Greengauge 21 report - The rail needs of the North and Midlands

[MidlandMainlie]

Greengauge 21 have released a new report on meeting the rail needs in North and the Midlands for post Coronavirus recovery.

Government’s intention to develop an integrated rail plan for the North and Midlands is welcome.

This requires strategic planning, not just prioritising projects. The outcome should be a programme of rail network development designed to meet Government objectives. Today, these centre on national economy recovery and decarbonising the transport sector – both must be regarded as urgent.

Planning efforts to date, seeking to tie together HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail have been mis-guided. Creating a £80bn mega-project doesn’t address the problems on today’s network and will take at least 20 years to deliver. The Midlands and the North can’t wait that long. And it risks creating an investment gap. In our new report: Meeting Rail Needs in High Speed North we set out how this can be filled by a short and medium term programme of incremental improvements.

Projects developed pre-Covid centre on better connections between cities. Given that the railway is a network with hubs in city centres, that remains valid but it’s only part of what’s needed. There is also a Government aim to level up the economy and that means addressing places left behind – the smaller towns and cities of the North and Midlands – and not just the big cities.

With some adaptations to the longer term high-speed rail plans (including leaving some bits out), and with some fresh thinking, known problems and opportunities can be addressed much earlier than 2040 – and help pave the way for a full realisation of the additional benefits of HS2 Phase 2b and NPR in due course.

The reduction of carbon on a trajectory to the Government’s committed date of 2050 for net zero will necessarily dominate the way transport investment is shaped. An expansion of the capability of the electrified national rail network will be crucial.

Attention must be switched away from the (already very largely electrified) rail network of the South East and its two new inter-connecting rail lines across London (Thameslink and Crossrail). Much greater value in carbon reduction terms will come from addressing rail network short-comings in the Midlands and North (and across the border to Scotland) where rail market shares are low, but where there is massive potential to reduce the need for both short haul flights and longer distance car and HGV journeys.

A new entity – High Speed North – is charged with creating the integrated plan. It is seeking ways to reduce capital costs and increase project benefits. In our new report we have suggested a prioritised programme consisting of:

1. A major electrification programme In England, the obvious starting points being completion of a 100% electrified trans-Pennine route (via Huddersfield); and the completion of the Midland Main Line electrification
2. ‘Burning platform’ investments to redress current severe operating constraints. A prime example is creating a ‘superhub’ at Manchester Piccadilly with underground platforms connected to the west by tunnel to handle all of Manchester’s inter-regional services. This can be progressed now, well ahead of HS2 and NPR – and superhubs are also needed for Leeds and for Birmingham where the Midlands Rail Hub (Moor Street) can transform HS2 into an X-shaped network. Better to build these improvements, which carefully staged implementation programmes, now rather than wait to be swamped by added demand form HS2 and NPR later
3. Two priority intercity connectivity upgrades. Early delivery of two parts of HS2’s ‘eastern limb’ between Sheffield and Leeds and between Birmingham and Nottingham (with a connection to Toton and Mansfield). This addresses the busiest city commuter connection in the North and the key east-west connection in the Midlands
4. Deliver a 3h10 rail journey time for London-Glasgow/Edinburgh. This requires a line-of-route coordinated investment programme north and south of the Scottish border, benefiting Lancashire, Cumbria, and the Scottish Borders. The main aim is to drive modal switch and make a dramatic impact on carbon reduction. Preston, Carlisle and Glasgow Central stations will each need investment and some new higher-speed cut-offs will be needed
5. International connectivity. Three schemes:
   (i) The planned western connection into Heathrow airport, with new direct rail connections to the airport from the Midlands (as well as the South West and South Wales)
   (ii) An equivalent arrangement for Manchester where (as it happens) there is also a western airport access scheme. (This is also a ‘burning platform’ issue to tackle rail network congestion in central Manchester – the current Airport railway station is a bottleneck). It will transform access to the airport from Chester and Wales
   (iii) A strategic freight route for a much-expanded railfreight operation through the channel tunnel. This requires a new lower Thames rail tunnel (which can also be used for Essex-Kent passenger rail services) so that railfreight using the channel tunnel can operate directly to/from the Midlands and North avoiding London.
6. Modal Integration. This is especially important for ‘left behind’ places, has low capital cost implications and can be implemented speedily. It entails creating rail <-> express interurban bus hubs and needs a simple policy shift to permit single fares systems to operate across bus and rail in the way it does today across London.

The Rail Needs of the North and the Midlands – Greengauge 21

 

[si404]

On p24 they propose removing Newcastle-London trains from HS2's proposal and off the back of that, propose a massive reduction in trains stopping at Old Oak Common.

"with a slightly lower throughput, the current plan to insist that every HS2 train stops at Old Oak Common can be re-visited. A four train/hour stopping pattern would be a good option, allowing most HS2 trains to save (say) 4 minutes on their journey times to/from London"

But on p26, they want to make OOC an even more important hub than it will be:

"At the London end of the route, we explain how current plans to add platforms at Old Oak Common for services from the Chiltern line could and should be elaborated into a through east-west connection, linked eastwards via the North London Line to HS1, providing wide connectivity gains. This creates the possibility of at least some parts of the country other than London and Kent being able to have direct access to Eurostar services at Ebbsfleet and Ashford, as well as valuable new cross-London connectivity. If, in addition, a second west-side route is added to the Elizabeth line, by means of a connection to the West Coast Main Line at Old Oak as proposed a few years ago by Network Rail and Transport for London: this could further strengthen Old Oak’s value as an interchange, as well as reduce the pressure on Euston and offer savings in HS2 Phase 2b costs."

So they want Old Oak Common to be a really important hub (including for the reason relieving Euston of some more of its HS2 passengers) two pages after saying they want 75% of HS2 trains skip it for the sake of slightly quicker journey time to Euston. Did they even read through what they had written? It just sounds like they are throwing ideas out rather than proposing a strategy.

 

[popeter45]

i really dont understand the idea for a HS line to stansted, too short for a proper HS line to take advantage of speed and also people travelling to stansted are prob flying ryanair so want cheap tickets not a premium high speed service like HeX

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Now having had time to read the reports more thougughly it has some interesting thoughts on Northern Powerhouse rail (page 9)

It is also important to test whether the TRU or the NPR project (or some combination of the two schemes) could better meet the connectivity needs of those places that are struggling in relative terms economically. A way to develop an approach in this territory incrementally and which prioritises addressing city centre challenges was recently published as High Speed North Revisited.9 This report envisaged a solution to the Castlefield Corridor problem that would allow a set of Manchester city-region local services to be focused on the linked sequence of central area stations (Victoria-Salford-Deansgate-Oxford Road-Piccadilly) while all longer-distance services were switched to a new east-west tunnel under the city centre and a new super hub with underground platforms created at Piccadilly.10

This proposal is illustrated below. It is an approach that saves cost outlay and enhances connectivity benefits. It is designed to separate out longer distance non-stopping services from shorter-distance city region services. Specifically, it:

(i) maximises connectivity benefits with shorter Manchester-Liverpool journey times over a more direct (upgraded existing) route than is achieved with the current hybrid HS2 Phase2b/NPR plan

(ii) reduces the costs of achieving this part of the integrated plan. The new high-speed NPR connection from the HS2 Manchester Airport station west via Warrington and onwards to Liverpool would be scrapped

(iii) accelerates delivery of private sector regeneration investment around Manchester Piccadilly station which would be pre-prepared for new high-speed lines arriving later (Phase 2b and trans-Pennine NPR)

(iv) provides Manchester with a through high-speed station so that high-speed services such as Birmingham-Manchester-Scotland can be operated

(v) creates the scope for an expanded Manchester city-region rail network, with at its core an established ‘Picc-Vic’ link freed of conflicting services offering Thameslink style high- frequency capabilities

(vi) adds capacity at Manchester Piccadilly to accommodate HS2 Phase1/2a services in new low-level platforms capable of taking 400m trains (without which HS2 trains would be constrained to short formation 200m train lengths until Phase 2b is built – a most unsatisfactory reduction in seating capacity compared with the existing Pendolino service.

(vii) Leaves free the disused east-west rail alignment through Warrington Bank Quay (low level) for a lower-cost line re-instatement in this corridor that could serve a useful purpose of re-establishing local rail services for Warrington and help open up housing development at Fiddlers Ferry and other locations.

 

[Purple Orange]

Does anyone have a link to the report? I can only find a summary.

Apologies, ignore. Found it now!

 

[Bald Rick]

i really dont understand the idea for a HS line to stansted, too short for a proper HS line to take advantage of speed and also people travelling to stansted are prob flying ryanair so want cheap tickets not a premium high speed service like HeX

Agreed. It could only ever make sense as part of a longer route to Cambridge and then up the east coast. But the big problem is where to put the stations, at London, Stansted and Cambridge. There’s not much point of being able to get from ‘London’ to ‘Stansted’ in 20 minutes if the former is at Stratford and the latter is a 15 minute walk from the terminal.

 

[si404]

i really dont understand the idea for a HS line to stansted, too short for a proper HS line to take advantage of speed

15 minutes could take advantage of the speed - the express is currently 45 minutes. But Bald Rick's point about station placement is a good one.

But it is rather odd - while the GEML could do with a bypass to supply more trains, the WAML bit makes little sense - the Cambridge service is semi-fast si you'd still have to serve Harlow and Bishops Stortford (main service is Stansted Express) with faster trains so it won't save on 4-tracking for Crossrail 2 (which is about creating space for the slow services to stop), and then going on existing tracks Cambridge-Peterborough (and presumably north - ECML and Nottingham?) is really not very fast. The only benefits of the Cambridge branch is that it would remove 2tph (Ely/Kings Lynn) from the ECML and a butt load of capacity.

Does anyone have a link to the report? I can only find a summary.

Apologies, ignore. Found it now!

It's pretty hard to find - it wasn't easy on the actual site (though I can see it now, and it was only as it was in the quote here that I found it!

So for all the others struggling:

http://www.greengauge21.net/wp-content/uploads/NIC-Rail-Needs-in-the-North-Call-for-evidence-response-from-Greengauge-21.pdf

 

[Ianno87]

. The only benefits of the Cambridge branch is that it would remove 2tph (Ely/Kings Lynn) from the ECML and a butt load of capacity.

Again, caveat that wherever the London terminal ends up doesn't have a significant time disadvantage from the present King's Cross

 

[Bald Rick]

Again, caveat that wherever the London terminal ends up doesn't have a significant time disadvantage from the present King's Cross

Agreed. If anyone can think of a location in the east side of zone 1 where you can fit a new 4 Platform (minimum) station that can take at least 250m, and preferably 400m trains, I’m sure there are a few people who would be delighted to hear about it.

 

[si404]

Again, caveat that wherever the London terminal ends up doesn't have a significant time disadvantage from the present King's Cross

Sorry, yes 'could remove the Fen line trains from the ECML'.

 

[London Trains]

Agreed. If anyone can think of a location in the east side of zone 1 where you can fit a new 4 Platform (minimum) station that can take at least 250m, and preferably 400m trains, I’m sure there are a few people who would be delighted to hear about it.

Kings Cross? Albeit not in the city, but no chance of finding space in the city (and demolishing buildings in the city would be a LOT more expensive than elsewhere in London most likely).

 

[si404]

Kings Cross? Albeit not in the city, but no chance of finding space in the city (and demolishing buildings in the city would be a LOT more expensive than elsewhere in London most likely).

Might work, providing you build high-enough speed track back to join the ECML and so effectively divert the ECML replacing Stevenage with Stansted, and so only really having Great Northern services into Kings Cross not on the new line.

But still, it's not amazingly thought out, just like their OOC nonsense of making it even more of an interchange but also non-stopping most HS2 services through it.

 

[Bald Rick]

Kings Cross? Albeit not in the city, but no chance of finding space in the city (and demolishing buildings in the city would be a LOT more expensive than elsewhere in London most likely).

The cost of demolishing buildings is the same everywhere in London. The cost of buying them isn’t, but Kings Cross is not far off city values. For example the google building next to King’s X is worth well over a billion. And that’s nowhere near big enough.

 

[Purple Orange]

Unless there is a station in London with space around it to extend such has been the case with St. Pancras and Euston, any new statin in London will need to be underground. If an underground NPR station in Manchester is being realistically considered, it would be waved through with a chequered flag in London.

 

[Ianno87]

If an underground NPR station in Manchester is being realistically considered, it would be waved through with a chequered flag in London.

Would it? The proposals for underground Euston HS2 station certainly didn't get 'waved though'. Take a look at the 'long list' sift in the very original HS2 reports for the locations that were considered.

An underground station at Piccadilly is getting far more serious consideration than underground Euston ever did...

 

[Purple Orange]

Would it? The proposals for underground Euston HS2 station certainly didn't get 'waved though'. Take a look at the 'long list' sift in the very original HS2 reports for the locations that were considered.

An underground station at Piccadilly is getting far more serious consideration than underground Euston ever did...

An underground Euston station has not been given serious thought due to there being enough space to build a surface station to suit its needs. A surface station in Manchester does not fully meet its needs and if we are saying land is too scarce and property too expensive to demolish for a second London terminus, the only option is underground.

 

[Bald Rick]

Unless there is a station in London with space around it to extend such has been the case with St. Pancras and Euston, any new statin in London will need to be underground. If an underground NPR station in Manchester is being realistically considered, it would be waved through with a chequered flag in London.

Where would you put this minimum 4 platform, 400m long station underground in Zone 1, that has suitable onward travel connections? Beneath ground level in Zone 1 is as crowded a place as above ground level.

 

[Purple Orange]

Where would you put this minimum 4 platform, 400m long station underground in Zone 1, that has suitable onward travel connections? Beneath ground level in Zone 1 is as crowded a place as above ground level.

Does it need to be 400m?

Just so we’re clear, I’m not advocating an underground station. A new line heading north east has been proposed, but folk are saying there is no space, so where would the trains go? Unless it will just utilise Kings Cross or Liverpool Street as they are with shorter trains.

 

[Bald Rick]

Does it need to be 400m?

Yep. Every other highspeed railway built in Europe allows this (Including HS1, and HS2 when built). It is a requirement in the Technical Standards for Interoperability, which the U.K. is going to retain even when fully out of the EU.

 

[London Trains]

Unless there is a station in London with space around it to extend such has been the case with St. Pancras and Euston, any new statin in London will need to be underground. If an underground NPR station in Manchester is being realistically considered, it would be waved through with a chequered flag in London.

No it wouldnt, for many reasons. First, the NPR station in Manchester would be a through station. It is easier to build a through station than a terminus. Additionally, and most importantly, most of Central London is just as crowded underground as overground, whereas Manchester is mostly empty below the surface. Crossrail runs metres from lots of lines, as will Crossrail 2 if built. Finding space for to build a 2 track Crossrail/tube line through London is hard enough. Finding space for a large terminus underground with 400m platforms would be pretty much impossible. It is much easier to buy and demolish a few buildings (hence why I suggested Kings Cross) than to run through a bunch of tube lines. And even if there was some space, I would personally prefer it to be left for new tube and Crossrail lines.

 

[Ianno87]

Does it need to be 400m?

Do you want to build in a train length constraint on brand new infrastructure that you're stuck with forever...?

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Agreed. If anyone can think of a location in the east side of zone 1 where you can fit a new 4 Platform (minimum) station that can take at least 250m, and preferably 400m trains, I’m sure there are a few people who would be delighted to hear about it.

Is Bishopsgate Goods Yard still available? And would it be big enough?

 

[edwin_m]

Is Bishopsgate Goods Yard still available? And would it be big enough?

Probably not and certainly not.

How come a thread about the Midlands and North has been discussing stations in London for the last couple of pages?

 

[si404]

How come a thread about the Midlands and North has been discussing stations in London for the last couple of pages?

It hasn't - we're still on page one!

But the London talk is because the Greengauge report has quite a bit of London stuff in it, despite apparently being about the Midlands and North. And it's that London stuff that's controversial and thus a talking point!

 

[edwin_m]

It hasn't - we're still on page one!

But the London talk is because the Greengauge report has quite a bit of London stuff in it, despite apparently being about the Midlands and North. And it's that London stuff that's controversial and thus a talking point!

Perhaps our moderators should be ticking Greengage off for going off-topic.

 

[Purple Orange]

I’ll quickly state that I’m not bothered about how a second high speed station in London manifests itself. I’ve only been playing devils advocate to the comments that have stated that there is no room for another 400m station in London or property is too expensive to demolish.

Yep. Every other highspeed railway built in Europe allows this (Including HS1, and HS2 when built). It is a requirement in the Technical Standards for Interoperability, which the U.K. is going to retain even when fully out of the EU.

Do you want to build in a train length constraint on brand new infrastructure that you're stuck with forever...?

Back to the question of whether it needs to be 400m, we are building a high speed rail network where of the 17 trains leaving Euston, only 8 will be arriving at a station that can facilitate a full length high speed train. Could it be that a second high speed line is built outside of London, but classic compatible trains are used in to Liverpool St or Kings Cross? If it is a 400m station, then it would suggest 400m platforms are built at Cambridge or Stansted or wherever the end of line happens to be. Just building 400m platforms in London would necessitate splitting/joining of the service.

Also Madrid-Barcelona operate 8 car trains. I’m not sure of the length but it won’t be 400m.

No it wouldnt, for many reasons. First, the NPR station in Manchester would be a through station. It is easier to build a through station than a terminus. Additionally, and most importantly, most of Central London is just as crowded underground as overground, whereas Manchester is mostly empty below the surface. Crossrail runs metres from lots of lines, as will Crossrail 2 if built. Finding space for to build a 2 track Crossrail/tube line through London is hard enough. Finding space for a large terminus underground with 400m platforms would be pretty much impossible. It is much easier to buy and demolish a few buildings (hence why I suggested Kings Cross) than to run through a bunch of tube lines. And even if there was some space, I would personally prefer it to be left for new tube and Crossrail lines.

Well it could be a through station in London, which would be more beneficial. Nobody said it must be a terminus statistion, or even a new station. Newcastle, Liverpool, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Sheffield are not getting new stations for HS2 l

Plus if a route for cross rail 2, cross rail 3 and cross rail 4, 5 & 6 can be found, why can’t a route for another high speed underground station?

 

[Ianno87]

Plus if a route for cross rail 2, cross rail 3 and cross rail 4, 5 & 6 can be found, why can’t a route for another high speed underground station?

Wow! Would you be able to share the routes of Crossrails 3 to 6, please? You state they've been found, which I'm sure is news to many on this forum.

Seriously, after Crossrail 2 space under London for anything more is likely to be near non-existent.

 

[Purple Orange]

Wow! Would you be able to share the routes of Crossrails 3 to 6, please? You state they've been found, which I'm sure is news to many on this forum.

Seriously, after Crossrail 2 space under London for anything more is likely to be near non-existent.

Surely you can tell that my reference to cross rail 3, 4, 5 & 6 was not serious.

 

[si404]

13 out of the 17 trains on HS2 will leave London as 400m trains. 5 will split en-route (1 at Crewe, 2 at East Midlands, 2 at Carlisle).

But any second line north as proposed is going to have capacity to not require splitting, and would be unlikely to have captive platforms other than Stansted (not even London).

 

[30907]

Madrid-Barcelona operate 8 car trains. I’m not sure of the length but it won’t be 400m.

The ICE clones will be approx 200m. However they (and the original TGV types) can presumably work in multiple, and there are booked 2-portion AVEs using Talgo units all over the network, including from Barcelona avoiding Madrid.
Much the same applies on the French and German networks.