DfT press release on Northern Powerhouse Rail

[HSTEd]

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.

At 25mph (Typical in the slow crossovers near Piccadilly) a train is only moving 11m/s.

So going from a 60m to 260m would cost something like 18 seconds per train!

That would add up quickly if all trains got long, it can't be simply discounted.

 

[Harvey B]

I like the way they can talk about a 41-minute reduction in Leeds-Liverpool journey time, without giving any hint of how or where the NPR route (outside the ex-HS2 trace) will be built.

Is that a 41 minute reduction off the Current time?
As a comparison, How many minutes will the TRU shave off when completed?

 

[Nottingham59]

Is that a 41 minute reduction off the Current time?
How many minutes will the TRU shave off when completed?

I read that as a 41-minute reduction in the time from Leeds to Manchester Airport. Which sounds quite feasible with a tunnel to Piccadilly and another back out to the near-airport station. (Except of course HS2 never had funding for the Airport Station, and it was supposed to be paid for by third parties.)

 

[AndrewE]

At 25mph (Typical in the slow crossovers near Piccadilly) a train is only moving 11m/s.

So going from a 60m to 260m would cost something like 18 seconds per train!

That would add up quickly if all trains got long, it can't be simply discounted.

True, but going from 60m to to 260m is more than quadrupling train lengths.
However, with all the other point-setting preliminaries and after-train confirmations (whatever the proper terms are) the actual time that needs to be alloweed for a train to get through a junction will not really be increased by a very high proportion.

 

[Harvey B]

I read that as a 41-minute reduction in the time from Leeds to Manchester Airport. Which sounds quite feasible with a tunnel to Piccadilly and another back out to the near-airport station. (Except of course HS2 never had funding for the Airport Station, and it was supposed to be paid for by third parties.)

Are you talking about the TRU or NPR?

 

[Trainman40083]

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.


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.

But at New Street, with a 5 car Voyager, they can put another service in the same platform, with a 10 car, you can't so you lose capacity.

 

[AndrewE]

But at New Street, with a 5 car Voyager, they can put another service in the same platform, with a 10 car, you can't so you lose capacity.

Surely the point (the desperate need) is to increase the capacity of the XC services? However this XC discussion is more than a bit OT, but I would support the idea of running the Euston-Brums through to Manchester. I just looked, and at 2 LNR EMU's an hour it would be a good way of getting XC Voyagers off a route under the wires - but only if really good cross-platform interchange can be built in to the timetable somewhere. It would also remove some terminators from New St. which would restore some of the capacity lost from running some longer trains.

 

[Peter Sarf]

But at New Street, with a 5 car Voyager, they can put another service in the same platform, with a 10 car, you can't so you lose capacity.

I would have thought filling a platform once an hour is operationally more efficient then pathing two trains every thirty minutes onto the same platform. By going half hourly you are doubling the use of a platform that has to be shared with other services.

 

[Trainman40083]

I would have thought filling a platform once an hour is operationally more efficient then pathing two trains every thirty minutes onto the same platform. By going half hourly you are doubling the use of a platform that has to be shared with other services.

But then I wonder if more passengers use two trains an hour, or a double train every hour. Now I presume the XC Birmingham to Manchester trains still come from somewhere else, like Reading or Bristol.

 

[Peter Sarf]

But then I wonder if more passengers use two trains an hour, or a double train every hour. Now I presume the XC Birmingham to Manchester trains still come from somewhere else, like Reading or Bristol.

I reckon a frequency uplift brings more passengers BUT not much use if the railways cannot cater for them. The limits are crew (drivers) and paths.

 

[AndrewE]

But then I wonder if more passengers use two trains an hour, or a double train every hour. Now I presume the XC Birmingham to Manchester trains still come from somewhere else, like Reading or Bristol.

You think that (with the DfT vetoing any rolling stock increases and even getting rid of stuff on XC) the railway will get any brownie points at all for encouraging more passengers?
Of course the railway should shift as many people as physically possible, but the Treasury don't see it that way. I have said it before, but the Treasury needs to be given responsibility for the UK's carbon budget as well - and then all the staff sent on a re-education programmme!

 

[Trainman40083]

You think that (with the DfT vetoing any rolling stock increases and even getting rid of stuff on XC) the railway will get any brownie points at all for encouraging more passengers?
Of course the railway should shift as many people as physically possible, but the Treasury don't see it that way. I have said it before, but the Treasury needs to be given responsibility for the UK's carbon budget as well - and then all the staff sent on a re-education programmme!

I could see reasons why TOCs would not want to encourage more passengers, or even increase satisfaction rates. All the TOC has to do is meet what is defined in the DfT management contract. I guess under the privatised system, you provided an excellent service, the passengers numbers exceeded expectations, you provided more capacity, more profit, more engaged staff, more revenue protection etc. Now all the money goes to the Government, well, maybe you do less. I guess the Treasury sees cost, not always value added.

I reckon a frequency uplift brings more passengers BUT not much use if the railways cannot cater for them. The limits are crew (drivers) and paths.

I'd love a crystal ball where I could see what the railways looked like in 2040. But I also remember a railway in decline in the early 1990s. Then all of a sudden things turned the other way. Makes you wonder if the DfT /Treasury actions are suppressing demand.

 

[The Ham]

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.

Half-hourly is nothing in an urban context.

Even half hourly between large towns is insignificant, look at Basingstoke - Reading which typically has 3tph with a typical train length of 3 coaches and could potentially justify longer/more frequent trains.

If I recall correctly Manchester is just a little bit bigger than the combined population of Basingstoke and Reading (even if you add in the population of the stations served along the line).

London/Manchester services max out at 33 coaches an hour, Exeter/London typically has an average of over 14 coaches per hour but a population of about 1/4 that of Manchester. They are both about 2 hours from London, so are broadly comparable in that regard.

If something was built to allow 400m trains into Manchester then it could see 48 coaches, however based on the same per 100,000 population as Exeter it would need to have 59 coaches. Even then there's some who would suggest that Exeter probably could do with more capacity.

Obviously there's an element of Devon and Cornwall adding to the demand for Exeter, however the same could be said of places which connect at Manchester.

 

[Class 170101]

But then I wonder if more passengers use two trains an hour, or a double train every hour. Now I presume the XC Birmingham to Manchester trains still come from somewhere else, like Reading or Bristol.

I reckon a frequency uplift brings more passengers BUT not much use if the railways cannot cater for them. The limits are crew (drivers) and paths.

More passengers use a 30 minute frequency service compared to two trains merged to run a 60 minute service, just look at Cross Country. They now need longer trains because you won't get any more paths on the graph but as noted above could cause problems with double docking at places like New Street.

 

[Trainman40083]

Even half hourly between large towns is insignificant, look at Basingstoke - Reading which typically has 3tph with a typical train length of 3 coaches and could potentially justify longer/more frequent trains.

If I recall correctly Manchester is just a little bit bigger than the combined population of Basingstoke and Reading (even if you add in the population of the stations served along the line).

London/Manchester services max out at 33 coaches an hour, Exeter/London typically has an average of over 14 coaches per hour but a population of about 1/4 that of Manchester. They are both about 2 hours from London, so are broadly comparable in that regard.

If something was built to allow 400m trains into Manchester then it could see 48 coaches, however based on the same per 100,000 population as Exeter it would need to have 59 coaches. Even then there's some who would suggest that Exeter probably could do with more capacity.

Obviously there's an element of Devon and Cornwall adding to the demand for Exeter, however the same could be said of places which connect at Manchester.

Maybe the pent up demand for local services in Manchester is at least every 15 minutes. Keep hearing of demand for better services towards Knutsford, on CLC, fast down Hope Valley.. Did Buxton get it's half hourly service back?

 

[Peter Sarf]

Even half hourly between large towns is insignificant, look at Basingstoke - Reading which typically has 3tph with a typical train length of 3 coaches and could potentially justify longer/more frequent trains.

If I recall correctly Manchester is just a little bit bigger than the combined population of Basingstoke and Reading (even if you add in the population of the stations served along the line).

London/Manchester services max out at 33 coaches an hour, Exeter/London typically has an average of over 14 coaches per hour but a population of about 1/4 that of Manchester. They are both about 2 hours from London, so are broadly comparable in that regard.

If something was built to allow 400m trains into Manchester then it could see 48 coaches, however based on the same per 100,000 population as Exeter it would need to have 59 coaches. Even then there's some who would suggest that Exeter probably could do with more capacity.

Obviously there's an element of Devon and Cornwall adding to the demand for Exeter, however the same could be said of places which connect at Manchester.

My bold

I am not sure but possibly Exeter does not generate much in the way of employment so people are more likely to head to London. Manchester is bigger but more likely to have employment within it so people are less likely to look to London for employment. Also the demographic in Devon and Cornwall are far more likely to be retired.

 

[Energy]

More passengers use a 30 minute frequency service compared to two trains merged to run a 60 minute service, just look at Cross Country. They now need longer trains because you won't get any more paths on the graph but as noted above could cause problems with double docking at places like New Street.

XC particularly struggles due to the voyagers' low density. WMR manages 311 seats in a 4 car 196 while XC manages 174 standard and 26 (lightly used...) first class seats in a 220.

 

[BrianW]

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.

I agree. The great is the enemy of the good. What is needed is agreement by often competing local authorities and personalities (like Liverpool and Manchester- which is bigger!!) to 'get on with it'. Small steps-,'Quick wins'. Deliver. (Re)Build confidence.

Re loss of confidence following GWML electrification debacle- IIRC there was a lot of rush following a turning on of the funding tap by Grayling, and insufficient ground investigation, resulting in inadequate and wrong design- not taking account of 'hidden' wires, drains etc where posts were planned, and consequent inability to use a specially commissioned 'electrification train'- in short a shambles related to 'stop-go' economics- a bit like HS2 since?

Re 'capacity' improvements. Longer trains are cheaper to run than increased frequency, and stock is available if DfT /Treasury will allow it. Step-by-step toward 'turn up and go' at 4tph- like the London Tube. Is it possible to imagine a Manchester network like that? Is Bee a start? Keep it simple. People can 'interchange' rather than train (or tram) from everywhere to everywhere. What chance a 'Great Northern' Central Line: Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester-Huddersfield-Leeds. How long would that take? London's Central Line West Ruislip- Epping takes 1h23; Liverpool-Leeds =1h46; not that different.

 

[daodao]

What chance a 'Great Northern' Central Line: Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester-Huddersfield-Leeds.

Corrected that for you, as Warrington is unfortunately "off route" for the existing main through line. As NPR is an unrealistic prospect for the foreseeable future, such a service needs to go via Victoria, Manchester's principal through station for east-west traffic.

 

[Bantamzen]

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.

£10Bn? And the rest. Ten billion might just cover the consultancy fees for any such project, but certainly wouldn't build you a new line between Liverpool and Manchester, let alone one that extends into Leeds and beyond. If HS2 couldn't make it past Birmingham and potentially Old Oak Common, then NPR won't make it out of the box of Crayolas.

 

[The exile]

Even half hourly between large towns is insignificant, look at Basingstoke - Reading which typically has 3tph with a typical train length of 3 coaches and could potentially justify longer/more frequent trains.

If I recall correctly Manchester is just a little bit bigger than the combined population of Basingstoke and Reading (even if you add in the population of the stations served along the line).

London/Manchester services max out at 33 coaches an hour, Exeter/London typically has an average of over 14 coaches per hour but a population of about 1/4 that of Manchester. They are both about 2 hours from London, so are broadly comparable in that regard.

If something was built to allow 400m trains into Manchester then it could see 48 coaches, however based on the same per 100,000 population as Exeter it would need to have 59 coaches. Even then there's some who would suggest that Exeter probably could do with more capacity.

Obviously there's an element of Devon and Cornwall adding to the demand for Exeter, however the same could be said of places which connect at Manchester.

Size alone has very little to do with it. Just as important are people’s travelling patterns (bit of “chicken and egg” here), not to mention accidents of (railway) geography. Exeter benefits by being the junction of two entirely separate routes to London so has artificially inflated figures. There are several towns that benefit from through services to London purely because they’re on a main line, whereas larger settlements get none. Argue the case for Honeybourne vs Bromsgrove or Redditch purely on the base of population….

 

[yorksrob]

I'd love a crystal ball where I could see what the railways looked like in 2040. But I also remember a railway in decline in the early 1990s. Then all of a sudden things turned the other way. Makes you wonder if the DfT /Treasury actions are suppressing demand.

Funnily enough, I remember a very forward thinking, innovative railway in the early 1990's, certainly not one in decline.

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.

As I mentioned, the way to achieve that is to have a dedicated team progressing rolling electrification (and sorting out single line working again).

 

[The Ham]

My bold

I am not sure but possibly Exeter does not generate much in the way of employment so people are more likely to head to London. Manchester is bigger but more likely to have employment within it so people are less likely to look to London for employment. Also the demographic in Devon and Cornwall are far more likely to be retired.

About 1/3 of the coaches between London and Exeter are local trains (the GWR semi fast or the WofE line), as such they are unlikely to being used for commuting to London (other places maybe, but not London).

The fact that Manchester is likely to attract people to it would arguably make it need better services.

Size alone has very little to do with it. Just as important are people’s travelling patterns (bit of “chicken and egg” here), not to mention accidents of (railway) geography. Exeter benefits by being the junction of two entirely separate routes to London so has artificially inflated figures. There are several towns that benefit from through services to London purely because they’re on a main line, whereas larger settlements get none. Argue the case for Honeybourne vs Bromsgrove or Redditch purely on the base of population….

The WofE line does play a part, however even if we ignore it entirely Exeter would see about 11.5 coaches an hour whilst Manchester at the same rate based on size would need to see 48, which is only just going to get if full HS2 trains can run at a frequency of 3tph.

 

[The exile]

The WofE line does play a part, however even if we ignore it entirely Exeter would see about 11.5 coaches an hour whilst Manchester at the same rate based on size would need to see 48, which is only just going to get if full HS2 trains can run at a frequency of 3tph.

This is assuming that those 11.5 coaches an hour are there principally to serve Exeter, as opposed to serving it on the way to somewhere else. Try doing the same calculation based on the number of carriages per hour between Micheldever and London!

 

[Grimsby town]

£10Bn? And the rest. Ten billion might just cover the consultancy fees for any such project, but certainly wouldn't build you a new line between Liverpool and Manchester, let alone one that extends into Leeds and beyond. If HS2 couldn't make it past Birmingham and potentially Old Oak Common, then NPR won't make it out of the box of Crayolas.

To be fair I was referring to the Liverpool Manchester section which has been priced at £12bn. Whether or not it can be done in that cost is another thing entirely.

A few billion a year is nothing to the government. Its a very visible sign of leveling up without having to deal with the more difficult and expensive problems such as providing local metro systems and sorting education. I'm fairly confident it will happen in some shape. Business cases become irrelevant if something has enough political backing.

 

[Big Sam]

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.

This isn't the place for politics, so I've no idea why you've brought Brexit up. However, seeing as you have, I'll take the opportunity to say this is absolute nonsense and is based clearly on your own personal feelings. The *actual* evidence of why Brexit happened is far from how you've described.

 

[Meerkat]

What is the plan to get people between the NPR "Airport" station and the airport, and how long will that take compared to walking off a train at the current station?

 

[Harvey B]

I'm wondering if there's actually any need for both Northern Powerhouse Rail and the TRU

 

[Trainman40083]

What is the plan to get people between the NPR "Airport" station and the airport, and how long will that take compared to walking off a train at the current station?

Was there not talk of a new terminal building at Manchester Airport?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm wondering if there's actually any need for both Northern Powerhouse Rail and the TRU

Any electrification is a good thing.