Publication of Integrated Rail Plan for the North and Midlands

[WesternLancer]

Yes, yes, yes, we get it. You don't like Arriva and you don't like Voyagers and therefore the combination of the two into a single TOC is toxic.

Try addressing the point - which is basic service which is at least hourly between Birmingham and the "North West" or "East Midlands" isn't "woeful".

2 or 3 car 170s with knackered interiors on Brum - Nottm and Brum - Leicester etc is even more toxic than your rose tinted portrait of XC

 

[Howardh]

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.

That's what I was alluding to earlier, a loop, albeit fast, via the airport means a much greater distance than Liverpool - Manchester either Vic or Picc thus even if the trains were a third faster, they have to cover a lot more distance thus no net gain. Yes from Merseyside to manchester Airport, but not on Merseyside - Manchester.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not going to go down well in Runcorn . . .

What's the main demand in Runcorn? London/Birmingham, or more likely Liverpool? Could a Merseyrail style service to Liverpool in the capacity freed up be popular?

 

[A0]

2 or 3 car 170s with knackered interiors on Brum - Nottm and Brum - Leicester etc is even more toxic than your rose tinted portrait of XC

No doubt the 170s are overdue a refresh - but lets not pretend that all was well sometime in the dim and distant past.

The 170s are now nudging their 20th birthday and were refurbished 12 years ago.

Those services were, in the pre Sprinter days, the place where BR used some of the most clapped out stock it had. The 170s are still better than that.

If it's simply a case of refurbing the 170s, then that's not insurmountable and nor is it an example of a "woeful" service.

 

[WesternLancer]

If people from Toton want to go to Nottingham then there is the Tram, I am struggling to see what demand there will be without the HS2 hub as there nothing there.

Big new housing developments on part of the rail site are planned. Tram from there to nottm is pointless as too slow and over trip time (tho good if you only wanted to go eg as far as Beeston town centre maybe, say.

Also direct access to the reasonably fast (but getting over loaded at rush hours) A52 has parkway potential (if the car parking charges were not set too high bur they would be as they are at East Mids Parkways so that potential is always underused).

 

[A0]

What's the main demand in Runcorn? London/Birmingham, or more likely Liverpool? Could a Merseyrail style service to Liverpool in the capacity freed up be popular?

Used as a parkway station by much of the Wirral and North Wales to get to London. More frequent service than Chester and easier to access from the A55 / M56.

 

[Glenn1969]

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.

View attachment 105811

You forget that I live on the Calder Valley route and don't have much cause to go to Leeds. I don't see anything in this for me

 

[Mikey C]

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.

View attachment 105807

It'll be interesting in which order they progress the MML electrification, as with Bimodes they aren't forced to do the work in a certain order. And as it doesn't meet any electrified lines on the way, it's not as if there are any local routes than be converted to EMU operation quickly either.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

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

Contrary to the newspaper leaks, there is no high speed line running south out of Leeds.
It's up to NR to work out how to get HS2 services into the current Sheffield and Leeds stations, from the end of HS2 at East Mids Pkwy.
But the result would have to be an electrified route throughout, from the current Kettering wires limit, via Nottingham and Derby, and presumably the Erewash Valley.

 

[WesternLancer]

No doubt the 170s are overdue a refresh - but lets not pretend that all was well sometime in the dim and distant past.

The 170s are now nudging their 20th birthday and were refurbished 12 years ago.

Those services were, in the pre Sprinter days, the place where BR used some of the most clapped out stock it had. The 170s are still better than that.

If it's simply a case of refurbing the 170s, then that's not insurmountable and nor is it an example of a "woeful" service.

Indeed - as @Bletchleyite said - XC issues not insurmountable...

But my BMW remains far more pleasant inside than anything XC can offer me.

 

[Mikey C]

Manchester Airport certainly is a major beneficiary, superb connections in all directions

 

[The Planner]

2 or 3 car 170s with knackered interiors on Brum - Nottm and Brum - Leicester etc is even more toxic than your rose tinted portrait of XC

Thats a TOC issue though, not about the service.

 

[muddythefish]

Contrary to the newspaper leaks, there is no high speed line running south out of Leeds.
It's up to NR to work out how to get HS2 services into the current Sheffield and Leeds stations, from the end of HS2 at East Mids Pkwy.
But the result would have to be an electrified route throughout, from the current Kettering wires limit, via Nottingham and Derby, and presumably the Erewash Valley.

That's disappointing. High-speed Leeds-Sheffield (and Bradford in an ideal world) would have made a huge difference in connecting between those big Yorkshire cities.

 

[Glenn1969]

I live in Northamptonshire which is being dug up to build the first phase of HS2 and from which we get precisely no benefit. No shiny new trains, no new faster service to London.

So I'd think very carefully about your complaint - HS 2 almost entirely benefits the North

Not convinced. Yorkshire is being left with existing infrastructure.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Used as a parkway station by much of the Wirral and North Wales to get to London. More frequent service than Chester and easier to access from the A55 / M56.

The new route could have a station at Widnes, at/near the old Widnes South location, near the north end of the Mersey bridges, but not mentioned in the plan.
It's all "Halton".

 

[GRALISTAIR]

They talk about 3 extra cars on the trains, so that's 12-car Azumas to accommodate at 140mph with ETCS.

Serious power supply upgrades needed then.

 

[Mikey C]

I live in Northamptonshire which is being dug up to build the first phase of HS2 and from which we get precisely no benefit. No shiny new trains, no new faster service to London.

So I'd think very carefully about your complaint - HS 2 almost entirely benefits the North.

Indeed that's why politically HS2 has been such a mixed bag, as unlike a commuter railway (or indeed a road) the majority of people along the route get no benefit

 

[WiredUp]

It'll be interesting in which order they progress the MML electrification, as with Bimodes they aren't forced to do the work in a certain order. And as it doesn't meet any electrified lines on the way, it's not as if there are any local routes than be converted to EMU operation quickly either.

Indeed. It also decouples/de-risks electrification with other schemes along the way - such as Wigston grade separation and the Leicester South Quadrupling. A smart move.

 

[Fedupnorthern]

The new route could have a station at Widnes, at/near the old Widnes South location, near the north end of the Mersey bridges, but not mentioned in the plan.
It's all "Halton".

Exactly, free travel across the bridges for locals too.

 

[S&CLER]

Not sure how much scope there is for rethinking the Golborne connection. Could it be extended bypassing Wigan NW to Standish, where it could reuse a former burrowing junction and join a reinstated 4-track section from Balshaw Jn? Perhaps with a reinstated short link from De Trafford Jn to Hindley?

 

[swt_passenger]

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.

I suppose that’s another Kings Cross throat remodelling then. There’s only a couple of platforms that get anywhere near long enough…

 

[A0]

Not convinced. Yorkshire is being left with existing infrastructure.

Erm - no, that's not what it says.

Whilst the HS2 East Mids - Leeds extension isn't happening, it does say about a new Trans Pennine link between Warrington and Standedge.

But basically your whinge is there isn't a new line being built in Yorkshire - regardless of the fact much can be achieved through the upgrade of the existing infrastructure ? A little selfish, no?

 

[stuu]

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

You're right. Trundle for the foreseeable future and probably beyond the lifespan of many of the members of this forum

 

[Glenn1969]

Erm - no, that's not what it says.

Whilst the HS2 East Mids - Leeds extension isn't happening, it does say about a new Trans Pennine link between Warrington and Standedge.

But basically your whinge is there isn't a new line being built in Yorkshire - regardless of the fact much can be achieved through the upgrade of the existing infrastructure ? A little selfish, no?

No. Because it can't achieve the same result and isn't High Speed

 

[WiredUp]

Serious power supply upgrades needed then.

Yes which one gets the feeling they didn't foresee would be needed for 140mph when doing ECML PSU1 - at least between say Woolmer Green and Stoke Tunnel - in the area affected by the first phase of cab-signalling on the ECML:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/requ...l Programme Redacted.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

See page 38....

The potential to increase the maximum speed beyond 125mph along the ECML and related
technical and infrastructure issues associated with 140mph operation have been explored in detail
in previous studies . This business case does not consider the Journey Time benefit of increasing
the maximum line speed to 140mph as there is very limited opportunity other than within the Stoke
Tunnel area without other major works.

Apart from the geometric and service specification constraints, increasing the maximum line
speed would need extra power supply requirements. The Power Supply Upgrade scheme has
been designed for a 125 mph operation and it is not known whether enhanced power supply
capacity would be required for 140mph operation of the IEP trains. Moreover, there are existing
level crossings along the whole ECML South which would potentially need to be closed for OLE
reasons under 140mph running.

Finally, even if isolated pockets within sections could be upgraded, journey time benefits would
only be realised if a consistent 11 miles can be achieved (necessary for a 30-second Journey
Time Improvement (JTI) when compared to 125mph running ).

 

[A0]

No. Because it can't achieve the same result and isn't High Speed

Right - so it is selfishness.

You want a shiny, fast railway for your part of the country to be paid for by everyone else, many of whom will have it going through their back garden to get there yet will get no benefit from it, even if it has a lousy benefits case.

Good to know.

 

[Glenn1969]

Right - so it is selfishness.

You want a shiny, fast railway for your part of the country to be paid for by everyone else, many of whom will have it going through their back garden and will get no benefit from it, even if it has a lousy benefits case.

Good to know.

I want improvements that benefit everybody, not just a select few. There were too many "coulds" in that document and not enough "wills". I'm 52 and don't want to be 90 before any of this happens

 

[A0]

I want improvements that benefit everybody, not just a select few.

I would say you are actually after the opposite. Much of what you want is entirely for the benefit of your local area, but will be paid for by everyone else.

There were too many "coulds" in that document and not enough "wills".

And as I've already explained a *strategy* document (which this is) won't necessarily have *all* the details. That's not the point of a strategy - check out askoxford.com.

They aren't "wills" because there are far too many unknowns at this point.

I'm 52 and don't want to be 90 before any of this happens

Tough. Get over yourself. It's not about you and your demands, it's about what is best for everyone - that includes those of us who will be paying the bill.

 

[deltic]

Manchester Airport certainly is a major beneficiary, superb connections in all directions

Only problem is that there will be no station there! Unlikely that the airport is going to spend £200m+ for it when there is little benefit to the airport itself.

 

[Ianno87]

Only problem is that there will be no station there! Unlikely that the airport is going to spend £200m+ for it when there is little benefit to the airport itself.

Doesn't have to be the Airport stumping up for all of the funding gap.