres, let alone eight miles. And thats if I start the journey at Marsden railway station rather than at the centre of population.

From Slaithwaite to the site of the former Diggle station is 8 miles by road.

I don't think you'd operate the service as a simple extension of the Ashton tram.
You'd convert Glossop/Hadfield and the line via Hyde to Rose Hill Marple at the same time, then utilise the existing alignment into Manchester.

It’s still going to be very slow if it has stops at typical Metrolink distances between Piccadilly and Stalybridge, unless you are proposing a new concept of semi-fast Metrolink services.

Track on the Marsden side of the Pennines set up to support whatever the decided local service is.

And what do you propose for that?

Or you take the other options I listed in my post,

Driving over the moors in winter in bad weather has most of the same disadvantages, both in terms of journey time and safety. Just without the hypothermia.

which you have completely ignored

A bit like how you completely ignored my comments about weather and unlit moorland roads.

Or, if you don't want the cycle or car journey, as I noted, you take a train to Huddersfield in 11 minutes, change and then take a train from Huddersfield to Manchester in 12 further minutes.

You arrive about the same time or faster as now.

The idea of taking a local service into Huddersfield and then a high speed one back towards Manchester is incapable of being assessed without some idea of the local service provided, the interchange arrangements and the high speed service provided. Happy to comment on it if you can give a realistic scenario of what those would be and how they fit together.

The cycle wasn't even the first thing on the list!

If you didn’t want me to comment on what a daft idea it was, why suggest it in the first place?

 

[HSTEd]

From Slaithwaite to the site of the former Diggle station is 8 miles by road.

Slaithwaite is not Marsden however.
From the ODM Slaithwaite's traffic slants far more heavily towards Yorkshire, and is only five/six minutes from Huddersfield, whilst the current service takes 36+ minutes to reach Manchester.

People probably wouldn't cycle that, but then again the double back option will crush today's railway.

It’s still going to be very slow if it has stops at typical Metrolink distances between Piccadilly and Stalybridge, unless you are proposing a new concept of semi-fast Metrolink services.

Well that would be down to the conversion, however previous Metrolink conversions have been relatively light on new stations. They wouldn't really be semi-fast in the railway sense since there would be no stops skipped.

Ofcourse it is entirely possibel that a detailed business case would want to put in additional stops, but I don't think it is reasonable to assume that additional stops are inherent to such a conversion. I don't think the Altrincham line had any at all after all.

And what do you propose for that?

As a starting point, half hourly. If it turns out that the post electrification timings will need two tracks for reliable running using a fast accelerating EMU, whatever higher frequency can easily be obtained on that infrastructure.
Given electrification would already be in place, I think operating as either one or two independent lines is likely to be the cheapest option.

The idea of taking a local service into Huddersfield and then a high speed one back towards Manchester is incapable of being assessed without some idea of the local service provided, the interchange arrangements and the high speed service provided. Happy to comment on it if you can give a realistic scenario of what those would be and how they fit together.

Call it ten trains per hour from Manchester to Leeds on the fast line.
As a rough cut example:
4 trainns per hour Liverpool-North East
2/3 trains per hour Birmingham/XC-North East
3/4 trains per hour London-Manchester-Leeds (will match or beat the ECML example if a fast transpennine line is built)

Maximum wait time of six minutes, average weight time of three.

11 minutes from Marsden to Huddersfield, 5 minutes physical connection time, 3 minutes average wait time, 12 minutes Huddersfield-Manchester.
31 minutes end to end average, 34 minutes worst case, at whatever the tph of the Marsden-Huddersfield segment.

Slaithwaite would be 6 minutes Marsden Huddersfield, so 25 minutes end to end average, 28 minutes worst case.

If you didn’t want me to comment on what a daft idea it was, why suggest it in the first place?

Fair enough.

 

[Ben427]

Had the "pleasure" of looking at this report for work

Usually Policy Exchange's work (even though I'm not necessarily in agreement) is well researched

This is absolute dross and as others have mentioned Gilligan knows nothing about rail. He's some become a transport "expert" (cheers Bojo)


The report has some very disingenuous costings (using different comparisons and methodologies for tunnelling costs for example) and displays a lack of understanding of the railway.

He still thinks that West Yorkshire Mass Transit will free up space at Leeds station (it won't) which is something he and others keep saying. I also found amusing the assertion that platform extensions and power improvements are straightforward and inexpensive. Anyone who is involved in them will tell you otherwise

His electrification plan is hilarious, aside from costing, some of the lines will be a bugger to do (Harrogate line) and/or be better served by battery/hybrid trains (e.g. Knottingley).

 

[nr758123]

The idea of taking a local service into Huddersfield and then a high speed one back towards Manchester is incapable of being assessed without some idea of the local service provided, the interchange arrangements and the high speed service provided. Happy to comment on it if you can give a realistic scenario of what those would be and how they fit together.

Call it ten trains per hour from Manchester to Leeds on the fast line.
As a rough cut example:
4 trainns per hour Liverpool-North East
2/3 trains per hour Birmingham/XC-North East
3/4 trains per hour London-Manchester-Leeds (will match or beat the ECML example if a fast transpennine line is built)

Maximum wait time of six minutes, average weight time of three.

11 minutes from Marsden to Huddersfield, 5 minutes physical connection time, 3 minutes average wait time, 12 minutes Huddersfield-Manchester.
31 minutes end to end average, 34 minutes worst case, at whatever the tph of the Marsden-Huddersfield segment.

Slaithwaite would be 6 minutes Marsden Huddersfield, so 25 minutes end to end average, 28 minutes worst case.

Sorry it took a while to reply to this. Other stuff - the stuff that pays the bills - got in the way.

If everything falls into place, with your suggested journey time of 12 minutes from Huddersfield to Manchester being achievable and there being something close to cross-platform interchange (or at least sufficiently close that a connection time of 5 minutes could be relied upon), then possibly an overall journey time similar to the current (32' Marsden-Manchester, 36' Slaithwaite-Manchester) might be possible. However, I'm not convinced either that 12' Hudds-Manchester (22 miles minimum) is achievable, nor that the station at the end of the current rebuilding could accommodate 10 fast trains per hour plus local services. So we would have to assume additional platforms which given the constraints of the site could only be underground on a new alignment, and probably with an increased connection time. As we're dealing with a hypothetical situation let's assume this is what is provided. How much is this going to increase the interchange time? Then on the return journey, connecting into a relatively infrequent local service (proposed as half hourly) the connection time could be up to 29 minutes, which more than wipes out any time saving from a 12' journey from Manchester to Hudds.

I think I would prefer to stick with the certainty of a direct journey, rather than a journey involving a change and potentially a long connection time

 

[FMerrymon]

Had the "pleasure" of looking at this report for work

Usually Policy Exchange's work (even though I'm not necessarily in agreement) is well researched

This is absolute dross and as others have mentioned Gilligan knows nothing about rail. He's some become a transport "expert" (cheers Bojo)


The report has some very disingenuous costings (using different comparisons and methodologies for tunnelling costs for example) and displays a lack of understanding of the railway.

He still thinks that West Yorkshire Mass Transit will free up space at Leeds station (it won't) which is something he and others keep saying. I also found amusing the assertion that platform extensions and power improvements are straightforward and inexpensive. Anyone who is involved in them will tell you otherwise

His electrification plan is hilarious, aside from costing, some of the lines will be a bugger to do (Harrogate line) and/or be better served by battery/hybrid trains (e.g. Knottingley).

His objective is to kill the LMR plan since it makes revival of hs2's phase 2 western branch very likely. He spent years writing inaccurate articles about hs2, including the first mention of the 20 minute myth in the media, which probably has caused some damage in public opinion.

I continue to be amazed that Gilligan is treated seriously by some. There should be serious questions about his time as an adviser and the reasons for his actions.

 

[Halifaxlad]

His objective is to kill the LMR plan since it makes revival of hs2's phase 2 western branch very likely.

What do think Burnham will call for after the Northern section of HS2 from South Manchester past the Airport to Manchester Picadilly has been built ?

 

[Topological]

What do think Burnham will call for after the Northern section of HS2 from South Manchester past the Airport to Manchester Picadilly has been built ?

That is exactly what the whole thing is about. However, the HS2 section should be being built so there should not need to be a discussion.

I keep hoping that there will be fast infrastructure connecting all the large cities of the North, both domestically and internationally via Manchester Airport.

 

[FMerrymon]

That is exactly what the whole thing is about. However, the HS2 section should be being built so there should not need to be a discussion.

I keep hoping that there will be fast infrastructure connecting all the large cities of the North, both domestically and internationally via Manchester Airport.

Its in the LMR report. They have a supply chain delivery chart and i think the "cheshire connector" aka phase 2a is down as the first thibg abd then on to the "staffordshire connector", the bits of phase2b to manchester airport, later.

To think the last government's "network north" paper suggested it would build liverpool to manchester but under no circumstances must it connect to crewe, whilst removing safeguarding and trying to sell land quickly for the 45mile bit in between.