Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) - Suggestions and speculation

daodao · 29 Nov 2020

MarkRedon said:
Playing (very loosely!) saintly defender, that may be so - but I doubt it's a zero-sum game. In an ideal world (not our pox-ridden Brexit-infested one) UK plc would try to position itself "globally"(!) on a northern arc that linked Dublin, Belfast, Liverpool, Manchester, Bradford, Huddersfield, Sheffield, Leeds and Hull to Rotterdam, Amsterdam and North Germany. Very high capability transport links are needed to bind it all together. That vision has existed in Brussels, does exist in the northern English cities - but is not shared in London.

Because London is by far the most important place in England to/from which transport links need to be focussed from an economic perspective, rather than g-dforsaken decaying towns and cities in northern England. NPR won't see the light of day except as a token improvement to some inter-regional services across the Pennines. By contrast, I think it is likely that HS2 will be progressed further, as it binds the English provinces more closely to London and encourages central direction, which is what Westminster wants. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

RailUK Forums

edwin_m · 29 Nov 2020

daodao said:
Because London is by far the most important place in England to/from which transport links need to be focussed from an economic perspective, rather than g-dforsaken decaying towns and cities in northern England. NPR won't see the light of day except as a token improvement to some inter-regional services across the Pennines. By contrast, I think it is likely that HS2 will be progressed further, as it binds the English provinces more closely to London and encourages central direction, which is what Westminster wants. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

And if the second part of your post comes true, it probably ensures that the first part continues to be true. NPR is supposed to break out of that vicious circle.

Ianno87 · 29 Nov 2020

Greybeard33 said:
In view of the political importance of the Red Wall agenda, I suspect the route decision will be made by No.10, not the Transport Secretary or the Chancellor. And will depend on which adviser has the PM's ear at the time.

The article says that the Huddersfield route would be 3 minutes slower, i.e. 29m 30s from Leeds to Manchester.

The golden question is whether that 3 minutes is worth £4bn.

MarkRedon · 29 Nov 2020

Investment is about spending money to make more money. Obviously, where the seedcorn investment is largely public - as with new railways - priorities have to be established. London and the south-east don't need seedcorn investment. Eastern and central England are to get East West Rail. Northern England does need investment which helps the region. HS2 alone risks enhancing the dominance of London., If investing in Bradford NPR pays off, even the Southern rentiers will benefit.

My main point is that the marginal return on levelling up Bradford (annual GDP £9.5bn) is likely to exceed that in (stronger, because already better-connected) Huddersfield. Ergo, NPR should serve Bradford.

Ianno87 · 29 Nov 2020

MarkRedon said:
Investment is about spending money to make more money. Obviously, where the seedcorn investment is largely public - as with new railways - priorities have to be established. London and the south-east don't need seedcorn investment. Eastern and central England are to get East West Rail. Northern England does need investment which helps the region. HS2 alone risks enhancing the dominance of London., If investing in Bradford NPR pays off, even the Southern rentiers will benefit.

My main point is that the marginal return on levelling up Bradford (annual GDP £9.5bn) is likely to exceed that in (stronger, because already better-connected) Huddersfield. Ergo, NPR should serve Bradford.

But you could route NPR via Huddersfield (benefitting them) and have £4bn "change" to spend on Bradford. You could build a bloody good tram/metro system for that price, for example.

Halifaxlad · 29 Nov 2020

Ianno87 said:
But you could route NPR via Huddersfield (benefitting them) and have £4bn "change" to spend on Bradford. You could build a bloody good tram/metro system for that price, for example.

But a route via Huddersfield would simply be an upgraded Transpennine route, a route via Bradford would also dramatically improve rail links between places such as Halifax & Rochdale that a route via Huddersfield wouldn't!

Bald Rick · 29 Nov 2020

MarkRedon said:
My main point is that the marginal return on levelling up Bradford (annual GDP £9.5bn) is likely to exceed that in (stronger, because already better-connected) Huddersfield. Ergo, NPR should serve Bradford.

The marginal return may be greater, but will it be £4bn greater? If not, ergo, it should go via Huddersfield, no?

Halifaxlad said:
But a route via Huddersfield would simply be an upgraded Transpennine route, a route via Bradford would also dramatically improve rail links between places such as Halifax & Rochdale that a route via Huddersfield wouldn't!

You are making a very brave (some would say misguided) assumption that a route to Bradford would serve Rochdale and Halifax.

Ianno87 said:
But you could route NPR via Huddersfield (benefitting them) and have £4bn "change" to spend on Bradford. You could build a bloody good tram/metro system for that price, for example.

A world class tram system, several world class schools, hospitals, leisure facilities, etc

MarkRedon · 29 Nov 2020

Bald Rick said:
The marginal return may be greater, but will it be £4bn greater? If not, ergo, it should go via Huddersfield, no?

Neither you nor I can know in advance. £4bn up-front is a lot of money; amortised over 60 or 100 years, it's not a lot. My sense of fair-play and equity shouts for Bradford NPR. But this will ultimately be a political decision. I will have no direct influence on that decision. Politicians, flawed but often very well intentioned, will decide.

Barbara Castle remains somewhat of a hero to me. Should she have said yes to the Humber Bridge? Probably not, but it's there now and rather useful. Did she close some railways that 60/60 hindsight suggests should have been left open? Some, unquestionably. Will Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson make the right call on Huddersfield versus Bradford? I somehow doubt that it will be he who decides, given that that decision will probably not be made before he's moved on! But I do hope that he or his successor will listen to Northern politicians.

Is it right to argue for a Bradford routing? Mine is only one voice, one opinion. The most likely decision is perhaps no NPR, just transpennine upgrade - and that one, Huddersfield definitely benefits from!

Bletchleyite · 29 Nov 2020

I can't see any decent argument for not building the Humber Bridge.

HSTEd · 29 Nov 2020

Bletchleyite said:
I can't see any decent argument for not building the Humber Bridge.

The benefit cost ratio on it was not very good.

Purple Orange · 29 Nov 2020

HSTEd said:
The benefit cost ratio on it was not very good.

I suspect an awful lot of our infrastructure would have had a poor BCR if calculated. The GWML had great financial difficulties during construction and indeed our rail companies throughout history have been littered with examples of loss making operations. Yet we wouldn’t do without that infrastructure today.

NPR, whatever form it takes, may suffer the same issues. Personally I think the Huddersfield route using sections of the existing line will be what wins out.

YorksLad12 · 29 Nov 2020

Ianno87 said:
The golden question is whether that 3 minutes is worth £4bn.

We're building a high-speed line engineered for speeds not seen anywhere else in the world, which is pushing costs up. So... yes, it is. We're terribly British like that, spending money we haven't got for no good reason apart from 'national pride'.

Whatever you think of Bratfud as it is now (as a Leeds boy, that would be "not much" in my case) it's hard to argue against the fact that if it's reasonable to get Leeds to Manchester to under 30 minutes then it's reasonable to get Leeds to Bradford - neighbouring cities, less than nine miles apart - to under nine minutes. Or eight minutes and 30 seconds

I just wish we could bite the bullet and get Leeds-Sheffield down to 30 minutes regularly by the end of the decade.

Halifaxlad said:
But a route via Huddersfield would simply be an upgraded Transpennine route, a route via Bradford would also dramatically improve rail links between places such as Halifax & Rochdale that a route via Huddersfield wouldn't!

Bald Rick said:
You are making a very brave (some would say misguided) assumption that a route to Bradford would serve Rochdale and Halifax.

I'd assume that the existing (York-)Leeds-Bradford-Manchester fast services would use the new line, creating a few paths on the existing network that might improve various services. No-one needs a fast service to Halifax or Rochdale. Away from them, possibly... :lol:

bluenoxid · 29 Nov 2020

How many bell weather/Conservative constituencies does each route run through. If the Conservatives lost Pudsey (between Leeds and Bradford) recently, we would have had a Corbyn government.

Hophead · 29 Nov 2020

The notion that £4 billion saved by opting for the cheaper Huddersfield route would be spent on various infrastructure projects in and around Bradford seems to me to be wishful thinking to say the least.

Ianno87 · 29 Nov 2020

Hophead said:
The notion that £4 billion saved by opting for the cheaper Huddersfield route would be spent on various infrastructure projects in and around Bradford seems to me to be wishful thinking to say the least.

You could spend half a billion and still achieve a seismic transformation.

YorksLad12 said:
We're building a high-speed line engineered for speeds not seen anywhere else in the world, which is pushing costs up. So... yes, it is. We're terribly British like that, spending money we haven't got for no good reason apart from 'national pride'.

That's a different question. The marginal cost of engineering a new route for 360kmh vs 300kmh or whatever is relatively low - not much opportunity cost.

The extra £4bn to serve Bradford (or £4bn saved but not going to Bradford) *is* an opportunity cost for the 3 minutes saved/gained.

MarkRedon · 29 Nov 2020

Bletchleyite said:
I can't see any decent argument for not building the Humber Bridge.

The economic case for it was awful. Money was spent on the bridge at much the same time that British Rail was being starved of cash. The latter led to massive capital disinvestment - a successful BR manager was one who closed something. Great, that saved money - that has since had to be spent many times over in repairing the ravages of maintenance holidays, inappropriate closures, very expensive redoublings and the like. At that time, draughty Modernisation Plan DMUs were replaced by leaky Pacers, for both of which I was nevertheless grateful - it was nearly so very much worse (Serpell). Now, we should 'build back better and bolder' according to Johnson. That should include a better railway connecting the North (not just leading away from it!).

Senex · 29 Nov 2020

Greybeard33 said:
In view of the political importance of the Red Wall agenda, I suspect the route decision will be made by No.10, not the Transport Secretary or the Chancellor. And will depend on which adviser has the PM's ear at the time.

The article says that the Huddersfield route would be 3 minutes slower, i.e. 29m 30s from Leeds to Manchester.

I don't understand this. Huddersfield lies only very slightly to the side of a direct line from Manchester to Leeds, whereas the distance via Bradford is further, especially if you have to build a long and gentle curve to get a fast east-west route for a tunnelled central station. So what are the assumptions being made about both alignments if the longer Bradford route comes out at 26½ minutes non-stop while the shorter Huddersfield route comes out at 29½?

Ianno87 · 29 Nov 2020

Senex said:
I don't understand this. Huddersfield lies only very slightly to the side of a direct line from Manchester to Leeds, whereas the distance via Bradford is further, especially if you have to build a long and gentle curve to get a fast east-west route for a tunnelled central station. So what are the assumptions being made about both alignments if the longer Bradford route comes out at 26½ minutes non-stop while the shorter Huddersfield route comes out at 29½?

Perhaps tunnels on the Bradford route are harder to avoid - and once its in a tunnel you may as well build a straight line.

However Huddersfield takes more advtantage of natural geography to avoid tunnels - but the result is curvier (thus longer).

Just a guess.

HSTEd · 29 Nov 2020

£4bn could buy Bradford a very nice mini-metro...... (based on the example of Rennes)

Or a tram system that would be the equal of Sheffield's at least.

MarkRedon · 29 Nov 2020

HSTEd said:
£4bn could buy Bradford a very nice mini-metro...... (based on the example of Rennes)

Or a tram system that would be the equal of Sheffield's at least.

Ah yes, the Rennes metro - which I know very well, since I have lived in a tower block not a hundred metres from a Ligne B station under construction! The Rennes metro system, two lines, will have cost about 4 billion € or a little more - in almost flat terrain and in a very young city with plenty of space for expansion. Something similar in Bradford would be very, very much more expensive. Tram might be more doable, but even trolleybuses haven't happened.

MarkRedon said:
Ah yes, the Rennes metro - which I know very well, since I have lived in a tower block not a hundred metres from a Ligne B station under construction! The Rennes metro system, two lines, will have cost about 4 billion € or a little more - in almost flat terrain and in a very young city with plenty of space for expansion. It will have taken 36 years to build... Something similar in Bradford would be very, very much more expensive. Tram might be more doable, but even trolleybuses haven't happened.

grangergranger · 29 Nov 2020

Wouldn't 4bn be enough to even electrify the Calderdale line? That would lead to more faster and frequent trains to Bradford . You could even include ETCS in the package, am I right??

Class 170101 · 29 Nov 2020

I would say there is more merit in a HS route serving Bradford rather than Huddersfield if the current route via Huddersfield is electrified for convential speeds.

ABB125 · 29 Nov 2020

Class 170101 said:
I would say there is more merit in a HS route serving Bradford rather than Huddersfield if the current route via Huddersfield is electrified for convential speeds.

I have to agree with that - the Huddersfield route is having lots of money spent on it, so it doesn't necessarily "deserve" a new high-speed route as well.
Unless of course this unknown Huddersfield option incorporates aspects of the current route upgrade, hence why it's cheaper...

NotATrainspott · 30 Nov 2020

If the core decisions about NPR are political and essentially arbitrary, then it'll give the scheme a torrid time getting through all the stages to delivery. HS2 was an interesting scheme in that no one was ever really able to articulate a different coherent vision. As soon as you accept that you can't just upgrade the existing WCML, MML and ECML it's pretty much inevitable that you'll end up with a Phase 1-style line linking Euston, the Elizabeth line/Heathrow to the West Midlands and the WCML. A decision like going via Huddersfield or Bradford seems much more controversial, especially when local politics make it difficult to prioritise one centre over another.

Like I've been saying in the Phase 2b East thread I think it's better to think about NPR as a massive scheme to use new lines and other major interventions to make the current rail network work much better. It seems entirely sensible and achievable to build a network designed around 200m long classic-compatible trains capable of running at 230km/h (maybe up to 249km/h if there will be long stretches of shared HS2 mainline running). With that, you have the flexibility to use existing stations and lines in areas where that's achievable and worthwhile. It'd be just fine to have a fast tunnel under the Pennines and then send some trains onto a loop into the existing Huddersfield station.

The problem of the four competing (with Leeds obviously in front, but not being dominant enough to make the others irrelevant) urban areas of West Yorkshire can be better dealt with this way. Provide some sort of express route connecting each of them together, even if that means four-tracking some bits of classic line used today. Then link your fast TransPennine line into this web of upgraded tracks. You can then run whatever sorts of services you want. Manchester to Leeds via both Huddersfield and Bradford depending on what service you get, and so on. If it's going to be too expensive to four track or add new fast alignments, but it would be possible to use the current line for faster trains, then build a cheaper metro network in parallel and close the existing local stations.

InOban · 2 Mar 2021

Delivering a revised fare structure would have involved the renegotiation of every franchise since it would affect the TOC revenue.Which takes us back to the Treasury.

HSTEd · 2 Mar 2021

If Sheffield has a route north to HS2 and thus to Leeds, and there is a new Leeds-Manchester line...... is it even worth doing anything to Hope Valley for (long distance) passenger use?
Wouldn't it pretty much always be quicker to go around?

quantinghome · 2 Mar 2021

HSTEd said:
If Sheffield has a route north to HS2 and thus to Leeds, and there is a new Leeds-Manchester line...... is it even worth doing anything to Hope Valley for (long distance) passenger use?
Wouldn't it pretty much always be quicker to go around?

Let's say it's 25 minutes to Leeds and then another 30 to Manchester, so 55 minutes assuming it's a direct service. Surely a Hope Valley upgrade can deliver better than that? Isn't that the current Manchester-Sheffield journey time?

Ianno87 · 2 Mar 2021

InOban said:
Delivering a revised fare structure would have involved the renegotiation of every franchise since it would affect the TOC revenue.Which takes us back to the Treasury.

Though we're not on franchises at present (in general).

But it is true that a revised fares structure brings a risk (if not done right) of a net loss of revenue, further widening the chasm between costs and revenue that the industry finds itself in.

When I see Twitterers shouting "we need to reduce fares", I want to scream from the rooftops about the risk this brings to the industry if not enough extra passengers travel as a result (e.g. 33% fares reduction requires 50% more people to travel. e.g. if 200 people were paying £3 you would need 300 people paying £2 to be revenue-neutral). The right fares need to be reduced to achieve this, but it's not "one size fits all".

Starmill · 2 Mar 2021

quantinghome said:
Let's say it's 25 minutes to Leeds and then another 30 to Manchester, so 55 minutes assuming it's a direct service. Surely a Hope Valley upgrade can deliver better than that? Isn't that the current Manchester-Sheffield journey time?

Currently can be achieved in 50 min if running fast between Stockport and Sheffield. Most such eastbound TPE services manage this timing. Westbound or EMR generally is a tad longer at 53 - 55 min.

HSTEd · 2 Mar 2021

quantinghome said:
Let's say it's 25 minutes to Leeds and then another 30 to Manchester, so 55 minutes assuming it's a direct service. Surely a Hope Valley upgrade can deliver better than that? Isn't that the current Manchester-Sheffield journey time?

Personally I would hope a new construction line via Bradford could do a bit better than 30 minutes, even with the stop at Bradford!

Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) - Suggestions and speculation

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member