DfT press release on Northern Powerhouse Rail

[mike57]

It's hard to see any meaningful improvements coming without some serious earth moving.

But the problem is I think any incoming government will shy away from starting any major rail infrastructure projects. They may pay lip service, but thats all.

It maybe a sticking plaster solution but there is quite bit that could be be done:

There are still too many 3 coach trains running on this axis, lengthen trains to the maximum possible, increase capacity by longer trains rather than increasing service frequency.
Provide 4 track sections to allow overtaking, an obvious candidate would be Crossgates near Leeds which used to be 4 track, so all works would be within the railway boundary. Also Huddersfield to Marsden, which I think is already planned to be increased to 3 track. There also looks to be room at Eccles without demolition, and on the north side of St Helens junction if you took some of the car park to create 4 track stations.
Sort Astley crossing out.
Get the full TPE north route electrified.
No doubt some other smaller scale works.

If these smaller scale works could be delivered reasonablly close to budget and stick to timescales then a future government maybe more positive about some larger projects.

These are also 'now' things that could deliver benefits in the short term, rather than something which may be 20+ years away from completion.

 

[daodao]

But the problem is I think any incoming government will shy away from starting any major rail infrastructure projects. They may pay lip service, but thats all.

It maybe a sticking plaster solution but there is quite bit that could be be done:

There are still too many 3 coach trains running on this axis, lengthen trains to the maximum possible, increase capacity by longer trains rather than increasing service frequency.
Provide 4 track sections to allow overtaking, an obvious candidate would be Crossgates near Leeds which used to be 4 track, so all works would be within the railway boundary. Also Huddersfield to Marsden, which I think is already planned to be increased to 3 track. There also looks to be room at Eccles without demolition, and on the north side of St Helens junction if you took some of the car park to create 4 track stations.
Sort Astley crossing out.
Get the full TPE north route electrified.
No doubt some other smaller scale works.

If these smaller scale works could be delivered reasonablly close to budget and stick to timescales then a future government maybe more positive about some larger projects.

These are also 'now' things that could deliver benefits in the short term, rather than something which may be 20+ years away from completion.

A sensible pragmatic approach.

The grandiose ideas of Burnham et al costing tens of billions and undeliverable within a reasonable time scale need to be quashed.

 

[Grimsby town]

But the problem is I think any incoming government will shy away from starting any major rail infrastructure projects. They may pay lip service, but thats all.

It maybe a sticking plaster solution but there is quite bit that could be be done:

There are still too many 3 coach trains running on this axis, lengthen trains to the maximum possible, increase capacity by longer trains rather than increasing service frequency.
Provide 4 track sections to allow overtaking, an obvious candidate would be Crossgates near Leeds which used to be 4 track, so all works would be within the railway boundary. Also Huddersfield to Marsden, which I think is already planned to be increased to 3 track. There also looks to be room at Eccles without demolition, and on the north side of St Helens junction if you took some of the car park to create 4 track stations.
Sort Astley crossing out.
Get the full TPE north route electrified.
No doubt some other smaller scale works.

If these smaller scale works could be delivered reasonablly close to budget and stick to timescales then a future government maybe more positive about some larger projects.

These are also 'now' things that could deliver benefits in the short term, rather than something which may be 20+ years away from completion.

But a lot of that is already happening or planned as well as NPR.

NPR isn't just about the transpennine route either, it's about freeing up more capacity in Manchester for more frequent local trains. It relieves a number of bottlenecks in Central Manchester. Its vital to have more frequent rail services in Manchester and other cities. You only have to look at Merseyrail to see how successful high frequency, local heavy rail services can be.

 

[daodao]

Its vital to have more frequent rail services in Manchester

Really? Is there a demand? Which services are you thinking of?

Most local rail services within Greater Manchester are already at least half-hourly Mon-Sat daytime, other than the local service from Manchester to Irlam on the CLC line, which could be improved if this line was electrified, and the local service from Bolton to Manchester, which could be improved once the electric Wigan NW to Stalybridge service is introduced.

 

[mike57]

as well as NPR.

My view is NPR is dead, politicians may pay lip service, but no government is going to start a rail project running into tens of billions after the HS2 debacle at any time in the near future. If we are lucky we might get some smaller scale projects, hence my comment.

 

[HSTEd]

A sensible pragmatic approach.

The grandiose ideas of Burnham et al costing tens of billions and undeliverable within a reasonable time scale need to be quashed.

We are in a situation where the operational railway is unable to electrify TPE North before 2040. Anything else will take way longer and leave us with a bodged mess at the end of it.

Upgrades will take literal decades, a new railway is likely deliverable more rapidly the project management can be done properly. Which I know is a big ask for the UK but there we are.

EDIT:

To demonstrate just how slow the TPE Upgrade is, if a single TBM started digging from Piccadilly today, at 15m a day it would arrive at Leeds in about 2034. About 7 years before the TPE project is scheduled to finish. It would make it to York in about 2041.

 

[WAB]

Most local rail services within Greater Manchester are already at least half-hourly Mon-Sat daytime, other than the local service from Manchester to Irlam on the CLC line, which could be improved if this line was electrified, and the local service from Bolton to Manchester, which could be improved once the electric Wigan NW to Stalybridge service is introduced.

Half-hourly is nothing in an urban context.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

We are in a situation where the operational railway is unable to electrify TPE North before the 2040. Anything else will take way longer and leave us with a bodged mess at the end of it.

As a country we are able when our backs are against a wall - I think unwilling is a better word because DfT/Treasury/ HM Government deem it that way.

 

[HSTEd]

As a country we are able when our backs are against a wall - I think unwilling is a better word because DfT/Treasury/ HM Government deem it that way.

I'm not convinced of this, the railway has been given a lot of money several times and proven fundamentally unable to deliver what is promised.
It wasn't the evil Treasury or DfT that caused the failure of the Great Western modernisation, it was the railway's industry unable to do what it claimed.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I'm not convinced of this, the railway has been given a lot of money several times and proven fundamentally unable to deliver what is promised.
It wasn't the evil Treasury or DfT that caused the failure of the Great Western modernisation, it was the railway's industry unable to do what it claimed.

I am not going to argue because you do make some great points. Putting it another way, what is the solution if any? Bring all construction etc back in house and give it a fancy name such as BREL- British Rail Engineering Limited - or even GBREL!!

 

[AndrewE]

I am not going to argue because you do make some great points. Putting it another way, what is the solution if any? Bring all construction etc back in house and give it a fancy name such as BREL- British Rail Engineering Limited - or even GBREL!!

That would be nice, except that lots of big jobs have always been contracted out!

(Was the GWR electrification fiasco designed and built primarily in-house? I ask because - ISTR - the "civils" calculations for the masts got things so wrong that they used far more steel (and money) than was ever needed, and blew the budget.
I can't understand why nobody involved ever asked themselves why it looked so massively over-engineered compared to all the other OLE here and around the world!)

 

[snowball]

That would be nice, except that lots of big jobs have always been contracted out!

(Was the GWR electrification fiasco designed and built primarily in-house? I ask because - ISTR - the "civils" calculations for the masts got things so wrong that they used far more steel (and money) than was ever needed, and blew the budget.
I can't understand why nobody involved ever asked themselves why it looked so massively over-engineered compared to all the other OLE here and around the world!)

See the video in post #339 in the pinned electrification resources thread for an explanation for the large masts.

 

[Bald Rick]

Bring all construction etc back in house and give it a fancy name such as BREL- British Rail Engineering Limited - or even GBREL!!

Much of the ECML electrification was contracted…

 

[Grimsby town]

Really? Is there a demand? Which services are you thinking of?

Most local rail services within Greater Manchester are already at least half-hourly Mon-Sat daytime, other than the local service from Manchester to Irlam on the CLC line, which could be improved if this line was electrified, and the local service from Bolton to Manchester, which could be improved once the electric Wigan NW to Stalybridge service is introduced.

Of course there's demand. It's not like Manchester's suburbs are significantly different to Liverpool's and yet suburban rail stations record significantly better usage in Manchester than Liverpool. Why? The far lower frequency on Manchester's railways. How many stations have more than 2 trains per hour. Outside of the larger stations, its only Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel I believe.

TfGM have a stated aim of 4 trains per hour (in each direction) serving every station. The GM transport strategy is based on bus feeding into high frequency heavy and light rail.

My view is NPR is dead, politicians may pay lip service, but no government is going to start a rail project running into tens of billions after the HS2 debacle at any time in the near future. If we are lucky we might get some smaller scale projects, hence my comment.

I think the demand to do something in the north is too great to ignore now. A railway costing £10bn is nothing in the grand scheme of things. Look how much Germany spent on the East after reunification. NPR makes it look like the government are doing something without having to spend the kind of money that us really needed to level up the north.

HS2 has certainly had its issues although a lot of those are due to politicians creating uncertainty meaning that nobody has confidence to invest in the skills and capital to build a HS rail line. We aren't going to get better at building railway lines without building them.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Much of the ECML electrification was contracted…

Bloody hell. Seriously? I never knew that. I have learned something.

 

[Bald Rick]

Bloody hell. Seriously? I never knew that. I have learned something.

Yep. Balfours / BICC did a fair bit. And of course most of the corresponding resignalling was done by contractors (as it always was).

 

[mike57]

ignore

Unfortunately this is one thing politicians are good at.

Both parties do it, and it ends up biting them back, A good example is Brexit, instead of listening to the concerns of a large portion of the electorate the politicians headed down the road of a federal Europe and ever more European control and eventually the pressure built and resulted in the referendum. If politicians had listened to those concerns and acted on them back in the period around 2000 then we may have ended up with something much closer to the original common market and Brexit wouldn't have happened. (To make it clear I voted 'in' in the original common market referendum in 1975 and 'exit' from the European Union in 2016).

I think both major parties will do their best to ignore NPR as they will not want to be associated with another HS2 type project.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm not convinced of this, the railway has been given a lot of money several times and proven fundamentally unable to deliver what is promised.
It wasn't the evil Treasury or DfT that caused the failure of the Great Western modernisation, it was the railway's industry unable to do what it claimed.

This is very old news. It would be more relevant to see what improvements have been made during more recent electrifications such as the MML. Of course, it's doubtful whether the treasury will take any notice.

 

[Nottingham59]

This is very old news. It would be more relevant to see what improvements have been made during more recent electrifications such as the MML. Of course, it's doubtful whether the treasury will take any notice.

I've not seen any evidence that there have been improvements made during more recent MML electrification. And if there had been, I would have expected NR to have been proclaiming it from the rooftops.

On the contrary, the latest ITT documentation is still talking about trying to get the cost down from around £3.5M / stk, with no indication of how that was to be achieved. And still using a confrontational procurement model that plays suppliers off against each other, with no mechanism to capture the learning from each project and promulgate it to the next.

 

[yorksrob]

I've not seen any evidence that there have been improvements made during more recent MML electrification. And if there had been, I would have expected NR to have been proclaiming it from the rooftops.

On the contrary, the latest ITT documentation is still talking about trying to get the cost down from around £3.5M / stk, with no indication of how that was to be achieved. And still using a confrontational procurement model that plays suppliers off against each other, with no mechanism to capture the learning from each project and promulgate it to the next.

Someone would need to do a proper study to establish that. I've not seen anything to say that the MML suffers from the same problem of buried cables, so there will likely be some improvement.

As for competitive tendering, an in-house team undertaking rolling electrification would be a way to avoid that.

 

[mike57]

As for competitive tendering, an in-house team undertaking rolling electrification would be a way to avoid that.

One of the problems with a competive tendering is that the temptation is for companies to quote low knowing that they can 'grow' the contract with every change however minor. Every change then has to be added to the contract, and all the admin involved on both sides, which has to be paid for, and before you know it the contract value has doubled.

With an in-house team if problems are encountered once an engineering solution is found the work can progress, and the actual cost may be small if the change is minor.

You then have the continuity problems as team A working for company B will be 'let go' when their project finishes, and Company C who win the next job have to man up from scratch.

My view is something like electrification would be best carried out by an in-house team or teams working on one or more project(s) and then transferrring to the next, gradually wiring up all the primary routes. The problem is it goes against the current 'outsource everything' approach currently in favour with the political masters. Its the same with NHS which has been dragged into a dreadful state, and local authorities with road repairs.

Competetive tendering is good when you are buying a product, clearly defined, but it doesn't work where there is a significant element of 'service' or a lot of unknowns which only become apparent once you start the project.

 

[Arkeeos]

What a weird press release, it seems only done for PR, and it’s likely to be trap for Labour.

Why does it need a discussion with MPs/Mayors if the route has already been *essentially* finalised.

Isn’t it time for design work. Or a business case (ahhh, I think I’ve found out why)

It’s been 10 years since it was announced and I’m still not sure it’s real. Beyond the HS2 section of it have there been any surveys, or anything beyond drawing a line on a map? How on earth does it get through Warrington, is the fiddlers ferry track going rebuilt, straightened? has any thought even been given to the route beyond the HS2 section?

 

[HSTEd]

This is very old news. It would be more relevant to see what improvements have been made during more recent electrifications such as the MML. Of course, it's doubtful whether the treasury will take any notice.

There is no real evidence of any improvements. Indeed if there were, the likes of Network Rail and the contractors would be shouting from the rooftops.

Instead, all we got was an "electrification strategy" that boiled down to "commit to 2000km+ and we might be able to manage some cost reductions, honest". Essentially a demand for ~£10bn no questions asked.
Nevermind that 2000 track kilometres would more or less complete electrification of anything that is likely to be worth electrifying, so it is unclear who would benefit from cost reductions at that point.

 

[Trainman40083]

The trouble is we are pretty much at that point already. The justification for HS2 out of London applies just as much to the Liverpool-Leeds axis ie a new route will allow faster longer-distance services to be almost completely separated from local/regional services allowing the latter to run more frequently. A do nothing approach would mean the only improvement available is to maximise train lengths as much as possible but even that needs significant spending on stations and junctions. While most here are aware of the problems around the Castlefield corridor sooner or later we will also need to address capacity issues in Liverpool and Leeds. It's hard to see any meaningful improvements coming without some serious earth moving.

I think we are past "do nothing". If you look at predictions of population growth, modal shift, in part due to more inner City living , full capacity on WCML and the M6 by mid 2030s etc etc, more demand for ever bigger stopping trains, then high speed non stopping trains become more essential. Of course more people buy more stuff, and that means more freight. The growth of traffic on existing lines will grow. More capacity urgently needed is so many places.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think we are past "do nothing". If you look at predictions of population growth, modal shift, in part due to more inner City living , full capacity on WCML and the M6 by mid 2030s etc etc, more demand for ever bigger stopping trains, then high speed non stopping trains become more essential. Of course more people buy more stuff, and that means more freight. The growth of traffic on existing lines will grow. More capacity urgently needed is so many places.

Though a lot of that, e.g. XC, just requires longer trains. And that's so of parts of Northern too - 6 cars to Windermere was long overdue for instance. And the Hope Valley stopper should be as well.

Rolling stock is very cheap compared to the cost of complex infrastructure, yet it solves a lot of issues, particularly outside the South East.

 

[Grimsby town]

What a weird press release, it seems only done for PR, and it’s likely to be trap for Labour.

Why does it need a discussion with MPs/Mayors if the route has already been *essentially* finalised.

Isn’t it time for design work. Or a business case (ahhh, I think I’ve found out why)

It’s been 10 years since it was announced and I’m still not sure it’s real. Beyond the HS2 section of it have there been any surveys, or anything beyond drawing a line on a map? How on earth does it get through Warrington, is the fiddlers ferry track going rebuilt, straightened? has any thought even been given to the route beyond the HS2 section?

Not sure on the exact nature or scale of the work but work on NPR has been going on for years. I believe there was business case completed just before the government decides to rip up HS2 and send everybody back to the drawing board....

 

[Trainman40083]

Though a lot of that, e.g. XC, just requires longer trains. And that's so of parts of Northern too - 6 cars to Windermere was long overdue for instance. And the Hope Valley stopper should be as well.

Rolling stock is very cheap compared to the cost of complex infrastructure, yet it solves a lot of issues, particularly outside the South East.

Yes, but there are a finite number of trains. You say XC just requires longer trains, but back to a half hourly service might help solve that. Two units needs more crew than one big train, but then a 10 car train might not be needed outside the central core. Hope Valley stopped, 6 cars. So can all the stations it stops at deal with 6 car trains? Sheffield where it uses the bay at South end of 2. Does it impact on platform capacity at Piccadilly? Do longer trains mean less capacity through complex junctions? It shows that available infrastructure and longer trains are linked.

 

[Nottingham59]

It’s been 10 years since it was announced and I’m still not sure it’s real. Beyond the HS2 section of it have there been any surveys, or anything beyond drawing a line on a map?

How on earth does it get through Warrington, is the fiddlers ferry track going rebuilt, straightened?

That's the general idea, with low-level platforms at Warrington Bank Quay. It would make WBQ a far better interchange for the whole of the North West than Crewe, especially if they lengthen the WCML platforms to 400m

I've not seen anything that suggests serious planning for how such a service will terminate in Liverpool (EDIT: Though I'm sure it will have been looked at)

has any thought even been given to the route beyond the HS2 section?

There's discussion about that on this thread:

EDIT: Bald Rick rather suggests there was a team of around 50 people working on it for a couple of years.

What route may the HS2 Marsden spur take?

For two 240m two platform (4 max) stations that absolutely stacks up. When you’ve done a couple of years of development work with a team of 50 people, and spent tens of millions on that development, do please come back and show us the business case and the BCR. Until then I suggest saying it...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[HSTEd]

I think we are past "do nothing". If you look at predictions of population growth, modal shift, in part due to more inner City living , full capacity on WCML and the M6 by mid 2030s etc etc, more demand for ever bigger stopping trains, then high speed non stopping trains become more essential. Of course more people buy more stuff, and that means more freight. The growth of traffic on existing lines will grow. More capacity urgently needed is so many places.

Ultimately I think this attitude is one of the biggest problems on the railway.

The idea that "there is no alternative" to the railway in transport terms isn't really true and risks leading to bad project design, bad project management and a complacent attitude to the railway's situation.
The reality is there are plenty of alternatives to increasing rail traffic provision, we (here on this forum) may not like them, but they certainly exist.

Even with recent slowing of road traffic decarbonisation, the trend there is clearly in one direction.
Once carbon related concerns are eliminated it becomes far more difficult to sell the public on an increasingly expensive railway that is increasingly staid in modernisation terms.

EDIT:
If the railway wants a big share of the post carbon transport pie, it's going to have to deliver projects like NPR, but it's going to have to deliver them well.
They will have to achieve transformative effect, but they must also finish on time and on budget.
A project that is completed with huge cost overruns is almost as bad as a project that is scrapped, because it will destroy confidence of policymakers, the public and industry that the railway can truly deliver.

 

[AndrewE]

Yes, but there are a finite number of trains. You say XC just requires longer trains, but back to a half hourly service might help solve that.

NO, NO, NO! More trains but the same number of seats means more demand (created by the apparently better "service") but no more capacity. The XC core is already grossly overcrowded so we need to double train lengths (e.g. twin Voyagers throughj the core on every possible service) before doing anything else. Operation Princess was an operating catastrophe for exactly this reason, causing delays from overcrowding and collapsing the whole timetable in the W Midlands and beyond.

Avanti WC are actually making this work by running 10 cars Euston to Crewe (sometimes) then sending just 5 forward to Holyhead, so it can be done.

Two units needs more crew than one big train, but then a 10 car train might not be needed outside the central core. Hope Valley stopped, 6 cars. So can all the stations it stops at deal with 6 car trains? Sheffield where it uses the bay at South end of 2. Does it impact on platform capacity at Piccadilly? Do longer trains mean less capacity through complex junctions? It shows that available infrastructure and longer trains are linked.

I don't think passenger train length (10 vs 5 or 6 vs 3 coaches) would have any effect at all on junction occupation. Platforms, yes. But most stations which need 6-car lengths used to have that anyway, and reinstating most of tehm shouldn't be a massive job.