Future of NPR given HS2 issues and cancellation

[mike57]

Given the cost control problems on HS2 and cancellation of everything except London Birmingham how likely are the Northern Powerhouse Rail upgrades to come to fruition (apart from those already started).

I know work has started on Huddersfield - Dewsbury section, but I am thinking the larger scheme linking LIverpool Manchester and Leeds.

We dont even have a credible timescale for Leeds Manchester electrification completeion, progress seems to be glacial

Politicians have also been remarkably quiet, they probably hope if they igniore it long enough it will go away.

So what is likely to happen, will the schemes be quietly forgotten, or will there be some scaling back of ambitions.

Ignore promises made by politicians, because they will say anything to get elected and then suffer from amnesia, what is likely to be delivered in the current climate, and when. (if anything beyond work already started)

 

[daodao]

I would hope that the proposed NPR route from Warrington via the Airport into Manchester Piccadilly is ditched now that the HS2 phase 2b proposal, with which it would have shared the tunnel through south Manchester, has been scrapped. Surely this extremely expensive route cannot be justified now. Existing routes from Liverpool to Manchester should suffice for the likely traffic, with the most direct route via Chat Moss used for the fast trains - 2 tph non-stop (provided they are long enough) should be adequate.

 

[Norm_D_Ploom]

I would hope that the proposed NPR route from Warrington via the Airport into Manchester Piccadilly is ditched now that HS2 phase 2b, with which it would have shared the tunnel through south Manchester, has scrapped. Surely this extremely expensive route cannot be justified now. Existing routes from Liverpool to Manchester should suffice for the likely traffic, with the most direct route via Chat Moss used for the fast trains - 2 tph non-stop (provided they are long enough) should be adequate.

That sounds far too sensible, it will never catch on !

 

[MarkyT]

...the most direct route via Chat Moss used for the fast trains - 2 tph non-stop (provided they are long enough) should be adequate.

Spongy, bouncy, wibbly wobbly Chat Moss? Good luck getting more than 70mph out of parts of that, and how do you intend segregating stopping and limited stop express service? All these mixed traffic railways tend to be capacity limited to relatively low frequencies of each service tier or slightly more frequent but often awkward skip stop patterns that can make certain intermediate journeys along the route more difficult. The HS2/NPR approach was to create a dedicated pair for limited stop expresses, removing such trains from the other parallel lines, hence increasing capacity for all of tiers.

 

[The Planner]

Spongy, bouncy, wibbly wobbly Chat Moss? Good luck getting more than 70mph out of parts of that, and how do you intend segregating stopping and limited stop express service? All these mixed traffic railways tend to be capacity limited to relatively low frequencies of each service tier or slightly more frequent but often awkward skip stop patterns that can make certain intermediate journeys along the route more difficult. The HS2/NPR approach was to create a dedicated pair for limited stop expresses, removing such trains from the other parallel lines, hence increasing capacity for all of tiers.

Already 90 west of Astley, still no solution to getting rid of the 60 over the crossing. 75 towards Manchester. Agree that anything fast is going to catch a stopper.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I would hope that the proposed NPR route from Warrington via the Airport into Manchester Piccadilly is ditched now that the HS2 phase 2b proposal, with which it would have shared the tunnel through south Manchester, has been scrapped. Surely this extremely expensive route cannot be justified now. Existing routes from Liverpool to Manchester should suffice for the likely traffic, with the most direct route via Chat Moss used for the fast trains - 2 tph non-stop (provided they are long enough) should be adequate.

While I realise that the NIMBY in you is delighted at the likely prospect of NPR as currently envisaged being cancelled your suggestion that existing routes should suffice will not allow for even modest growth in the future. If there is any serious political will to bring down journey times between the north's great cities it cannot be achieved using existing two-track routes. As such the most cost effective way to provide the capacity required to separate genuinely fast services from all the other traffic is some form of new construction. The question is really down to how much importance we put on the concept of agglomeration as a way of boosting economic growth. The do nothing approach however will guarantee short-term stagnation followed by long-term decline.

Given the inevitably long timescales involved with delivering major rail projects it does require some political leadership with enough vision to not only kick start such projects but also to build a sufficiently strong groundswell of public support to maintain the momentum and see projects through to completion. Unfortunately such a combination seems not to exist in this country as we are too busy staring at our political navels trying to work out how to make a post-Brexit UK function properly within a globalised economy. I seriously doubt that we will even see TRU fully completed and anything along the lines of NPR is now decades away. Ultimately we get the governments (and policies) we deserve from our (not) voting patterns.

 

[Sorcerer]

I wouldn't bank on seeing much of Northern Powerhouse Rail coming to fruition if I am honest. It's not that rail investment in the north isn't needed, I just don't get the impression that there is a great deal of political will from either of the main parties in Westminster.

 

[Krokodil]

They'll probably just add some extra lanes to a motorway instead

 

[Manutd1999]

Without HS2 the current plan for NPR doesn't really make sense, but that doesn't mean we should do nothing....

IMO the focus shouldn't really be on journey times. ~30 mins Liverpool-Manchester and 45 min Manchester-Leeds (post TRU) are reasonable. Not amazing, but certainly not worth spending billions to save 5-10 mins. The focus should be on improving capacity, in particular to enable high frequency metro services alongside a good number of faster services.

I actually wonder if a version of the much-derided "crossNorth" proposals could be the best answer. A tunnel could diverge from the Chat Moss line west of Eccles (near the M60), run underneath Manchester with new underground stations at Salford (to act as an interchange) and Piccadilly, then emerge around Newton Heath to connect with the existing TransPennine route. This would deal with the biggest capacity bottle-neck across the north. Future phases could add a spur to the Hope Valley line and potentially a new high-speed section to Marsden, alongside capacity improvements at Liverpool, Sheffield etc.

 

[daodao]

Without HS2 the current plan for NPR doesn't really make sense, but that doesn't mean we should do nothing....

IMO the focus shouldn't really be on journey times. ~30 mins Liverpool-Manchester and 45 min Manchester-Leeds (post TRU) are reasonable. Not amazing, but certainly not worth spending billions to save 5-10 mins. The focus should be on improving capacity, in particular to enable high frequency metro services alongside a good number of faster services.

I actually wonder if a version of the much-derided "crossNorth" proposals could be the best answer. A tunnel could diverge from the Chat Moss line west of Eccles (near the M60), run underneath Manchester with new underground stations at Salford (to act as an interchange) and Piccadilly, then emerge around Newton Heath to connect with the existing TransPennine route. This would deal with the biggest capacity bottle-neck across the north. Future phases could add a spur to the Hope Valley line and potentially a new high-speed section to Marsden, alongside capacity improvements at Liverpool, Sheffield etc.

Paragraphs 2 and 3 are mutually contradictory. A tunnel under Manchester would cost billions and is unaffordable. 2 fast 8-10 coach trains from Liverpool Lime Street to York calling at Manchester Victoria, Huddersfield and Leeds only should suffice.

 

[HSTEd]

IMO the focus shouldn't really be on journey times. ~30 mins Liverpool-Manchester and 45 min Manchester-Leeds (post TRU) are reasonable. Not amazing, but certainly not worth spending billions to save 5-10 mins. The focus should be on improving capacity, in particular to enable high frequency metro services alongside a good number of faster services.

The only way to get more intensity onto these routes for local trains is to increase the journey times on them.
We've hit the fundamental laws of physics limitations on the capacity of a two track, mixed stopping pattern railway on both Mancheser-Liverpool lines.

I actually wonder if a version of the much-derided "crossNorth" proposals could be the best answer. A tunnel could diverge from the Chat Moss line west of Eccles (near the M60), run underneath Manchester with new underground stations at Salford (to act as an interchange) and Piccadilly, then emerge around Newton Heath to connect with the existing TransPennine route. This would deal with the biggest capacity bottle-neck across the north. Future phases could add a spur to the Hope Valley line and potentially a new high-speed section to Marsden, alongside capacity improvements at Liverpool, Sheffield etc.

That would cost far more than the HS2 tunnel solution and deliver less than the HS2 tunnel solution.

Paragraphs 2 and 3 are mutually contradictory. A tunnel under Manchester would cost billions and is unaffordable. 2 fast 8-10 coach trains from Liverpool Lime Street to York calling at Manchester Victoria, Huddersfield and Leeds only should suffice.

Running without a stop between Manchester Victoria and Liverpool will not save you any time compared to the status quo, the intermediate stops on the fastest trains are there because otherwise they would just run into the back of the stopper and have to slow down regardless.

 

[mike57]

I seriously doubt that we will even see TRU fully completed and anything along the lines of NPR is now decades away.

I agree, I think its a bad outcome, but given the inability to control costs on HS2 and the current political and economic outlook I cant see any change for the better.

Looking at the current York/Hull - Liverpool route, the issue is capacity, as others have pointed out its a two track railway for the majority of its length.

So assuming Dewsbury - Huddersfield is finished, what else could be done.

Number one priority has to be to complete the electrification including Hull. Run Scarborough as a shuttle, its never going to justify electrification. Middlesborough would need to stay bi-mode as terminating in York is problematic.

Then maybe a series of other minor improvements could be made with the aim of creating passing options for fast services, to improve reliability, but keeping within railway boundary:

Four tack through Crossgates, and back towards Leeds as far is easy to do. Looks like a simple win, it used to be 4 track.
Slaithwaite could be 4 tracked by moving the platforms back as current 2 tracks look to be in the middle of the old formation.
Upgrade Diggle loop to allow passenger use, and create a westbound one, looks to be enough space.
Sort out Marsden and remodel. dont try and increase speed limit, just create another passing option.
Sort out Astley crossing on Chat Moss, I've used this crossing while cycling in the area, it cant be an impossible task.
Longer term consider bringing old 4 track formation into use between Ardwick and Guide Bridge for Piccadilly bound trains.

This won't create a high speed railway, but what it would do is create a more robust one out of what we have now. I think given we are not going to get high speed rail on this route in the foreseeable future, what we do need is a reliable railway. Also get away from the idea of lots of (relatively) short trains. 4 fast tph is enough over the core, but they need to be as long as infrastructure can cope with, and no minor stops on fast services, with the passing options it should be possible to thread enough stoppers through. Fast services are York/Hull & Selby - Leeds - Huddersfield - Manchester - 2 tph on to Liverpool and train length is the max that platforms will accomodate.

Manchester is always going to be a bottleneck, so 2tph terminate in Piccadilly low numbered platforms. Forget about carrying on to the airport, replace paths with a Pic - Airport shuttle. And given HS2 is cancelled could you create a platform '0 and -1' at Piccadilly, there looks to be space. Short of massive projects other Manchester problems are here to stay, so dont send anything via Castlefield, Liverpools go via Victoria (yes I know its a carbuncle) Manchester terminators finish in Piccadilly

It going to e a case of making the best of what we have with some incremental improvement, and we should get on with that quickly, as I think NPR will be like the pot of gold at the end of rainbow, and we should be going for a 'now' solution

 

[Krokodil]

2 fast 8-10 coach trains from Liverpool Lime Street to York calling at Manchester Victoria, Huddersfield and Leeds only should suffice.

What about services to Sheffield? They currently take 48 minutes to go from Liverpool to Manchester. The tunnel would not only lop 15 minutes off of the Liverpool to Sheffield timings, but would also remove these flows (frequently late and therefore out of path) from the congested Castlefield Corridor. As a bonus Sheffield regains its direct airport service.

Another poster's suggestion of sending North Wales services through it has merit too, it would free up another path through Castlefield. Eventually you are left with enough white space to run a turn-up-and-go all-stops suburban network through Manchester.

I accept that east-west services alone don't justify such a large investment - in the same way that Margate and Ramsgate trains don't justify the construction of HS1, they just hitch onto the back of the international services. That's why HS2 phase 2 should go ahead, for its own sake as well as the benefits to local services in the north. Phase 2 would have had 5tph on this section, a mixture of 400m and 200m sets.

 

[GJMarshy]

Without HS2 the current plan for NPR doesn't really make sense, but that doesn't mean we should do nothing....

IMO the focus shouldn't really be on journey times. ~30 mins Liverpool-Manchester and 45 min Manchester-Leeds (post TRU) are reasonable. Not amazing, but certainly not worth spending billions to save 5-10 mins. The focus should be on improving capacity, in particular to enable high frequency metro services alongside a good number of faster services.

I actually wonder if a version of the much-derided "crossNorth" proposals could be the best answer. A tunnel could diverge from the Chat Moss line west of Eccles (near the M60), run underneath Manchester with new underground stations at Salford (to act as an interchange) and Piccadilly, then emerge around Newton Heath to connect with the existing TransPennine route. This would deal with the biggest capacity bottle-neck across the north. Future phases could add a spur to the Hope Valley line and potentially a new high-speed section to Marsden, alongside capacity improvements at Liverpool, Sheffield etc.

Why would you tunnel from Eccles when you can relatively easily get an extra pair of tracks alongside the M602 (providing losing a lane is seemed acceptable)

Run the tunnel at Oldfield Rd in Salford to Ardwick. That’s 2.5mi, compared with the 7.5mi HS2 tunnel with much lower design speeds.

 

[The Planner]

Why would you tunnel from Eccles when you can relatively easily get an extra pair of tracks alongside the M602 (providing losing a lane is seemed acceptable)

Run the tunnel at Oldfield Rd in Salford to Ardwick. That’s 2.5mi, compared with the 7.5mi HS2 tunnel with much lower design speeds.

63000 vehicles a day on the M602, doubt National Highways are going to accept a lane drop, especially since its only 2 lanes wide.

 

[Krokodil]

Run the tunnel at Oldfield Rd in Salford to Ardwick. That’s 2.5mi, compared with the 7.5mi HS2 tunnel with much lower design speeds.

As others have said though, it's a more awkward part of the city to burrow through.

 

[GJMarshy]

As others have said though, it's a more awkward part of the city to burrow through.

Not really, even when you take into account the various culverts and underground canals + Guardian telephone exchange tunnels, it's much less crowded than London, and tunnelling in Sandstone is in some respects better than clay as it supports itself (as seen by the plentiful skyscrapers which only have 2-3 floor raft foundations. In fact a similar route is already being considered by TfGM for its metro tunnel in the 2040 strategy document. (Cornbrook-Piccadilly via St Peter's Sq)

 

[Bantamzen]

Let's cut to the chase here, NPR ain't happening, period. If the government is backing off HS2 to Manchester there is no way on Earth they are going to fund a new line from Liverpool to Manchester, let alone one under the Pennies towards Leeds. Right now it is the stuff of pure fantasy, rainbows, unicorns and all.

But good to see some of the old hits being played again though. I always like the idea that the MEN being would be raised to the ground for a couple of new platforms at Victoria, or that killing off one or two trains an hour from Yorkshire and the North East to the airport will solve all woes.

In the cold light of the day the best Manchester could hope for would be to take the project to increase the capacity of Castlefield off the shelf, although this is probably still a folorn hope if the truth be known. So Manchester needs to concentrate on expanding its legacy tram network to hoover up more city- bound commuter traffic. And the rest of the Trans-Pennine route needs TRU to be fully completed, along with higher capacity units. That will probably be as far as anything goes.

 

[daodao]

Let's cut to the chase here, NPR ain't happening, period. If the government is backing off HS2 to Manchester there is no way on Earth they are going to fund a new line from Liverpool to Manchester, let alone one under the Pennies towards Leeds. Right now it is the stuff of pure fantasy, rainbows, unicorns and all.

But good to see some of the old hits being played again though. I always like the idea that the MEN being would be raised to the ground for a couple of new platforms at Victoria, or that killing off one or two trains an hour from Yorkshire and the North East to the airport will solve all woes.

In the cold light of the day the best Manchester could hope for would be to take the project to increase the capacity of Castlefield off the shelf, although this is probably still a folorn hope if the truth be known. So Manchester needs to concentrate on expanding its legacy tram network to hoover up more city- bound commuter traffic. And the rest of the Trans-Pennine route needs TRU to be fully completed, along with higher capacity units. That will probably be as far as anything goes.

A realistic assessment, although you still appear to be keen to enhance the Castlefield line, which is also unaffordable. Killing off trains from Yorkshire and the North East to the airport will not solve all woes, but it is one of the easier and most beneficial things to do, as these trains, routed via the Ordsall curve and running through all 5 of Manchester's central stations, make an inordinate use of Manchester station capacity. Given that there are 4 tracks through Victoria and only 2 through Castlefield, the ratio of trains to/through Victoria and Oxford Road stations should be in the ratio of 2 to 1. Enhancement of the local/semi-fast CLC line service via Warrington Central should have priority for use of the Castlefield line, with the nonsense of trains from North Wales, Southport, Scotland, Cumbria and Yorkshire/North-East England serving Oxford Road station scrapped.

 

[Bantamzen]

A realistic assessment, although you still appear to be keen to enhance the Castlefield line, which is also unaffordable. Killing off trains from Yorkshire and the North East to the airport will not solve all woes, but it is one of the easier and most beneficial things to do, as these trains, routed via the Ordsall curve and running through all 5 of Manchester's central stations, make an inordinate use of Manchester station capacity. Given that there are 4 tracks through Victoria and only 2 through Castlefield, the ratio of trains to/through Victoria and Oxford Road stations should be in the ratio of 2 to 1. Enhancement of the local/semi-fast CLC line service via Warrington Central should have priority for use of the Castlefield line, with the nonsense of trains from North Wales, Southport, Scotland, Cumbria and Yorkshire/North-East England serving Oxford Road station scrapped.

What is a joke is that at Oxford Road P3 goes most of the day unused & P1 pretty much never used whilst trains queue behind trains sitting at P2 & P4. So having some of the long distance services not stop at Oxford Road might help reduce their time in the corridor, but also give the option to skip past services stopping there, particularly any having crew changes. Maybe this would require some re-signalling and track work, but frankly not everything needs to call there. Then once that bit sorts itself out, start work on P15/16 at Piccadilly which at least allows the option for 2 trains in each direction to be unloading / loading, then being staggered down the corridor. Then if down the road someone finds a big bag of money, work towards 4 tracking it throughout. And I'd wager all of this would still be cheaper that diving under Manchester, especially if needing to dig out a new station down there.

But in the meantime there really should be room to allow airport services from major population centres around the north, even if this means some local stoppers from the south need to terminate in the shed at Piccadilly. With Manchester Airport expanding, and the roads around the city prone to choking, promoting rail makes a lot of sense. More so when you remember that the Greater Manchester boroughs all have a stake in the airport, directly and indirectly.

 

[mike57]

or that killing off one or two trains an hour from Yorkshire and the North East to the airport

I think as others have pointed the issue is that if they go via Ordsall they add to/are affected by Castlefield congestion. If they go via Guide Bridge then they have to cross all the tracks at Piccadilly before or after a reversal.

Manchester Airport as a regional trains termination point is used because there are no west facing bay platforms at Piccadilly, and trains approaching through Castlefield have no where else to terminate.

So terminating TPE north trains that are not carrying on to Liverpool in Piccadilly low number platforms and approaching via Guide Bridge would make sense. As long as there is a high frequency service from Pic to the Airport then passenger needs are met, and reliability/robustness is increased. Having a high frequency service from the Airport to the main city railway station is the solution adopted by many airports at home and abroad and makes more sense than extending inter-regional services as delays and operational problems get exported from one service to the other.

We are not going to see major journey time improvements on the York/Hull - Manchester - Liverpool route, what is needed is adequate capacity, i.e. use the longest trains that can be accomodated, and a reliable service which has enough 'give' to not collapse at the first minor problem, and an end to the idea of trying to mix local commuter and long distance calls on the same service. Have you seen the problems when a TPE 68 + Mk5 calls at the small stations between Huddersfeild and Manchester. Commuters dont want 'Inter City' trains andl long distance passengers dont want a commuter style train. And similar problems when a 3 car 185 turns up on a 'fast' service. So if this means fewer longer trains for the fast services then thats fine. To be honest a 20 min interval for fast Services between Manchester and Leeds would be fine if they were max length units.

 

[Bantamzen]

I think as others have pointed the issue is that if they go via Ordsall they add to/are affected by Castlefield congestion. If they go via Guide Bridge then they have to cross all the tracks at Piccadilly before or after a reversal.

Manchester Airport as a regional trains termination point is used because there are no west facing bay platforms at Piccadilly, and trains approaching through Castlefield have no where else to terminate.

So terminating TPE north trains that are not carrying on to Liverpool in Piccadilly low number platforms and approaching via Guide Bridge would make sense. As long as there is a high frequency service from Pic to the Airport then passenger needs are met, and reliability/robustness is increased. Having a high frequency service from the Airport to the main city railway station is the solution adopted by many airports at home and abroad and makes more sense than extending inter-regional services as delays and operational problems get exported from one service to the other.

We are not going to see major journey time improvements on the York/Hull - Manchester - Liverpool route, what is needed is adequate capacity, i.e. use the longest trains that can be accomodated, and a reliable service which has enough 'give' to not collapse at the first minor problem, and an end to the idea of trying to mix local commuter and long distance calls on the same service. Have you seen the problems when a TPE 68 + Mk5 calls at the small stations between Huddersfeild and Manchester. Commuters dont want 'Inter City' trains andl long distance passengers dont want a commuter style train. And similar problems when a 3 car 185 turns up on a 'fast' service. So if this means fewer longer trains for the fast services then thats fine. To be honest a 20 min interval for fast Services between Manchester and Leeds would be fine if they were max length units.

At the moment it is one train per hour each way, if this cannot be accommodated in normal operating conditions (i.e. no strikes, massive cancellations etc) then its time for a big, big shake up in the railways because something is badly wrong. Seriously!!

 

[HSTEd]

Why would you tunnel from Eccles when you can relatively easily get an extra pair of tracks alongside the M602 (providing losing a lane is seemed acceptable)

Run the tunnel at Oldfield Rd in Salford to Ardwick. That’s 2.5mi, compared with the 7.5mi HS2 tunnel with much lower design speeds.

What does a tunnel from Salford to Ardwick get you, it bypasses all the places people actually want to go?
Unless you a proposing an underground station that will blow the cost of the HS2 tunnel out of the water.

Tunnel design speed is also not a strong driver of cost.

And there is no chance that you will get permission to wreck the M602!

 

[GJMarshy]

What does a tunnel from Salford to Ardwick get you, it bypasses all the places people actually want to go?
Unless you a proposing an underground station that will blow the cost of the HS2 tunnel out of the water.

Tunnel design speed is also not a strong drivers of cost.

And there is no chance that you will get permission to wreck the M602!

A sub-surface 2 platform station for 260m trains would cost nothing even close to what you’d need for a combined NPR/HS2 station: 6 through platforms to fit 400m trains (only the 3tph HS2 would use the full length) with space for S&C at either end, taking it to 800m+ in length.

Piccadilly is the main intercity station for Manchester. That’s definitely where people want to go, and indeed was where NPR was always supposed to go!

On the M602, that’s a matter of priories, since a new line would soak up traffic on the M62/M602. I’d hope a future government and the city council already understand that, and would prioritise accordingly.

 

[The Planner]

A sub-surface 2 platform station for 260m trains would cost nothing even close to what you’d need for a combined NPR/HS2 station: 6 through platforms to fit 400m trains (only the 3tph HS2 would use the full length) with space for S&C at either end, taking it to 800m+ in length.

Piccadilly is the main intercity station for Manchester. That’s definitely where people want to go, and indeed was where NPR was always supposed to go!

On the M602, that’s a matter of priories, since a new line would soak up traffic on the M62/M602. I’d hope a future government and the city council already understand that, and would prioritise accordingly.

The priority would be the M602.

 

[Chester1]

A realistic assessment, although you still appear to be keen to enhance the Castlefield line, which is also unaffordable. Killing off trains from Yorkshire and the North East to the airport will not solve all woes, but it is one of the easier and most beneficial things to do, as these trains, routed via the Ordsall curve and running through all 5 of Manchester's central stations, make an inordinate use of Manchester station capacity. Given that there are 4 tracks through Victoria and only 2 through Castlefield, the ratio of trains to/through Victoria and Oxford Road stations should be in the ratio of 2 to 1. Enhancement of the local/semi-fast CLC line service via Warrington Central should have priority for use of the Castlefield line, with the nonsense of trains from North Wales, Southport, Scotland, Cumbria and Yorkshire/North-East England serving Oxford Road station scrapped.

Zero services across the Ordsall Chord is a political non starter. 1tph prevents it getting into national media as a white elephant. I agree with the 2:1 Victoria:Castlefield split. The political vested interests for services to Castlefield are a major problem to overcome. The Welsh and Scottish governments will lobby hard to keep services to Piccadilly and Manchester Airport.

What is a joke is that at Oxford Road P3 goes most of the day unused & P1 pretty much never used whilst trains queue behind trains sitting at P2 & P4. So having some of the long distance services not stop at Oxford Road might help reduce their time in the corridor, but also give the option to skip past services stopping there, particularly any having crew changes. Maybe this would require some re-signalling and track work, but frankly not everything needs to call there. Then once that bit sorts itself out, start work on P15/16 at Piccadilly which at least allows the option for 2 trains in each direction to be unloading / loading, then being staggered down the corridor. Then if down the road someone finds a big bag of money, work towards 4 tracking it throughout. And I'd wager all of this would still be cheaper that diving under Manchester, especially if needing to dig out a new station down there.

But in the meantime there really should be room to allow airport services from major population centres around the north, even if this means some local stoppers from the south need to terminate in the shed at Piccadilly. With Manchester Airport expanding, and the roads around the city prone to choking, promoting rail makes a lot of sense. More so when you remember that the Greater Manchester boroughs all have a stake in the airport, directly and indirectly.

Oxford Road with 4 fully functioning long platforms as proposed by Northern Hub would be very expensive. Lift access to platform one and longer platforms on an old viaduct would not be cheap. So would Piccadilly platforms 15 and 16. I am not convinced the neighbouring lines and junctions can support the 16tph that were used to justify the expenditure. With construction inflation the business case will be even harder without maximum use. I am not convinced the Northern Hub proposal would have produced a reliable service without grade seperation of Ordsall Lane Junction.

How about 10tph of tram trains extending Bury and Altrincham services terminating services:

- 4tph Glossop
- 2tph Marple Rose Hill via Hyde
- 4tph "New Mills Parkway"

- run 1tph Hope Valley stopper by extending Hazel Grove service.

Build 2 platforms at New Mills on main line and 2 tram train platforms. A freight loop on old alignment between Hyde and Guide Bridge. Close all stations between Guide Bridge and Piccadilly, replacing them with Metrolink stops on track on the spare track bed.

That would remove 7tph from the low platforms into Piccadilly, decarbonise two routes and enabled Piccadilly to Stalybridge to be used only by express services and occasional Hope Valley freight.

With 7tph fewer services into Piccadilly it might be easier to path services crossing the throat of Piccadilly.

 

[HSTEd]

A sub-surface 2 platform station for 260m trains would cost nothing even close to what you’d need for a combined NPR/HS2 station: 6 through platforms to fit 400m trains (only the 3tph HS2 would use the full length) with space for S&C at either end, taking it to 800m+ in length.

But the NPR/HS2b plan is for a surface station with S&C at only one end. Autoreverse has rendered through platforms largely unnecessary at likely service densities
That probably isn't going to cost more than a subsurface station.

 

[daodao]

How about 10tph of tram trains extending Bury and Altrincham services terminating services:

- 4tph Glossop
- 2tph Marple Rose Hill via Hyde
- 4tph "New Mills Parkway"

- run 1tph Hope Valley stopper by extending Hazel Grove service.

Build 2 platforms at New Mills on main line and 2 tram train platforms. A freight loop on old alignment between Hyde and Guide Bridge. Close all stations between Guide Bridge and Piccadilly, replacing them with Metrolink stops on track on the spare track bed.

That would remove 7tph from the low platforms into Piccadilly, decarbonise two routes and enabled Piccadilly to Stalybridge to be used only by express services and occasional Hope Valley freight.

With 7tph fewer services into Piccadilly it might be easier to path services crossing the throat of Piccadilly.

Excessively complicated, doesn't match the 5 tph standard service Metrolink frequency, extends beyond Greater Manchester (to Glossop/New Mills) and doesn't easily sit with the use of the line from Chinley and from the Bredbury waste facility for freight services. The Chinley-New Mills Central-Romiley-Guide Bridge-Piccadilly line needs to be kept as heavy rail for freight services and through stopping passenger trains from the Hope Valley line.

Even though HS2 phase 2b has been cancelled, I suspect that TfGM are awaiting finalisation of NPR plans before moving forward on any Metrolink extensions.

 

[Bantamzen]

Zero services across the Ordsall Chord is a political non starter. 1tph prevents it getting into national media as a white elephant. I agree with the 2:1 Victoria:Castlefield split. The political vested interests for services to Castlefield are a major problem to overcome. The Welsh and Scottish governments will lobby hard to keep services to Piccadilly and Manchester Airport.



Oxford Road with 4 fully functioning long platforms as proposed by Northern Hub would be very expensive. Lift access to platform one and longer platforms on an old viaduct would not be cheap. So would Piccadilly platforms 15 and 16. I am not convinced the neighbouring lines and junctions can support the 16tph that were used to justify the expenditure. With construction inflation the business case will be even harder without maximum use. I am not convinced the Northern Hub proposal would have produced a reliable service without grade seperation of Ordsall Lane Junction.

I wasn't really thinking about using all four platforms, just using the two unused ones to allow some fasts re-pathed not to stop at Oxford Road to pass stoppers there to reduce the risk of growing queues at either end snarling other lines. But at the end of the day money is going to have to be spent one way or another, even terminating North TPs in the shed at Piccadilly could end up with even more punters with suitcases jostling for position on P13/14 or in the concourse above which will invariably lead to more delays.

How about 10tph of tram trains extending Bury and Altrincham services terminating services:

- 4tph Glossop
- 2tph Marple Rose Hill via Hyde
- 4tph "New Mills Parkway"

- run 1tph Hope Valley stopper by extending Hazel Grove service.

Build 2 platforms at New Mills on main line and 2 tram train platforms. A freight loop on old alignment between Hyde and Guide Bridge. Close all stations between Guide Bridge and Piccadilly, replacing them with Metrolink stops on track on the spare track bed.

That would remove 7tph from the low platforms into Piccadilly, decarbonise two routes and enabled Piccadilly to Stalybridge to be used only by express services and occasional Hope Valley freight.

With 7tph fewer services into Piccadilly it might be easier to path services crossing the throat of Piccadilly.

Its not the worst idea in the world, although I do maintain from other threads that Metrolink needs to expand south past the University to soak up some of the heavy rail, bus and car traffic and get it moving into the actual centre and to links to other Metrolink routes.

Even though HS2 phase 2b has been cancelled, I suspect that TfGM are awaiting finalisation of NPR plans before moving forward on any Metrolink extensions.

I honestly hop they are not, NPR ain't happening and TfGM need to just formulate their next stages and get funding / permissions sorted.

 

[Halifaxlad]

I would hope that the proposed NPR route from Warrington via the Airport into Manchester Piccadilly is ditched now that the HS2 phase 2b proposal, with which it would have shared the tunnel through south Manchester, has been scrapped.

That bit hasn't quite been scrapped, according to Network North documents it still the plan but it could change if local leaders which to use the £15 billon to improve the line to Liverpool another way.

The HS2/NPR approach was to create a dedicated pair for limited stop expresses, removing such trains from the other parallel lines, hence increasing capacity for all of tiers.

Up until West of Warrington when NPR services were to use a freight line!

Let's cut to the chase here, NPR ain't happening, period. If the government is backing off HS2 to Manchester there is no way on Earth they are going to fund a new line from Liverpool to Manchester, let alone one under the Pennies towards Leeds. Right now it is the stuff of pure fantasy, rainbows, unicorns and all.

I don't get why somepeople believe just because another section of a highly controversial high speed line has been canned that the much less controversial upgrades and bits of new line have been canned too ?