• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!

Northern Powerhouse Rail / HS3 Timeline and Ideas

Status
Not open for further replies.

nerd

Member
Joined
4 May 2011
Messages
524
Yes, but May is upset about the Chinese being involved, and I am not sure I blame her. But that is the deal that has been made to ensure that bankers can make huge sums out of it.

Which you know is the only real purpose of Tory infrastructure projects.

Not just the issue of the Chinese; there is also the potential eyewatering public costs to guarantee the EDF's long-term profits on the deal - without which EDF won't play.

Behind which is the basic problem that EDF have no confidence that their design will work, and can be built within budget cost.

There certainly needs to be a solution to provide a source of 'green' power to the country long-term. Its just that this likely isn't it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Why does it need partners?
You can do interventionism without localism quite easily.
Localism is an excuse to create talking shops that exist for the sole purpose of avoiding actually doing anything to hold down public borrowing figures and such.
You don't need to talk to locals about infrastructure for example, I could lay out a high speed line or motorway without ever actually visiting a place or talking to anyone from it. Computers and the internet have made that possible.

it is looking as though the issue of local development partners is where the new administration has so far been unable to establish how it intends to proceed.

Osborne linked Treasury participation in local development investment to the adoption of a local structure of elected City Mayors. The political problem is that this model only really works for City Regions - which are mainly solid Labour strongholds. Local Tories have been keen for shire counties to get their noses in this trough; but they are - without exception - absolutely against elected county 'mayors'. Whitehall has no confidence at all in the shire administrations; and would stongly resist any suggestion that they be granted the sort of 'Earnback' access to central funding that has been allowed to the GMCA.

But Whitehall has also closed down, stripped out - and if possible sold off - all its direct investment delivery agencies - Atomic Energy Authority; Govermnent Offices for the Regions; Regional Enterprise Boards. If an interventionist central government were to seek to deliver infrastructure planning directly, they would have to start again from scratch (and eat a lot of humble pie).

There is a limitation on how far the current lot can get away with 'Blame it all on Osborne'; as this may well transmute into 'Blame it on the Tories'.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,731
Well, yes, if one was serious about building a new nuclear fleet surely it'd be best to buy expertise and do it in house.

I thought the Chinese were only invested in Sizewell C? Wasn't HP C an EDF exclusive project?

The ongoing debacles at Flamanville and Okiluoto have put serious stress on Areva/EDF's finances - so they brought in chinese capital to reduce their own risk exposure.

Additionally the chinese are the only people who have so far managed to keep an EPR construction programme on schedule and budget. Although it should be noted that the quoted £6000/kW that this is projected to cost is simlar to the (currently predicted) final turnout cost at Flamanville.

It should also be noted that if you use index linked gilts as the capital source that capital cost is still acceptable and your cost of power comes out about £20/MWh.
 
Last edited:

nerd

Member
Joined
4 May 2011
Messages
524

perhaps a tad sanguine, but certainly briefed and well-informed.

The Northern Powerhouse is dead. Long live the Industrial Strategy. That is the message that Downing Street was trying to send out yesterday when the new Economy and Industrial Strategy Cabinet Committee convened for the first time.

The new Committee – which consists of the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and nine Secretaries of State (representing the departments for Business and Energy, Environment, Local Government, Transport, Health, Education, Work and Pensions, Defence, Culture, and International Trade) – is tasked with building an economy that “works for everyone, not just the privileged few”. This has been described as Theresa May’s top economic priority.

Presumably to draw a line between the policies of the last Chancellor and the new Prime Minister, the Downing Street press release studiously avoided making any reference to George Osborne’s much-vaunted ‘Northern Powerhouse’ plan.

However, it seems that rumours of the Northern Powerhouse’s demise are greatly exaggerated. The government still includes a ‘Minister for the Northern Powerhouse’ (currently Andrew Percy at DCLG) and, even as the new Cabinet Committee was meeting yesterday, news was leaking that one of the architects of the Northern Powerhouse – Neil O’Brien – was returning to Whitehall. O’Brien, a former head of uber-Cameroon think tank Policy Exchange who worked as one of George Osborne’s most senior aides until the former Chancellor’s defenestration last month, will be joining the Downing Street Policy Unit to lead its work on the Industrial Strategy. If the themes of the new Industrial Strategy – addressing the North-South productivity gap, stimulating economic growth outside of London, and channelling investment – sound familiar it is because they closely echo the aspirations articulated for the Northern Powerhouse.

Whilst the Northern Powerhouse may have a designated junior minister, the Industrial Strategy has been given its own ministry: the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (formed from the merger of the departments for Business, Innovation and Skills, and Energy and Climate Change). The new department’s Secretary of State, Greg Clark, will take charge of drafting the Industrial Strategy. Given that Clark was a close ally of Osborne and, as Minister for Cities, was another architect of the devolution and City Growth deals at the centre of the Northern Powerhouse, his appointment is another sign of continuity between the two policies.

Although the Government may not yet have started drafting its Industrial Strategy, it looks like the finished document will juxtapose the Northern Powerhouse’s commitment to devolution and to rebalancing regional economic disparity with a broader, national commitment to expanding equality of opportunity. In doing so it looks like the great inconsistency of the Northern Powerhouse idea – that the ‘City Regions’ and areas seeking the new powers have already expanded beyond even the loosest definition of ‘the North’ to encompass Cornwall, East Anglia, and Greater Lincolnshire – will finally be addressed. The Industrial Strategy is also expected to lead to more direct intervention by Government in key industries and business sectors (something that Conservative Governments traditionally disdain to do).

If the evolution from Northern Powerhouse to Industrial Strategy offers any lessons in public policy analysis, it that perhaps we should think of Government economic policy as being like Dr Who – one central character that periodically regenerates to allow for major cast changes, to signal shifts in direction and style, and in order to keep the franchise in business. The Northern Powerhouse is not dead, but it is under new management - and it has plans to expand nationwide.
 
Last edited:

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,942
Not sure how you argue that HSTed.

Not spending money on Hinkley Point potentially makes sums available for other investments. Equally abandoning Osborne's austerity targets.

But that argument could equally be used against Trident Replacement.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Well, yes, if one was serious about building a new nuclear fleet surely it'd be best to buy expertise and do it in house.

I thought the Chinese were only invested in Sizewell C? Wasn't HP C an EDF exclusive project?

Hinkley is a joint project due to money and dependent upon its success the Chinese would build Sizewell C (and Bradwell B?) on their own.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,680
Location
Mold, Clwyd
The DfT has just published a report on the case for a new trans-Pennine road tunnel between Manchester and Sheffield.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...-study-updated-interim-report-august-2016.pdf

Various corridors are considered linking the M60 and M1, with a long bored tunnel of between 10 and 18 miles under the Peak District, depending on the route.
Rail gets a few paragraphs, mainly to discount the idea of an integrated road/rail tunnel.
The different requirements essentially put rail in separate bores on a different tunnel alignment, though they might share approaches and portal/construction sites.

From page 52:
5.10.1 Heavy rail and highway traffic would require segregation in a tunnel, either vertically or horizontally. The resulting tunnel diameter required with vertical segregation would not be feasible with current TBMs. The width required for horizontal segregation is likely to result in a tunnel span that would be at the extreme end of what is feasible even for much slower drill-and-blast construction techniques.
5.10.2 We believe that with today’s technology it would be necessary to construct additional tunnel bores to accommodate a heavy rail route. The required cross section for a rail tunnel is dependent on a number of factors, including line speed, operational and safety requirements. The tunnel could be either a larger bi-directional single bore or a twin, smaller bore arrangement. The total number of tunnel bores for a combined road/rail corridor could affect the scale of the portal areas. However, as discussed above, the rail portal may not be located in the same position as the road portal.

Politically, you can see the advantages of a combined scheme.
However it is likely to constrain the planning for an independent rail route.
Corridor C (Hyde-Hoyland) seems to come out best in the (road) analysis, but they are a long way from deciding a preferred route.

There is also some comical analysis of connecting the Manchester and Sheffield metro systems through the tunnel, before being discounted as practical.
It even says the Sheffield-Rotherham tram-train technology might be worth investigating further.

On a joint road-rail plan, I was impressed recently to read of the approach of the Austrians on the Arlberg road/rail tunnels.
The long-established 10.6 km rail tunnel, recently upgraded, is used as part of the ventilation and emergency access for the parallel 14 km road tunnel.
The improvements were triggered by the serious fires and fatalities in the long alpine road tunnels elsewhere.
Essentially the two tunnels are complementary and reduce the cost of having two completely independent tunnel systems.
 
Last edited:

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
7,739
Location
Leeds
Five routes for the road are continuing to the next level of study, known as routes 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10. They are shown in Fig. 10-4 on page 108 (internal numbering) or 114 (PDF numbering). Routes 7, 8, 9 and 10 are extensions of the M67; route 4 is further north.

Routes 7 and 8 look as though they may incorporate the Stocksbridge bypass (presumably upgraded) and may be compatible with the current/previous proposals for a Mottram bypass. Route 9 looks as though it may incorporate an upgraded length of the A61.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,731
4 seems rather pointless, it is so far north I can't see what real benefits it has over the M62. It also has the disadvantage that a route has to be built all the way to the M60 - whereas the other routes can gain a few miles at the densely populated west end of the route by using the M67.

Route 10 seems best, it seems to have the shortest length and is the furthest south, differentiating it from the M62 corridor to a greater degree.
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,266
Location
Greater Manchester
4 seems rather pointless, it is so far north I can't see what real benefits it has over the M62. It also has the disadvantage that a route has to be built all the way to the M60 - whereas the other routes can gain a few miles at the densely populated west end of the route by using the M67.

Route 10 seems best, it seems to have the shortest length and is the furthest south, differentiating it from the M62 corridor to a greater degree.

But Route 7 (M67 to A616, beneath Woodhead) has a shorter tunnel than Route 10 and is less costly.

Some interesting comments about possible temporary recommissioning of disused parts of the Woodhead rail line, to enable spoil to be removed by rail during construction:
Construction waste can be disposed of using the existing road, or potentially by recommissioning the disused railway line that runs parallel to the route.

Even with the synergies from constructing parallel road and rail tunnels, it seems doubtful that the business case for the rail tunnel could be made to stack up, considering it would be too far south to enable achievement of the NPR target journey time between Manchester and Leeds.
 

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
7,739
Location
Leeds
Routes 7 and 8 make best use of the existing road infrastucture because, as far as I can see, for the last 10 km to the M1 they would incorporate the existing Stocksbridge bypass, and for traffic turning south, e.g. for Sheffield, they would use the existing junction 35A, which could easily be made free-flow by building a bridge to replace the Thorncliffe Road roundabout.

Route 10 would have to be new alignment all the way to the M1 and looks as though it would meet it at junction 35, where it would either be just another road entering the roundabout or would need expensive new free flow links.

Route 4 appears to approach the M60 down the Medlock valley and go through or very close to Daisy Nook Country Park.
 
Last edited:

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,731
Isn't the stocksbridge bypass built to such a low standard that conversion to a Motorway would cost almost as much as a new alignment though?
 

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
7,739
Location
Leeds
Isn't the stocksbridge bypass built to such a low standard that conversion to a Motorway would cost almost as much as a new alignment though?
It would need to be dualled but it would not need a new cross-country alignment with the associated severance.
 

Spod

Member
Joined
28 May 2016
Messages
62
Location
Leeds
There was an interim report released in June by Transport for the North:
http://www.transportforthenorth.com/wp-content/uploads/TfN-Initial-Integrated-Rail-Report.pdf
I haven't read through it all, but this seems to be all the NPR detail we're likely to get at this stage:
8.13 NPR represents a scheme of national scale, and is identified across several corridors in Table
8.2. It is currently anticipated that the scheme will be broadly defined over a similar timescale
to the development of the STP, and we have therefore included it as a ‘defined’ scheme. At
present, NPR is still under development, with the following aspects under consideration:
 Liverpool Station - a number of design concepts;
 Newcastle Station
 Liverpool to Manchester Route- 2 options (direct new line independent of HS2; New line
linking into HS2 via Manchester Airport);
 Manchester Station - route interface with HS2 only;
 Manchester to Leeds Route – 3 options (New central option route that could also link to
Sheffield, via the Calder Valley and via Diggle with potential stop at
Bradford/Huddersfield);
 Leeds station - a design concept for NPR at the station;
 Leeds to Newcastle Route- 2 options (via HS2 to ECML and onto ECML direct off classic
network) and line upgrades in collaboration with the rail industry planning process;
 Sheffield to Leeds Route – Upgraded classic connection from Sheffield Midland to HS2,
with classic network upgrade following on if required;
 Sheffield to Manchester/Manchester Airport Route – 2 options – new central option, line
upgrade in collaboration with the rail industry planning process;
 Leeds to Hull Route – upgrade in collaboration with the rail industry planning process;
and,
 Sheffield to Hull Route - upgrade in collaboration with the rail industry planning process.
8.14 In 2017/18, TfN will:
 Identify interfaces with HS2 Phase 2B to allow single options decisions and inclusion in the
HS2 Phase 2B Hybrid Bill in Summer 2017;
 Work with the DfT, Network Rail and HS2 Ltd to identify a number of feasible engineering
options that will either deliver, or move substantially towards meeting, the conditional
outputs for the NPR network; and,
 Progress work on defined Strategic Development Corridors (SDCs) as a means to identify
preferred options to meet future demands within a Programme Level Business Case
I read the Leeds to Newcastle route options as (1) four tracking from Leeds to the M1 then joining the HS2 link from Leeds to the ECML, and (2) four tracking all the way to Micklefield or the ECML on the classic route, which doesn't take advantage of the 140 mph HS2 link to the ECML but would significantly improve capacity and journey times to Hull and for non-high-speed services like XC and TPE.
Date for the full plan is given as "by the end of 2017", but that may just be hedging bets on the original autumn 2017 target.
 

lejog

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2015
Messages
1,321
Any further news on HS3/NPR?

There's a Transport for North status update (7th July) on the WYCA website.

TfN will publish a Single Integrated Rail Plan by the end of 2017 which will support the Strategic Transport Plan by setting out an integrated programme of schemes to deliver Northern Powerhouse Rail, HS2, Network Rail enhancements and franchise commitments

......

The recent focus of TfN’s work has been on understanding the case for NPR to serve eight ‘Other Significant Economic Centres’ (OSECs) across the north, which in the Leeds City Region includes Bradford, Huddersfield and York as well as Leeds......(Wakefield also an OSEC)........ As reported previously, WYCA and the LCR LEP’s position is amongst other things, for Leeds, Bradford and York to be on the NPR network.

.......

Transport for the North are commencing the next tranche of work to conclude in September 2018. This work will define the NPR network to strategic outline business case level, and should determine whether or not the Leeds City Region’s position on NPR will be included in the eventual network design.
 

TheDavibob

Member
Joined
10 Oct 2016
Messages
407
Does this link work:

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/crossrail-north-now

Osbourne's article in the Financial Times is worth looking at, too [though may be soft paywalled], I've taken some snippets below

https://www.ft.com/content/674d9082-867d-11e7-8bb1-5ba57d47eff7

This autumn we will find out whether the UK government is truly committed to the idea of building a Northern Powerhouse.

...

This week, the partnership launches its first campaign: it wants the government to commit to building high-speed rail links across the north — from Liverpool to Hull, starting with the line across the Pennines. Northern Powerhouse Rail, or HS3, must be included in the next stage of the government’s high-speed network.

Specifically, ministers should include the planning for the future connections when they set out the design for Phase 2b of HS2 later this year, remodelling four junctions to ensure they are complimentary with the Northern Powerhouse Rail proposals, start the detailed planning work on the line itself and allocate a long-term capital budget.

This new railway would transform the northern economy. It would bring 7m extra people — and three times the number of businesses — within a 90-minute journey time of one of the northern cities.

It will not be cheap — I have seen estimates of about £7bn for the Pennine construction — but such investment would be spread over many years and the transport budget was set to accommodate both this and other key projects, such as Crossrail 2.

...
 

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
4,006
Burnham and Osborne collectively are a strong team to push for NPR. Burnham is the most influential non Londoner in Labour and Osborne still has support on the Tory back benches from socially liberal and remain supporting Tory MPs. Osborne is also harder to view as bias for the north as the editor of the main London newspaper. Hopefully they can keep enough pressure going to at least obtain funding for enough upgrades for a 40 minute Manchester-Leeds journey time.
 

Camden

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2014
Messages
1,949
If you want to talk about bias, does Osborne really care about the north, or does he just care about stitching up the woman who sacked him?

If there's any more high speed rail going, if it's going to work it very obviously should be going to Liverpool to connect it to HS2.

While Leeds represents a total market of half the size and has some chunky tunnelling to contend with, my understanding is that Liverpool is a shovel-ready and straightforward project with a healthy, rather than negative, business case and which would also form the start of a high speed 3 without being a white elephant.

Typical weasel politicking of divide and destroy, and using agendas to suit.

Remember the days when deposed politicians showed at least a measure of respect for democracy and cleared off?
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,922
Location
Nottingham
Do we know which four junctions Osborne is referring to? I get the impression either he or his adviser has more rail knowledge than certain ministers currently in the DfT...

There would certainly be scope for a Liverpool branch off HS2 plus reinstatement of the recently-deleted east to west spur where the Manchester and Golborne legs split off. Along with some works in the Manchester area this would create a Manchester-Airport-Liverpool high speed route and allow HS2 trains to access Liverpool (at least most of the way) on high speed infrastructure.
 

Camden

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2014
Messages
1,949
There's plenty of scope for Liverpool to get HS2 and HS3 together, at the same time, for a fraction of the cost of tunnelling between Manchester and Leeds. It's easy peasy.

So why did Osborne state the latter should come first. He could even have stated that Liverpool HS2 should come as a HS2 2c carried out at the same time as 2b.

He's one of the few top figures who persistently did this sort of thing while in office. I don't know what part Liverpool plays in his/their plans, but I do feel sure that being on a high speed network and having a functional economy isn't it. Could he care less? His northern powerhouse party looks increasingly like a bunch of vested interests and clingers on politicians.
 
Last edited:

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,731
If you are going to build a high speed line from Liverpool then you should build to Manchester Airport, and if I'm honest I think you should probably build east from the Airport towards Sheffield and Doncaster (where you join HS2 to Leeds).

That way you avoid tunneling in and out of Manchester on the HS3 budget, and you turn the airport into a proper transport hub in all directions.

There's plenty of scope for Liverpool to get HS2 and HS3 together, at the same time, for a fraction of the cost of tunnelling between Manchester and Leeds. It's easy peasy.

So why did Osborne state the latter should come first. He could even have stated that Liverpool HS2 should come as a HS2 2c carried out at the same time as 2b.

Because a connection between Liverpool and Manchester only really benefits people going to and from liverpool.
A section between Manchester and Leeds benefits everyone who uses that section, which is a far larger number of people.
 
Last edited:

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,325
Do we know which four junctions Osborne is referring to? I get the impression either he or his adviser has more rail knowledge than certain ministers currently in the DfT...

I was tempted to create a new user called "Mr Osborne" and post:

Mr Osborne said:
That's because I spend my spare time on here and they don't

George
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,922
Location
Nottingham
If you are going to build a high speed line from Liverpool then you should build to Manchester Airport, and if I'm honest I think you should probably build east from the Airport towards Sheffield and Doncaster (where you join HS2 to Leeds).

That way you avoid tunneling in and out of Manchester on the HS3 budget, and you turn the airport into a proper transport hub in all directions.

Having previously been an advocate of this idea I did the maths and decided Manchester to Leeds via Woodhead and a connection to HS2 eastern leg was too slow. Using new HS infrastructure instead of re-opening the Great Central would reduce that journey time, but on the other hand HS2 is now a lot further away with the re-routeing east of Sheffield.

Because a connection between Liverpool and Manchester only really benefits people going to and from liverpool.
A section between Manchester and Leeds benefits everyone who uses that section, which is a far larger number of people.

The same point could be made about heading from Manchester Airport towards Sheffield instead of from central Manchester towards Leeds.
 
Last edited:

lejog

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2015
Messages
1,321
There's plenty of scope for Liverpool to get HS2 and HS3 together, at the same time, for a fraction of the cost of tunnelling between Manchester and Leeds. It's easy peasy.

So why did Osborne state the latter should come first. He could even have stated that Liverpool HS2 should come as a HS2 2c carried out at the same time as 2b.

He's one of the few top figures who persistently did this sort of thing while in office. I don't know what part Liverpool plays in his/their plans, but I do feel sure that being on a high speed network and having a functional economy isn't it. Could he care less? His northern powerhouse party looks increasingly like a bunch of vested interests and clingers on politicians.

Try reading the National Infrastructure Commission report which identified Manchester to Leeds as having the highest economic benefit and being the top priority.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top