NPR will it ever happen?

[Manutd1999]

Lots of good ideas here but it will :
A) take a lot of time (decades) to deliver
B) cost a lot of money
c) be heavily focused on Manchester, which is already benefiting hugely from HS2

I wonder if NPR should reduce the ambition somewhat and focus on a series of improvements which could be delivered by the early 2030s, to coincide with HS2 reaching Manchester:

- Full electrification of the Transpennine route and 4-tracking around Huddersfield
- Additional 4-track section to Guide Bridge, connecting TRU to the new HS2 station at Piccadilly
- New spur from the Airport High Speed station to Warrington, connecting to either an electrified CLC or 'Fiddlers Ferry' line into Liverpool
- Electrification to the Hope Valley line to Sheffield
- Additional 4-track sections and a turnback to the east of Leeds
- Additional platforms or capacity improvements at Liverpool Lime St and Sheffield

This would remove a lot of the major bottlenecks and deliver benefits across the north, whilst keeping costs reasonable and avoiding large sections of new track.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Don't forget Castlefield. That's one reason why the Fiddlers Ferry route into Picc main trainshed is quite important, and it NOT being the CLC (as that can't not use Castlefield) is also quite important.

The reverse is a hassle, I'll give you, but can be made smooth by having replacement traincrew standing ready to take over the train as it comes in, but not half as much of a hassle as cramming it all onto the CLC (unless you closed intermediates) and Castlefield (in any form) would be.

 

[StretfordEnd96]

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.

Ravensthorpe - Stalybridge more like. At Diggle junction there was a loop line which ran parallel to the existing LNWR to Stalybridge on the other side of the Tame Valley (just around 0.5- 1.0 mile distant) - which effectively was built for 4 tracking of the Huddersfield Line. Lifted around 1966.

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

The LNWR route (also called the 'Guide Bridge avoiding line" (somewhat informally!)) ran from Stalybridge Junction but it didn't reconnect with the MS&L/GC, it ran to Denton Junction to join the LNWR Stockport-Guide Bridge - it was built primarily for freight to avoid the busy congested junctions around the original lines around Guide Bridge.

Therefore Stalybridge - Guide Bridge was never 4 track as such, but Stalybridge - Denton Junction was - in a somewhat indirect way.

 

[CrossNorthPr]

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.

Again, read the report and you’ll see CrossNorth Programme is no “crayonista” project. Rough costings have been made and the business case is very strong. This isn’t just myself saying that but people/government bodies CrossNorth is in talks with. It needs further development to take it out of the conceptual stages, however this is where every project starts. The alignments proposed are conceptual and nothing more. A “crayonista” would not acknowledge that.

If multiple government bodies are reaching out to work with us and potentially fund further studies (the engineering side)

I’d suggest it has a very good business case. Obviously I can’t disclose information shared in the meetings we’ve had, however I can say the response has been overwhelmingly positive from stakeholders. There are more studies and further analysis that needs carrying out, yes. But until we secure funding and are able to have engineers and transport planners conduct detailed investigations we cannot publish the exact costings. This is a sensible approach and the one taken by any respectable organisation in this sector. A “Crayonista” might throw technical details and figures out there without having done internal investigations first, that’s not something CNP will do until solid, reliable data becomes available to us.

I urge you to read the report and find out for yourself the business case.

CrossNorth Programme is no “crayonista” project (Not that this should need to be justified given the stage we’re at) and I think reading the report you’ll see why.

 

[HSTEd]

I wonder if NPR should reduce the ambition somewhat and focus on a series of improvements which could be delivered by the early 2030s, to coincide with HS2 reaching Manchester:

- Full electrification of the Transpennine route and 4-tracking around Huddersfield

Given the repeated debacles in the electrification programme, and the failure of most major rail "modernisation" projects to deliver what they promised, I doubt that you could deliver this by the 2030s.

Upgrades are painfully slow in their nature, whilst the current problem with large infrastructure projects is a moribund state bureaucracy that can, in theory, be overcome with enough political capital.

This would remove a lot of the major bottlenecks and deliver benefits across the north, whilst keeping costs reasonable and avoiding large sections of new track.

Four tracking is not going to be cheap given the painful costs associated with working adjacent to an open railway in the modern era. In many cases I doubt it would be cheaper than providing the new tracks along a new alignment that is actually fit for purpose in the modern era.

And warrington the Manchester airport station is a substantial fraction of all the proposed new track itself! By my count it's not much less than half the total required to go from Warrington to Marsden.

 

[A0]

CrossNorth Programme is no “crayonista” project (Not that this should need to be justified given the stage we’re at) and I think reading the report you’ll see why.

Perhaps you could give us some details as to the credentials of the people behind this and who the backers of it are.

Because from a quick Google, 'CrossNorth Programme' appears not to exist beyond a Twitter feed (which anyone over the age of 13 can create).

Basically you're not a charity, don't appear to be a company, aren't really a pressure group - which makes one think you're little different to all the other 'campaign' groups that are behind one rail scheme or another.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

At Diggle junction there was a loop line which ran parallel to the existing LNWR to Stalybridge on the other side of the Tame Valley (just around 0.5- 1.0 mile distant) - which effectively was built for 4 tracking of the Huddersfield Line. Lifted around 1966.

That was the Micklehurst loop line that originally had four stations (dates taken from the Disused Railways website):-
Uppermill.................Opened 1st July 1886...Closed to passengers 1st November 1917
Friezland..................Opened 1st July 1886...Closed to passengers 1st November 1917
Micklehurst...............Opened 1st July 1886...Closed to passengers 1st May 1907
Staley and Millbrook...Opened 1st July 1886...Closed to passengers 1st November 1909.

The line was used for freight purposes for many years after the closing of the passenger stations, but much has been written on website threads concernng the removal of certain large infrastructural edifices when the line was finally closed to all traffic.

 

[Grimsby town]

The issue you'll have with this scheme is that it's an alternative to NPR which is realistically going to be far cheaper than a scheme that comes with four underground stations. A tunnel from Piccadilly to near Salford Crescent with 3 underground stations is going to cost £7bn+. The infrastructure NPR builds to get from Liverpool to Manchester is probably going to cost less than that because it uses the HS2 tunnel out of Manchester which has enough spare paths.

NPR supposedly has a BCR under 1 and that's with using part of HS2 and not being particularly ambitious. This scheme is going to have to create £bns more benefits and i'm struggling to see how it would do that. Journey times to Liverpool aren't going to be much quicker than via HS2 with that many stops. There'll be time saving benefits from Salford Quays if a stop was included and some fairly big connectivity improvements around Salford but I doubt that will lead to £bns in extra benefits.

I'm not convinced that Metrolink services to Salford Quays need relieving either. Its not a line TfGM has identified as expecting to have a capacity issues and its largely single trams currently. The connectivity between the Quays and Salford/rail network is needed but could that not be achieved by a new Metrolink line?

 

[CrossNorthPr]

The issue you'll have with this scheme is that it's an alternative to NPR which is realistically going to be far cheaper than a scheme that comes with four underground stations. A tunnel from Piccadilly to near Salford Crescent with 3 underground stations is going to cost £7bn+. The infrastructure NPR builds to get from Liverpool to Manchester is probably going to cost less than that because it uses the HS2 tunnel out of Manchester which has enough spare paths.

NPR supposedly has a BCR under 1 and that's with using part of HS2 and not being particularly ambitious. This scheme is going to have to create £bns more benefits and i'm struggling to see how it would do that. Journey times to Liverpool aren't going to be much quicker than via HS2 with that many stops. There'll be time saving benefits from Salford Quays if a stop was included and some fairly big connectivity improvements around Salford but I doubt that will lead to £bns in extra benefits.

I'm not convinced that Metrolink services to Salford Quays need relieving either. Its not a line TfGM has identified as expecting to have a capacity issues and its largely single trams currently. The connectivity between the Quays and Salford/rail network is needed but could that not be achieved by a new Metrolink line?

7NBn is the rough estimate we came up with two based on Crossrail costs and the costs from other heavy rail underground stations. The reversal at Piccadilly and IRP proposal will not decongest the existing network fully and risk importing delays into HS2, something everyone is very keen to avoid. A new tunnelled Metrolink line has been mentioned in the 2040 transport plan in a similar alignment to east congestion to Salford. Hence CNP kills multiple birds with one stone.

Manchester has a very dense surface rail network that is perfect for metro operation but cannot operate as such due to the mix of services. CrossNorth completely solves that giving the region much higher connectivity and productivity.

I think you need to read the complete report to fully understand the benefits as MCC and the DFLU do. That’s not to say they fully endorse it, that can only happen if we secure funding and provide accurate and complete data figures including accurate costings and ground investigations. That’s the stage we’re at now.

As to why CNP doesn’t exist beyond twitter that’s an issue we have identified and and whilst we are cross-platform on multiple social channels, the website that is in the works will give a much better, more informative and accessible online presence. The website has to be perfect before it launches and ideally only after the funding is secured.

@A0wen This is no campaign group, but a serious and sensible proposal in a lot of peoples eyes, the ones that matter. If you’d like to be cynical that is your choice, but something I’ve been told in my meetings so far is no one so far has come up with any alternative solutions and there is a desperate need for one. Why hasn’t anyone come up with anything? They probably have but were to afraid put it out there in fear of being called a “crayonista”

I’m glad this didn’t get in the way of my work on CNP as it turns out people think this is a very credible and well thought out proposal.

Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good, or nothing will happen.

 

[A0]

This is no campaign group, but a serious and sensible proposal in a lot of peoples eyes, the ones that matter. If you’d like to be cynical that is your choice, but something I’ve been told in my meetings so far is no one so far has come up with any alternative solutions and there is a desperate need for one. Why hasn’t anyone come up with anything? They probably have but were to afraid put it out there in fear of being called a “crayonista”

I’m glad this didn’t get in the way of my work on CNP as it turns out people think this is a very credible and well thought out proposal.

Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good, or nothing will happen.

So no credentials, no information beyond a "presentation".

That alone say's everything.

 

[Grimsby town]

The reversal at Piccadilly isn't ideal but that could be resolved with a cheaper scheme than your proposal if that was needed. You're right in that it's a performance risk but it's not likely enough of one to justify £7bn in expenditure. The new tunnel isn't really to do with Salford. The main reason is to relieve the Altrincham and Bury lines. It was expected that by 2040 the Alty line would be 40% over capacity. Covid might have reduced that but the most pressing capacity issue remains on the Alty line. I'm not really sure how your proposals would solve that. As far as I can tell it doesn't free up tram paths or allow longer trams to operate.

Out of interest did you consider any other stations your locations mainly make sense from a rail connectivity perspective, onward transport connections aren't brilliant from the Quays and the Salford location you've chosen. Was any consideration given to the Trafford Centre with its very good Motorway and bus connections, regional journey attractors and a lot of potential development land. This would be similar to HS2 stations at Birmingham Airport and Manchester Airport.

 

[CrossNorthPr]

The reversal at Piccadilly isn't ideal but that could be resolved with a cheaper scheme than your proposal if that was needed. You're right in that it's a performance risk but it's not likely enough of one to justify £7bn in expenditure. The new tunnel isn't really to do with Salford. The main reason is to relieve the Altrincham and Bury lines. It was expected that by 2040 the Alty line would be 40% over capacity. Covid might have reduced that but the most pressing capacity issue remains on the Alty line. I'm not really sure how your proposals would solve that. As far as I can tell it doesn't free up tram paths or allow longer trams to operate.

Out of interest did you consider any other stations your locations mainly make sense from a rail connectivity perspective, onward transport connections aren't brilliant from the Quays and the Salford location you've chosen. Was any consideration given to the Trafford Centre with its very good Motorway and bus connections, regional journey attractors and a lot of potential development land. This would be similar to HS2 stations at Birmingham Airport and Manchester Airport.

To solve the pressures on the Alti-Bury line you’d need a N-S tunnel rather than the E-W one. That is proposed due to the lack of capacity from Piccadilly to Cornbrook, and that’s what CrossNorth would relieve with many journeys on Metrolink from Pic - Cornbrook being part of a quays bound journey for commuters. Take these passengers off Metrolink and you have more space on Metrolink with no need for more trams on that route.

In terms of connections, all are strategically placed as stated in the report. Lincoln square serves the currently underserved financial employment centre spinningfileds and the adjacent Albert square and at Peter’s sq Metrolink a short walk away (4mins)

Salford interchange provides a vital place for northbound passengers to change to local services rather than clogging up castlefield.

Salford quays serves media city, the new high density resi area there, the Lowry and IWM museums and interchange with Metrolink at media city toward Eccles and IWM stop accross the bridge to the Trafford centre and Trafford Park.

The issue with mainline underground stations (but also benefit) is they take up more space so you need fewer of them and need adequate space to construct large ticket halls usually part of a surface development and sometimes containing ecalator shafts. Very similar to Crossrail. The benefit is you can have entrances at either end. I.e lincoln square could have 2 entrances, in spinningfields or Albert square should the city council go with that option. Otherwise lincoln square is the perfect circulating space for passengers.

The locations are as strategically placed as possible with the urban geography we have to work with in Manchester.

 

[Grimsby town]

To solve the pressures on the Alti-Bury line you’d need a N-S tunnel rather than the E-W one. That is proposed due to the lack of capacity from Piccadilly to Cornbrook, and that’s what CrossNorth would relieve with many journeys on Metrolink from Pic - Cornbrook being part of a quays bound journey for commuters. Take these passengers off Metrolink and you have more space on Metrolink with no need for more trams on that route.

Well the high level plan for a metro tunnel was one that served the Altrincham line/the CLC line to Warrington and then ran through the city centre to Piccadilly before continuing on to Glossop/Marple. The Bury line would continue as a Metrolink service but the frequency would be increased to 15 trams per hour to cater for growth.

The Altrincham line is the big issue as I've said. I live on it and I already struggle to get on trams in the morning (pre-covid I had to leave at 7:30 to guarantee being able to get on the first tram that came). Your plan will relieve capacity in terms of providing more space on trams from Salford Quays to the Piccadilly but it does little to solve the capacity issues on the Altrincham line which occur before Cornbrook. This will require something that allows longer or additional trams to operate. Its highly unlikely that longer trams will be able to run on the street tram lines as they'll block streets and extending platforms is very difficult. Therefore a metro tunnel would still be required with your plan.

 

[HSTEd]

I must admit I have never understood why people always resort to a tram tunnel for Manchester, its not as if there is a shortage of major roads to use as tram routes in Central Manchester? Still got Deansgate to use yet, if nothing else!

 

[BrianW]

Loving ideas shared on this thread.
Common thread I see is small, readily deliverable bites, in places where they will be appreciated in time for a general election.
So, bits in and/or around Manchester, North Wales, Derbyshire, Leeds, Darlington ... and Tavistock and Tunbridge Wells!
Plenty of scope for announcements, and reannouncements .
Not expecting to see shovels anywhere by then.

 

[MisterSheeps]

Ravensthorpe - Stalybridge more like

yes, i knew that, but, whilst the Ravensthorpe Diggle bit is substantially intact (but too narrow for modern 4 track formation), large parts of the Tame left bank (Friezeland) loop has been demolished or built on, so no use if someone wanted to reinstate 4 tracks. Seems odd it was abandoned, was maybe quicker than via Mossley, and much more central to Greenfield.

 

[CrossNorthPr]

So no credentials, no information beyond a "presentation".

That alone say's everything.

I think your lack of engagement and childish jibes says a lot more. I'm not sure what more you should expect from a group like ours other than well researched reports and visual graphics to get the concept out there for ordinary folk who don't necessarily understand railway terms (why would they?) Your argument is basically if you draw lines on a map as part of a plan that isn't officially going ahead it is completely invalid. With views like that I'm surprised you are a mod on this forum, you do it a disservice. Everyone's input should be welcomed and appreciated. I take on feedback from others and give well worded and polite responses, you resort to personal attacks on something that is actually seen as very credible.

Oh, and for your information, not that I should have to point it out. I have a degree in Urban Planning and have served in executive and non executive roles in the sector currently for Sustainable Transport Midlands.

If anyone is lacking professionalism here it's you. I'm fine with people critiquing the programme, but making unfounded assumptions and unnecessary jibes is pure childish. Most posters on here I find interesting insightful people with great ideas and passion and that is what a forum is for. You've dug yourself a hole here, not me. Come on, we can do better.

George.

 

[A0]

I think your lack of engagement and childish jibes says a lot more.

Right - I point out all you've got is a Twitter page and a pretty report you've produced and asked that you declared your backers and tgeir credentials. You didn't answer the question. I point out that you didn't answer the question. You then accuse me of "childish jibes" - try harder.

Currently your scheme has no more credibility than the multitude of other schemes being peddled on these boards by enthusiasts - see SELRAP, MEMRAP, Welland Valley Rail link, ERTA and many more besides which have no credibility.

 

[Grimsby town]

I must admit I have never understood why people always resort to a tram tunnel for Manchester, its not as if there is a shortage of major roads to use as tram routes in Central Manchester? Still got Deansgate to use yet, if nothing else!

There was a lot of negative responses to the Metrolink 2nd city crossing as far as I'm aware. Building down Deansgate would be pretty disruptive. The city centre also needs to provide for other modes of transport. Deansgate is a key route for walking and is planned to be improved for cycling. While I think car traffic should be minimised in the city centre; there is also need to provide for it. A high-floor tram would take most of the room on Deansgate.

The other big issues is that providing another city centre doesn't provide much additional capacity because there's major capacity constraints between Deansgate and Cornbrook. Finally the metro tunnel is expected to resolve the issue of slow cross journeys through the city centre. Metrolink is slow through the city centre.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Nov 2022 ==

I think your lack of engagement and childish jibes says a lot more. I'm not sure what more you should expect from a group like ours other than well researched reports and visual graphics to get the concept out there for ordinary folk who don't necessarily understand railway terms (why would they?) Your argument is basically if you draw lines on a map as part of a plan that isn't officially going ahead it is completely invalid. With views like that I'm surprised you are a mod on this forum, you do it a disservice. Everyone's input should be welcomed and appreciated. I take on feedback from others and give well worded and polite responses, you resort to personal attacks on something that is actually seen as very credible.

Oh, and for your information, not that I should have to point it out. I have a degree in Urban Planning and have served in executive and non executive roles in the sector currently for Sustainable Transport Midlands.

If anyone is lacking professionalism here it's you. I'm fine with people critiquing the programme, but making unfounded assumptions and unnecessary jibes is pure childish. Most posters on here I find interesting insightful people with great ideas and passion and that is what a forum is for. You've dug yourself a hole here, not me. Come on, we can do better.

George.

I have to agree with this. There's a lot of negativity around proposed rail ideas both on here and elsewhere. I've been heavily criticised myself for defending people in the past and trying to point out things people weren't considering in terms of reopenings/new lines. The scheme proposed definitely solves some legitimate transport issues. I have my doubts that it impacts Metrolink much and that national government will be interested in what will be an expensive scheme. It doesn't necessarily have to succeed in full though to influence tranport policy in the north so its definitely worth discussing if you are willing to put the time in.

 

[zwk500]

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

Would you be able to DM me the full draft? I have some questions over the practicalities of building the line that the full report may well address.

The locations are as strategically placed as possible with the urban geography we have to work with in Manchester.

Out of interest, what's the underground geography of Manchester like? There's obviously tall building, a dense water network, various underground buildings and so on. Does your route conflict with any of these?

 

[CrossNorthPr]

There was a lot of negative responses to the Metrolink 2nd city crossing as far as I'm aware. Building down Deansgate would be pretty disruptive. The city centre also needs to provide for other modes of transport. Deansgate is a key route for walking and is planned to be improved for cycling. While I think car traffic should be minimised in the city centre; there is also need to provide for it. A high-floor tram would take most of the room on Deansgate.

The other big issues is that providing another city centre doesn't provide much additional capacity because there's major capacity constraints between Deansgate and Cornbrook. Finally the metro tunnel is expected to resolve the issue of slow cross journeys through the city centre. Metrolink is slow through the city centre.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Nov 2022 ==



I have to agree with this. There's a lot of negativity around proposed rail ideas both on here and elsewhere. I've been heavily criticised myself for defending people in the past and trying to point out things people weren't considering in terms of reopenings/new lines. The scheme proposed definitely solves some legitimate transport issues. I have my doubts that it impacts Metrolink much and that national government will be interested in what will be an expensive scheme. It doesn't necessarily have to succeed in full though to influence tranport policy in the north so its definitely worth discussing if you are willing to put the time in.

It may not completely solve the Metrolink problem and I think that’s something that is definitely worth discussion. In fact the whole project is conceptual and calling it anything more at this stage would not be right until the data gathering and costings are done but I’m glad you too see the merit in getting schemes like this out. It turns out they really do get government attention sometimes it just takes someone to put it out there. I’ve seen a few posts on here that would be worth pushing further as concepts and I think why not? Everything starts somewhere.

Would you be able to DM me the full draft? I have some questions over the practicalities of building the line that the full report may well address.

Out of interest, what's the underground geography of Manchester like? There's obviously tall building, a dense water network, various underground buildings and so on. Does your route conflict with any of these?

With it being a large pdf file (not compressed) I’ll have to email it if you could send an email address via DM? I’m still looking for a server to hold it in web form viewable to everyone but I’ve got a techy person on that they should come throhhh soon hopefully!

In terms of geology and the proposed alignment, it is likely to change, probably with a few more bends in it etc. The route shown is the most direct alignment, however like Crossrail, things always change working underground.

One good thing there is about going underground in Manchester though I’d that it is built upon sandstone which is one of the strongest rocks to work with, it notoriously supports itself.

It is also what allows so many tall buildings in the city as they only need “raft” foundations often only 2-3 storeys deep. This has the advantage (tunnelling wise) of having less foundations and deep basements to navigate through. There is the bt telephone exchange at 35m deep which runs under the Piccadilly gardens and Mosley street area so that will have to be dealt with. They were built that deep as it was during the cups war era and was to be used should the city face a nuclear attack.

The positive here is you could quite easily tunnel over that at say 28m as sandstone is strong and such a depth is definitely far enough below the surface to interfere with most things.

Or you could go deeper, say 45m. The HS2 tunnels into Manchester reach a depth of 90m in places, so this is more that possible. I wouldn’t think it’d be practical to go much deeper though as this makes the stations more expensive.

So essentially you (should) be able to follow that alignment almost to a T, however I’m fully expecting changes to curvature and locating it as such that there is space for ventilation shafts above. I designed it with as wider radius curves as possible, as generally that’s the best thing to do with railways unless something is in the way!

 

[MisterSheeps]

The problem with tunneling Manchester would be water in the saturated sandstone. Depending on how far east you tunnel, you cross a faulted area (starts around Ardwick), where the Permian of Cheshire transitions to the Carboniferous of the Pennines, and get into areas that were extensively mined for coal. The faults move occasionally.

 

[StretfordEnd96]

yes, i knew that, but, whilst the Ravensthorpe Diggle bit is substantially intact (but too nartow for modern 4 track formation), large parts of the Tame left bank (Friezeland) loop has been demolished or built on, so no use if someone wanted to reinstate 4 tracks. Seems odd it was abandoned, was maybe quicker than via Mossley, and much more central to Greenfield.

Yes much more central to Greenfield as well as Uppermill too

But less so Mossley.

It would of been abandoned, in the 60s, for the same reason miles and miles worth of other railways were abandoned - it just wasn't adding to any sort of profit for BR whatsoever and at the time there simply was no longer any use for it anymore. In its later years it was used for freight and also the occasional (non-stopping) Express train but lets not forget at the time of its closure (late 60s) the Manchester-Huddersfield stopper on the original line was so heavily reduced by Beeching cuts anyway to peak times only - so in other words at the time the main Huddersfield Line would of been absolutely no where near as clogged up as today.

If it had been mothballed though or at least not built upon I've no doubt that it'd be a priceless line in this day and age.

 

[MisterSheeps]

If it had been mothballed

Agreed, and that was the problem generally, could have sold the goods yards for development but kept the trackbeds intact; but I am still surprised the original (Tame right bank) route was kept and the other (newer) closed, given that the power station kept a quarter of it open anyway, and the 'Delph Donkey' and Oldham branches had gone. There were stations for Uppermill & Friezeland on it.

 

[StretfordEnd96]

Agreed, and that was the problem generally, could have sold the goods yards for development but kept the trackbeds intact; but I am still surprised the original (Tame right bank) route was kept and the other (newer) closed, given that the power station kept a quarter of it open anyway, and the 'Delph Donkey' and Oldham branches had gone. There were stations for Uppermill & Friezeland on it.

Yes agreed - not just the goods yard were built upon though. Uppermill has some houses that back literally onto (what is now a Bridleway).

On the topic of the newer route being closed, the thing is, even after the installation of the Micklehurst Loop, for nearly 100 years thereafter the original Huddersfield Line was always preferred for most, it was always the main passenger line etc. even for long distance Express routes. There was obviously something more preferable about this one rather than Micklehurst that we aren't considering. (I've read that one line was quicker than the other, but not sure if it was definitely Micklehurst? I was under the impression Micklehurst had some slightly steeper gradients).

Uppermill station was situated in the near centre of what is now a very busy tourist area especially in the Summer. Freizland Station has always been an odd one to me as living locally, I can assure you that Friezland station isn't in Friezland (the village of). It's in Greenfield, close to the centre - Friezland village centre is a tiny village with a church, school and some houses about half a mile or so away. Maybe the boundaries or local perception was different in the 1800s.

The thing is when these types of freight/duplicate/secondary lines were closed in the 1960s, the powers that be back then, (Beeching, BR, government, GMPTE as it became), whoever it was, they would have been under the impression that these lines were simply redundant and dead forever, and understandably so because at the time there was just not enough traffic for any profit or sustainability. They unfortunately didn't have a crystal ball which let them see the woes and issues of the 21st century especially in this neck of the woods, and how that this line amongst others may should, at the least, be removed but kept protected for future re-instatement

 

[CrossNorthPr]

The CNP Draft Report is now available to view online at:

CNP Report DRAFT.pdf

drive.google.com

 

[Halifaxlad]

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.

I wholeheartly agree but... I'm a pragmatist.... with crayons

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.

You do have the potential to segregate the lines through Sowerby Bridge quite easily. The viaduct is in fact two viaducts side by side and a small iron extension capable of 5 tracks in although ideally the unused iron extension really wants removing so lets work on the basis of 4. The platform on the down line (I believe) did used to be an island platform. You could demolish the existing station and build a new island platform station upon the North side so that segregated fast lines could run all the way to Milner Royd jct. I would certainly consider a new short tunnel adjacent to the existing one West of Sowerby Bridge so that all services could be segregated from existing Calder Valley services, although it would be a lot of work for such a short tunnel, perhaps it could be the same TBM that would burrow under Littleborough ?

Excluding East of Heaton Lodge which is to be upgraded as part of the Transpennine Route Upgrade, which would just need the fast lines reorienting towards Brighouse, the only bit that I believe would be worth segregating would be the bit through Brighouse. Apart from the station it does curve round quite a bit, you could diverge just after the M62 and come out on the West side where they used to be a quarry by Elland Lower edge.



From looking at the concept alignments for this section between Sowerby Bridge and Heaton Lodge, it would require some serious engineering, the proposed alignment also appears to overlap the River Calder several times. Personally I can see it being quite unpopular with the local population and I don't want to see the rest of this scheme be talked down by politicians because of this section. The only other thing with this section is that the local Council wants to build a new station for 'Elland' at Lowfields, so I would look at squeezing just one station in on this section. If you wanted you could move the proposed location to the site of the old North Dean/Greetland station, only 1.5km West of the proposed location and on the main bus route between Halifax and Huddersfield. So essentially it would be a parkway for both Halifax and Elland. The existing proposal for Elland is pretty much a parkway anyway so it might as well be moved Westwards a little bit.

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.

I am fully in support of that!

Although I did once have an idea to follow part of this proposed route adjacent to the M62 leaving Leeds but joining into the existing Calder Valley line at Low Moor, although I was unsure how much capacity Halifax could handle without having to be significantly rebuilt.

 

[CrossNorthPr]

I wholeheartly agree but... I'm a pragmatist.... with crayons


You do have the potential to segregate the lines through Sowerby Bridge quite easily. The viaduct is in fact two viaducts side by side and a small iron extension capable of 5 tracks in although ideally the unused iron extension really wants removing so lets work on the basis of 4. The platform on the down line (I believe) did used to be an island platform. You could demolish the existing station and build a new island platform station upon the North side so that segregated fast lines could run all the way to Milner Royd jct. I would certainly consider a new short tunnel adjacent to the existing one West of Sowerby Bridge so that all services could be segregated from existing Calder Valley services, although it would be a lot of work for such a short tunnel, perhaps it could be the same TBM that would burrow under Littleborough ?

Excluding East of Heaton Lodge which is to be upgraded as part of the Transpennine Route Upgrade, which would just need the fast lines reorienting towards Brighouse, the only bit that I believe would be worth segregating would be the bit through Brighouse. Apart from the station it does curve round quite a bit, you could diverge just after the M62 and come out on the West side where they used to be a quarry by Elland Lower edge.

View attachment 124668View attachment 124669View attachment 124670

From looking at the concept alignments for this section between Sowerby Bridge and Heaton Lodge, it would require some serious engineering, the proposed alignment also appears to overlap the River Calder several times. Personally I can see it being quite unpopular with the local population and I don't want to see the rest of this scheme be talked down by politicians because of this section. The only other thing with this section is that the local Council wants to build a new station for 'Elland' at Lowfields, so I would look at squeezing just one station in on this section. If you wanted you could move the proposed location to the site of the old North Dean/Greetland station, only 1.5km West of the proposed location and on the main bus route between Halifax and Huddersfield. So essentially it would be a parkway for both Halifax and Elland. The existing proposal for Elland is pretty much a parkway anyway so it might as well be moved Westwards a little bit.

I am fully in support of that!

Although I did once have an idea to follow part of this proposed route adjacent to the M62 leaving Leeds but joining into the existing Calder Valley line at Low Moor, although I was unsure how much capacity Halifax could handle without having to be significantly rebuilt.

Some interesting ideas it definitely seems the section through brighouse is worth segregating. The issue posed by the existing route (from Sowerby Bridge-brighouse) is you have a nice wide curve jumping very suddenly into a much tighter one which isn't ideal for fast trains, we really want to keep the curves at a consistent radius without any sudden transitions. The tunnel solution you proposed definitely solves that issue, but then the question becomes if you're going to do that much tunnelling why not just build a brand new route? The answer is cost and that's what's going to stop any new line being built. We need to minimise tunnelling as much as possible whilst keeping curves and gradients acceptable for higher speed rail.

The proposed alignment is only rough and I'm no engineer so it would of course need substantial redesigning, but the general concept should work. It does require multiple crossings of the river calder, however a structure similar to the Colne viaduct on HS2 would span the entire stretch and allow habitat to remain intact (as opposed to raised embankments with multiple bridges) It will be controversial no doubt, but every new railway is, and this is really the only controversial new section of the line, the rest bing on brownfield/industrial sites. It would likely need to be one long viaduct anyway due to ground conditions. Building embankments in flood-prone areas is a no-go. They did it on chat moss back in the 1830s by floating it on a bunch of logs etc but for modern railways that's hardly acceptable!

You do however have the issue of the electrical station. You could potentially weave the alignment around it or (depending on construction possibilities) run the viaduct through it in-between the important infrastructure leaving space for access. This has been done before in Europe and china. It really all hinges on that.

The tunnel is an option, however its the substantial extra cost and location of ventilation shafts etc.

Re the new morely tunnel, (I believe) it is necessary too so the existing line can run more locals, plus it straightens the alignment out quite a bit!

 

[D6130]

You do have the potential to segregate the lines through Sowerby Bridge quite easily. The viaduct is in fact two viaducts side by side and a small iron extension capable of 5 tracks in although ideally the unused iron extension really wants removing so lets work on the basis of 4. The platform on the down line (I believe) did used to be an island platform. You could demolish the existing station and build a new island platform station upon the North side so that segregated fast lines could run all the way to Milner Royd jct. I would certainly consider a new short tunnel adjacent to the existing one West of Sowerby Bridge so that all services could be segregated from existing Calder Valley services, although it would be a lot of work for such a short tunnel, perhaps it could be the same TBM that would burrow under Littleborough ?

The Down platform at Sowerby Bridge was always single-sided with a long-ish bay platform at the East end. It was the Up platform that was an island - plus the additional curved platform on the Up side leading to the tunnel mouth on the Rishworth branch.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Currently your scheme has no more credibility than the multitude of other schemes being peddled on these boards by enthusiasts - see SELRAP, MEMRAP, Welland Valley Rail link, ERTA and many more besides which have no credibility.

I think it's highly offensive to suggest that everyone is an 'enthusiast'