Publication of Integrated Rail Plan for the North and Midlands

[Nicholas Lewis]

You'll get the MML electrification by 2032ish according to that diagram, so there will be some earlier benefits

The Auroras will be clapped out by then and be on there umpteenth engine replacement. They need to be far more ambitious on pushing MML forward

 

[westv]

From a personal perspective, there's not really any change for Hull. Any improvements are likely to be decades away and long after I'm dead

 

[WiredUp]

which will also allow service increases on the Nottingham/Lincoln/South Humberside route, providing connections to HS2 at Nottingham. Currently the ECML forms a significant barrier to services between Lincolnshire and the rest of the Midlands.

As long as they say goodbye to Newark Flat Crossing...

 

[scrapy]

During prime ministers question time yesterday Boris said it was about giving the North local commuter networks similar to London and the South East. Other than possibly removing some expresses from local lines, how does this do any of this?

 

[irish_rail]

Still, many will play the gov game of North v South rather than ensuring all regions see ininvestment.

Exactly. Yet more money to be thrown at the north to win votes and not a penny for the south west , south Central, Wales etc. The media have managed to create this north south thing which is utter tosh. Just take a trip to the north and see how much money is being spent up there in comparison to Wales and the south West!

 

[ABB125]

Another example of bending the truth:

the continuation of Derby services to Chesterfield and Sheffield, again utilising Midland Main Line electrification, with an intended journey time of around 90 minutes from London to Sheffield (the same as under HS2’s original plans);

(The bold is direct from the document.)

Under HS2's original plans, the journey time to Sheffield (Meadowhall) from London would have been 69 minutes, not 90.

 

[Whisky Papa]

Secondly, will trains still use the Ordsall curve? If pax need to get to Piccadilly/Airport/all points west won't they use the new line meaning the Ordsall curve becomes more-or-less a disused line, or for local traffic rather than the TPE long-distance trains that use it (rather sparingly) now?

Ooh, if TPE won't be using the Ordsall curve, could we then have the direct Calder Valley to Manchester Airport service we were promised with the Arriva Northern bid back in 2016? If we are going to need new bi-modes on the Calder Valley to use the Bradford Interchange - Leeds electrification, you might as well send them somewhere that's electrified at the other end.

 

[stuu]

Is the Leeds - Sheffield new line included, as mooted, or will we still have to trundle along the old lines ?

Trundle

 

[WiredUp]

For anyone wondering about the above abbreviations:
L2E4 = London to Edinburgh in 4 hours
HS2P = Headspan to Portal conversion
HW4T = Huntingdon to Woodwalton Four Tracking

Thanks swt_passenger - I got lost in industry acronyms....

 

[quantinghome]

That's not true - they've identified there is a need to improve the journey times, what they've not defined is HOW that can be achieved and that's because it's tied up with other elements. So the options on sending HS into Leeds will also look at the options on Leeds - Sheffield and the cost / benefits will reflect those.

I'm not sure you actually understand the process. @Ianno87 sums it up in post #230.

The need to improve journey times and frequencies between Leeds and Sheffield was identified years ago. This report simply restates the obvious.

Other parts of the report go into considerable detail about what upgrades are planned. For example in the North-East:



It would seem obvious (to me at least) that if you are going to scrap the existing plans between Leeds and Sheffield, you would at least come up with a high level strategic view of what you would replace them with. The NIC report (on which the IRP is clearly based) was issued a year ago and DID contain such a high level strategy and gave a few options. This report offers nothing other than "we'll have a think about it".

 

[baz962]

Sheffield to London in 87 mins, how will they manage that?

Was wondering that myself

 

[A0]

Trundle

No, that's not what it says.

What it actually says is below - and what it means is it depends on the final option selected for HS to access Leeds as it may well have a bearing on the Leeds - Sheffield link so they need to be dealt with in parallel.

 

[YorksLad12]

I'll be reading the full document before harrumphing in a disappointed manner, but:

Toton is still getting a station for local and regional services.

Leeds would have needed a new station, and since there's no new line to Bradford it would have been pointing the wrong way. The whole package needs revisiting now, and we shouldn't expect anything for a long time. A big loss to WY.

My hope that been that if Clayton-Leeds has actually been built with a new spur to the Donny line the proposed HS2 station could have been used for ECML services, albeit maybe with shorter platforms which would free up capacity in the existing station for the improved NPR and local services.

As it looks now there'll be nothing done at Leeds station and pretty much it'll stay as it is for the next 20-30 years.

I did say (suggest) in a Speculative Ideas thread that the new platforms at Leeds should be built anyway, with all Leeds to Wakefield and beyond services using it. That would free up space at Leeds West End and avoid part of the curves between Outwood/Woodlesford and Leeds.

Sheffield is almost south of Leeds; but to get there you either have to follow a sine wave via Kirkgate and Barnsley or a right-angled triangle via Moorthorpe. Something needs to be done to speed up journey times between these two cities - it sounds like nothing is being proposed.

Bradford to Leeds can be done in 12 minutes, if you're talking about the old city boundaries. You could walk that in 12 minutes...

 

[ABB125]

Is it just me, or is footnote 61 missing from the list at the end?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Is there anything in these proposals that is actually shovel ready?

What's obvious reading the analysis is how new these proposals are, and how unprepared the "contractors" (HS2 Ltd and Network Rail) are to do the work.
At least it amounts to priority instructions for them both, and the work boundaries are delineated.
What is a surprise is the upgrade work for the ECML, which amounts to green-lighting the NR aspirations for capacity and speed.
They talk about 3 extra cars on the trains, so that's 12-car Azumas to accommodate at 140mph with ETCS.

Much of the work is "subject to business case", and is still quite vague, eg HS2 services into Leeds.
There is no clarity on the new NPR sections beyond the end-points.
Really, it's a priority list for the next 5 years, with indicative funding to completion.

 

[A0]

The need to improve journey times and frequencies between Leeds and Sheffield was identified years ago. This report simply restates the obvious.

Other parts of the report go into considerable detail about what upgrades are planned. For example in the North-East:

View attachment 105805

It would seem obvious (to me at least) that if you are going to scrap the existing plans between Leeds and Sheffield, you would at least come up with a high level strategic view of what you would replace them with. The NIC report (on which the IRP is clearly based) was issued a year ago and DID contain such a high level strategy and gave a few options. This report offers nothing other than "we'll have a think about it".

Because some of these things may have been previously considered (and discounted) from other schemes. So they are better formed.

It's what happens when you do an options analysis - sometimes an option you previously considered for another scheme can be used - and that was further down the planning cycle.

Your argument seems to be that all the items in the strategy should be at the same "place" in the process. Had they done that you'd be bemoaning the fact somethings had been "ignored" because they weren't at the same level. Or you wait *alot* longer for the strategy - which again you'd have complained about.

Basically this has given you exactly what you want - a chance to complain. Enjoy the rest of your day.

Sheffield is almost south of Leeds; but to get there you either have to follow a sine wave via Kirkgate and Barnsley or a right-angled triangle via Moorthorpe. Something needs to be done to speed up journey times between these two cities - it sounds like nothing is being proposed.

Not quite - it's inextricably tied up to if / how HS trains access Leeds - because it may have a bearing on the best option. So what they've said is those two items will be handled together, which is correct. Because if you're planning two projects with a large overlap / dependency, it is better to plan them together rather than risk finalising a design on one which completely compromises the other.

 

[achmelvic]

No, that's not what it says.

What it actually says is below - and what it means is it depends on the final option selected for HS to access Leeds as it may well have a bearing on the Leeds - Sheffield link so they need to be dealt with in parallel.

View attachment 105806

In other words we've kicked HS link to Leeds and down to Sheffield in to the long grass, i.e. well into the 2040s or 2050s.

Maybe it's a Leeds thing but just become used to, and cynical, about the seemingly never-ending transport announcement that amount to studies and 'investigating options' over the last 40+ years.

 

[HowardGWR]

I have wrestled with so many weasel words and 'could / possibly be' in this report that I realise that there is no commitment whatsoever to anythiing that you could bank on.
Here's just one example of a section and there are scores more.

"Avoiding Over-Specification
5.12 The Oakervee Review highlighted the need to avoid overspecification when planning further sections of the UK’s high speed rail network, as it can become costly to make changes as the design becomes more mature.
5.13 HS2 Ltd and Network Rail have iterative processes to sifting route options, to better understand the benefits, costs, engineering feasibility, environmental impacts and other impacts arising to determine the suitability of possible concepts and the resulting route alignments. This process has enabled outputs to be reviewed to understand the journey times, frequency, capacity and performance metrics that would be delivered by each concept to assess its contribution to the strategic case and the value for money outcome.
5.14 This iterative approach to specification development has enabled some concepts to be revised, so that rail outputs better represent the forecast travel market or demonstrate a stronger value for money case.
5.15 Many possible interventions outlined within the IRP are subject to further work being completed to determine they represent the right choice on their respective corridors. While further work is performed on these corridors, the same iterative approach will be taken to ensure the Government’s strategic objectives are met, while still delivering strong value for money and benefits for the communities in the Midlands and North."

GRIP rules OK (at least, never mind the Treasury) and you could not even garantee MML electrification to Sheffield given the above, and that isn't due to complete until sometime in the 30s.and won't be started until the late 20s (see their table Figure 9 on page 134 above the section just quoted).

 

[quantinghome]

What is your factual basis for this sweeping statement?

It's a strategy document. There are more documents to come with detail.

HS2b was dreamt up by the Brown government in 2000s and rebranded by George Osborne in 2014, both conveniently just before an election. I never expected it to be built; did you?

I am no supporter of this government, far from it, but these proposals appear to benefit many in the North West, East Midlands and South Yorkshire, whilst Leeds and the North East are worse off. As always the devil will be in detail and delivery will be a challenge. On balance they look sensible to me.

Have you actually read the full document?

Yes, I have thanks. As much as I can in the time available anyway. Frankly the report is all over the place. Lots of detail in some places, very little in others.

A few examples of dishonesties in the document include:

"Leeds to Bradford in 12 minutes" - but look at the detail and it says "Network Rail is also being asked to take forward an upgrade of the line between Bradford and Leeds via New Pudsey to include speed improvements and electrification. The aim would be to deliver a non-stop journey time between the cities potentially as low as 12 minutes (subject to business case)". Emphasis added. Bit of a difference to the headline isn't it?

Claiming to deliver improvements earlier when the timescale chart shows this is not the case.

Claiming to double or triple capacity with no evidence.

Using the current temporarily reduced service frequencies (p59 Figure 5) in comparison to the future planned frequencies to make it look better.

It's got a very "always at war with Eurasia" feel to it. It advances arguments which were the exact opposite of what the government were saying a year ago.

 

[ABB125]

The cost of a "full" new-build NPR is listed as £31-£36 billion (depending on station options in Warrington and Bradford). I seem to recall that last year (or the year before), the "via Bradford" option was costed at £18 billion. How can it suddenly jump to double that?

 

[Glenn1969]

In other words we've kicked HS link to Leeds and down to Sheffield in to the long grass, i.e. well into the 2040s or 2050s.

Maybe it's a Leeds thing but just become used to, and cynical, about the seemingly never-ending transport announcement that amount to studies and 'investigating options' over the last 40+ years.

Seconded. They have kicked everything into the long grass. I want to see improvements in 2030, not 2050 when I will probably be dead

 

[class26]

The Auroras will be clapped out by then and be on there umpteenth engine replacement. They need to be far more ambitious on pushing MML forward

Clapped out by 2032 ? They haven`t been built yet !"

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

This is a visionary document but specific and delivery timelines are quite uncertain which is to be expected at this stage Below gives a clue to priorities.

 

[A0]

The cost of a "full" new-build NPR is listed as £31-£36 billion (depending on station options in Warrington and Bradford). I seem to recall that last year (or the year before), the "via Bradford" option was costed at £18 billion. How can it suddenly jump to double that?

I'd start by checking if it's a "like for like" scope - also what inflation factors have been added.

Yes, I have thanks. As much as I can in the time available anyway. Frankly the report is all over the place. Lots of detail in some places, very little in others.

A few examples of dishonesties in the document include:

"Leeds to Bradford in 12 minutes" - but look at the detail and it says "Network Rail is also being asked to take forward an upgrade of the line between Bradford and Leeds via New Pudsey to include speed improvements and electrification. The aim would be to deliver a non-stop journey time between the cities potentially as low as 12 minutes (subject to business case)". Emphasis added. Bit of a difference to the headline isn't it?

Claiming to deliver improvements earlier when the timescale chart shows this is not the case.

Claiming to double or triple capacity with no evidence.

Using the current temporarily reduced service frequencies (p59 Figure 5) in comparison to the future planned frequencies to make it look better.

It's got a very "always at war with Eurasia" feel to it. It advances arguments which were the exact opposite of what the government were saying a year ago.

I think you just wanted something to complain about and would find a way to complain regardless.

Out of interest - what would you have done and in what timescale - because clearly you have a view on how this should be done and what's achievable.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Presumably the Warrington-Marsden line will mean that all fast trains will vacate Manchester Victoria, which can then revert to being a station purely for local and regional services.

And the abandonment of the Ordsall Curve for TP services - maybe Northern will finally get to use it for local services.
The Picc P13/14 and OxRd upgrades must be off finally, too.

The text quotes 50 minutes as the best Liverpool-Manchester time (meaning Piccadilly, while saying in a footnote that faster times are available to Victoria).
No mention of the 31 minute time to Vic in 2018, better than the 35 minutes promised on NPR.
So it's all Piccadilly again.

Acres of print is used to justify a reversing terminal at Piccadilly, quoting EU major stations which reverse services.
But not mentioning that most of them already have, or are building, through lines to avoid such reversals.

 

[Watershed]

The report rather disingenuously uses Manchester Piccadilly for the Liverpool to Manchester journey time comparison, making it out to represent an improvement from 50 to 35 minutes.

Of course, the journey time from Liverpool to Manchester Victoria via the Chat Moss is already 35 minutes with one intermediate call, and the journey time would be almost identical if such services ran to Piccadilly instead.

Indeed the journey time could be around 31 minutes - quicker than the new NPR route - if non-stop services were reinstated.

This is just one example of the utterly predictable spin of what is a massive cutback in the investment the government promised.

 

[quantinghome]

Because some of these things may have been previously considered (and discounted) from other schemes. So they are better formed.

It's what happens when you do an options analysis - sometimes an option you previously considered for another scheme can be used - and that was further down the planning cycle.

Your argument seems to be that all the items in the strategy should be at the same "place" in the process. Had they done that you'd be bemoaning the fact somethings had been "ignored" because they weren't at the same level. Or you wait *alot* longer for the strategy - which again you'd have complained about.

Of course some bits may well be more developed than others. But if you are writing an "Integrated Rail Plan" which involves scrapping a major part of a scheme that been planned for 10 years, you might just want to say something a bit more substantive than "we'll think about it", particularly given that a strategic summary of alternatives was presented a year ago.

Basically this has given you exactly what you want - a chance to complain.

Let's leave the cod-psychology out of it shall we?

Enjoy the rest of your day.

I won't, I assure you!

 

[A0]

Seconded. They have kicked everything into the long grass. I want to see improvements in 2030, not 2050 when I will probably be dead

Erm, no.

So let's do a simple explanation of this - the base scope of the Transpennine Upgrade is in delivery (which will benefit Leeds).

The first phase of enhancement of that is at development and design phase - will be seen in the short / medium term.

Long term there are some more things to consider. But to say you won't have any improvements by 2030 is dishonest.

 

[baza585]

Yes, I have thanks. As much as I can in the time available anyway. Frankly the report is all over the place. Lots of detail in some places, very little in others.

A few examples of dishonesties in the document include:

"Leeds to Bradford in 12 minutes" - but look at the detail and it says "Network Rail is also being asked to take forward an upgrade of the line between Bradford and Leeds via New Pudsey to include speed improvements and electrification. The aim would be to deliver a non-stop journey time between the cities potentially as low as 12 minutes (subject to business case)". Emphasis added. Bit of a difference to the headline isn't it?

Claiming to deliver improvements earlier when the timescale chart shows this is not the case.

Claiming to double or triple capacity with no evidence.

Using the current temporarily reduced service frequencies (p59 Figure 5) in comparison to the future planned frequencies to make it look better.

It's got a very "always at war with Eurasia" feel to it. It advances arguments which were the exact opposite of what the government were saying a year ago.

Wow you must be a seriously fast reader to have ploughed through all that whilst posting numerous negative comments on here, some almost immediately after publication.

What exactly do you mean by "read as much as I can in the time available".

Have you read it all or not?If not, I strongly suggest you do read the whole document and then post, rather than waste all our time with your half informed views.

 

[A0]

Of course some bits may well be more developed than others. But if you are writing an "Integrated Rail Plan" which involves scrapping a major part of a scheme that been planned for 10 years, you might just want to say something a bit more substantive than "we'll think about it", particularly given that a strategic summary of alternatives was presented a year ago.


Let's leave the cod-psychology out of it shall we?


I won't, I assure you!

So basically your complaint is that a bit of HS2 that you wanted (presumably for personal reasons) has been ditched and you don't agree with the decision - that's it in a nutshell.

Well, you probably need to get over yourself. Any government has to do what's best for the majority of people - and in this case sinking a huge amount into that particular extension of HS2 clearly was going to cost far more than the benefits it would realise, so it's getting dropped.