• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Transport for the North Strategic Transport Plan

Status
Not open for further replies.

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
I think the main issue with NPR is it needs to have a "what's it for" question. At least one North - South higher speed line to create capacity is needed in Britain but in my opinion HS2 isn't the right solution. I find the map of NPR odd that the large population centre of Teesside is not connected to NPR.


What It's for, or maybe what it should be for, is to create sufficient capacity for northern cities to enjoy the sort of local rail services that are taken for granted in the south east, while providing some reduction to journey times between them.

With no disrespect to Teesside, it seems to me a bit far east to justify routing any main line through it (particularly when said main line is likely to be the ECML, with maybe a bypass at Durham). However, NPR should include speeding up the existing lines to Middlesbrough from York and Newcastle, and something similar for Sunderland (maybe, one day, a re-opened route linking it directly to the ECML rather than via the coast ?)
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
In a world where we can sustain 2.5% drags indefinitely without significant loss of performance, not sure what the fuss is really about.
Even climbing from Sea Level to the top of the Snake pass at that rate only takes 20km or so.

The only reason to have tunnels across the pennines now is to avoid damaging views.
Even the TSIs have allowed derogations to 4% in Germany.


And for weather resilience?
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
As I've said before, I tend to imagine that a route from Manchester towards Leeds via Bradford might follow the existing Victoria-Rochdale line as far as Littleborough and then enter a new tunnel. Where it would emerge is more difficult, but perhaps near Sowerby Bridge.


Wasn't the Ripponden branch originally intended to be the eastern approach to the sort of tunnel you suggest? Don't know what sort of speeds could be managed if it were to be reinstated (assuming that would be possible anyway).
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,635
And for weather resilience?

Lines on the surface in Japan in areas where they can get a metre of snowfall in 24 hours seem to do alright - they have water sprays to deal with snowfall.
Such systems would still be far cheaper than tunnelling.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,269
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
As I've said before, I tend to imagine that a route from Manchester towards Leeds via Bradford might follow the existing Victoria-Rochdale line as far as Littleborough and then enter a new tunnel. Where it would emerge is more difficult, but perhaps near Sowerby Bridge.

Has anyone read the history of the Rishworth branch line (from the Sowerby Bridge area) and the reasons why the onward connection towards the Manchester area were finally dismissed?
 

Eric

Member
Joined
21 Oct 2010
Messages
594
Location
West Yorkshire
I suspect that is exactly what Bradford will get. The cost of tunnelling under Bradford and building a new station would cost an extra billion or much more. Closing Bradford Interchange and building a tram line from Bradford Parkway to Bradford Foster Square (renaming it Bradford Central) would be cheaper and provide good cross city connections.

But Bradford doesn't need a parkway station on the avoiding curve.

Imagine the pain of waiting to get a tram up the incline.

What Bradford needs is a new central station in the city centre - that either connects to the Aire Valley or rejoins the current line before New Pudsey.

Avoiding and Missing Bradford will bring no economic benefits, and Bradford has been shafted for years in that respect.
 

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,752
Location
York
But Bradford doesn't need a parkway station on the avoiding curve.

Imagine the pain of waiting to get a tram up the incline.

What Bradford needs is a new central station in the city centre - that either connects to the Aire Valley or rejoins the current line before New Pudsey.

Avoiding and Missing Bradford will bring no economic benefits, and Bradford has been shafted for years in that respect.
But then going through Bradford and out via the Aire Valley would give a very indirect route between Manchester and Leeds — a sort of latter-day equivalent to the first route via the Calder Valley, Wakefield, and Normanton? (And remember how quickly that route was superseded.)
 

Mollman

Established Member
Joined
21 Sep 2016
Messages
1,211
What It's for, or maybe what it should be for, is to create sufficient capacity for northern cities to enjoy the sort of local rail services that are taken for granted in the south east, while providing some reduction to journey times between them.

With no disrespect to Teesside, it seems to me a bit far east to justify routing any main line through it (particularly when said main line is likely to be the ECML, with maybe a bypass at Durham). However, NPR should include speeding up the existing lines to Middlesbrough from York and Newcastle, and something similar for Sunderland (maybe, one day, a re-opened route linking it directly to the ECML rather than via the coast ?)

Don't worry I wasn't suggesting the main NPR route to Tyneside go via Teesside, however the map has a category for connecting routes which didn't include one to Teesside or Sunderland.
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
But then going through Bradford and out via the Aire Valley would give a very indirect route between Manchester and Leeds — a sort of latter-day equivalent to the first route via the Calder Valley, Wakefield, and Normanton? (And remember how quickly that route was superseded.)


There are other places in the north of England. Bradford is one of Britain's biggest cities.
 

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
3,972
But Bradford doesn't need a parkway station on the avoiding curve.

Imagine the pain of waiting to get a tram up the incline.

What Bradford needs is a new central station in the city centre - that either connects to the Aire Valley or rejoins the current line before New Pudsey.

Avoiding and Missing Bradford will bring no economic benefits, and Bradford has been shafted for years in that respect.

Its only a pain for people going to or from somewhere near Bradford Interchange. For other locations it would be better and could be the core of a network. A tunnel under the city and a third city centre station or massive rebuild will be dropped very early on. Rail tunnels cost roughly £300m per mile and a 4 platform station built in submerged box in the city centre will cost more. Bradford doesn't have the political weight to obtain the extra funding compared with the cheap option of upgrading the existing alignment in built up areas and reopening the chord. I am surprised that NPR is planned to serve Bradford at all.
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
Its only a pain for people going to or from somewhere near Bradford Interchange. For other locations it would be better and could be the core of a network. A tunnel under the city and a third city centre station or massive rebuild will be dropped very early on. Rail tunnels cost roughly £300m per mile and a 4 platform station built in submerged box in the city centre will cost more. Bradford doesn't have the political weight to obtain the extra funding compared with the cheap option of upgrading the existing alignment in built up areas and reopening the chord. I am surprised that NPR is planned to serve Bradford at all.


So your view is that new railways should be planned on the basis of I political clout, rather than actual transport need? If that was the sole criterion employed, NPR wouldn't even be the railway equivalent of a twinkle in the milkman's eye that it currently is.
 
Last edited:

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,635
. A tunnel under the city and a third city centre station or massive rebuild will be dropped very early on. Rail tunnels cost roughly £300m per mile and a 4 platform station built in submerged box in the city centre will cost more.

Bit of a surprise given HS2s estimates are far lower than that. Something like £100m/route mile for a twin track railway.
And why on earth would it be a four platform station?
Just how many trains are you anticipating fitting through it? Two platforms and a pair of through lines would be easily sufficient
 

frodshamfella

Established Member
Joined
25 Sep 2010
Messages
1,659
Location
Frodsham
It wouldn't necessarily need to, it could for the most part follow the M56 after arching off to the south-east from Warrington. But it would mean a lot of the area to the south of Warrington from Stockton Heath through the Tatton constituency would be within a shortish drive of a link, even though they might never use it. Just as long as they could add "fast rail link" to the "short drive" when referring to the airport's vicinity in the descriptions for their homes to add a bit more value! ;)


I live just south of M56, not far from Stockton Heath, there's no way I'd drive to Manchester Airport to catch an HS2 to London when its so much easier to go to Runcorn to get to London.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,635
I live just south of M56, not far from Stockton Heath, there's no way I'd drive to Manchester Airport to catch an HS2 to London when its so much easier to go to Runcorn to get to London.
Even when Runcorn's trains are twenty minutes slower than Manchester airport's?
 

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
3,972
So your view is that new railways should be planned on the basis of politoval clout, rather than actual transport need? If that was the sole criterion employed, NPR wouldn't even be the railway equivalent of a twinkle in the milkman's eye that it currently is.

Its not how things should be done but it is a significant factor. The NPR initiative is the result of politics!

Bit of a surprise given HS2s estimates are far lower than that. Something like £100m/route mile for a twin track railway.
And why on earth would it be a four platform station?
Just how many trains are you anticipating fitting through it? Two platforms and a pair of through lines would be easily sufficient

£33m per single tunnel per kiliometre for civil engineering only means that the finished railway will be more than £100m per mile. Your right that £300m was a big overestimate though. I suggested 4 platforms because it would make it easier to have a range of services. Two would suffice but it is a limitation on long term capacity from day 1.

Bradford Crossrail has been a crayonista fantasy for a very long time and its amazing how the Aire Valley has already been suggested! There is a cheap route that runs a mile out of the city centre and would involve minimal risk and disruption. If Nottingham and Derby will not be directly served by HS2 and Sheffield had to swap a HS2 station at Meadowhall for using the current station then Bradford not having a city centre station on NPR is a reasonable option.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
I suspect that is exactly what Bradford will get. The cost of tunnelling under Bradford and building a new station would cost an extra billion or much more. Closing Bradford Interchange and building a tram line from Bradford Parkway to Bradford Foster Square (renaming it Bradford Central) would be cheaper and provide good cross city connections.

If you'\re going that far, you might as well build the tram all the way to Shipley and close the Forster Square line (which would then remove the problem of trains at the awkward curved platforms at Shipley).

Bradford can have it's "cross rail", as long as it's a tram-based scheme :lol:

There are other places in the north of England. Bradford is one of Britain's biggest cities.

This usually crops up, but only really works if you accept that "Bradford" includes Keighley/ Ilkley etc (which are within the local government boundaries) but that other cities don't include nearby suburbs that most people would assume belonged to them (e.g. West Bridgeford isn't in "Nottingham", Salford isn't in "Manchester", Gateshead isn't in "Newcastle").

Bradford is definitely in the list of West Yorkshire's largest cities though.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
Bradford Crossrail has been a crayonista fantasy for a very long time and its amazing how the Aire Valley has already been suggested! There is a cheap route that runs a mile out of the city centre and would involve minimal risk and disruption. If Nottingham and Derby will not be directly served by HS2 and Sheffield had to swap a HS2 station at Meadowhall for using the current station then Bradford not having a city centre station on NPR is a reasonable option.

I mentioned it before I know, but one possibility would be for the bypass route to be used by a proportion of trains that don't stop at all in the Bradford area while a further proportion could run from Manchester into an expanded and improved central station at the current Interchange site, at far lower cost. Those trains that go into Bradford Interchange could include longer distance services via Manchester Airport, including Birmingham and even one an hour from London (for which at least one 400m platform could be useful for peak times). Central Bradford might under that scenario get (say) 4 tph heading south/west, all serving Manchester Piccadilly and Airport, then:
London - 1tph
Birmingham - 1tph
Liverpool - 2tph
The Birminghams and Londons would start and terminate at Bradford, while the Liverpools could reverse and go on to Leeds (and perhaps beyond).
Another 4tph on the bypass from Liverpool could go straight to Leeds (for minimum target journey time) then go on alternately to Newcastle or Hull (assuming electrified).
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,669
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
But then going through Bradford and out via the Aire Valley would give a very indirect route between Manchester and Leeds — a sort of latter-day equivalent to the first route via the Calder Valley, Wakefield, and Normanton? (And remember how quickly that route was superseded.)

But again NRP is not just about the fastest possible alignment between Manchester & Leeds, it is about trying to encourage economic growth over a wider area. Remember the current alignment is still recommended for improvements too. The Aire Valley comes into play if a route were to pass through Bradford as it would be the simplest surface route, & would hook the Aire valley into it.

I live just south of M56, not far from Stockton Heath, there's no way I'd drive to Manchester Airport to catch an HS2 to London when its so much easier to go to Runcorn to get to London.

As I said earlier it was a joke as some of my family live in the Tatton constituency and I know what people in that area feel about HS2's possible effect on their house prices.

This usually crops up, but only really works if you accept that "Bradford" includes Keighley/ Ilkley etc (which are within the local government boundaries) but that other cities don't include nearby suburbs that most people would assume belonged to them (e.g. West Bridgeford isn't in "Nottingham", Salford isn't in "Manchester", Gateshead isn't in "Newcastle").

Bradford is definitely in the list of West Yorkshire's largest cities though.

And this argument usually crops up when people don't want Bradford to benefit. "Oh it's not that big really" is the argument, "Shipley, Bingley, Keighley, Ilkley are all really separate towns so don't count" some say. But they do all pay Council Tax to Bradford City Hall, decisions in their areas are made in Bradford City Hall, they are all part of Bradford's economic area, and therefore when decisions are made around what benefits Bradford these towns are included. For most people here Bradford is a sum of all it's areas, not just a loose collection of towns and villages. So when NPR is suggested as a possible driver towards economic growth in the area (and I make that point again), Bradford ought to be considered as a whole of all it's Council Tax paying areas, not just the boundaries that constitute what *used* to be defined as Bradford.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,269
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
And this argument usually crops up when people don't want Bradford to benefit. "Oh it's not that big really" is the argument, "Shipley, Bingley, Keighley, Ilkley are all really separate towns so don't count" some say. But they do all pay Council Tax to Bradford City Hall, decisions in their areas are made in Bradford City Hall, they are all part of Bradford's economic area, and therefore when decisions are made around what benefits Bradford these towns are included. For most people here Bradford is a sum of all it's areas, not just a loose collection of towns and villages. So when NPR is suggested as a possible driver towards economic growth in the area (and I make that point again), Bradford ought to be considered as a whole of all it's Council Tax paying areas, not just the boundaries that constitute what *used* to be defined as Bradford.

I note your mention of Ilkley in relation to Bradford. Are there still people there who view an association to Bradford, as people in the "Cheshire Golden Triangle" (Prestbury/Wilmslow/ Alderley Edge) regard Macclesfield?
 

frodshamfella

Established Member
Joined
25 Sep 2010
Messages
1,659
Location
Frodsham
[
Even when Runcorn's trains are twenty minutes slower than Manchester airport's?

Of course, would take longer than 20 mins to get to Manchester Airport anyway in good traffic, and in the peaks the M56 is awful. Runcorn beats Manchester Airport hands down.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,269
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
This usually crops up, but only really works if you accept that "Bradford" includes Keighley/ Ilkley etc (which are within the local government boundaries) but that other cities don't include nearby suburbs that most people would assume belonged to them (e.g. West Bridgeford isn't in "Nottingham", Salford isn't in "Manchester", Gateshead isn't in "Newcastle").

Noting here what you say about Salford in relation to Manchester, both of these areas are part of the ten areas that constitute the entity of Greater Manchester. An example of this was seen in 1998 when the areas referendum was held in those ten areas to see if an inner-banded and an outer banded congestion charge could be levied to fund a "big-bang" lines expansion of the Manchester Metrolink system. All ten of those areas voted overwhelmingly against the proposal, even the rock-solid areas of Manchester, Salford and Wigan.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,669
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
I note your mention of Ilkley in relation to Bradford. Are there still people there who view an association to Bradford, as people in the "Cheshire Golden Triangle" (Prestbury/Wilmslow/ Alderley Edge) regard Macclesfield?

That depends, if it is something to do with house prices or car insurance then no, the good folk of Ilkley want nothing to do with Bradford. However when Bradford Council are looking at methods to improve the economic situation of the Metropolitan area, then its surprising how suddenly they want engagement. In truth Ilkley is an odd fit for Bradford, the main roads and rail links have to pass through Leeds areas to reach Ilkley. However in recent years the areas around Bradford have been successfully sold as film locations, and the area as a whole is increasingly attractive to film makers and Ilkley is starting to benefit from that so maybe in time perceptions will change.
 

stephen rp

Member
Joined
25 Jun 2016
Messages
186
I live just south of M56, not far from Stockton Heath, there's no way I'd drive to Manchester Airport to catch an HS2 to London when its so much easier to go to Runcorn to get to London.
Frodsham isn't near Stockton Heath.
[
Of course, would take longer than 20 mins to get to Manchester Airport anyway in good traffic, and in the peaks the M56 is awful. Runcorn beats Manchester Airport hands down.
If you don't live in south Warrington. If you do, then M56 to the airport station would likely be quicker than to any station anywhere near Warrington town centre.

Any surface route through Warrington is problematic. The route suggested on page 1 of the thread (there's nothing in the report) goes through areas designated for development, some to justify the cost of a new £200m road which would also cut north-south across that route (which crosses the WCML, already on an embankment, and also crosses the tidal Mersey twice). And can you imagine the land-take to cross the Ship Canal in Latchford? At the sort of speed envisaged (though the 15 mins Liverpool to Manchester Airport doesn't really square with 28 mins to Piccadilly) you'd be talking demolitions, and thousands of homes affected by noise. Connection with Bank Quay or Central has minimal advantage (just for a few local stations on the Liverpool-Manchester routes).

And if the influence of Manchester Airport is an issue (also suggested above) then what will Peel think of a fast link from Liverpool to Manchester Airport that bypasses their Liverpool Airport?
 
Last edited:

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,269
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
Any surface route through Warrington is problematic. The route suggested on page 1 of the thread (there's nothing in the report) goes through areas designated for development, some to justify the cost of a new £200m road which would also cut north-south across that route (which crosses the WCML, already on an embankment, and also crosses the tidal Mersey twice). And can you imagine the land-take to cross the Ship Canal in Latchford? At the sort of speed envisaged (though the 15 mins Liverpool to Manchester Airport doesn't really square with 28 mins to Piccadilly) you'd be talking demolitions, and thousands of homes affected by noise.

Noting the emboldened part of your posting above that I have done, can I ask if any formal response by the elected council has been made to those specific points you have raised as part of their strategic forward planning for the area in question.
 

Olaf

Member
Joined
29 Mar 2014
Messages
1,054
Location
UK
At a first skim read, I am at a loss to know if it gets us anywhere.

I am hoping that a later in depth read will change my mind for the better!

I thought it a little lite too; I was expecting more substantial progress on proposals, evidence, and costings, but in retrospect I suspect the large number of parties involved in the processes has meant that decision making is going slower than was hoped for

On the other hand, they also have a lot on their plate given that all the work in the pipeline is going to change the travel patterns in the next few years and thus affecting the inputs to their modelling.
 
Last edited:

Olaf

Member
Joined
29 Mar 2014
Messages
1,054
Location
UK
It reminds me a bit of the old Merseyside proposals dating from the end of the 1960s to revive local rail that amounted to not much more than a felt-tip pen being dragged over a map of all the old rail lines in the region.

It would seem that TfN and the parties concerned have still to get to grips with sufficient details to turn this into a working proposal. That means they have got a lot to do by this summer.

As it stands, it looks to be too ambitious for the evidence provided.

I also thing they are going to run into problems and delays by attempting to use different parameters for justifications of schemes compared to those used by the DfT - that was a bit of a stand-out take-away.
 

Olaf

Member
Joined
29 Mar 2014
Messages
1,054
Location
UK
...
Plus, as John Prescott seems to have twigged by walking out, TfN have no particular powers or funds to make things happen.
...
.

I think John Prescott was over reacting - as usual - he should have taken a little more time to digest the materials.
 

Olaf

Member
Joined
29 Mar 2014
Messages
1,054
Location
UK
I think the main issue with NPR is it needs to have a "what's it for" question.

That is covered in about three of the documents - essentially TfN what base justification on projected economic outcome. That is a hard ask.
 

Olaf

Member
Joined
29 Mar 2014
Messages
1,054
Location
UK
In the context of the the Liverpool connection it's going to be about finding a way to get from Liverpool City Centre to a point on the planned HS2 line that costs as little as possible. There will need to be a ~5km Tunnel to get to around J5 of the M62 which won't be cheap, Crossing the Mersey & Ship Canal west of Warrington will be expensive. While a straight run to Culcheth will increase the London-Liverpool distance by a couple of miles, it probably doesn't change the length of the Liverpool specific bit of track. The lines into both Birmingham and Manchester aren't arrows pointing at London, but pragmatic compromises following existing motorways etc.

Could they just drain the Manchester Ship Canal? :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top