CrossNorth Programme

[Glenn1969]

You’ve hit on an interesting point there about population who benefits. One of the difficult things with any transport project is determining exactly how many people stand to benefit. The reality is of course you can’t accurately measure it, but you can model for example the number of people who stand to use both a) the new infrastructure itself and b) the positive externalities it creates.

With something like CNP, the figure if 8 million is picked from the city regions and towns the network would serve, which is essentially the conurbations you mentioned and the nearby towns.

In LCR, GM and WY, most people are within 30 minutes of accessing the “intercity” style trains the programme is designed to serve. In the case of Phase One through Manchester, that enables a much more frequent metro-style service on existing lines. Whilst the population remains the same, the service levels within GM and its hinterlands will increase. Long-term we can expect further increases in population density along those corridors as they become more attractive to property developers and of course the desire to live there by potential residents who as of now, would prefer say Wilmslow or Stockport over Gatley or Mauldeth Road which see very low frequencies into the city centre due to the line being used to send almost empty intercity trains from Piccadilly to the Airport to terminate.

One thing we did in the initial analysis was where the biggest problems were, and what interventions would be required to solve them. Starting from the “do nothing” scenario all the way to things like new routing options to give Victoria better access to South Manchester (following on from and using the Recovery Taskforce options as a baseline) grade separated junctions, Metrolink conversions and even as far as monorails or as little as cycling lanes. We looked at:

-What is the problem?
-What are the conditional outputs?
-What solutions meet those targets?

Then model various options to see what performs the best all options considered. It is from there that the original concept was born, and from where it evolved to what we have now.

An example of one of the options looked at is this one, which was based on better connecting Victoria to the south and using that for intercity E-W services removing flat junctions and congestion on castlefield. Find it attached along with what we have now “Option B+”

You can see the positives of this option, but also the notable downsides that failed to meet the main conditional outputs which fall under: operational, economic and political.

Of course the next step is to commission an “in-house” study by a governmental department or local transport authority I.e TfGM. At the moment as has been stated the focus is very much on other priorities at the moment, and so commissioning such a study using public sector money seems unlikely any time soon, but is most definitely not off the table should there be an alternative required for NPR following it’s poor progression, or as an alternative to the castlefield upgrade programme (which is still a thing) that is beginning to look impossible in its original form now following intense development along the corridor with large buildings and even skyscraper either just built or being built right up against the corridor with no room for the proposed 4-tracking. (That being another option studied)

Hopefully that helps in seeing how we’ve come to the conclusion we have, and the concept as presented today.

George.

but there isn't the money for any of this. I back it but it's still pie in the sky

 

[MattRat]

One thing I've been thinking about is possible alternatives. What if you take the IRP plan of going via Warrington, but change HS2 to the an that avoided the airport, but went into the back of Piccadilly, turning it into a through station. Connect those two bits up, and you solve the capacity problems, without the cost of a tunnel, with the only downside being it doesn't go to the airport, although other trains exist to make that connection.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Long-term we can expect further increases in population density along those corridors as they become more attractive to property developers and of course the desire to live there by potential residents who as of now, would prefer say Wilmslow or Stockport over Gatley or Mauldeth Road which see very low frequencies into the city centre due to the line being used to send almost empty intercity trains from Piccadilly to the Airport to terminate.

People choose areas in which to live for a wide range of options. You cannot base your views purely upon matters of transport. How well do you know of Gatley and its residential attractions? You give a generalised mention of the area of Stockport, which has areas such as Brinnington, Bridge Hall, North Reddish which are totally different from Cheadle, Cheadle Hulme, Heald Green, Bramhall and Woodford.

 

[Bald Rick]

What if you take the IRP plan of going via Warrington, but change HS2 to the an that avoided the airport, but went into the back of Piccadilly, turning it into a through station. Connect those two bits up, and you solve the capacity problems, without the cost of a tunnel,

How do you do that without a tunnel? I’m lost.

 

[MattRat]

How do you do that without a tunnel? I’m lost.

Well the tunnel would be for HS2, not for NPR.

 

[snowball]

Demolish the Town Hall?

 

[Arkeeos]

People choose areas in which to live for a wide range of options. You cannot base your views purely upon matters of transport. How well do you know of Gatley and its residential attractions? You give a generalised mention of the area of Stockport, which has areas such as Brinnington, Bridge Hall, North Reddish which are totally different from Cheadle, Cheadle Hulme, Heald Green, Bramhall and Woodford.

Just a point, but any increase in land desirability (which increased service frequency would cause) would change where people want to live, sure service frequency isn't the only factor in that but it is *a* factor.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Just a point, but any increase in land desirability (which increased service frequency would cause) would change where people want to live, sure service frequency isn't the only factor in that but it is *a* factor.

Agreed, but can you really imagine that the attributes taken together of what are deemed "better to live in" areas at present will have changed in the foreseeable future. Schools are another example that guide peoples choices (both my twin sons attended St Ambrose College in Hale Barns) and transport wise, those areas are where multi-car families so exist (the type that car insurance companies have TV adverts for). Looking at current public transport provision, in areas of my own county of Cheshire East, there are swathes of that area such as Mottram St Andrew, Peover Superior, et all, where buses and trains are rare as hens teeth.

 

[Arkeeos]

Agreed, but can you really imagine that the attributes taken together of what are deemed "better to live in" areas at present will have changed in the foreseeable future. Schools are another example that guide peoples choices (both my twin sons attended St Ambrose College in Hale Barns) and transport wise, those areas are where multi-car families so exist (the type that car insurance companies have TV adverts for). Looking at current public transport provision, in areas of my own county of Cheshire East, there are swathes of that area such as Mottram St Andrew, Peover Superior, et all, where buses and trains are rare as hens teeth.

Sure, but I fail to see how that changes what I said. You arent looking at the bigger picture. The connectivity might not be the only factor but it is A factor and thats all that really matters.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Sure, but I fail to see how that changes what I said. You arent looking at the bigger picture. The connectivity might not be the only factor but it is A factor and thats all that really matters.

So can we look forward to areas where no rail services currently exist being part of a great rail-building example?

 

[Arkeeos]

So can we look forward to areas where no rail services currently exist being part of a great rail-building example?

No, as much as I wish.

 

[Bald Rick]

Well the tunnel would be for HS2, not for NPR.

The proposed tunnel - which is well on its way through Parliament - is for HS2 and NPR.

Any changes to this proposal automatically put 5 years onto the programme.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The proposed tunnel - which is well on its way through Parliament - is for HS2 and NPR.

Any changes to this proposal automatically put 5 years onto the programme.

How many stages has this already passed in both Houses?

 

[snowball]

How many stages has this already passed in both Houses?

It has started its committee stage in the Commons, which is the first detailed examination.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It has started its committee stage in the Commons, which is the first detailed examination.

An earlier posting stated "well on its way through Parliament".

 

[snowball]

An earlier posting stated "well on its way through Parliament".

It appears that objectors to the bill had to get their objections ("petitions") in by last August. Members of the committee which will consider them were appointed in December:

https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/597/high-speed-rail-crewe-manchester-bill-select-committee-commons/news/175110/appointment-of-committee-members-to-the-high-speed-rail-crewe-manchester-bill-select-committee/

So I don't think the consideration can have got very far yet.

The fact that we have had three prime ministers in five months can't have helped.

134 petitions are listed here.

 

[Winthorpe]

If the government wants to proceed with the Bill (i.e. it allocates enough parliamentary time to it), it will go through quite easily. It's a government Bill and the main opposition parties (Labour and SNP) both support it.

It's not a controversial Bill as far as parliament is concerned. There's plenty of HS2 opposition voices outside parliament, but MPs vote for it with a strong majority every time.

The Public Whip — Policy #6753: "HS2 - In Favour"

www.publicwhip.org.uk

House	Date	Subject	Policy vote
Commons	26 Jun 2013	High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill — Decline Second Reading	Majority (strong)
Commons	26 Jun 2013	High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill — Second Reading	Majority (strong)
Commons	31 Oct 2013	High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill — Third Reading	Majority (strong)
Commons	28 Apr 2014	High Speed Rail (London — West Midlands) Bill — Decline Second Reading	Majority (strong)
Commons	28 Apr 2014	High Speed Rail (London — West Midlands) Bill — Second Reading	Majority (strong)
Commons	23 Mar 2016	High Speed Rail (London — West Midlands) Bill — Third Reading	Majority (strong)
Commons	30 Jan 2018	High Speed Rail (West Midlands — Crewe) Bill — Second Reading — High Speed 2 Phase 2 — Fradley to Crewe	Majority (strong)
Commons	15 Jul 2019	High Speed Rail (West Midlands — Crewe) Bill — Third Reading — Phase 2a of HS2 — Fradley Wood to Crewe	Majority (strong)
Commons	8 Dec 2021	Rail Investment and Integrated Rail Plan	Majority (strong)

 

[snowball]

Yes but there is a mass of detailed consideration to be given to individual petitions no matter how much one supports the principle of the bill. And there are important issues like whether the proposals in the bill foreclose options for future developments such as a reinstated or replaced Golborne link, or the route of NPR. Try reading some of the petitions from local authorities.

 

[Winthorpe]

Yes but there is a mass of detailed consideration to be given to individual petitions no matter how much one supports the principle of the bill. And there are important issues like whether the proposals in the bill foreclose options for future developments such as a reinstated or replaced Golborne link, or the route of NPR. Try reading some of the petitions from local authorities.

It will certainly delay it. But unless the policy of the major parties changes (which it might) it will go ahead.

I think there were 1,925 petitions against the 2017 Act.

 

[snowball]

I wasn't suggesting it wouldn't go ahead. That wasn't the question.

 

[Winthorpe]

I wasn't suggesting it wouldn't go ahead. That wasn't the question.

Fair enough. I wasn't trying to cause an argument.

 

[LUYMun]

Can any website member clarify what this entity actually is, and if it has any seats on any official transport bodies?

Sustainable Transport Midlands announces support for ambitious CrossNorth programme | RailBusinessDaily

Sustainable Transport Midlands (STM) is pleased to announce that CrossNorth Programme is being adopted as official policy through their 2050 transport network vision for England known as ourVision.

news.railbusinessdaily.com

Is the person on the right David Frankal by any chance?

 

[Bald Rick]

An earlier posting stated "well on its way through Parliament".

Commons committee stage is the main piece of work left. Going through the Lords should be straightforward. With fewer than 200 petitions raised at committee stage, and many of them saying the same thing, it should be a relatively short committee stage too, hopefully.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Is the person on the right David Frankal by any chance?

Not sure, but I did wonder what the ages were of those in the image. I cannot imagine that they have had much in-depth real-life experience in rail project planning under their belts.

 

[Glenn1969]

Commons committee stage is the main piece of work left. Going through the Lords should be straightforward. With fewer than 200 petitions raised at committee stage, and many of them saying the same thing, it should be a relatively short committee stage too, hopefully.

Is the Lords as pro HS2 as the Commons? And isn't this just 2a? Thought 2b which includes Manchester hasn't started its passage yet? Can anything get Royal Assent before the election ?

Not sure, but I did wonder what the ages were of those in the image. I cannot imagine that they have had much in-depth real-life experience in rail project planning under their belts.

Harry Burr is 16. George Marshall is a University student. So not much

 

[Winthorpe]

Is the Lords as pro HS2 as the Commons? And isn't this just 2a? Thought 2b which includes Manchester hasn't started its passage yet? Can anything get Royal Assent before the election ?


Harry Burr is 16. George Marshall is a University student. So not much

It's 2b or the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill:

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3094

Its status is:

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Is the Lords as pro HS2 as the Commons? And isn't this just 2a? Thought 2b which includes Manchester hasn't started its passage yet? Can anything get Royal Assent before the election ?

Remembering that this thread on the Speculative Discussion forum concerns itself with the speculative entity known as CrossNorth Programme, what time factor would be the earliest that one could reasonably expect it to reach fully-financed fruition, noting that it appears to rely on other projects to be first completed.

 

[Glenn1969]

Remembering that this thread on the Speculative Discussion forum concerns itself with the speculative entity known as CrossNorth Programme, what time factor would be the earliest that one could reasonably expect it to reach fully-financed fruition, noting that it appears to rely on other projects to be first completed.

It won't because there is no money and it has no official backing

 

[CrossNorthPr]

CrossNorth Programme is made up of myself, studying Urban Planning & Real Estate at UoM as a mature student (25y) and consultants with decades of experience and knowledge in transport planning.

The picture is from the press release following endorsement from STM, a large organisation focusing on sustainable transport projects. A small team was able to attend a site visit to Manchester, from which details were passed to senior board members who approved the motion.

Following that I now serve as the northern consultant for their organisation.

Again, as stated earlier this is for constructive feedback on the project, not for what can be viewed as personal attacks, which is childish and immature. Exactly the thing the users seem to be implying about the individuals in question. Any further comments like this on the thread and I’ll request it is locked.

There’s been some good, detailed, constructive feedback by most so far following my initial post. That’s the kind of respectful, adult discussion we should be striving to achieve on forums like this. Let’s keep it like that please!

George.

 

[Glenn1969]

CrossNorth Programme is made up of myself, studying Urban Planning & Real Estate at UoM as a mature student (25y) and consultants with decades of experience and knowledge in transport planning.

The picture is from the press release following endorsement from STM, a large organisation focusing on sustainable transport projects. A small team was able to attend a site visit to Manchester, from which details were passed to senior board members who approved the motion.

Following that I now serve as the northern consultant for their organisation.

Again, as stated earlier this is for constructive feedback on the project, not for what can be viewed as personal attacks, which is childish and immature. Exactly the thing the users seem to be implying about the individuals in question. Any further comments like this on the thread and I’ll request it is locked.

There’s been some good, detailed, constructive feedback by most so far following my initial post. That’s the kind of respectful, adult discussion we should be striving to achieve on forums like this. Let’s keep it like that please!

George.

But STM is a crayonista vehicle for a 16 year old with no official status and no access to funding for any of its projects. I wish it well but don't see it making much progress