NPR will it ever happen?

[takno]

I wasnt aware of the implications for the canal tunnel, I can see that sorting both bores out would add to the cost of bringing the better one back into use. What are the problems with the poorer of the two? could a solution be to line with 'tube tunnel' sized segments resulting in a smaller bore and grout behind them to stabilise everything. The resulting tunnel would be fine for man access but obviously useless for rail use, it wouldnt even need to perfectly straight or level if only used for evacuations. Or is it damaged even beyond that sort of solution.

The canal bore is the one next to the canal, used for maintenance access and needs to be accessible to a reasonable range of road vehicles, is only patched up to a state which is good enough for canal operations, and largely got there at the expense of the canal. It's unclear why anybody thinks the other bore is an option for the canal, or why it would ever be cheaper to patch up the spare bore and redo the bore next to the canal for rail operations.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The canal bore is the one next to the canal, used for maintenance access and needs to be accessible to a reasonable range of road vehicles, is only patched up to a state which is good enough for canal operations, and largely got there at the expense of the canal. It's unclear why anybody thinks the other bore is an option for the canal, or why it would ever be cheaper to patch up the spare bore and redo the bore next to the canal for rail operations.

I don't think anyone has suggested that such a job would be easy or cheap- just that those are the existing bores, and the fact that one is maintained for emergency access to the canal tunnel so is likely to be in better shape than the other vacant bore.

West Yorkshire Fire Service runs occasional drills in that tunnel which involve driving an appliance into it. Anything that prevents this is probably a no-go. I was under the impression (perhaps mistakenly) that Network Rail also use that bore for access when doing work on the twin-track bore, accessing the main bore via the cross passages.

If the railway decides that a third track through the tunnel is worth doing, it would certainly be a big job regardless of how it's done.

 

[Sonik]

From what Shapps said the otherday I wouldn't have thought so.

Im beginning to wonder if the government have now decided to scaled back NPR to 'Upgrades Only' option instead of the 'Core Network'.

I'm not convinced anything has actually changed apart from the messaging.

My first thought when I saw the IRP, was that the Manchester to Marsden section looked a bit of a vaguely worded, noncommittal fudge to soften the de-scoping from TfN's preferred option.

I hope to be proved wrong but it's years away anyway so anything could happen before the time comes.

 

[CrossNorthPr]

I am confident CrossNorth Programme is the right solution. It delivers benefits sooner, doesn’t affect HS2 timetabling, Makes local metro services possible boosting economies, reduces car journeys in south GM (heavy air pollution) making space for more buses and most importantly allows much higher frequency of trains through Manchester than a combined NPR/HS2 would. It also does not concentrate everything on Piccadilly where there is only one twin track line from the suburbs of North Manchester. Basically, it won’t create castlefield chaos mk2. Instead it opens up a huge array of opportunities and for simplification and integration of services.

I’ve attached a few pages from the report. The full draft report is available upon request.

 

[MisterSheeps]

Interesting, though 4 stations under Manchester seems excessive for a Trans Pennine service whose frequency won't suit inner city short hops .... better to have one at Piccadilly then a parallel Metrolink tunnel taking the local traffic. Also, the lack of a connection to the Bolton line means it doesn't relieve Castlefield of those, unless they are going via Parkside Jn; or of a connection to the south east of Piccadilly. In short, a classic British unimaginitive compromise.

 

[CrossNorthPr]

Interesting, though 4 stations under Manchester seems excessive for a Trans Pennine service whose frequency won't suit inner city short hops .... better to have one at Piccadilly then a parallel Metrolink tunnel taking the local traffic. Also, the lack of a connection to the Bolton line means it doesn't relieve Castlefield of those, unless they are going via Parkside Jn; or of a connection to the south east of Piccadilly. In short, a classic British unimaginitive compromise.

Multiple stations are needed due to having to run thousands of people through castlefield to plat 13/14 then through the station to HS2. Salford interchange is a must. Salford quays relieves Metrolink. Lincoln Sq is a station serving the financial sector of spinningfields and the civic area.

CrossNorth has a Thameslink style core (multiple stations) with about the same distance covered either side. It is a very good and successful comparable which has created through long-distance services through London at the same time relieving tube lines and so forth.

The business case for CrossNorth is strong and I can see it being seriously considered by any government.

Also re Bolton, the Scottish intercity services through here would initially run via chat moss, then via the new line in phase 2 on a chord to the WCML. The stoppers would be metro and run via either Victoria or Piccadilly with everything stopping at Salford interchange. A vital station removing the need for passengers from the north having to traverse castlefield to reach Piccadilly.

If you are going to build a tunnel, you might as well get value for money out of it. CNP relieves Metrolink thereby removing the need for a tram tunnel on a similar alignment.

The stopping patterns would have dwell times equivalent to Thameslink and most “short hops” would be limited, with only Salford Quays-Piccadilly being a regularly used commuter route. The existing surface tracks run as metro providing extra capacity to Cornbrook & Warrington.

12+ tph through both the castlefield corridor & via Victoria will become possible stopping at every station including deansgate and Salford central. Currently no plan allows that.

A compromise? Partly in the sense that it doesn’t run via the airport directly, otherwise it is a great win for the north and the start of a Cross North railway that can be built in phases. Something much more likely to be delivered than an “all in one hit” solution that also involves waiting for HS2 to arrive in Manchester c2045. Phase 1 of CNP could be designed and built well within a decade. Even if there’s an extra few years of policy making and passing bills etc it will still be delivered sooner and be more beneficial to more people.

I wouldn’t call that a compromise!

We’re also looking into using it for overnight freight with a depot in Trafford park. This solves the noise pollution issue that limits overnight freight through the city and takes them off castlefield. The tunnel would get 24h usage.

 

[HSTEd]

Massive underground tunnel systems complete with stations is not going to be cheap - even if you do the Barcelona platform-in-the-running-tunnel thing.

Honestly, I think rationalisation of the approaches, then ATO through Castlefield for as many trains per hour as you can manage, is the better answer.

If you can get money for the Picadilly Rebuild, cool, but even so you should be able to manage 30tph with computer control, especially if you get PEDs.
And replacing all the rolling stock using the corridor with stock with uniform performance is still going to cost nothing compared to a huge tunnel system.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Interesting, though 4 stations under Manchester seems excessive for a Trans Pennine service whose frequency won't suit inner city short hops .... better to have one at Piccadilly then a parallel Metrolink tunnel taking the local traffic. Also, the lack of a connection to the Bolton line means it doesn't relieve Castlefield of those, unless they are going via Parkside Jn; or of a connection to the south east of Piccadilly. In short, a classic British unimaginitive compromise.

I agree although I can see two stations as an interchange at Salford is a really great idea, although I do think NPR might be better heading through Victoria with HS2 being extended underground to it instead as proposed.

Ideally send HS2 all the way to Liverpool and do away with this need to have a separate Liverpool - London service!

If Victoria was used then you wouldn't need this destructive line to Piccadilly, as the tunnel from Marsden could come out somewhere near Rochdale and be much shorter, which instead could be used to fund extending HS2 under Manchester.

 

[CrossNorthPr]

I agree although I can see two stations as an interchange at Salford is a really great idea, although I do think NPR might be better heading through Victoria with HS2 being extended underground to it instead as proposed.

Ideally send HS2 all the way to Liverpool and do away with this need to have a separate Liverpool - London service!

If Victoria was used then you wouldn't need this destructive line to Piccadilly, as the tunnel from Marsden could come out somewhere near Rochdale and be much shorter, which instead could be used to fund extending HS2 under Manchester.

Thanks for the feedback. Running via Victoria was considered however the many flat junctions to the west of Manchester City Centre make it operationally untenable to run reliable intercity services through it without inflict delays/taking on delays caused by trains using Castlefield. There is also no room for flyovers or dive-under with many developments present and future standing in the way, as well as the ordsall chord being built in such a way that leaves too little space for even the most carefully designed grade-separated junction. The network in the area is essentially only fit for running scheduled local services, rather than a mixed use railway. That will remain the case.

Running HS2 to Liverpool presents ints own challenges, the first being Lime St. There is simply no space to terminate and reverse all those services, even if you squeeze an extra 1-2 platforms in the south shed at lime street. A whole new 400m long station would be required there, which due to topography around LS would have to be built in a more flat area, i.e the baltic triangle. This would still need to be sub-surface which at present, there isn't the critical mass of population and economic output in Liverpool to support. Supply side infrastructure is great, but not every government will go for it. We have to appeal to all bases.

CrossNorth Programme helps create that critical mass by freeing up space for stoppers on there route out of lime street and providing reliable intercity e-w journeys. Running to Liverpool via Manchester is geographically not plausible as it is such a diversion that the journey savings became almost non-existent. That won't sell when it comes to HS rail.

A smaller tunnel under the pennines as you suggest is also in the works, with a tunnel from littleborough to sowerby bridge and a 4-tracked Calder vale line up to rochdale being the preferred option. There is space to do so as it was once 4-tracked and the curvature allows for higher speeds. This would cut journey times to Bradford drastically and to Leeds with additional tracks parallel to the calder valley line east of the pennines slewing the curves to allow for 125-140mph running. It is only at dewsbury where it would join existing lines. A new approach the other side of morley tunnel will also create additional capacity into Leeds.

On@HSTEd's point:

An initial 2.5mi tunnel with three 220m long stations, all of which are in areas with space above to construct surface ticket halls and escalator boxes brings costs down and can be built as part of new developments i.e on the south side of Lincoln Sq, At piccadilly under the HS2 concourse (ticket hall + escalator box) with only the platforms and connecting passageways built in bored tunnels. This is much, much easier in scope than cross rail which involved many, many more underground stations in a much more sensitive area which much more limited space.

Every avenue has been explored for CNP, and the solutions proposed are the most viable operationally, economically and geographically.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Thanks for the feedback. Running via Victoria was considered however the many flat junctions to the west of Manchester City Centre make it operationally untenable to run reliable intercity services through it without inflict delays/taking on delays caused by trains using Castlefield. There is also no room for flyovers or dive-under with many developments present and future standing in the way, as well as the ordeal chord being built in such a way that leaves too little space for even the most carefully designed grade-separated junction. The network in the area is essentially only fit for running scheduled local services, rather than a mixed use railway. That will remain the case.

"The Ordeal Chord"...I do like this new name which sums up matters concerning the Ordsall Chord most succinctly.

 

[CrossNorthPr]

Best unintentional yet accurate typo ever made! Aha its very true it isn't used well at the moment, only one train per hour! CNP will change this with at least 6 stoppers per hour running over it!

 

[43074]

CrossNorth has a Thameslink style core (multiple stations) with about the same distance covered either side. It is a very good and successful comparable which has created through long-distance services through London at the same time relieving tube lines and so forth.

The point of Thameslink is not about long distance services, though they are trains to London which happen to run through. That also brings it's own challenges in terms of performance, Crossrail/RER A would be a better model to follow than Thameslink.

The stopping patterns would have dwell times equivalent to Thameslink and most “short hops” would be limited, with only Salford Quays-Piccadilly being a regularly used commuter route. The existing surface tracks run as metro providing extra capacity to Cornbrook & Warrington.

Liverpool to Leeds with metro trains is an interesting idea, as you can't achieve the short dwells which make the Thameslink core work with the intercity spec rolling stock which people would expect for fast Liverpool > Manchester > Leeds journeys

The tunnel would get 24h usage.

How and when is maintenance carried out? Thameslink relies on using terminal stations at Victoria/London Bridge/St Pancras and King's Cross to provide a window for that on Sunday mornings, plus every other week there is bi-di running through the core overnight and as well as more extensive closures on Saturdays and Sundays on which the core is closed for 52hrs. Even that regime won't be sufficient on a railway with heavy freight trains using it too.

 

[CrossNorthPr]

Dwell times would be similar to what we have now for intercity trains on the castlefield corridor (multiple stations) this still allows for 10-12tph easily. It isn’t exactly like Thameslink, but a good comparable UK wise.

Running mixed traffic through the surface tracks if Manchester cannot be the future. It’s one or the other.

The existing stations aren’t suitable for intercity trains due to the lack of grade separated junctions, narrow and short platforms, conflict points and slow line speeds.

If we’re putting something underground (which we have to) the intercity/fast trains are the best option. They can be purpose built for that type if traffic with wider, longer platforms, and better accessibility as well as serving employment/leisure & residential areas directly reducing pressure on Metrolink and commuter rail.

It just makes sense.

 

[HSTEd]

Liverpool to Leeds with metro trains is an interesting idea, as you can't achieve the short dwells which make the Thameslink core work with the intercity spec rolling stock which people would expect for fast Liverpool > Manchester > Leeds journeys

It might not be as extreme as the RER MI09, but the Class 185 is not really "Intercity" in the conventional sense - it has huge standing areas that consume significant portions of the entire unit!

EDIT:

We also expect people to ride Thameslink stock for journeys potentially over 2 hours long, between Cambridge and Brighton etc.

EDIT #2:
I think we can push longer-distance train layouts rather further than we currently do. With modern ATO and PEDs we could achieve metro-line platform reoccupation times, its entirely possible that the platform can almost always have a set of open train doors present. (With 12tph we could easily have doors open 4 minutes out of five).

We could always adopt the Spanish solution for platforms in the Castlefield corridor and stagger the doors on the trains.

 

[MisterSheeps]

it was once 4-tracked

Not sure I have seen much evidence of the Calder Vale line having been substantially 4 tracked beyond Middleton Jc, apart from loops between Castleton & Rochdale. Various canal bridges look as if they were always double line.
The LNW Colne valley (Ravensthorpe - Diggle) was 4 track.

 

[D6130]

Not sure I have seen much evidence of the Calder Vale line having been substantially 4 tracked beyond Middleton Jc, apart from loops between Castleton & Rochdale. Various canal bridges look as if they were always double line.
The LNW Colne valley (Ravensthorpe - Diggle) was 4 track.

The Calder Valley line was once four tracks between Hebden Bridge and Mytholmroyd Viaduct, Mytholmroyd marshalling yard and Luddendenfoot (both of which were effectively long goods loops) and Brighouse and Altofts Junction.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Not sure I have seen much evidence of the Calder Vale line having been substantially 4 tracked beyond Middleton Jc, apart from loops between Castleton & Rochdale. Various canal bridges look as if they were always double line.
The LNW Colne valley (Ravensthorpe - Diggle) was 4 track.

The long Summit Tunnel between Littleborough and Walsden is only a two-track tunnel.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Thanks for the feedback. Running via Victoria was considered however the many flat junctions to the west of Manchester City Centre make it operationally untenable to run reliable intercity services through it without inflict delays/taking on delays caused by trains using Castlefield. There is also no room for flyovers or dive-under with many developments present and future standing in the way, as well as the ordeal chord being built in such a way that leaves too little space for even the most carefully designed grade-separated junction. The network in the area is essentially only fit for running scheduled local services, rather than a mixed use railway. That will remain the case.

Running HS2 to Liverpool presents ints own challenges, the first being Lime St. There is simply no space to terminate and reverse all those services, even if you squeeze an extra 1-2 platforms in the south shed at lime street. A whole new 400m long station would be required there, which due to topography around LS would have to be built in a more flat area, i.e the baltic triangle. This would still need to be sub-surface which at present, there isn't the critical mass of population and economic output in Liverpool to support. Supply side infrastructure is great, but not every government will go for it. We have to appeal to all bases.

CrossNorth Programme helps create that critical mass by freeing up space for stoppers on there route out of lime street and providing reliable intercity e-w journeys. Running to Liverpool via Manchester is geographically not plausible as it is such a diversion that the journey savings became almost non-existent. That won't sell when it comes to HS rail.

A smaller tunnel under the pennines as you suggest is also in the works, with a tunnel from littleorough to sower by bridge and a 4-tracked Calder vale line up to rochdale being the preferred option. There is space to do so as it was once 4-tracked and the curvature allows for higher speeds. This would cut journey times to Bradford drastically and to Leeds with additional tracks parallel to the calder valley line east of the pennines slewing the curves to allow for 125-140mph running. It is only at dews bury where it would join existing lines. A new approach the other side of merely tunnel will also create additional capacity into Leeds.

On@HSTEd's point:

An initial 2.5mi tunnel with three 220m long stations, all of which are in areas with space above to construct surface ticket halls and escalator boxes brings costs down and can be built as part of new developments i.e on the south side of Lincoln Sq, At piccadilly under the HS2 concourse (ticket hall + escalator box) with only the platforms and connecting passageways built in bored tunnels. This is much, much easier in scope than cross rail which involved many, many more underground stations in a much more sensitive area which much more limited space.

Every avenue has been explored for CNP, and the solutions proposed are the most viable operationally, economically and geographically.

Obviously HS2 Liverpool would have to be built upon the old Exchange site which has been considered. The point of Liverpool is to free up another path on HS2 but also tripling the number of services to London from Liverpool without having any additional services rather than just having one an hour. It appeals to all bases as to terminate high speed 400m services underground in Manchester, means more platforms and more expense especially if it built below ground.

I think your plans need to emphasize more on links like four tracking between Manchester and Rochdale as the whole plan does feel Manchester centric! Would love to know more about the East Side of your plan especially the bits through Calderdale.

The line East of Sowerby tunnel could easily be four tracked through the station to Milner Royd Jct. As for TRU how would Cross North affect the bit between Huddersfield and Ravensthorpe? I presume you would flip it round so that the fasts would be on the North side rather than the Southern side ?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Has there ever been a 3/4 track line from Guide Bridge to Stalybridge?

No, but there were two 2-track lines, one MS&L/GC and the other LNWR.
The LNWR route has vanished.

 

[D821]

Another option for Liverpool would be to free up space at Lime St by reopening the upper level at Liverpool Central and moving some of the regional services there. I'm not sure if the freed up platforms would be long enough, though.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Well quelle surprise, NPR is being lined up for the long grass...
I'm not going to say "told you so", but I'm thinking it loudly...

It depends what you mean by NPR.
The one in the IRP has a new line Warrington-Marsden using part of HS2b, and is still planned by ministers.
The one that's been axed (actually, never properly designed) was the one which put Bradford and Hull on the NPR map.
Once Liz Truss and her fantasy economics was shown the door, that version of a potential NPR collapsed, if it was ever viable.

 

[CrossNorthPr]

As stated in the report the eastern alignment is very much in a "conceptual stage" This (one of many) conceptual alignments allows for 125-140mph running speeds. It consists of proposed phases of construction:

1. 4 tracking & additional tracks from newton heath (where the phase 2 tunnel extension of CNP emerges) through rochdale (potential station) to Littleborough & a twin bore Pennine tunnel from Littleborough to Sowerby Bridge (7.7mi) Electrification of the existing line between Halifax, Bradford and Leeds would also take place with a new 4 platform through station in Bradford. (Forster Square) This completes the ambition of a faster link to Bradford.

2. New higher speed tracks (125-140mph) parallel to existing calder valley line as far as Dewsbury where it will join the existing line into Leeds which is already being electrified as part of TRU.

3. A new "Morley West" tunnel specifically for intercity services (3mi) emerging west of Cherwell by the M62. The new line continues from here into Leeds parallel to existing lines. New surface terminating platforms to the north of the existing platforms in Leeds would be created on what is currently car park. This provides additional capacity into Leeds and more west-facing terminating capacity allowing room for services through the existing Leeds platform toward Hull & York.

Combined, these phases give journey times in line with what TfN proposed for NPR, cost less than a brand new alignment following the M62, and provide a direct link to Bradford without extensive tunnelling.

Journey times from Leeds-Bradford would remain the same, however capacity and frequency would be increased with the addition of the through station.

The complete CrossNorth Network would have express services to Leeds avoiding Bradford (achieving stated journey time savings) and services through Bradford to Leeds which whilst taking longer to Leeds, shorten the journey time to Bradford significantly.

This represents in our view a more feasible investment delivering an almost entirely new line without much less tunnelling, high viaducts and embankments/cuttings that would be required on TfN's proposed alignment following the M62. The fact it can be phased, again; makes it more sellable to government and delivers benefits sooner to passengers.

 

[MattRat]

Another option for Liverpool would be to free up space at Lime St by reopening the upper level at Liverpool Central and moving some of the regional services there. I'm not sure if the freed up platforms would be long enough, though.

And what would happen to the Merseyrail Hunts Cross services?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

As stated in the report the eastern alignment is very much in a "conceptual stage" This (one of many) conceptual alignments allows for 125-140mph running speeds. It consists of proposed phases of construction:

1. 4 tracking & additional tracks from newton heath (where the phase 2 tunnel extension of CNP emerges) through rochdale (potential station) to Littleborough & a twin bore Pennine tunnel from Littleborough to Sowerby Bridge (7.7mi) Electrification of the existing line between Halifax, Bradford and Leeds would also take place with a new 4 platform through station in Bradford. (Forster Square) This completes the ambition of a faster link to Bradford.

The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway once had in consideration review, a tunnel proposal from the continuation of the Sowerby Bridge to Rishworth branch line to the Littleborough area which would have shortened the line distance between Leeds and Manchester by quite a margin, but this was never proceeded with.

 

[D821]

And what would happen to the Merseyrail Hunts Cross services?

They would be unaffected and would be served by the underground station still.

 

[MattRat]

They would be unaffected and would be served by the underground station still.

But how do these other trains get to that station? The only sensible route is via that line, but you don't want stoppers in the way of faster trains. Do you see the problem?

 

[Halifaxlad]

This represents in our view a more feasible investment delivering an almost entirely new line without much less tunnelling, high viaducts and embankments/cuttings that would be required on TfN's proposed alignment following the M62. The fact it can be phased, again; makes it more sellable to government and delivers benefits sooner to passengers.

I like that a lot although it would be nice to have a fully segregated line I don't think its neccessary between Sowerby Bridge and the existing Transpennine Route, the line between Milner Royd jct East of Sowerby Bridge and Heaton Lodge Jct is very quiet passenger wise. There is about 1 an hour stopper between Leeds and Manchester that goes that way, Bradford to Huddersfield which is every two hours (used to be hourly) and occasional Grand Central services from Bradford to London via Halifax, Brighouse and Wakefield.

Another thing is to be mindful of cost and how it compares to what is currently being proposed (cost wise)! Anything that achieves Bradford's ambition and satisfies Mr Burnham would be very popular and you could gain a lot of support. The DFT would probably could be persuaded if it could achieved for equal to or less than the existing proposal.

 

[D821]

But how do these other trains get to that station? The only sensible route is via that line, but you don't want stoppers in the way of faster trains. Do you see the problem?

Ah, yes, that's a very good point.

 

[CrossNorthPr]

I like that a lot although it would be nice to have a fully segregated line I don't think its neccessary between Sowerby Bridge and the existing Transpennine Route, the line between Milner Royd jct East of Sowerby Bridge and Heaton Lodge Jct is very quiet passenger wise. There is about 1 an hour stopper between Leeds and Manchester that goes that way, Bradford to Huddersfield which is every two hours (used to be hourly) and occasional Grand Central services from Bradford to London via Halifax, Brighouse and Wakefield.

Another thing is to be mindful of cost and how it compares to what is currently being proposed (cost wise)! Anything that achieves Bradford's ambition and satisfies Mr Burnham would be very popular and you could gain a lot of support. The DFT would probably could be persuaded if it could achieved for equal to or less than the existing proposal.

Some good points. Full segregation (or as much as possible) should always be the goal with intercity lines really in my own opinion as that allows the existing lines to run more frequent services in future when the demand inevitably increases as the population rises. Especially if we are to create modal shift from car to rail we should really be looking at making the route less “quiet” and put more services on.

Obviously this is from an operational and supply side perspective. The issue is finding a balance that is acceptable to any government of the time as these projects take years, so you do have a very valid point in this respect and will take it “on board”

You could potentially get away with upgrading the line from sowerby bridge to Dewsbury with electrification and a bit of curve slewing/cant on the tracks to increase line speeds. It is where trains reach Dewsbufy where things become difficult as that line is busy and runs mixed traffic being the main route into Leeds from the south and west.

I do think a new Morley tunnel and segregated tracks from there into Leeds station would be beneficial in relieving capacity on the existing lines for “West Yorkshire metro” etc.

In an ideal world you’d have a new alignment through Leeds, which would have to be a sub-surface station as proposed by Weston Williams architects, however given the fact the Manchester station of a similar size and construction constraints has been cancelled in cost grounds, I can’t see a multi platform new sub-surface station in Leeds going ahead. It will be a case of providing extra west facing terminating platforms to take the busy Leeds-Manc-Liverpool traffic with select services running through.

There doesn’t appear to be room to 4-track the approach into Leeds from the east so terminating more eastbound trains in Leeds is probably the best way to go to soak up that traffic (which is heavier) and still have the space to run trains through if that makes sense?

 

[A0]

I am confident CrossNorth Programme is the right solution. It delivers benefits sooner, doesn’t affect HS2 timetabling, Makes local metro services possible boosting economies, reduces car journeys in south GM (heavy air pollution) making space for more buses and most importantly allows much higher frequency of trains through Manchester than a combined NPR/HS2 would. It also does not concentrate everything on Piccadilly where there is only one twin track line from the suburbs of North Manchester. Basically, it won’t create castlefield chaos mk2. Instead it opens up a huge array of opportunities and for simplification and integration of services.

I’ve attached a few pages from the report. The full draft report is available upon request.

And costs about a squillion quid without even getting close to offering a sensible business case.

Admittedly, this at least has pictures and diagrams that are a cut above the normal 'Visio' or MS Word-art of the normal crayonistas around here, but pretty pictures don't equal a viable business case.