NPR will it ever happen?

[Xenophon PCDGS]

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

The word "enthusiast" is one that seems to have connotations to railways these days, but a dictionary definition I saw stated....

"A person who is very interested in a particular activity or subject".

 

[Sonik]

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.

Aside from Leeds station (which is still being looked at) that's essentially what the IRP aims to deliver AFAICS. Albeit Hope Valley falls under 'wider options'.

I'd especially consider the suggestion that HS2 Picadily be connected to the existing line at Ashburys, such that TPU can become 'NPR' until the new line to Marsden gets built (if it ever does).

But TBH no one seems to be moving any of this forward. It's not clear yet who is responsible for actually delivering NPR, as HS2 apparently have not been asked to look at anything besides the passive provision. Of course once HS2 to Manchester is underway the bits connecting towards Warington and Leeds become a bit of a forgone conclusion, which is perhaps why nothing else has been announced, given the local politics.

 

[The Ham]

Given that the M62 carries 90,000 vehicles a day (2021 manual count), aiming to take 10% of that to rail would require capacity for 300 cars per hour average, if we assume 1.2 people per car that's 360 seats per hour average, in each direction, to allow for some comfort (and for some tidal flows) that's 500 extra seats an hour in each direction.

That's not far off an extra 10 coach TPE service between Leeds and Manchester every hour and we've only set our targets at 10% of one road.

As such, whilst existing upgrades could work, if we are serious about reducing our use of cars (and even EV's only bring us to about the average of rail in terms of per km emissions - and rail is currently using a lot of diesel, so there's plenty of scope for rail to reduce its average) then we need big projects (such as NPR) which cuts journey times to attract car users.

As such, whilst if we only look at ongoing rail use growth in isolation (say) 3% per year we may only need to cater for 250 passengers for every 100 in 30 years time then only upgrades to the existing network appears reasonable that's potentially only part of future passenger numbers.

Therefore the development of NPR would likely be looking to attract non rail users in its development, much like HS2 does.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

As such, whilst existing upgrades could work, if we are serious about reducing our use of cars (and even EV's only bring us to about the average of rail in terms of per km emissions - and rail is currently using a lot of diesel, so there's plenty of scope for rail to reduce its average) then we need big projects (such as NPR) which cuts journey times to attract car users.

The current round of rail strikes is what seems to be "the never-ending story" and a reminder to all motorists of the travel disruptions caused by these.

 

[daodao]

The current round of rail strikes is what seems to be "the never-ending story" and a reminder to all motorists of the travel disruptions caused by these.

It isn't just the strikes though. The inability of most of the TOCs to run a reliable service, as per the originally published timetable (not the "timetable of the day"), particularly in NW England, is also driving passengers away. There is a good case for putting passenger rail developments in NW England on hold pending resolution of these issues, and then re-assessing current and future demand, before spending significant capital sums on railway development. Covid/working from home has also affected public transport requirements, so pre-2020 travel data should be taken with a pinch of salt.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

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

"Highly offensive" really?

Sure, not everyone will be offended by the same things but I don't think anything that someone might post on a fairly niche discussion forum could ever be accurately described as such. Mildly irritating might be nearer the mark. Let's keep a bit of perspective eh?

 

[Manutd1999]

I'd especially consider the suggestion that HS2 Picadily be connected to the existing line at Ashburys, such that TPU can become 'NPR' until the new line to Marsden gets built (if it ever does).

Even before HS2 Piccadilly is completed, this might become quite important.

The original TRU scope envisaged the 4ph fast services going to Victoria, with 2ph semi-fast going to Piccadilly via Ashburys. With the evolution of HS2/IRP since then, it may be beneficial to swap this around. 4ph could terminate in the main shed at Piccadilly, with 2ph semi-fast continuing to Liverpool via Victoria.

This would also give better access from Leeds to Piccadilly, potentially removing the need for some Victoria trains to continue via the Ordsall Chord to the Airport.

 

[Glenn1969]

West Yorkshire has a Mayor and devolved powers over transport. It has just put 40 schemes on hold including the Halifax Station Gateway and other rail projects to cut costs because of inflation

With this background how can NPR expect to get shovels in the ground or indeed TRU not end up delayed ?

 

[Greybeard33]

Even before HS2 Piccadilly is completed, this might become quite important.

The original TRU scope envisaged the 4ph fast services going to Victoria, with 2ph semi-fast going to Piccadilly via Ashburys. With the evolution of HS2/IRP since then, it may be beneficial to swap this around. 4ph could terminate in the main shed at Piccadilly, with 2ph semi-fast continuing to Liverpool via Victoria.

This would also give better access from Leeds to Piccadilly, potentially removing the need for some Victoria trains to continue via the Ordsall Chord to the Airport.

The Piccadilly main shed surely has insufficient platform capacity to take 4ph fast from TRU.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Even before HS2 Piccadilly is completed, this might become quite important.

The original TRU scope envisaged the 4ph fast services going to Victoria, with 2ph semi-fast going to Piccadilly via Ashburys. With the evolution of HS2/IRP since then, it may be beneficial to swap this around. 4ph could terminate in the main shed at Piccadilly, with 2ph semi-fast continuing to Liverpool via Victoria.

This would also give better access from Leeds to Piccadilly, potentially removing the need for some Victoria trains to continue via the Ordsall Chord to the Airport.

But that would undermine spending millions on upgrading freight lines and a new line to Warrington that we don't actually need

 

[CrossNorthPr]

I'd especially consider the suggestion that HS2 Picadily be connected to the existing line at Ashburys, such that TPU can become 'NPR' until the new line to Marsden gets built (if it ever does).

That is most likely the current thought in government atm, at least the ones behind the Dis-"Integrated Rail Plan"

The trouble comes through when you reverse services using HS2 out of Piccadilly HS station then onto one of the most congested and lines in the country (aside from castlefield) that is renowned for causing cancellations and delays across the entire rail network in the north of England. There's no way you could realistically timetable those services to match up with HS2. You'd basically import mass delays and cancellations onto a brand new high speed line (HS2) which would be a ludicrous thing to do. The reversing scenario was (just about) somewhat tenable when the suggestion was to reverse onto a whole new line to Leeds from Manchester. When it was cut back to Marsden it lost any credibility. To cut the entire thing would go down as one of the most ridiculous thing to do with high speed rail trains in the world. We'd build in frequent cancelations and delays into a brand new network. The two types of lines just cannot mix.

 

[The Ham]

It isn't just the strikes though. The inability of most of the TOCs to run a reliable service, as per the originally published timetable (not the "timetable of the day"), particularly in NW England, is also driving passengers away. There is a good case for putting passenger rail developments in NW England on hold pending resolution of these issues, and then re-assessing current and future demand, before spending significant capital sums on railway development. Covid/working from home has also affected public transport requirements, so pre-2020 travel data should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Yet when there's not been strikes passenger numbers have been seen as high as 95% of the pre Covid levels, so if the railways (most likely the government) sorted things out there wouldn't be much difference in passenger numbers.

Arguably of things were running well or may well be that overall the finances of the railways (whilst income would be spread in a different way) might not be that much further behind the passenger numbers.

 

[Greybeard33]

That is most likely the current thought in government atm, at least the ones behind the Dis-"Integrated Rail Plan"

Source? Official Government policy is still to complete TRU and build the new line from Piccadilly to Marsden, as per the IRP.

 

[Glenn1969]

The IRP gives zero benefit to most of Yorkshire or the North East but I'm not convinced anything else is affordable.

Personally I would focus on wires going up on the Calder Valley, Hope Valley and Tyne Valley lines after the line through Huddersfield has been electrified. I would also do something about the dismal Leeds- Sheffield service. I'm not sure just what though

 

[Bantamzen]

West Yorkshire has a Mayor and devolved powers over transport. It has just put 40 schemes on hold including the Halifax Station Gateway and other rail projects to cut costs because of inflation

With this background how can NPR expect to get shovels in the ground or indeed TRU not end up delayed ?

The chances of NPR getting built have not changed following this announcement, but then they were zero to begin with. As much as I'd love to see a faster alignment under the Pennines, the costs would be astronomical. Its taken long enough just to get a viable plan going for TRU, and even that won't see completion under the next decade.

 

[CrossNorthPr]

I'm excited to announce that CrossNorth Programme now has the support of members of MCC, TfGM and just recently adopted as policy for Sustainable Transport Midlands (press release out tomorrow) A meeting and presentation will take place on Thursday with the Director of City Centre Growth & Infrastructure. If they are in support of the proposal, it then goes to GMCA level, then TfN with funding to follow. Network rail are seriously considering it as an alternative to the Castlefield Corridor Upgrade Programme also.

The goal here is to work with TfN, rather than competing with them. CNP's scope is now limited to the section of the line through Manchester following meetings with stakeholders, which many agree will release the bottleneck some time before the full NPR network is complete with an estimated delivery time of 12 years.

It's incredible how much this has taken off. It quite literally started off with a red pen and now I'm talking to civil servants , councillors and transport organisations almost daily!

It's "On Track" you could say!

CrossNorth Programme provides excellent connectivity and over twice the capacity than running NPR via HS2
-More Trains
-More Destinations
-Higher Reliability
-Allows the creation of a Greater Manchester Metro
-Benefits delivered sooner

#NorthernPowerhouseRail

 

[Glenn1969]

I'm excited to announce that CrossNorth Programme now has the support of members of MCC, TfGM and just recently adopted as policy for Sustainable Transport Midlands (press release out tomorrow) A meeting and presentation will take place on Thursday with the Director of City Centre Growth & Infrastructure. If they are in support of the proposal, it then goes to GMCA level, then TfN with funding to follow. Network rail are seriously considering it as an alternative to the Castlefield Corridor Upgrade Programme also.

The goal here is to work with TfN, rather than competing with them. CNP's scope is now limited to the section of the line through Manchester following meetings with stakeholders, which many agree will release the bottleneck some time before the full NPR network is complete with an estimated delivery time of 12 years.

It's incredible how much this has taken off. It quite literally started off with a red pen and now I'm talking to civil servants , councillors and transport organisations almost daily!

It's "On Track" you could say!

CrossNorth Programme provides excellent connectivity and over twice the capacity than running NPR via HS2
-More Trains
-More Destinations
-Higher Reliability
-Allows the creation of a Greater Manchester Metro
-Benefits delivered sooner

#NorthernPowerhouseRail

Only on track when approved and funded by Government of course. I'll believe it when I see shovels in the ground

 

[zwk500]

I'm excited to announce that CrossNorth Programme now has the support of members of MCC, TfGM and just recently adopted as policy for Sustainable Transport Midlands (press release out tomorrow) A meeting and presentation will take place on Thursday with the Director of City Centre Growth & Infrastructure. If they are in support of the proposal, it then goes to GMCA level, then TfN with funding to follow. Network rail are seriously considering it as an alternative to the Castlefield Corridor Upgrade Programme also.

The goal here is to work with TfN, rather than competing with them. CNP's scope is now limited to the section of the line through Manchester following meetings with stakeholders, which many agree will release the bottleneck some time before the full NPR network is complete with an estimated delivery time of 12 years.

It's incredible how much this has taken off. It quite literally started off with a red pen and now I'm talking to civil servants , councillors and transport organisations almost daily!

It's "On Track" you could say!

CrossNorth Programme provides excellent connectivity and over twice the capacity than running NPR via HS2
-More Trains
-More Destinations
-Higher Reliability
-Allows the creation of a Greater Manchester Metro
-Benefits delivered sooner

#NorthernPowerhouseRail

I really would temper your enthusiasm until people start talking about serious levels of feasibility study funding. Your full draft had some big holes it was glossing over, and NR couldn't get funding for 2 extra platforms at Piccadilly, so not sure how they think there'll be funding for a tunnel under Manchester.

Talking to people is very cheap in government. They'll talk to anybody if it helps them look like they're doing something. But it's what they're talking about that's the key. If they're talking about procuring £80,000 for a high-level timetable study, or £150,000 for a tunnelling feasibility report, then we can say it's "On Track".

 

[Halifaxlad]

I'm excited to announce that CrossNorth Programme now has the support of members of MCC, TfGM and just recently adopted as policy for Sustainable Transport Midlands (press release out tomorrow) A meeting and presentation will take place on Thursday with the Director of City Centre Growth & Infrastructure. If they are in support of the proposal, it then goes to GMCA level, then TfN with funding to follow. Network rail are seriously considering it as an alternative to the Castlefield Corridor Upgrade Programme also.

The goal here is to work with TfN, rather than competing with them. CNP's scope is now limited to the section of the line through Manchester following meetings with stakeholders, which many agree will release the bottleneck some time before the full NPR network is complete with an estimated delivery time of 12 years.

It's incredible how much this has taken off. It quite literally started off with a red pen and now I'm talking to civil servants , councillors and transport organisations almost daily!

It's "On Track" you could say!

CrossNorth Programme provides excellent connectivity and over twice the capacity than running NPR via HS2
-More Trains
-More Destinations
-Higher Reliability
-Allows the creation of a Greater Manchester Metro
-Benefits delivered sooner

#NorthernPowerhouseRail

Congratulations!

I am a bit dissapointed that it's now limited to the section of line through Manchester as a tunnel under Littleborough could have been considered in these options the goverment is looking at with regards to Bradford. I was hoping you would capitalise on that too so that parties on both sides of the Pennines would support it.

 

[Chester1]

That is most likely the current thought in government atm, at least the ones behind the Dis-"Integrated Rail Plan"

The trouble comes through when you reverse services using HS2 out of Piccadilly HS station then onto one of the most congested and lines in the country (aside from castlefield) that is renowned for causing cancellations and delays across the entire rail network in the north of England. There's no way you could realistically timetable those services to match up with HS2. You'd basically import mass delays and cancellations onto a brand new high speed line (HS2) which would be a ludicrous thing to do. The reversing scenario was (just about) somewhat tenable when the suggestion was to reverse onto a whole new line to Leeds from Manchester. When it was cut back to Marsden it lost any credibility. To cut the entire thing would go down as one of the most ridiculous thing to do with high speed rail trains in the world. We'd build in frequent cancelations and delays into a brand new network. The two types of lines just cannot mix.

HS2 is due to run underneath Ardwick train depot and then curve towards Piccadilly HS2 station. A link to the conventional network could run just north of it, going over the Phillips Park line. The alignment from there to Guide Bridge could be reinstated as four tracks. Guide Bridge station could be moved 300m onto line to Glossop to fit in four tracks. That would enable dedicated use of two tracks all the way from Piccadilly HS2 to Stalybridge station. I am aware this would be a huge step down but its a bit of a straw man to suggest that using TRU for Leeds to Birmingham requires Piccadilly HS2 platforms to connect via the tracks used to access the main shed at Piccadilly. I am not even sure that would be possible due to the gradient and curves required.

 

[Glenn1969]

HS2 is due to run underneath Ardwick train depot and then curve towards Piccadilly HS2 station. A link to the conventional network could run just north of it, going over the Phillips Park line. The alignment from there to Guide Bridge could be reinstated as four tracks. Guide Bridge station could be moved 300m onto line to Glossop to fit in four tracks. That would enable dedicated use of two tracks all the way from Piccadilly HS2 to Stalybridge station. I am aware this would be a huge step down but its a bit of a straw man to suggest that using TRU for Leeds to Birmingham requires Piccadilly HS2 platforms to connect via the tracks used to access the main shed at Piccadilly. I am not even sure that would be possible due to the gradient and curves required.

Where's the funding for this or the proposed tunnel scheme coming from ?

 

[Chester1]

Where's the funding for this or the proposed tunnel scheme coming from ?

If the government decides to use TRU for Leeds to Birmingham services then it will have to connect Piccadilly HS2 station to the conventional network somewhere. Connecting near Ardwick train depot is probably the only alignment that would work. The government has currently agreed to fund a new alignment from Warrington to Marsden via HS2 in the IRP. Do you think that the government (including the next one) won't build NPR in any form whatsoever? Id hope at minimum they could at least do Warrington to HS2, link Piccadilly HS2 station to the conventional network and make the necessary upgrades to Liverpool - Warrington and Ashburys to Leeds.

 

[CrossNorthPr]

Congratulations!

I am a bit dissapointed that it's now limited to the section of line through Manchester as a tunnel under Littleborough could have been considered in these options the goverment is looking at with regards to Bradford. I was hoping you would capitalise on that too so that parties on both sides of the Pennines would support it.

Thank you for the support!

Yes whilst personally I think that was a good option, it may differ from existing plans by TfN. The central core through Manchester being redesigned proving a more operationally viable and elegant solution, and one that benefits can be felt sooner (phase 1: City Centre Tunnel) there are still huge benefits to be felt in West Yorkshire with more reliable and frequent trains.

Also with the existing surface tracks relieved of intercity trains there is a good chance the “metro style” network would reach as far as Halifax/Bradford providing a huge step-change in frequency!

 

[tomuk]

I'm excited to announce that CrossNorth Programme now has the support of members of MCC, TfGM and just recently adopted as policy for Sustainable Transport Midlands (press release out tomorrow) A meeting and presentation will take place on Thursday with the Director of City Centre Growth & Infrastructure. If they are in support of the proposal, it then goes to GMCA level, then TfN with funding to follow. Network rail are seriously considering it as an alternative to the Castlefield Corridor Upgrade Programme also.

The goal here is to work with TfN, rather than competing with them. CNP's scope is now limited to the section of the line through Manchester following meetings with stakeholders, which many agree will release the bottleneck some time before the full NPR network is complete with an estimated delivery time of 12 years.

It's incredible how much this has taken off. It quite literally started off with a red pen and now I'm talking to civil servants , councillors and transport organisations almost daily!

It's "On Track" you could say!

CrossNorth Programme provides excellent connectivity and over twice the capacity than running NPR via HS2
-More Trains
-More Destinations
-Higher Reliability
-Allows the creation of a Greater Manchester Metro
-Benefits delivered sooner

#NorthernPowerhouseRail

Sustainable Transport Midlands an 'organisation' with a 16 year old chief exec! oh and Gareth Deniss the most expert of experts is also on the board.

 

[Halifaxlad]

Where's the funding for this or the proposed tunnel scheme coming from ?

Presumably from the 5 odd billion that's been set aside for Man to Marsden!

Also with the existing surface tracks relieved of intercity trains there is a good chance the “metro style” network would reach as far as Halifax/Bradford providing a huge step-change in frequency!

I don't think Bradford will be happy until we can deliver a Brad - Man journey time in half an hour or less.
As for TFN plan that will probably never happen although I can understand why they might not support anything else, which is a shame as the Cross North PR proposal would be a slight tweak to the proposed tunnel to Marsden (as far as the section to Sowerby is concerned) and could easily gain support from Bradford and West Yorkshire.

HS2 is due to run underneath Ardwick train depot and then curve towards Piccadilly HS2 station. A link to the conventional network could run just north of it, going over the Phillips Park line. The alignment from there to Guide Bridge could be reinstated as four tracks. Guide Bridge station could be moved 300m onto line to Glossop to fit in four tracks. That would enable dedicated use of two tracks all the way from Piccadilly HS2 to Stalybridge station. I am aware this would be a huge step down but its a bit of a straw man to suggest that using TRU for Leeds to Birmingham requires Piccadilly HS2 platforms to connect via the tracks used to access the main shed at Piccadilly. I am not even sure that would be possible due to the gradient and curves required.

You would still be stuck for the section between Stalybridge and Marsden. You might as well combine both the plan with a tunnel to Marsden and Cross North PR proposal to follow the line to Rochdale. That would suit this idea of tunneling under Manchester City Centre.

 

[Glenn1969]

Presumably from the 5 odd billion that's been set aside for Man to Marsden!


I don't think Bradford will be happy until we can deliver a Brad - Man journey time in half an hour or less.
As for TFN plan that will probably never happen although I can understand why they might not support anything else, which is a shame as the Cross North PR proposal would be a slight tweak to the proposed tunnel to Marsden (as far as the section to Sowerby is concerned) and could easily gain support from Bradford and West Yorkshire.


You would still be stuck for the section between Stalybridge and Marsden. You might as well combine both the plan with a tunnel to Marsden and Cross North PR proposal to follow the line to Rochdale. That would suit this idea of tunneling under Manchester City Centre.

The Bradford schemes and the tunnel aren't happening because they were dismissed as too expensive. Pretty sure the tunnel was £8bn and the Bradford scheme was an extra £8bn on top of the agreed scheme in IRP

 

[A0]

Sustainable Transport Midlands an 'organisation' with a 16 year old chief exec! oh and Gareth Deniss the most expert of experts is also on the board.

And thats an "organisation" with precisely no record of delivery - not one of its "schemes" or "projects" is being progressed.

It's got parallels with Accenture in the business world - produces lots of powerpoint presentations, spend alot of time tapping up "stakeholders", claims to have lots of knowledge and experience in reality are a bunch of amateurs who never deliver. Only difference is Accenture somehow get paid by their customers whereas I sincerely hope these guys aren't getting any money from.public bodies.

 

[CrossNorthPr]

Some further development on the Salford Interchange station. Following studies into engineering, operational and cost options a station box with over-site development is now the preferred approach. This has a better BCR and connectivity with existing lines which under these proposals would run at metro frequency. That’s 30+tph (metro) and 12-14tph (CN) through Salford Interchange making it a new transport hub, ideal for people in north Manchester to access future intercity e-w services without traversing castlefield to reach Piccadilly.

 

[Manutd1999]

16ph through Piccadilly seems hgihly ambitious, even with a metro style service. Are you assuming Piccadilly platforms 15/16 will also be built?

Similarly 12-14ph "CrossNorth", is there really demand for such a high frequency service? I would have thought 6-8ph would be more reasonable.

I'd also be interested to hear more about your reasoning for having new stations at "Lincoln Sq" and "Salford Quays". The key benefit of your proposal is the tunnel under Manchester, which can be delivered without these 2x new stations. If they are more of a 'nice-to-have', it could be beneficial to present them as options to help lower the headline costs?

 

[javelin]

If the idea is to remove fast intercity services from Castlefield, you can't force passengers to crawl through up to 4 stations through central Manchester in the middle of their trip across the Pennines. You are negating all the time-saving benefits of having ~125-140 mph lines in the first place. The services being removed are nothing like Thameslink, it needs be closer in concept to HS2, e.g. very limited stop. Ideally there would be just one Manchester stop for intercity services.

Though suboptimal, you might just about get away with Piccadilly and Salford Interchange because of the connectivity benefits, but Lincoln Square and Salford Quays are totally unnecessary and could be served better by other means (surface Metrolink/metro tunnels/RER or S-bahn tunnels). You shouldn't try to do multiple things with one piece of infrastructure, it will do all of them badly.

In short, this idea feels like it's got an identity crisis.


As an aside, there are repeated mentions of the Salford Quays stop 'relieving' Metrolink, but this is only true in the sense of potentially removing passengers from the Eccles line into Manchester. In reality this is likely to be offset by Salford Quays passengers interchanging with Metrolink for last mile travel anyway. The quantum of Metrolink services is still constrained by Cornbrook Viaduct though, so it does little for Metrolink capacity. That said, as above, you shouldn't be using an intercity line to try that anyway.