As Winthorpe says, it's 2b. The Act for phase 2a was passed in Feb 2021. Preliminary works for 2a have been going on for some time but the main works have not yet been authorised to start.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!
CrossNorth Programme
- Thread starter Xenophon PCDGS
- 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
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
This thread is in the Speculative Discussion forum as it concerns a matter that is naught but that of a speculative nature. All of its own self-importance is there to be challenged, especially by website members with years of real-life experience.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd call this whole situation heated. I do think criticism needs to be more constructive, like considering other options, but maybe asking for said constructive criticism could be said in a less intense manner.
CrossNorthPr
Member
We can only hope! It seems at the moment there's the challenge of getting the solution right at Piccadilly. The city council are pushing very hard for an underground station as are TfN which seems to be a major sticking point. If any changes need be made, the bill will need to be amended to show the proposed changes which could delay it. Most people (Pro HS2) want it to arrive in Manchester as soon as possible, but many are of the mind that given the importance of integration, a delay might not be the worst thing if it creates an opportunity to change things in terms of what MCC and TfN are asking for. It depends who you ask of course!
George.
May I ask who provides funding for these organisations?
They will have a choice - the current station proposal, or no new line. It’s that simple.
Halifaxlad
Established Member
Well that's a choice...
Either spend billions upon billions...
or don't spend a penny at all!
We could shorter HS2 trains to 300m and build some conventional platforms at Picadilly but I suppose that would be out of the question as it wouldn't cost as much!
How would you get them there? (Both the trains, and the platforms?)
Grimsby town
Member
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2011
- Messages
- 667
One of the big challenges for this to overcome is that HS2 still has a lot of spare capacity on its tunnel out of Manchester. Building new tunnels when 4 trains per hour to Liverpool could easily be added to the HS2 with relatively minimal investment is going to be a difficult sell.
I think the plan for CrossNorth makes more sense now the number of stations in Manchester has been reduced. I can still forsee issues with the current plan. Firstly, the removal of direct regional and intercity trains to Manchester Airport is going to be politically difficult particularly as getting from 13/14 to a tunnelled station will be difficult.
I also think constraints on the current network will limit the services that can use the tunnel. As far as I can tell the tunnel only connects to the Guide Bridge line and the Chat Moss line. Getting 5 or 6 TPE trains going to Liverpool/Llandudno/Preston/Blackpool may be possible but is there capacity through Wigan to run a half hourly Blackpool, an hourly Barrow/Windermere train and a Scotland train that way? Running more than 2 trains per hour to Liverpool will be difficult on a line that runs through a very urbanised area with many stations.
I think the plan for CrossNorth makes more sense now the number of stations in Manchester has been reduced. I can still forsee issues with the current plan. Firstly, the removal of direct regional and intercity trains to Manchester Airport is going to be politically difficult particularly as getting from 13/14 to a tunnelled station will be difficult.
I also think constraints on the current network will limit the services that can use the tunnel. As far as I can tell the tunnel only connects to the Guide Bridge line and the Chat Moss line. Getting 5 or 6 TPE trains going to Liverpool/Llandudno/Preston/Blackpool may be possible but is there capacity through Wigan to run a half hourly Blackpool, an hourly Barrow/Windermere train and a Scotland train that way? Running more than 2 trains per hour to Liverpool will be difficult on a line that runs through a very urbanised area with many stations.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
In the picture that you refer to, the people from left to right are:-
Harry Burr
George Marshall
Thomas Haines
Owen O'Neill
David Frankal
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
How large is this "large organisation" to which you allude?
Last edited:
SargeNpton
Established Member
- Joined
- 19 Nov 2018
- Messages
- 1,396
But STM is not a large organisation, and to claim otherwise is disingenuous.
At the moment, its sole project (according to its own website) is to improve Daventry's public transport connectivity. That campaign no longer seems to involve pushing for Daventry Parkway station - the very thing that brought STM and its founder to prominence.
Thanks for that, I thought he looked familiar. As detailed on his blog, I knew Frankal to be an advocate for the reinstatement of platforms 15 & 16 at Piccadilly, alongside double-tracking the Castlefield corridor and lengthening the platforms at Oxford Road, so it seemed quite bizarre that he seems to support this idea.
Doesn't hurt to support multiple projects. Throw enough stuff at the wall....
Bantamzen
Established Member
So looking at your proposal, I've a couple of questions. Firstly, do you have any official backing from DfT, TfGM, NR or other bodies & if so are you able to cite them? Secondly a slightly more technical question, your project has drawn an aspirational line from Salford, towards Piccadilly. But do you have any more detailed plans on the exact route, taking into account geology, utilities & infrastructure underneath Manchester City Centre as yet, and if not what plans do you have to survey potential routes?
CrossNorthPr
Member
Thanks for the response, I’ll try and take the points in order:
Politically you can imagine how difficult it is to secure backing on something like CNP, which if backed by an official body (particularly in the north) could potentially be viewed as a potential threat to existing NPR plans or a possible “Scaling Back” as it doesn’t serve Manchester Airport directly (which there is a lot of political weight behind) Individuals I have spoken to from such bodies have given their support personally, but not that of the organisations/departments which is important to stress. It has proved very useful to get the “mood music” of what thoughts in those circles are, which has in turn helped us develop and adapt our proposals, something I personally am very grateful for. There’s still meetings yet to come, but as you’d expect, they’re more from a “is there something we could do with this?” angle if things change, rather than a “Should we take on this proposal?” perspective. No governmental/transport body will take it on without conducting their own unbiased study first with a question of what is the problem? What are the conditional outputs? How do we best meet them? It might well come out with something like CNP, however it can’t start with “Does CrossNorth Programme solve the problem?” That would of course be the wrong way to go about it.
We are getting an increasing level of support by transport/rail non-profit organisations which should go live on the new website once complete, with endorsement statements etc. That’s the best we can hope for as things stand.
Routing/Alignment is an interesting one. Everyone knows the complexities of proposing tunnelled routes. Even with the best of surveys things always crop up (forgotten culverted rivers, fragmented rock, communication systems, deep basements etc.) We’re doing the best we can to get an accurate picture of underground Manchester marking out deep basements, rivers and the Guardian Telephone Exchange and their respective depths. So far we’ve found only a small number of sites that are “in the way” of the path of least resistance, those mostly being basements and foundations. It seems most foundations in Manchester are very shallow thanks to the support the sandstone rock provides. Even skyscrapers such as Beetham tower have very shallow foundations and basements.
We can’t realistically propose an exact route without an extensive, funded survey which engineers would then have to base the route off. What we can say, is a maximum design speed of 75mph is optimal for the distance between the two stations, and so there is a reasonable amount of flexibility for routing options.
We are surveying vertical alignments from station to station that are well within engineering limits. An example would be by putting Salford Interchange in a shallow box, this has necessitated moving the site further west go create a more appropriate vertical alignment under the River Irwell. It is of course handy to have the line descend then rise again into the next station, allowing a train to naturally reduce its speed upon entry as is used in many underground systems.
There are ongoing studies looking at how to best utilise the tunnel in phase one (connecting only to existing lines each side) this is looking at:
-4-tracking using unused track beds such as toward Guide Bridge.
-Sidings near Ashburys so select services (most likely Cumbria/Scotland) could originate/terminate at Piccadilly due to capacity limitations of TRU.
-Ensuring a minimum of 8 CrossNorth trains per hour through the tunnel.
George.
Last edited:
Well that’s the key question.
What are the conditional outfits that this project is intended to meet?
A word of advice. There are an awful lot of proposals out there, on websites quite like yours, that have ‘support’ or ‘endorsement’ from a wide range of individuals, stakeholders, and other organisations. They mean absolutely nothing unless they provide money. Even then, it means nothing unless you have clear and overt support of national Governemnt. A proposal like this will need an Act of Parliament, or Development Consent Order at the very least, and that means you must have explicit support of the Government and have been confirmed as a project of National Significance (A formal process that Government controls).
PacerFacer
Member
I admire the enthusiasm here, and would frankly enjoy a few more emboldened ideas to read within this section of the forum!
The thing I struggle with on this plan is the Salford Interchange element. The Quays are a location of strategic importance for local government, given its concentration of leisure and business. I can't really see how you'd get approval for spending this amount of money on a tunnel and not send direct trains there. Yes, a theoretical five-minute journey (plus wait time, presumably) from the Interchange isn't that much, but it's a mental barrier to those you'd want to make the modal switch from car to rail.
I'd say it takes roughly twenty minutes from departure to arrival from MediaCity tram stop to Piccadilly (although I'd always allow at least half an hour for wait and delays on the line). A service like this would presumably take about five-six minutes to the Interchange? But add on five minutes and an average three minute wait (assuming a six-minute service on the tram line, which might be optimistic), you're not seeing a vast margin of difference in the minds of many commuters, or at least not enough for them to give up their cars.
The thing I struggle with on this plan is the Salford Interchange element. The Quays are a location of strategic importance for local government, given its concentration of leisure and business. I can't really see how you'd get approval for spending this amount of money on a tunnel and not send direct trains there. Yes, a theoretical five-minute journey (plus wait time, presumably) from the Interchange isn't that much, but it's a mental barrier to those you'd want to make the modal switch from car to rail.
I'd say it takes roughly twenty minutes from departure to arrival from MediaCity tram stop to Piccadilly (although I'd always allow at least half an hour for wait and delays on the line). A service like this would presumably take about five-six minutes to the Interchange? But add on five minutes and an average three minute wait (assuming a six-minute service on the tram line, which might be optimistic), you're not seeing a vast margin of difference in the minds of many commuters, or at least not enough for them to give up their cars.
In the CrossNorth proposal for the tunnel what is assumed for HS2, as I see it there are broadly 2 options on the table in the NW:
1. IRP - south Manchester tunnel (built by HS2) linking to the airport. Extended via Warrington to Liverpool that serves both NPR and also will also be used for HS2 to Liverpool and Warrington. Mostly tunnelled route from Ardwick to Marsden allowing Marsden to Manchester line to have greater capacity for local services and freight
2. CNP - south Manchester tunnel (built by HS2) linking to the airport but now only used by HS2. A central Manchester tunnel and bits either side as per the proposal so far - apologies if I have missed something
Has CrossNorth team a comparison of costs, benefits, timeline etc.. for these two to demonstrate how the country benefits from 2 vs 1? I would think this is essential to have a hope of gaining any sort of influence where it may matter.
1. IRP - south Manchester tunnel (built by HS2) linking to the airport. Extended via Warrington to Liverpool that serves both NPR and also will also be used for HS2 to Liverpool and Warrington. Mostly tunnelled route from Ardwick to Marsden allowing Marsden to Manchester line to have greater capacity for local services and freight
2. CNP - south Manchester tunnel (built by HS2) linking to the airport but now only used by HS2. A central Manchester tunnel and bits either side as per the proposal so far - apologies if I have missed something
Has CrossNorth team a comparison of costs, benefits, timeline etc.. for these two to demonstrate how the country benefits from 2 vs 1? I would think this is essential to have a hope of gaining any sort of influence where it may matter.
Last edited:
CrossNorthPr
Member
Thanks!
The original plan in the draft report found here (which was very conceptual in nature) shows the Quays was initially included in the plan. It since became apparent though that the BCR (benefit-cost-ratio) for doing so (at least as of now) is not that high.
Salford Quays is a destination indeed, and I'm all in favour of demand-side policies. However once it became apparent we could create an interchange with Metrolink at Salford Interchange (The main point at which passengers from North Manchester would join the line instead of traversing Castlefield all the way to Piccadilly) the case for going via the Quays was weakened.
It was originally intended SQ was to be built as part of "Phase 2" (New lines either side of Manchester) and so direct access there has the potential to be a very long way off.
By including a connection to Salford Interchange in phase one, we can connect it to a mainline rail station in 5 minutes. That's pretty good going, and makes it commutable from Warrington, Liverpool, Chester, Lancashire Etc.
Also as a note, it takes 27 minutes presently (Usually 30 due to traffic/tram bunching) from Piccadilly to Salford Quays. You might do it in slightly less time if your tram happens to arrive to cornbrook just before Trafford park line tram (to IWM North - close to Media City on the other side of the ship canal) but that's quite a rare occurrence, and involves yet another change, which we know puts commuters off!
Indeed those are the two possible scenarios envisaged. Both of those points are well within scope of what we can do research wise.
There's a small amount of detail in the (conceptual) draft report, with detailed analysis to follow with the full report in spring where the two scenarios will be compared in terms of connectivity, future capacity allowance, operational viability, journey times, delivery times, potential risks (Operational, Economical, Political & Social) and of course cost estimates.
George.
Last edited:
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
To be fair, it will be interesting to see the full published report "in the Spring " which will have certain items in the existing draft open to amendment. I am sure that it will be clearer in stating its aims.
Last edited by a moderator:
daodao
Established Member
The whole approach to rail investment in the North of England is misguided. The railways in this area (in contrast to SE England and East Anglia) are 'haemorrhaging passengers and are much less important in the economic activity of the region. Given the UK's poor economic position, these rail services need to be redesigned to make best use of existing infrastructure, with limited capital expenditure focussed on key pinch points. Expensive tunnels should be shelved (and IMO that applies to HS2 Phase 2b, which is overkill, as well as this putative Crossnorth programme). However, if HS2 Phase 2b is built (not just approved), then this Crossnorth programme would be redundant, as it is planned to incorporate an East-West service (NPR) from Liverpool to the West Riding and beyond.
In Manchester, the key approach should be to eliminate long-distance trains serving more than 1 station in Greater Manchester, with the exception of trains from Sheffield and beyond that run through to Liverpool. That would release capacity on the Castlefield line, which currently can't cope with the traffic demands put on it. The only thing that I would do with Castlefield line would be to enable Oxford Road station to have 4 fully functional through platforms, plus the existing westbound bay platform 5.
In Manchester, the key approach should be to eliminate long-distance trains serving more than 1 station in Greater Manchester, with the exception of trains from Sheffield and beyond that run through to Liverpool. That would release capacity on the Castlefield line, which currently can't cope with the traffic demands put on it. The only thing that I would do with Castlefield line would be to enable Oxford Road station to have 4 fully functional through platforms, plus the existing westbound bay platform 5.
Last edited:
Arkeeos
Member
They're like that because of the lack of investment in them however, the Northern Hub proposal has a BCR of 4 to 1 and there was a study a while ago that showed just how much of Manchester's economy was latent because of the underinvestment in rail.
What basis is that from? Given commuting into London has dropped off and leisure travel has returned strongly. Certainly the evidence suggest the priority needs to be building back the timetable to pre-covid levels and focus on revenue growth, not sticking plaster ideas in using the currently and outdated infrastructure.
Sad Sprinter
Established Member
Sounds good to me. Too often we just bleat on about business cases, benefit costs ratios and budgets. So boring. We just need to get things built and stop obsessing over every single digit.
And how do you propose to fund the project after this one?
Sad Sprinter
Established Member
I'll figure that one out over lunch. But what I will say is that it seems like a chicken and egg scenario; we start with no money for project A, but if we built project A that would generate money for project B, which will generate money for project C. We can't keep throwing our hands up and saying "there's no money", money is made, and we have to start creating it by raising productivity and economic output through projects such as this one - or similar.
That's not how funding works - You borrow the money to build project A, and then use the increased economic activity to repay the interest. Project B is then funded by completely separate borrowing. Of course, the person lending you money will want some level of confidence that it will be repaid, so if you just build project A and ignore the costs/benefits there will be an awkward conversation with the bank about how they're going to get the money back on loan A before they talk about loan B.
Money is made, but if you create the money out of thin air yourself (i.e. print more/Quantitative easing) it's less valuable to everybody else. So you need to borrow money off other people. If you build a project that never generates the productivity and output benefits to repay that money, how likely are people to lend you money again?
Sad Sprinter
Established Member
Then perhaps you might know, then why is it that building good rail infrastructure just seems to come more naturally to Continental European countries? Different mindset/culture? Or more money allocated for these things?
I'd suggest this statement isn't as unqualified as people in the UK like to believe. Regional travel in Europe is quite poor being either unreliable or infrequent. The High-speed networks are very good (mostly, don't ask DB at the moment) but secondary travel really isn't. Also cross-border cooperation is limited only to flagship services. The majority of local cross-border trains stop at the first major town on one side or the other. The multitudes of electrification and signalling standards don't help either.
Europe does have some advantages, notably the Eurozone which stabilises borrowing costs (mostly) for the less strong economies and can make borrowing easier than if they were using their own currencies. Also the land connections and Schengen zone make the economic benefits of greater activity slightly bigger than the equivalents would be in the UK. European planning processes can help, although they are highly variable and just as political as UK planning.
I'm not an expert on how other countries manage money for rail projects but I'd be very surprised if they didn't want at least a BCR (or equivalent) and good business case before going ahead. How much they are willing to subsidise it if the BCR is less than 1 will vary depending on the government.
- Status