-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Northern Powerhouse Rail / HS3 Timeline and Ideas
- Thread starter Starmill
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
absolutelymilk
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 1,242
I think the important image is p.45, as suggested before TfN want a new line between Liverpool to south of Manchester Airport via Warrington and one between Manchester and Leeds via Bradford
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
And that's about as much as you get in terms of detail. What a let-down.
They repeat the current Network Rail/DfT position on TP electrification ("where it brings benefits"), and do not even offer a set of CP6 projects.
We can look forward to a 28 minute journey from Manchester to Liverpool (via Man Airport and HS2), and they dare to quote in comparison the current 50 minute time of the CLC services from Piccadilly rather than the 32 minutes from Victoria via the Chat Moss line.
How, pray, will they route a new line through Warrington, for a 15 minute journey from the Airport to Liverpool?
No detail on cross-Manchester routes and options (bar a tunnel or turn-back at Piccadilly).
Business case by the end of 2018. Always another year before they come up with practicable plans.
They've spend quite a lot of money on the format and presentation of the document, and made the meat almost unreadable.
Actually there is no meat.
Something for the bin, I think.
I gather John Prescott walked out of the presentation. For once I agree with him.
[/rant]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-42663047
Well at least they haven't binned half of it, which I was almost expecting in the current climate. But yes, the tail of Manchester Airport continues to wag the dog of public transport across the north of England
Last edited:
At least the lack of detail allows many options to be evaluated. This is a very high level corridor analysis that sets the scene for such detail to be developed. The page 45 map for example doesn't actually identify which part of the station complex different services will use at Leeds. The page 47 map of "The North’s passenger railway network and stations" is a good reference overall, but is misleading and inconsistent with respect to planned HS2 routes and stations. While it shows Sheffield as an 'HS2 station' even though it clearly will NOT be entirely new construction on a new route, the only other HS2 stations indicated ARE new construction on new route. To the casual lay reader, that could imply the very long list of northern stations on the conventional network that are planned to be served by suitable trains branching from the new HS trunk, including long distance extensions to the north east and Scotland as well as Liverpool, will not be served at all. Very poor.
I think one additional thing that should be addressed is the lack of connectivity between Cheshire and Yorkshire. At present, going from Leeds to Crewe, two of the largest stations in the north is extremely long and involves a change in Manchester, sometimes crossing the city. I would therefore like (once this is eventually implemented) for the following services to operate on the line:
2ph Crewe HS2, Manchester Airport HS2, Manchester Piccadilly Low Level, Bradford New Station, Leeds, York, Darlington, Durham, Newcastle
2ph Liverpool, Warrington, Crewe HS2 (new link)
2ph Liverpool, Warrington, Manchester Airport HS2 (new link), Manchester Piccadilly Low Level, Huddersfield, Leeds, York, Darlington, Durham, Newcastle
2ph Liverpool, Manchester Airport, Manchester Piccadilly, Bradford, Leeds, Hull
2ph Manchester Piccadilly, Sheffield
2ph Manchester Piccadilly, Huddersfield, Leeds, Hull
2ph Leeds, Sheffield
2ph Newcastle, Durham, Darlington, York, Sheffield
*These services are in addition to the proposed timetabling for HS2 (4ph Manchester High Level-London, 3ph Manchester High Level-Birmingham, 4ph Leeds HS2-London, 3ph Leeds HS2-Birmingham)
This would therefore provide services across the North, connecting to HS2 services, and providing faster links between cities as well as serving junction stations at Crewe, Manchester Piccadilly and Leeds to provide links to other routes. As the new route states it can run 8 trains an hour, I think these services could be achievable
2ph Crewe HS2, Manchester Airport HS2, Manchester Piccadilly Low Level, Bradford New Station, Leeds, York, Darlington, Durham, Newcastle
2ph Liverpool, Warrington, Crewe HS2 (new link)
2ph Liverpool, Warrington, Manchester Airport HS2 (new link), Manchester Piccadilly Low Level, Huddersfield, Leeds, York, Darlington, Durham, Newcastle
2ph Liverpool, Manchester Airport, Manchester Piccadilly, Bradford, Leeds, Hull
2ph Manchester Piccadilly, Sheffield
2ph Manchester Piccadilly, Huddersfield, Leeds, Hull
2ph Leeds, Sheffield
2ph Newcastle, Durham, Darlington, York, Sheffield
*These services are in addition to the proposed timetabling for HS2 (4ph Manchester High Level-London, 3ph Manchester High Level-Birmingham, 4ph Leeds HS2-London, 3ph Leeds HS2-Birmingham)
This would therefore provide services across the North, connecting to HS2 services, and providing faster links between cities as well as serving junction stations at Crewe, Manchester Piccadilly and Leeds to provide links to other routes. As the new route states it can run 8 trains an hour, I think these services could be achievable
Where does all this leave Liverpool-London services on HS2? Are they still going to run via Rincon? Or, now that someone else's budget is going to fund a high speed line into Liverpool, and there will be a (potentially much better connected) railhead for that part of Cheshire at Warrington, are HS2 going to drop the absurd fiction that Runcorn is a vital calling point and divert all Liverpool trains via Warrington? Is the hourly Warrington service on HS2 going to be combined with the 2 Liverpools? And if Liverpool justified 2 HS2 services hourly, and Warrington 1, will this mean 3 per hour to Liverpool via Warrington?
I would think that if the line can be delivered by 2032, and Crewe has a northern junction, the service pattern will be:
1ph London Euston, Old Oak Common, Crewe (service split):
a) Warrington and Liverpool
b) Warrington Bank Quay, Wigan North Western and Preston
1ph London Euston, Old Oak Common, Birmingham Interchange, Crewe (service split):
a) Runcorn and Liverpool
b) Preston and Lancaster
I guess its at least some progress. Its taken 3 and a half years since the Northern Powerhouse initiative was started to get to this stage, which is slow. However I am sure plenty of Northerners would have found stuff to whinge about if the Tories had just imposed a central plan. The bigger transport news of the year will be the decision over how and when the existing transpennine mainline will be upgraded.
No mention of HS3, and surprisingly little progress made on the framework of the plan.
I expect that this we be reported as being welcomed by the DfT but that these proposals are gong to get knocked back heavily. You have to ask what TfN have been doing all this time.
I expect that this we be reported as being welcomed by the DfT but that these proposals are gong to get knocked back heavily. You have to ask what TfN have been doing all this time.
The name HS3 was dropped ages ago, when Osborne was still Chancellor, first in favour of another term that I forget, then that in turn was replaced by Northern Powerhouse Rail, which is still the current name.
But it is disappointing that there aren't more details yet. And when we do get more detail, there will be big fights over that detail, when it comes to houses being demolished etc.
One thing I find surprising is how much of it is still a separate network from the existing network. I and many other people were expecting it to fade out into a collection of upgrades to the existing network. At least that's what I was expecting until last autumn, when it emerged that they were talking about Manchester to Leeds via Bradford rather than Hudds.
That is exactly my point - as in previous comments.
It is also the case the NPR will, under current proposals, be less than what was hinted at for HS3.
There is a bit more detail - but around timelines and sequencing of work, but not enough for any reasonable analysis.
I would not take the documents as being too literate at this stage; I suspect that they are using a broad-brush approach at this stage until they have completed more thorough analysis. A lot will get knocked and it is a moving situation.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
How many more times will the name change before something gets built?
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 31,413
I don’t really understand why NPR discusssion is still located within this dedicated high speed rail sub-forum...
paul1609
Established Member
Its a scam by the north to avoid paying the +HS3 fares that Kent would have insisted on in the name of North v South Parity.
I can just imagine the Yorkshire reaction to Leeds -Manchester Route +HS3 day return that'll be £36!
The latest proposals seem more integrated with HS2 and less integrated with traditional lines than I would have expected 3 months ago.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,720
Its still going to be operating at speeds higher than found anywhere on the UK Rail Network outside the HS1 and HS2, as far as we can tell.
What is? There is no firm proposal for any new line. No one knows the benefits of such a line, the costs, whether it'd actually be worth being high speed or even a vague idea of where it should go. It may yet turn out that doing TPE electrification properly would deliver 90% of the benefits at 10% of the cost of a new line. Most importantly there is no funding and no likelihood of there ever being any.
Rather alarming (if I'm understanding it correctly) for anyone supporting a new line should be the tables showing no rail corridor having maximum growth potential of more than 104% by 2050. In other words there is no scenario in which making TPE an 8 car railway wouldn't provide sufficient capacity.
Thats frankly ludicrous if that includes the peaks. The currently TPE franchise nearly doubles capacity by 2025! Presumably growth would then be expected to be nearly stagnant for 25 years to not exceed 104% growth.
Journey time seems to be the biggest limitation of the Standedge line with 40 minutes being hard to achieve, let alone 30 minutes. There is a compromise between capacity and speed, especially if the old 4 track sections are rebuilt.
matacaster
On Moderation
- Joined
- 19 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 1,602
Whilst I can see some justification for NPR to go via Bradford, for political and population reasons, I cannot see how how a high-ish speed line via Bradford and the Calder valley route can be built at an affordable cost. Tunnelling or Bridging Bradford centre is fraught with problems, suggesting a park and ride at Low Moor might be a more realistic alternative. Although in itself pricey, reinstatement of Bailiff bridge connection to Mirfield (there are some other obstacles like missing bridges and parts built on) would allow Bradford trains to go via the Stanedge route with four tracking from Mirfield through Huddersfield and bored out tunnels at Stanedge. A new build cut-off to avoid sharp curvature at Stalybridge would improve journey times. Would this produce the quickest route between Leeds and Manchester at lowest cost?
Probably but it TfN seem to be keen to serve Bradford and also avoid disruption to the Standedge route. It would need significant work to both 4 track and increase speed therefore the aim seems to be to electrify and cut journey time to 40 minutes then focus on the Calder Valley route. Tunnelling from Littleborough to Halifax would be a very fast route and freight and local services could stay on the existing route. Victoria to Littleborough line speed could be increased again.
matacaster
On Moderation
- Joined
- 19 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 1,602
I can see that that would be pretty straight and also accept that there would be less disruption by having two alternative good routes. I do wonder though at the cost of your tunnel and the necessary gradients. The pennines are characterised by high-ish peaks and low-ish valleys. I wonder how your tunnel would dovetail into the existing railway - particularly at Halifax. I don't know much about Littleborough, but it may be easier.
quantinghome
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 2,264
That tunnel would be similar in length to those built for the Bologna-Florence high speed rail line. In fact I would go further and suggest there should be two main tunnels (i) from Littleborough to around Luddenden Foot and (ii) on from there to Bradford. It's a large investment for sure, but certainly a more manageable scale than the Alp base tunnels.
But we have to look at the governance of the area's involved. A lack of devolved government up north makes any plans like this far more complicated than the equivalent in Italy
quantinghome
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 2,264
@PR1 - true, that's where the problem is, but ultimately NPR will not work without this scale of intervention.
Jorge Da Silva
Established Member
Why isn’t Glasgow/Edinburgh (via Preston) on the NPR map? This would facilitate a regular Liverpool-Glasgow/Edinburgh, Manchester-Glasgow/Edinburgh.
WatcherZero
Established Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 10,272
There already is a regular Manchester Glasgow/Edinburgh and limited Liverpool-Scotland services will be gradually scaled up to meet demand.
The West Coast to Scotland services dont require new infrastructure so isn't on NPR map.
The West Coast to Scotland services dont require new infrastructure so isn't on NPR map.
- Status