Should HS2 and NPR have used Manchester Victoria.

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It’s building one now! (125mph, Huddersfield - Ravensthrope)

Did you mean to say...Ravensthorpe?

Are there still Lycanthropes in Ravenensthrope....

 

[Bantamzen]

It’s building one now! (125mph, Huddersfield - Ravensthrope)

I think its stretching it a little to call that a high speed route, at least in the context of NPR.

But its all very moot, NPR isn't going to happen and that's that. Its taken years just for NR to get to the point where they can start to think about wiring the TP route, let alone coming up with an all new high speed alignment. The absence of any firm route under the Pennines speaks volumes here. Add in the insane cost of any kind of rai infrastructure construction in this country and what we are left with is a project that will never see the light of day.

 

[zwk500]

I think its stretching it a little to call that a high speed route, at least in the context of NPR.

UIC definition for legacy line is upgrade to 200kph/125mph.

 

[stuu]

It’s building one now! (125mph, Huddersfield - Ravensthrope)

When did that change? The TWAO refers to 100mph throughout

 

[Bald Rick]

When did that change? The TWAO refers to 100mph throughout

good grief. My memory is playing all sorts of tricks on me then. I swear blind it was 125. Happy to be corrected.

 

[stuu]

good grief. My memory is playing all sorts of tricks on me then. I swear blind it was 125. Happy to be corrected.

I'm slightly disappointed to do so, I was hoping you were right!

 

[Bletchleyite]

As far as can tell from the OP's posts the only objection to Piccadilly is that Leeds-Liverpool services will need to reverse there. Yet places like Frankfurt, Munich and Zurich reverse many through services each and every day without there being any suggestion that their networks have been catastrophically damaged as a result. Even here we have been reversing long-distance trains at Birmingham New Street for decades. Given that all such trains these days are worked by or as multiple units the arguments about light locomotive movements having a negative impact on capacity no longer apply.

Potentially it's also an ideal opportunity for a crew change - have the new driver stood ready at the front and the new guard stood ready at the back and then you've got a combination of a crew change and a reverse in less time than it takes to walk the length of the train. Being at a terminus it's not an issue like blocking 13/14 is.

Only annoyance, I guess, is for people who don't like sitting backwards who would have to move seats.

 

[snowball]

There's definitely at least one mention of 110 mph in some of the TWAO documentation, though I forget whether it was explicit about how extensive the 110 will be.

 

[CrossNorthPr]

I think its stretching it a little to call that a high speed route, at least in the context of NPR.

But its all very moot, NPR isn't going to happen and that's that. Its taken years just for NR to get to the point where they can start to think about wiring the TP route, let alone coming up with an all new high speed alignment. The absence of any firm route under the Pennines speaks volumes here. Add in the insane cost of any kind of rai infrastructure construction in this country and what we are left with is a project that will never see the light of day.

Pretty much, as sad as it is.

As soon as TfN rejected “HS3” in favour of “NPR” and all the other projects that encompasses, it unwittingly made it so easily spinnable for government to water it down to what will be just TRU, which is not NPR, but it’s own thing that needs to happen anyway.

The “Passive Provision” at Piccadilly for NPR will soon go, as everyone knows reliable timetabling 6 NPR services per hour into HS2 out of Manchester will only import delays and potentially even become unworkable. It will doubtless be reasoned it’s better to just use the main shed/upgraded infra through Manchester City Centre instead.

If you like, the IRP was the first phase of “mission creep” to remove NPR. Expect the bolt-one to Warrington & Marsden to be quietly dropped at some stage under the guise of “we can do it better this way” or such like.

It’s also unfortunate we haven’t learned these lessons in the north of England and continued to plough ahead campaigning for a combined 6 platform NPR/HS2 underground through station in Manchester when we should have been campaigning for more pragmatic solutions that resolved the bottleneck through Manchester (the main infrastructure issue) whilst not precluding adding new lines either side in future.

I don’t for one minute think this situation is right or just, in any other country you’d get much closer to optimum. But we have what we have, and as frustrating as that is we should be working within that system whilst still campaigning for change. Else we get nothing. Sad state of affairs, but that’s the UK for you!

 

[LittleAH]

But its all very moot, NPR isn't going to happen and that's that. Its taken years just for NR to get to the point where they can start to think about wiring the TP route, let alone coming up with an all new high speed alignment. The absence of any firm route under the Pennines speaks volumes here. Add in the insane cost of any kind of rai infrastructure construction in this country and what we are left with is a project that will never see the light of day.

But that's the Conservative party for you. They've chopped HS2 and are quietly kicking anything over the Pennines down the can.

My only worry is, Labour get into power and obsess over Bradford and NPR - a costly and unpractical solution.

There's definitely at least one mention of 110 mph in some of the TWAO documentation, though I forget whether it was explicit about how extensive the 110 will be.

110 is the Huddersfield to Dewsbury section from what I've seen online.

 

[snowball]

110 is the Huddersfield to Dewsbury section from what I've seen online.

The question was whether it's all of that or part of it (since nobody had made any claims about anywhere outside the TWAO limits). If it's all of it, so much the better.

 

[MattRat]

But that's the Conservative party for you. They've chopped HS2 and are quietly kicking anything over the Pennines down the can.

My only worry is, Labour get into power and obsess over Bradford and NPR - a costly and unpractical solution.

If Labour get into power that is. Never underestimate their ability to throw elections. Plus general voter apathy which leans into the Conservatives favour.

And even if Labour wins, making promises and delivering them are two different things, the Conservatives have proven that time and time again, and Labour aren't going to be magically different. They all sit under the same roof.

 

[Bantamzen]

But that's the Conservative party for you. They've chopped HS2 and are quietly kicking anything over the Pennines down the can.

My only worry is, Labour get into power and obsess over Bradford and NPR - a costly and unpractical solution.

Honestly I don't see Labour moving towards that any time soon. NPR is, as Monty Python would suggest, a Norweign Blue, a dead parrot.

 

[MattRat]

Honestly I don't see Labour moving towards that any time soon. NPR is, as Monty Python would suggest, a Norweign Blue, a dead parrot.

Does make you wonder how they'll get HS2 to Leeds though. It's either is going by NPR or not at all, and not at all loses a lot of potential voters.

Of course, there was another way proposed, via Nottingham and the ECML, but for some reason they don't want to talk about that.

 

[Bald Rick]

Does make you wonder how they'll get HS2 to Leeds though. It's either is going by NPR or not at all, and not at all loses a lot of potential voters.

It’s reasonable to assume that the net effect on voting intentions of HS“2” to Leeds or not is negligible.

 

[MattRat]

It’s reasonable to assume that the net effect on voting intentions of HS“2” to Leeds or not is negligible.

Perhaps. But you know for a fact someone like Andy Burnham will add it to his list of reasons for NPR if he can, and the Government are weak enough as it is without giving him more ammunition.

 

[HSTEd]

Of course, there was another way proposed, via Nottingham and the ECML, but for some reason they don't want to talk about that.

Because its not very good!

I've some sympathy with extending HS2 services past Nottingham to Newark and the ECML, but that is likely to end up slower than via Manchester even with no further infrastructure beyond that already committed as part of TPRU. Even without the line to Marsden it won't really be competitive.

Via the existing TPE line is even potenitally competitive if you want to go to destinations beyond York!

 

[Arkeeos]

Yet places like Frankfurt, Munich and Zurich reverse many through services each and every day without there being any suggestion that their networks have been catastrophically damaged as a result

In fairness, those cities have spent billions building through stations to alleviate the negative effects of reversing.

 

[Bantamzen]

Does make you wonder how they'll get HS2 to Leeds though. It's either is going by NPR or not at all, and not at all loses a lot of potential voters.

Of course, there was another way proposed, via Nottingham and the ECML, but for some reason they don't want to talk about that.

HS2 is never getting to Leeds I'm afraid. That game is up.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

In fairness, those cities have spent billions building through stations to alleviate the negative effects of reversing.

Yes they have, as part of upgrading local and regional services. The long distance services continue to use only the terminal platforms. And for good reason: dwell times. Given the dwell time necessary for long distance services in major cities there is actually no time penalty for reversals provided crewing arrangements are sufficiently pragmatic ie relief crews always in postion for the arrivals. Why would you mix long distance services with local/regional trains at the same platforms in a major station? Imagine if there was an hourly extension of a Pendolino from Piccadilly to Bolton and Preston: absolute carnage on platform 13/14 guaranteed.

It should also be noted that the through stations in Frankfurt, Munich and Zurich were built underground with some additional stations within their urban cores as the intention was always to only run local/regional trains through them. Tunnelling is always likely to ba an expensive option: in Manchester's case there is a tunnel-free option which will almost certainly be taken forward. Of course if this was a country where we believed in continual serious spending on railway projects we would have already built platforms 15/16 and HS2 would never have have had any parts of it cut back. In reality we end up settling for 2nd best while the politicians fret about getting re-elected.

 

[Arkeeos]

The long distance services continue to use only the terminal platforms. And for good reason: dwell times.

Well, no, they use them because the station already exists, If they were building a new station, it would be unlikely they built it as a terminus, Stuttgart is the obvious example of this.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Well, no, they use them because the station already exists, If they were building a new station, it would be unlikely they built it as a terminus, Stuttgart is the obvious example of this.

Stuttgart is perhaps the worst possible example of rebuilding for High Speed. It was only possible to promote the scheme due to the redevelopment of railway lands being released by the relocation helping to fund the railway construction element. It has been hugely divisive to the extent of being a significant factor in a complete change in the political landscape both at city and Land level. It took 16 years to plan, has been under construction for 13 years, with nearly 3 more years before even the first phase is likely to open and is more than 100% over budget. All this for a single city project. The one obvious parallel is that a major driver for the project was a desire to add the city's airport to the HS network.

For those not familiar the equivalent for Manchester would be to insist that a high speed route from the airport would have to maintain a north-south alignment necessitating the replacement of Piccadilly station with a new underground facility at right angles to the current site with all connections to current lines also having to be underground. Closure of Victoria in its current role would be highly probable. Retention of a purely double-track Castlefield route might still be possible but carrying a different set of services to those currently using it. Such a scheme would have made the Ordsall chord unnecessary but the amount of redevelopment land released would be tiny compared to Stuttgart's scheme.

In general terms most opportunities in this country for repurposing railway land while doing something different with the tracks (including closure) have already been taken. It's a huge piece of good fortune that the Curzon Street site in Birmingham was still available. And with our urban centres constantly gaining new large buildings of some sort the only realistic way to create new rail corridors is by going underground and that comes at a cost that few want to actually pay. Crossrail only happened due to the ability to raise some private finance from businesses likely to gain from the improved connectivity: almost no possibility that this could be done anywhere else in the country.

 

[stuu]

Crossrail only happened due to the ability to raise some private finance from businesses likely to gain from the improved connectivity: almost no possibility that this could be done anywhere else in the country.

I agree with your general point, but Crossrail didn't get any private significant finance. The budget was based on roughly 1/3 each from Central government, London (including a precept on council tax and business rates), and 1/3 borrowed by TfL against future fare income.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I agree with your general point, but Crossrail didn't get any private significant finance. The budget was based on roughly 1/3 each from Central government, London (including a precept on council tax and business rates), and 1/3 borrowed by TfL against future fare income.

Said precept, being levied until 2038, is expected to raise just over £3B in total, approximately 15% of the total cost. The project clearly could not have happened without it. Equally clearly such a funding model is almost impossible to create anywhere else. Hence my suggestion that in the provinces we really are reliant on politicians not only agreeing to fund large projects but also to hold their nerve and not chicken out when the (financial) going gets tough. Hence my comment regarding concerns about being re-elected and having to settle for 2nd best.

Mega projects outside the capital rarely come to full fruition so lower cost options inevitably have to be adopted. However things finally play out HS2/NPR are bound to end up as what-might-have-beens.

 

[HSTEd]

Said precept, being levied until 2038, is expected to raise just over £3B in total, approximately 15% of the total cost. The project clearly could not have happened without it. Equally clearly such a funding model is almost impossible to create anywhere else. Hence my suggestion that in the provinces we really are reliant on politicians not only agreeing to fund large projects but also to hold their nerve and not chicken out when the (financial) going gets tough. Hence my comment regarding concerns about being re-elected and having to settle for 2nd best.

Mega projects outside the capital rarely come to full fruition so lower cost options inevitably have to be adopted. However things finally play out HS2/NPR are bound to end up as what-might-have-beens.

I'd rather doubt that 15% of the funding, most of which will be delivered years from now is actually essential to the project.

The reality is that that levy was approved entirely for political reasons to reduce the power of political arguments about "spending all the money on London". It's actual contribute to the cost was minimal.
That argument doesn't really apply to projects in the North.

I'd argue a far more powerful reason for the UK's reluctance to build any infrastructure is because building things like this is a far less efficient way of winning elections than the Triple Lock.