Transport for the North draft 30 year transport plan

[WatcherZero]

Now official, TftN plan to be published for 13 week consultation next month. Business case to be submitted to DfT before End 2018.

http://www.transportforthenorth.com/leaders-unite-behind-draft-transport-plan/

30 year £2-2.3bn annual spend (up from current £1.3bn)

Things they are proposing:
Manchester to York via through Leeds NPR
Liverpool to cheshire HS2 including connection to Manchester line
Underground through Manchester Piccadilly NPR platforms alongside surface terminals.
Northern connection at Clayton between HS2 and Sheffield
Cheaper Revised Underground road tunnel between Manchester and Sheffield with shorter tunnel, improved Woodhead Pass and east of Sheffield road improvements.
Revised electrification/station priority investment list.
Shorter term investments including smart ticketing.

 

[lejog]

The recommended NPR route(s) have been an open secret for some time now and more details have been posted in the High Speed Forum.

Of particular relevance to this thread are:
- Manchester-Leeds will be a new alignment serving Bradford.
- Leeds-York will use the HS2 route between Garforth and Church Fenton/York

It will be interesting to see how the two schemes are received, if plans are published close together.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Things they are proposing:
Manchester to York via through Leeds NPR
Liverpool to cheshire HS2 including connection to Manchester line
Underground through Manchester Piccadilly NPR platforms alongside surface terminals.
Northern connection at Clayton between HS2 and Sheffield
Cheaper Revised Underground road tunnel between Manchester and Sheffield with shorter tunnel, improved Woodhead Pass and east of Sheffield road improvements.
Revised electrification/station priority investment list.
Shorter term investments including smart ticketing.

This part proposes a new surface turnback situation at Piccadilly (HS2) for Yorkshire that the Ordsall Chord has just eliminated...

Junctions at Manchester Piccadilly which, combined with a range of other interventions, would enable services from Manchester Airport and Liverpool to use either an underground Northern Powerhouse Rail through station or a surface turn-back station to continue east towards Leeds and the North East

 

[B&I]

This part proposes a new surface turnback situation at Piccadilly (HS2) for Yorkshire that the Ordsall Chord has just eliminated...

It isn't too late to re-align the HS2 terminus platforms at Piccadilly, to avoid the absurd situation of 'high speed' trains having to reverse Manchester

 

[edwin_m]

Reversal should only add a couple of minutes if done properly, for example by having a driver waiting next to where the rear cab will stop and taking over the train from there.

Avoiding the reversal would mean either a major change to the HS2 tunnel from the Airport to arrive at Piccadilly going east, which would mean all the HS2 platforms moving underground at huge expense, or NPR trains leaving Piccadilly westwards then turning more than 180 degrees in a tightly curved tunnel.

 

[deltic08]

The recommended NPR route(s) have been an open secret for some time now and more details have been posted in the High Speed Forum.

Of particular relevance to this thread are:
- Manchester-Leeds will be a new alignment serving Bradford.
- Leeds-York will use the HS2 route between Garforth and Church Fenton/York

It will be interesting to see how the two schemes are received, if plans are published close together.

So will we have to wait 13 years before Leeds-York is electrified as HS2 is that far away? There is very little slack Leeds-Micklefield now and will be zero when more East Coast trains travel this route

 

[IanXC]

So will we have to wait 13 years before Leeds-York is electrified as HS2 is that far away?

I don't think that necessarily follows. Even without the fastest long distance services there are still a high number of services using this route, and without some of the expresses arguably further stoppers could be provided to tap into the available demand.

 

[Chester1]

So will we have to wait 13 years before Leeds-York is electrified as HS2 is that far away?

Not necessarily because TPE needs to the section wired to fully benefit from Transpennine electrification and it would have a good business case if done alongside TP electrification and Hambleton Junction to Leeds.

 

[AndrewE]

It isn't too late to re-align the HS2 terminus platforms at Piccadilly, to avoid the absurd situation of 'high speed' trains having to reverse Manchester

So why doesn't this apply in Birmingham?

 

[Chester1]

So why doesn't this apply in Birmingham?

Why would any HS2 service need to run through or reverse in Birmingham? What services are you proposing to link together or introduce?

 

[B&I]

Reversal should only add a couple of minutes if done properly, for example by having a driver waiting next to where the rear cab will stop and taking over the train from there.

Avoiding the reversal would mean either a major change to the HS2 tunnel from the Airport to arrive at Piccadilly going east, which would mean all the HS2 platforms moving underground at huge expense, or NPR trains leaving Piccadilly westwards then turning more than 180 degrees in a tightly curved tunnel.

What disadvantage would there be to the tunnel facing east rather than west at its endpoint? And why would this alteration mean having to put the terminus platforms underground?

 

[B&I]

So why doesn't this apply in Birmingham?

No reason why there shouldn't be at least some through platforms at Curzon Street, for classic compatible services from HS2 towards the south west and south coast.

 

[Chester1]

No reason why there shouldn't be at least some through platforms at Curzon Street, for classic compatible services from HS2 towards the south west and south coast.

The reasons are cost and the wish to limit the number of HS2 services that will run on the NR network to maintain reliability.

 

[edwin_m]

What disadvantage would there be to the tunnel facing east rather than west at its endpoint? And why would this alteration mean having to put the terminus platforms underground?

The current proposal for HS2 has the tunnel surfacing about 1000m east of Piccadilly, and running on the surface through an area which is largely derelict or contains property that could be re-developed. This is enough distance for it to climb up over the Mancunian Way and into new platforms at moreorless the same altitude as the existing elevated terminus at Piccadilly.

If arriving from the west it would pass through the city centre, where demolition for a ramp and surface running would be unacceptable until reaching the vicinity of Gateway House (the S-shaped building on the Piccadilly approach). From a portal here there wouldn't be enough length for the tracks to reach the surface before the start of the platforms. So the whole station area would have to be excavated to well below ground level, increasing costs considerably, and the NPR tracks continuing out of the east end of the station would probably have to remain sub-surface until beyond Mancunian Way.

 

[B&I]

The reasons are cost and the wish to limit the number of HS2 services that will run on the NR network to maintain reliability.

Despite the fact there will be fewer services on the eastern branch than the main trunk, and that there will be lengthy classic compatible services running off the end of the eastern branch to Newcastle anyway? I don't see the problem.

 

[B&I]

The current proposal for HS2 has the tunnel surfacing about 1000m east of Piccadilly, and running on the surface through an area which is largely derelict or contains property that could be re-developed. This is enough distance for it to climb up over the Mancunian Way and into new platforms at moreorless the same altitude as the existing elevated terminus at Piccadilly.

If arriving from the west it would pass through the city centre, where demolition for a ramp and surface running would be unacceptable until reaching the vicinity of Gateway House (the S-shaped building on the Piccadilly approach). From a portal here there wouldn't be enough length for the tracks to reach the surface before the start of the platforms. So the whole station area would have to be excavated to well below ground level, increasing costs considerably, and the NPR tracks continuing out of the east end of the station would probably have to remain sub-surface until beyond Mancunian Way.

If you are going to have to excavate an underground station anyway for the through platforms, how much more expensive would excavating terminating platforms be? Satellite images, and endless peering out the window as trains crawl into Piccadilly, suggest there is a very large area of easily removable shedland between Piccadilly and the inner ring road which could accommodate terminus and through platforms (which would also seem to me to be more operarionally flexible).

And if there is going to be a tunnel for NPR approaching from the west, how hard is it for the airport tunnel to enter the station from the west as well?

Is any of this desire to build a horseshoe or turnback into NPR anything at all to do with Manchester City Council's rumoured demand that people arriving in the city by HS2 must do so in natural light, rather than underground?

 

[edwin_m]

If you are going to have to excavate an underground station anyway for the through platforms, how much more expensive would excavating terminating platforms be?

If the NPR platforms are through platforms then there probably only needs to be one in each direction, as each train will only spend a short time there. With NPR terminating there might have to be more as trains will reverse, though if none actually terminate they could be spending only a couple of minutes there.

The problem is more about the HS2 platforms, which have to be terminating. If the tunnel arrives from the west, these platforms end up below ground level. Five of them, each 400m long, are proposed for HS2 and there would have to be platforms for NPR at the same level plus space for throat layouts each end. All this would take up a very large area below ground level.

And if there is going to be a tunnel for NPR approaching from the west, how hard is it for the airport tunnel to enter the station from the west as well?

As far as I can tell from what has been linked here, the proposal has both HS2 and NPR services using the same tunnel. Trains from Liverpool are proposed to join the London-Manchester HS2 line south/west of the airport station, call there and share the HS2 tunnel into Piccadilly before continuing towards Bradford and Leeds.

 

[AndrewE]

If the NPR platforms are through platforms then there probably only needs to be one in each direction, as each train will only spend a short time there. With NPR terminating there might have to be more as trains will reverse, though if none actually terminate they could be spending only a couple of minutes there.

The problem is more about the HS2 platforms, which have to be terminating. If the tunnel arrives from the west, these platforms end up below ground level. Five of them, each 400m long, are proposed for HS2 and there would have to be platforms for NPR at the same level plus space for throat layouts each end. All this would take up a very large area below ground level.

Why waste space and capacity on terminal platforms (besides introducing the hazard of an underground buffer-stop?) A turnback siding when the line resurfaces in the wastelands out to the east of Piccadilly would mean fewer platforms, no real need for a throat and just a couple of diverging junctions on both lines at each end of the station.

As far as I can tell from what has been linked here, the proposal has both HS2 and NPR services using the same tunnel. Trains from Liverpool are proposed to join the London-Manchester HS2 line south/west of the airport station, call there and share the HS2 tunnel into Piccadilly before continuing towards Bradford and Leeds.

The services from the south are going to fill the lines to capacity are they? The problem with HS2 etc (and HS1 )is that they are seen as airlines on wheels, rather than being integrated into our existing network. I'm sure there is a way of potential double-deck stock (or whatever the uniqueness of HS2 is supposed to be) to use the same platforms as other trains.

 

[HSTEd]

The risk is that terminating trains might take too long to unload if you only have one platform in each direction, you would likely need additional platforms - or risk people being overcarried into the turnback sidings.

 

[Class 170101]

The reasons are cost and the wish to limit the number of HS2 services that will run on the NR network to maintain reliability.

Despite the fact there will be fewer services on the eastern branch than the main trunk, and that there will be lengthy classic compatible services running off the end of the eastern branch to Newcastle anyway? I don't see the problem.

In a way I think it would make the eastern branch a better used part of the HS network if there were through platforms at Curazon Street. Classic compatitable services from the south west could be added to HS East branch and as such have faster journeys between Brsitol / Cardiff and the North East of England.

 

[HSTEd]

A cheaper option that massive underground construction in central Birmingham might be to just build a chord from the Leeds/East Midlands spur of HS2 onto the Birmingham Peterborough line at the appropriate location.
That would allow XC trains to run on HS2 from just east of New STreet all the way to Sheffield or Leeds.

Depending on the location of the chord it could even allow rerouting of the current Manchester service between New Street and Manchester, with the current path being taken over by dedicated local services.

 

[HowardGWR]

^^^ Wow that looks pretty impressive, had a look with GE and SV - bound to be a snag I suppose.

 

[edwin_m]

The services from the south are going to fill the lines to capacity are they?

The line from London to the edge of Birmingham will be at capacity but north of there the trains diverge to central Birmingham, Manchester, the North West and the North East. There are also some Birmingham-Manchester trains but the number of HS2 trains entering Manchester will be far less than on HS2 further south, so there is potentially capacity for regional trains to use parts of the HS2 routes. Given the amount of cost to build them, making the best use of those assets should certainly be considered.

I'm sure there is a way of potential double-deck stock (or whatever the uniqueness of HS2 is supposed to be) to use the same platforms as other trains.

Your two suggestions in this sentence directly contradict each other! Double deck stock could use the HS2 line and stations but not the existing network. In fact what is being ordered for HS2 are "classic compatible" single-deck trains that can run through onto the existing network (and the class 395s on HS1 do the same), thus helping to integrate HS2 into the national network. Running NPR trains on certain parts of HS2 is an extension of the same idea.

A cheaper option that massive underground construction in central Birmingham might be to just build a chord from the Leeds/East Midlands spur of HS2 onto the Birmingham Peterborough line at the appropriate location.

This has nothing to do with Transpennine electrification, the subject of this thread.

 

[B&I]

If the NPR platforms are through platforms then there probably only needs to be one in each direction, as each train will only spend a short time there. With NPR terminating there might have to be more as trains will reverse, though if none actually terminate they could be spending only a couple of minutes there.

The problem is more about the HS2 platforms, which have to be terminating. If the tunnel arrives from the west, these platforms end up below ground level. Five of them, each 400m long, are proposed for HS2 and there would have to be platforms for NPR at the same level plus space for throat layouts each end. All this would take up a very large area below ground level.

As far as I can tell from what has been linked here, the proposal has both HS2 and NPR services using the same tunnel. Trains from Liverpool are proposed to join the London-Manchester HS2 line south/west of the airport station, call there and share the HS2 tunnel into Piccadilly before continuing towards Bradford and Leeds.

That was my understanding as well. But it thay tunnel approaches from east rather than west, then you have either the cost and extra travel time of some whacky 180 degree turn back loop, plus slotting underground HS3 platforms somewhere underneath the HS2 terminus, or a requirement to reverse on the surface, which seems to me neither a recipe for optimum speed, nor a way of ensuring best use of capacity.

BTW does HS2 really require FIVE terminating platforms to service 5 trains per hour?

 

[B&I]

A cheaper option that massive underground construction in central Birmingham might be to just build a chord from the Leeds/East Midlands spur of HS2 onto the Birmingham Peterborough line at the appropriate location.
That would allow XC trains to run on HS2 from just east of New STreet all the way to Sheffield or Leeds.

Depending on the location of the chord it could even allow rerouting of the current Manchester service between New Street and Manchester, with the current path being taken over by dedicated local services.

By Manchester services, do you mean south coast-Manchester XC services via New Street? Running those onward from HS2 south of Brum, using classic compatibles, seems to me a better use of paths on both HS2 amd the legacy WCML through Stafford than an HS2 service confined to Manchester-Brum.

 

[AndrewE]

The line from London to the edge of Birmingham will be at capacity but north of there the trains diverge to central Birmingham, Manchester, the North West and the North East. There are also some Birmingham-Manchester trains but the number of HS2 trains entering Manchester will be far less than on HS2 further south, so there is potentially capacity for regional trains to use parts of the HS2 routes. Given the amount of cost to build them, making the best use of those assets should certainly be considered.

Your two suggestions in this sentence directly contradict each other! Double deck stock could use the HS2 line and stations but not the existing network. In fact what is being ordered for HS2 are "classic compatible" single-deck trains that can run through onto the existing network (and the class 395s on HS1 do the same), thus helping to integrate HS2 into the national network. Running NPR trains on certain parts of HS2 is an extension of the same idea.

You seem to be misunderstanding my comments, or we are in agreement. I said [re the Manchester station] "the services from the south are[n't, sorry] going to fill the lines to capacity are they?" so my comment that the new through platforms at Picadilly should be able to provide the capacity to take NPR services too was spot on. I also meant that the platforms (or the trains) could be built so that both could safely call. I don't think these contradict each other at all.
To B&I I would say why on earth should NPR services terminate in Manchester? Surely the idea is to have a coast to coast trunk route and leave the terminal platforms at Manchester for local terminators.

 

[Jonny]

If we're going to go that way, then there might as well be a new-build line running roughly parallel to the current Transpennine North route and/or the M62; it could be combined with the Yorkshire end of the Y-branch of HS2 and then further extended to provide services further north along the current East Coast / A1 Road route.

Instead the excess capacity on the HS2 Y-sections would be better used by services similar to the current Cross-Country franchise, from York/Leeds or Manchester and further north, running to Oxford and then onto various (other) GWML destinations, subject to available OLE or drag locomotives.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Isnt it underground through platforms for NPR in Manchester?

Also all this talk is just NPR and not fully related to CP6 enhancements for TPE which we do not yet know the scope of.

 

[edwin_m]

You seem to be misunderstanding my comments, or we are in agreement. I said [re the Manchester station] "the services from the south are[n't, sorry] going to fill the lines to capacity are they?" so my comment that the new through platforms at Picadilly should be able to provide the capacity to take NPR services too was spot on. I also meant that the platforms (or the trains) could be built so that both could safely call. I don't think these contradict each other at all.
To B&I I would say why on earth should NPR services terminate in Manchester? Surely the idea is to have a coast to coast trunk route and leave the terminal platforms at Manchester for local terminators.

I was confused by your reference to double deck stock and integration of HS2 into the existing network, which are to some extent contradictory, but I see your point. On sharing platforms there is an issue with platform dimensions which means NPR stock would need moveable steps if it used any of the HS2 platforms, which are further back from the track to allow European sized trains to run if required. The alternative would be to ensure all platforms used by NPR were to UK dimensions and not on tracks used by HS2.

 

[AndrewE]

On sharing platforms there is an issue with platform dimensions which means NPR stock would need moveable steps if it used any of the HS2 platforms, which are further back from the track to allow European sized trains to run if required. The alternative would be to ensure all platforms used by NPR were to UK dimensions and not on tracks used by HS2.

Could we have a sort of gauntletted track, with NPR trains diverging at a set of points to run closer to the platform? Probably "too complicated" to consider doing (besides "not invented here") and after all, if it can go wrong it will!