Publication of Integrated Rail Plan for the North and Midlands

[LNW-GW Joint]

I can't see anything stated for what's going to happen between Marsden and Huddersfield. It was four-track back in the day but the current two-track alignment has taken advantage of the space to slew the tracks for linespeed improvement up to 85mph (TRU ups this to 90/95mph) (ref: 06_170302_northern_hub_beyond_david_lawrance_james_hodge (thepwi.org)), but that would be reduced if it were to revert to four-track.

There is reference to adding a 3rd track on that section, subject to business case.
It's also not clear if they plan a new Standedge tunnel or to re-use the spare bores.
The GC route Ardwick-Guide Bridge was 4-track at one time, but then you have a real challenge to engineer a new route to Marsden.

 

[158756]

It's interesting that it is called a "Plan" but isn't even a "Strategy".

In all industries I have worked in:
- you start with options
- then identify "what" you want to achieve - this is called a strategy
- next step is to describe "how" you are going to do it - this is called a plan.

This document isn't even at the "strategy" stage.

Which is no surprise if you consider it's purpose to be to kick the can far enough down the road no one currently involved will have to take responsibility for what is, or in most cases isn't, eventually delivered.

The real substance in this is that HS2 to Yorkshire is dead. Anything else is little more than spin and empty promises from a government which knows it will never pay for any of it.

 

[hwl]

Now that HS2 isn't going to serve Scotland

You obviously haven't head the report then

3.24... The Phase 2b Western Leg design includes the Golborne link, to provide a connection to the West Coast Main Line further north, near Wigan. With further work on the existing network north of Golborne, this allows a twice hourly London service to be introduced by avoiding a congested section of the WCML north of Crewe. This assumes 400m trains would split and join at Carlisle, serving both Edinburgh & Glasgow, and giving a significant increase in seating capacity compared to the hourly London-Glasgow HS2 service planned in Phase 2a. This service pattern allows both Edinburgh and Glasgow to be served from Euston.

 

[GoneSouth]

At least Bradford is still on the Northern Connect map with its regular, high quality, fast inter urban services to Liverpool and Manchester airport

 

[21C101]

Positives today.

Cancellation of Toton Parkway and cancellation of duplication of the Erewash Valley meaning that Derby and Nottingham get an HS2 service instead of a parkway ten miles away.

HS2 will only replace fast trains on the WCML and MML and the ECML services will remain separate and be upgraded (ie no putting all the London to North intercity services in one basket)

HS2 west going ahead fully and being integrated with the Warrington to Manchester Huddersfield high speed line looks a good solution (unless you live in Bradford).


Negatives today.

Clayton to Leeds being canned.

No connection from HS2 to existing line to Birmingham at Water Orton or nearer Birmingham, which means no through services to the sotthwest beyond Birmingham.


Overall
I think a much better solution and the East Leg of HS2 which always seemed to me a poorly routed line with a weak case that was there for political pork-barrell reasons will now be much more useful and actually run trains to the East Midlands Cities.

Cynical Analysis
Cynically I suspect they will gain far more votes from directly serving Derby and Nottingham, electrifying the Midland Mainline and not ploughing a new disruptive railway through but not serving places like Bolsover than they lose in Leeds, Newcastle and Sheffield where pretty well no one votes for them anyway.

For example, by upgrading the ECML instead of building HS2 east to Leeds. That means Labour Leeds dosent get as fast a service than it would under HS2, but Wakefield (Tory red wall marginal), Doncaster (2* Labour Marginal) Retford (Bassetlaw, Tory Red Wall Marginal), Newark (Tory), Grantham(Tory), Peterborough Tory Red Wall Marginal) and Stevenage (Tory semi margjnal) all get faster and/or more services.

Note Nothing about Welwyn four tracking mentioned. With cynical hat on, could be covered by "South of Peterborough" and they are being vague because cancelling the East Leg of HS2 and instead spending a billion or two widening the line through the Transport Secretary's constituency wouldn't look very good.

 

[class26]

Has Leeds to Clayton been canned ? It says they are investigating to best way from Leeds south which could end up being to Clayton jnct could it not ?
And in any case was it was ever official policy to go to Clayton jnct?

 

[Starmill]

It will be fascinating to see how things play out with the East Midlands capacity, and if there are meaningful enhancements at the electrification stage.

A baseline service west from Nottingham would have to include at least:
1tph Ivanhoe line
2tph fast to Leicester
3tph to Derby, one each for Burton-on-Trent, Matlock, Stoke-on-Trent

On top of this it looks like there's a desire for at least 2tph to Birmingham Curzon Street and 2tph to London Euston.

And of course current provision to Derby would be 4tph and there would be a desire to maintain that as a minimum.

 

[Roast Veg]

Has Leeds to Clayton been canned

Yes

And in any case was it was ever official policy to go to Clayton jnct?

Not without the rest of the leg, no

 

[class26]

Yes

Not without the rest of the leg, no

In that case it hasn`t been canned as it was never policy

 

[Roast Veg]

In that case it hasn`t been canned as it was never policy

It's been cancelled, along with the rest of the line from the river Trent onwards.

 

[MontyP]

You've got them in the wrong order:

1) What (the output): Capacity, connectivity journey times.
2) How (the concept): e.g. "A high speed line"
3) Options: "This route or that route".

IRP has, to some extent, set out 1 and 2.

So no surprise that nothing ever gets done!

 

[Starmill]

Has Leeds to Clayton been canned

Something which has not been proposed yet can't really be considered to be cancelled.

 

[A0]

It's interesting that it is called a "Plan" but isn't even a "Strategy".

In all industries I have worked in:
- you start with options
- then identify "what" you want to achieve - this is called a strategy
- next step is to describe "how" you are going to do it - this is called a plan.

This document isn't even at the "strategy" stage.

Not sure how you can start with the options if you haven't identified the problem first which in turn determines the "what" you need or want to achieve.

The sequence you describe means you define your solution before understanding the problem.

 

[MontyP]

OK, the Plan is to electrify the Midland Mainline in some way, shape or form. How that is achieved still has many possible options. For example, do you use 4 track portals or pairs of Twin Track Cantilevers.

It's only a plan when you've decided how to do it. Or that's the case in the project management profession that I've worked in for 35 years. The plan is the definition of how the objective is going to be achieved.

 

[GoneSouth]

No connection from HS2 to existing line to Birmingham at Water Orton or nearer Birmingham, which means no through services to the sotthwest beyond Birmingham.

Good point. Bristol and west also gets shafted (to a much lesser extent obviously). Who the hell wants to trudge across Birmingham city centre for your connection to Totnes, Tiverton, Taunton or Torquay (or any other time come to think of it)

You’d think after the last 18 months of much reduced travel abroad and Everyman and his dog heading for the south west that we should be encouraging rail travel vs road, not discouraging it.

Anyway, it’s 30 years away so who knows where the traveller of 2050 will want to go…

 

[MontyP]

Not sure how you can start with the options if you haven't identified the problem first which in turn determines the "what" you need or want to achieve.

The sequence you describe means you define your solution before understanding the problem.

That comes before the options stage

 

[YorksLad12]

Right - I've read it now.

I don't know who said they were rewriting it late yesterday, but on page 20 it says "Benefits will come up to [10] years sooner", as if they weren't sure of the number. 8/10, must try harder.

My uninformed prediction yesterday that NPR will be watered down to TRU+ is almost true. There will have to be new track between Manchester and Standedge, but we knew that anyway as there's no room for four-tracking. How that happens and where it goes are vague, as you'd expect. It also uses vague terms such as "Bradford" and "Manchester", without making it clear which route they're talking about. This, of course, is by design. But as I said, if you hadn't heard of HS2 you probably wouldn't have asked for HS3/NPR and would have been happy with incremental upgrades to the trans-Pennine route, if they could be delivered quickly and reduce journey times significantly (say up to 20%).

I still think 12 minutes for Leeds-Bradford via Pudsey is impossible. But, with long stretches of straight track from Interchange to north of Low Moor, and west of Low Moor to Lightcliffe, it should be possible to speed up Bradford-Halifax services. Electrify Halifax to Leeds and you could run wholly electric services between Halifax and Hull, once that bit is done as proposed. Unfortunately, the Plan stick to the big ticket aspirational stuff instead of bringing it down to the wider passenger level. It's almost as if they don't want to win people over.

Also, time to find and re-read WYCA's mass transit proposals from a while back. Be careful what you wish for, Tracy...

Disappointing on several counts (especially Leeds - Sheffield), pragmatic in parts (TRU+), vague in others. A perfect Boris Johnson strategy document, in fact!

Tl;dr: IPR spells RIP for NPR.

 

[A0]

That comes before the options stage

Not what you said.

It's interesting that it is called a "Plan" but isn't even a "Strategy".

In all industries I have worked in:
- you start with options
- then identify "what" you want to achieve - this is called a strategy
- next step is to describe "how" you are going to do it - this is called a plan.

This document isn't even at the "strategy" stage.

Your first point is "you start with options"

My view and I think that of @Ianno87 is you start by defining the problem or outcomes you want - which is the second of your points.

Then you define your options - your first point.

And when you've selected your preferred option you define your project's scope, plan etc.

 

[class26]

Good point. Bristol and west also gets shafted (to a much lesser extent obviously). Who the hell wants to trudge across Birmingham city centre for your connection to Totnes, Tiverton, Taunton or Torquay (or any other time come to think of it)

You’d think after the last 18 months of much reduced travel abroad and Everyman and his dog heading for the south west that we should be encouraging rail travel vs road, not discouraging it.

Anyway, it’s 30 years away so who knows where the traveller of 2050 will want to go…

If you look carefully there is an upgrade south of Brum. I think that refers to the Bordesley curve, enabling trains from the SW to use Moor st. This will mean a very short walk to Curzon St to connect into the high speed services

 

[Grumpy Git]

The real substance in this is that HS2 to Yorkshire is dead. Anything else is little more than spin and empty promises from a government which knows it will never pay for any of it.

I hope Johnson's "legacy" haunts him for eternity.

 

[21C101]

Right - I've read it now.

I don't know who said they were rewriting it late yesterday, but on page 20 it says "Benefits will come up to [10] years sooner", as if they weren't sure of the number. 8/10, must try harder.

My uninformed prediction yesterday that NPR will be watered down to TRU+ is almost true. There will have to be new track between Manchester and Standedge, but we knew that anyway as there's no room for four-tracking. How that happens and where it goes are vague, as you'd expect. It also uses vague terms such as "Bradford" and "Manchester", without making it clear which route they're talking about. This, of course, is by design. But as I said, if you hadn't heard of HS2 you probably wouldn't have asked for HS3/NPR and would have been happy with incremental upgrades to the trans-Pennine route, if they could be delivered quickly and reduce journey times significantly (say up to 20%).

I still think 12 minutes for Leeds-Bradford via Pudsey is impossible. But, with long stretches of straight track from Interchange to north of Low Moor, and west of Low Moor to Lightcliffe, it should be possible to speed up Bradford-Halifax services. Electrify Halifax to Leeds and you could run wholly electric services between Halifax and Hull, once that bit is done as proposed. Unfortunately, the Plan stick to the big ticket aspirational stuff instead of bringing it down to the wider passenger level. It's almost as if they don't want to win people over.

Also, time to find and re-read WYCA's mass transit proposals from a while back. Be careful what you wish for, Tracy...

Disappointing on several counts (especially Leeds - Sheffield), pragmatic in parts (TRU+), vague in others. A perfect Boris Johnson strategy document, in fact!

Tl;dr: IPR spells RIP for NPR.

Point of Order, didn't the line from Manchester to Leeds via Huddersfield used to be four track pretty well the whole way?

 

[WesternLancer]

With enormous (near-bottomless) amounts of resource and money thrown at it, of course.

Come on! It wasn't a Network Rail project was it?

 

[MontyP]

Not what you said.



Your first point is "you start with options"

My view and I think that of @Ianno87 is you start by defining the problem or outcomes you want - which is the second of your points.

Then you define your options - your first point.

And when you've selected your preferred option you define your project's scope, plan etc.

I think you've got it - last point in your post. When everything else is decided you define your plan.

So how is this document a plan? It hasn't even defined the problem.

HS2 had a clear problem statement for Phase 1 (WCML capacity insufficient to meet future forecast needs) and to a certain extent for Phase 2 (capacity into Manchester). I don't believe Phase 2b ever had a clear problem statement that it was trying to solve.

 

[YorksLad12]

Point of Order, didn't the line from Manchester to Leeds via Huddersfield used to be four track pretty well the whole way?

Someone will come along and correct me, but I don't think Dewsbury to Leeds was ever four tracks. There were, however, alternative routes from Mirfield (such as the New Line).

 

[A0]

I think you've got it - last point in your post. When everything else is decided you define your plan.

So how is this document a plan? It hasn't even defined the problem.

HS2 had a clear problem statement for Phase 1 (WCML capacity insufficient to meet future forecast needs) and to a certain extent for Phase 2 (capacity into Manchester). I don't believe Phase 2b ever had a clear problem statement that it was trying to solve.

Plans can be multi level.

So a high level plan will set out the steps you will take to define the lower level plans.

 

[name_required]

Exactly. So sick of hearing this north south divide crap. The south west does much worse than the north in all spending descions. Its a south east vs the rest divide.

If you look at the infrastructure spending reports is often that the South East has a lower figure than some of the Northern areas, it's very much spending in London is higher and everywhere else is lower.

Having said that, just because spending happens in one area doesn't mean that others don't benefit.

The remodeling of Reading is a classic example, it's South East spending but provided more services to other regions (such as the semi fast services to Exeter).

From a House of Commons Library report from last year, the South West does comparably to Yorkshire & The Humber in terms of overall transport spending per person and a little worse (definitely not "much worse") than the rest of the north. The East Midlands does worst of all, though – a situation that will likely be compounded over time by the announcements today.



When it comes to overall capital spending, the South West does slightly worse than the three regions in the North, but again better than the East Midlands.

 

[ABB125]

On the subject of the Bordesley chord(s) I recall that only one (allowing trains from the south to access Moor Street) chord was on the diagram. Does this mean that the other curve has been cancelled?

 

[DDB]

Does anyone think the local Toton station will be built? I don't as the report says only if it gets 50% funding from developers and I assume the developers that were intrested in building at Toton were intrested because there was going to be a HS2 Station there. I also think the government thinks the same and doesn't expect to have to find its half of the money.

 

[muddythefish]

Is it just me but do other people find this so depressing? As a country we never seem to do anything properly, projects delayed or cut back, cancelled, half finished, stop-go investment, no long term thinking, expediency rules.

HS2 built in full would have been a huge sign of confidence in the country that we were building a new rail system for the next century, hopefully to be followed by HS 3, 4 & 5 to other parts of the UK. Instead it's just another compromise, another indication that we can't get it right. It's all so.... just depressing.

 

[38Cto15E]

57 minutes Nottingham to London sounds ambitious, is it possible?