North franchises ‘will not deliver transformational infrastructure’

[notlob.divad]

Well the airport is part of the overall Infrastructure and given the 1Billion expansion plan they have for it maybe this is a part of the transformational infrastructure. I would say that a Bus from Stockport to the airport is not transformational though. That needs a 4 tracked transpennine mainline or even a Northern Bullet Train.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Closure of the South District and Fallowfield loop lines (to heavy rail) has meant that the only rail bypass in south M/c is the CLC/LNW line from Cheadle Heath/Edgeley to the Mid Cheshire line.

The line from the Baguley direction bifurcates in the Northenden area at Northenden Junction, effectively giving two routes, one of which passes through the site of the long-closed Hazel Grove (Midland) station that closed on 1st January 1917.

 

[daikilo]

Just a reminder that this thread is about North franchises ‘will not deliver transformational infrastructure’

If you spot someone talking about airports or anything unrelated to the above, please create a new thread (in an appropriate forum, with an appropriate title) to discuss that further.

And as someone else pointed out, if you want to do Manchester-Leeds in 30 minutes you want to go in a straight line, which basically means a tunnel. I suppose a Pennine base tunnel to Huddersfield then a shorter one from there to Leeds could work. That would be transformational, and of course unaffordable, but the latter wasn't the question. High power tilting trains might allow the base tunnel to start from somewhere other than the end of the platforms.

 

[daodao]

The line from the Baguley direction bifurcates in the Northenden area at Northenden Junction, effectively giving two routes, one of which passes through the site of the long-closed Hazel Grove (Midland) station that closed on 1st January 1917.

It is effectively only 1 route west of Northenden. I implied in my previous e-mail that it had 2 origins at the eastern end - Cheadle Heath (CLC) and Edgeley (LNW). It carries significantly freight traffic and due to capacity constraints mentioned in my previous e-mail (single track sections, level crossings), it will be difficult to accommodate more freight trains in addition to extra passenger trains (increase to 2 tph in each direction) under the new Northern franchise, or open intermediate stations (e.g. at Southmoor Road, Baguley).

 

[notlob.divad]

Huddersfield - Leeds Could you do Colne Bridge to Beeston Royds It would be about 8 miles?

Manchester - Huddersfield: I have no idea Getting it under ground early would help as that is the particularly wiggly bit.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It is effectively only 1 route west of Northenden. I implied in my previous e-mail that it had 2 origins at the eastern end - Cheadle Heath (CLC) and Edgeley (LNW). It carries significantly freight traffic and due to capacity constraints mentioned in my previous e-mail (single track sections, level crossings), it will be difficult to accommodate more freight trains in addition to extra passenger trains (increase to 2 tph in each direction) under the new Northern franchise, or open intermediate stations (e.g. at Southmoor Road, Baguley).

If I have approached your premise from the wrong geographical point, then please accept my apologies.

With regards to the possibility of a new heavy-rail station at Baguley, I remember reading that TfGM had expressed certain reservations some time ago, but if anyone has the up-to-date TfGM position on that matter, this would be most useful in updating us.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Huddersfield - Leeds Could you do Colne Bridge to Beeston Royds It would be about 8 miles?

Manchester - Huddersfield: I have no idea Getting it under ground early would help as that is the particularly wiggly bit.

For those able to submit the geological strata that such a tunnel would have to penetrate, together with any details of known underground springs likely to be encountered in that area, this would indeed make for very interesting reading.

 

[D6975]

The Pennine Anticline around Standedge is pretty much solid Millstone Grit. Pretty tough stuff.

 

[Greybeard33]

Might a new Transpennine line along the M62 alignment be permissible as a cheaper alternative to a base tunnel? The motorway is already such a scar across the National Park that a railway alongside would make little difference. Cuttings and/or short tunnels could reduce the gradient on the steeper bits.

Bring HS2 into Manchester up the Mersey valley instead of via the Airport (shorter distance for Manchester-Liverpool) with a through station at Victoria instead of the terminus at Piccadilly (demolish the Arena to make room). Follow the L&Y line towards Rochdale to reach the motorway.

For Manchester Airport, provide connections to the existing station from Victoria via the Ordsall Chord, from Crewe via Wilmslow and from Liverpool and Chester via a new western link to Mobberley. Fast journey times to airports are less important than between the regional centres - even for a flight to Paris or Brussels, a few minutes saved on the ground are a very small percentage of the total journey time.

I'll get my coat....

 

[notlob.divad]

Might a new Transpennine line along the M62 alignment be permissible as a cheaper alternative to a base tunnel? The motorway is already such a scar across the National Park that a railway alongside would make little difference. Cuttings and/or short tunnels could reduce the gradient on the steeper bits.

Bring HS2 into Manchester up the Mersey valley instead of via the Airport (shorter distance for Manchester-Liverpool) with a through station at Victoria instead of the terminus at Piccadilly (demolish the Arena to make room). Follow the L&Y line towards Rochdale to reach the motorway.

For Manchester Airport, provide connections to the existing station from Victoria via the Ordsall Chord, from Crewe via Wilmslow and from Liverpool and Chester via a new western link to Mobberley. Fast journey times to airports are less important than between the regional centres - even for a flight to Paris or Brussels, a few minutes saved on the ground are a very small percentage of the total journey time.

I'll get my coat....

Not sure about the M62 bit, but everything else is spot on in my opinion.

However. the point of the HS project in the long run is surely to reduce not just domestic flights but flights from Manchester to Northern Europe. Paris Brussels Amsterdam etc. Eventually of the 3tph to London, 1 will be an international service. This will go to St Pancras instead of Euston which will be a little "No mans Land" in the middle of London.The Manchester train will be heading to Brussels. Any one going for Paris will get off and people from London will get on. Leeds will have a train to St Pancras arriving minute later but heading on to Paris. People from Manchester to Paris will get on. Etc etc Just like we do with Domestic trains, but international connectivity Birmingham to Amsterdam etc etc. The reasons they are tying the airports in is that it will replace feeder flights. So people who would fly to Schipol to connect to a flight to Brazil will find it more convenient to take the hourly international train from the Centre of Manchester. Particularly if they can "Check in" for the entire route through and get delivered "Airside" at the airports. Obviously this would happen in the opposite direction as well with Brussels residents on a train to Manchester Airport already checked in, through immigration control for a flight to America.

I much prefer the idea of a through HS2 station on the site of Victoria rather than a terminal station at Piccadilly. But it does not tie in with the regional nature. Each region NW, Y/Shire W/Midlands E/Midlands Scotland etc etc will all have their hub international station as well as an airport station. Domestic HS connectivity is a welcome added bonus but is being used as the main reason in order to sell the idea to the general population.

 

[Haydn1971]

HS3 following the M62 is possible, gradients are no problem for these fangled multiple units and indeed, an idea was discussed via the West Yorkshire Transport Investment Fund, where I pitched in the idea along with P&R near motorway junctions - sadly well beyond the WYCA remit and budgets !

The killer really is that a M62 corridor for HS3 does nothing to improve life for Sheffield-Manchester, which brings us back to a Barnsley-Woodhead-Manchester type tunnel alignment with HS2 level speeds as the only real option.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Is this debate beginning to stray into the realms of matters which are more belonging to the High Speed Rail sub-forum....noting the posting from yorkie that reminds thread contributors that this thread is headed "North franchises will not deliver transformational infrastructure"

 

[Haydn1971]

I'm not so sure it is drifting, HS3 is one part of the future of rail for the North - but I'd agree, there's a lot of other transformation things that are needed, namely ticketing, capacity through the 2020's, park and ride, new chords, station improvements...

 

[Senex]

Is this debate beginning to stray into the realms of matters which are more belonging to the High Speed Rail sub-forum....noting the posting from yorkie that reminds thread contributors that this thread is headed "North franchises will not deliver transformational infrastructure"

Could the franchises deliver transformational infrastructure in any case? Whatever the original ideas at the time of privatisation may have been, the franchisees now seem to have minimal input into decisions as to what infrastructure improvements and additions are required or desirable. That seems to have become the business prety well purely of the DfT and Network Rail.

 

[al78]

Might a new Transpennine line along the M62 alignment be permissible as a cheaper alternative to a base tunnel? The motorway is already such a scar across the National Park that a railway alongside would make little difference. Cuttings and/or short tunnels could reduce the gradient on the steeper bits.

The M62 rises to just over 370 metres above sea level, are there trains that will manage reasonable speeds up an incline such as the climb between J21 and J22? It is not so bad on the Yorkshire side as the Penines don't rise up so abruptly when approaching from the east.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The M62 rises to just over 370 metres above sea level, are there trains that will manage reasonable speeds up an incline such as the climb between J21 and J22? It is not so bad on the Yorkshire side as the Penines don't rise up so abruptly when approaching from the east.

Yes, TGVs. The way the French do it is to build quite steep lines but keep them straight.

If travelling on the Eurostar you may well have noticed the feeling of climbing and descending at times.

 

[lejog]

HS3 following the M62 is possible, gradients are no problem for these fangled multiple units and indeed, an idea was discussed via the West Yorkshire Transport Investment Fund, where I pitched in the idea along with P&R near motorway junctions - sadly well beyond the WYCA remit and budgets !

The killer really is that a M62 corridor for HS3 does nothing to improve life for Sheffield-Manchester, which brings us back to a Barnsley-Woodhead-Manchester type tunnel alignment with HS2 level speeds as the only real option.

Is this debate beginning to stray into the realms of matters which are more belonging to the High Speed Rail sub-forum....noting the posting from yorkie that reminds thread contributors that this thread is headed "North franchises will not deliver transformational infrastructure"

Previous reports from TfN have suggested that the 30 minute journey time aspiration from Manchester to Leeds and Sheffield will be met by EITHER upgrading both current lines OR a single high speed line . The last progress report promised:

By March 2016 we will conduct an initial prioritisation of options, enabling us to focus energy on further development of the most promising options......in autumn 2016 (we will) provide an understanding of the relative scale of costs and benefits of different options,

so we may know a little more soon, although the September 2015 report appeared in November. :roll:

 

[Haydn1971]

The M62 rises to just over 370 metres above sea level, are there trains that will manage reasonable speeds up an incline such as the climb between J21 and J22? It is not so bad on the Yorkshire side as the Penines don't rise up so abruptly when approaching from the east.

Motorways are designed with a desirable maximum gradient of 3%, I understand that HS2 standards use 2.5% or 3.5% over no more than 6km. Looking at a map and levels, I'd estimate that the M62 is 3% over about 6km*, so a high speed line to HS2 standards could "just" make make it.

* that's from about 1km east of J21 to just east of J22, where the M62 crowns the Pennines.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
What's the feeling about providing free parking at park and ride sites ? I'd love to increase my travel options from Sheffield to Leeds or Manchester but don't wish to pay £15 for all day parking. Dore and Meadowhall are free, but have compromised travel options - that is, not enough fast or indeed no, express options.

 

[quantinghome]

Motorways are designed with a desirable maximum gradient of 3%, I understand that HS2 standards use 2.5% or 3.5% over no more than 6km. Looking at a map and levels, I'd estimate that the M62 is 3% over about 6km*, so a high speed line to HS2 standards could "just" make make it.

* that's from about 1km east of J21 to just east of J22, where the M62 crowns the Pennines.

4% according to a report I found on the M62. Anyway, my pedantry aside, 3-4% is on the upper end of feasibility for a HS route. Also, these gradients tend to be used only on truly high speed routes as the higher kinetic energy means less speed loss with height gained. I don't think the M62 alignment would support such high speeds.

 

[Haydn1971]

4% according to a report I found on the M62. Anyway, my pedantry aside, 3-4% is on the upper end of feasibility for a HS route.

I've heard 4% quoted previously on another forum, but seem to recall that challenged - regardless of that, I'd agree, it's at the upper end of what you'd want to use.

Also, these gradients tend to be used only on truly high speed routes as the higher kinetic energy means less speed loss with height gained.

Which is where the 2.5%(3.5%) comes in on the HS2 - it's in the technical specification.

I don't think the M62 alignment would support such high speeds.

I wouldn't agree that vertical constraints are an issue - there are various options to maintain at or under the 3.5% maximum gradient in the HS2 specification - I would agree that the M62 corridor is a bad option in terms of not servicing the needs of Sheffield and furthermore, as a more direct Leeds-Manchester line, misses out a currently large passenger source at Huddersfield.

 

[Senex]

4% according to a report I found on the M62. Anyway, my pedantry aside, 3-4% is on the upper end of feasibility for a HS route. Also, these gradients tend to be used only on truly high speed routes as the higher kinetic energy means less speed loss with height gained. I don't think the M62 alignment would support such high speeds.

An example of a relatively short section of new high-speed line is the Nürnberg to Ingolstadt section of the upgraded Nürnberg to Munich route. There are 77.4 km of new line, for 300-km/h running, built very largely parallel to the A9 autobahn to reduce impact on the landscape. The minimum curve radius is 4085 metres and the maximum gradient is 20‰, and to get this 27 km of tunneling was required (i.e. about a third of the total length). The costs came out significantly higher than at firstg estimated, with (2010 prices) €2.27 Mrd for the high-speed section along, or € 13.8 million per track-km.
It would be very interesting to know whether the idea of bundling a new Manchester-Leeds railway with the M62 is or is not a starter. If it is, I doubt if the costs would be likely to be any lower than those in Germany.

 

[Grimsby town]

If we are talking about infrastructure improvements across the north Has anyone ever proposed a North to South S-bahn style tunnel across Leeds? Now i'm not an expert on the geology of the area so that could be a limiting factor but if it is possible. A tunnel could run from the Hunslet area of the Castleford / Sheffield via Barnsley Line to a junction with the Harrogate Line at Burley Park. Stations could be built at new lane for HS2, Leeds City station, somewhere in the centre, Town hall/ Infirmary and the University. If a business case can be made a line could be extended to the airport to make it more accessible across the county.

 

[Greybeard33]

Previous reports from TfN have suggested that the 30 minute journey time aspiration from Manchester to Leeds and Sheffield will be met by EITHER upgrading both current lines OR a single high speed line . The last progress report promised:

so we may know a little more soon, although the September 2015 report appeared in November. :roll:

Does anyone seriously believe it would be possible to shave 19 minutes off the journey time between Manchester and Leeds, and 18 minutes off the journey time between Manchester and Sheffield, by just upgrading the Diggle and Hope Valley lines and running non-stop? The respective distances are 43 miles (Victoria-Leeds via Huddersfield) and 42 miles (Piccadilly-Sheffield via Reddish North), so average speeds of 86mph and 84mph!

 

[lejog]

I should have chosen a form of words less definite than "will be met" in my previous post but this is how TfN describe the options currently being investigated for Manchester to Leeds:

All options for moving towards the 30 minute journey time ambition, including options for tunnelling where necessary to improve speeds, will be considered to inform decisions for the next rail control period (2019-24). Preliminary work by Network Rail has shown that a radical transformation of the existing line could bring down journey times towards the 30 minute ambition and improve freight connectivity.

A similar statement is made for Manchester to Sheffield. Hopefully we should know a little more when the next progress update becomes available.

 

[mike57]

My thoughts for an improved York - Leeds - Manchester service

4 trains per hour with more carriages, 6 minimum = More robust timetable with less delays, also less recovery/dead time.

4 tracking at some stations, Dewsbury and Crossgates could easily have 4 tracks, Slaithwaite would take a bit more work, but there is space. Mirfield would take a bit of work as well, and that section could be 4 track from Colne Bridge to Ravensthorpe = Less expresses stuck behind stoppers.

Speed increases where possible, may only be 5 or 10mph, but every little helps.

These improvements could be delivered fairly quickly (compared to HS3) My question, in keeping with in these parameters, with 100 or maybe 125mph expresses what Journey time could be acheived between Leeds and Manchester?

Then go for a series of further incremental improvements, introduce tilt, longer platforms to increase to 9 or 10 carriages.

The problem is that HS3 or whatever it ends up being will take to long, improvements are needed now.

The current solution, 6tph with semifasts calling at minor stations is just a bodge, Long distance passengers want fewer stops, local passengers may want one of the skip stop stations.

Finally proper intercity stock on the Newcastle - Liverpool expresses, with 125mph capability to allow easier pathing and faster journeys north of York, and no doors in the middle of the carriages, the hot cold hot at every station is uncomfortable on a cold day

 

[jayah]

My thoughts for an improved York - Leeds - Manchester service

4 trains per hour with more carriages, 6 minimum = More robust timetable with less delays, also less recovery/dead time.

4 tracking at some stations, Dewsbury and Crossgates could easily have 4 tracks, Slaithwaite would take a bit more work, but there is space. Mirfield would take a bit of work as well, and that section could be 4 track from Colne Bridge to Ravensthorpe = Less expresses stuck behind stoppers.

Speed increases where possible, may only be 5 or 10mph, but every little helps.

These improvements could be delivered fairly quickly (compared to HS3) My question, in keeping with in these parameters, with 100 or maybe 125mph expresses what Journey time could be acheived between Leeds and Manchester?

Then go for a series of further incremental improvements, introduce tilt, longer platforms to increase to 9 or 10 carriages.

The problem is that HS3 or whatever it ends up being will take to long, improvements are needed now.

The current solution, 6tph with semifasts calling at minor stations is just a bodge, Long distance passengers want fewer stops, local passengers may want one of the skip stop stations.

Finally proper intercity stock on the Newcastle - Liverpool expresses, with 125mph capability to allow easier pathing and faster journeys north of York, and no doors in the middle of the carriages, the hot cold hot at every station is uncomfortable on a cold day

Ultra high frequency is the enemy of fast trains. Does York-Manchester really need 4tph? Presumably you want a Hull as well, if XC sent 2tph via Leeds and at the least a stopper to serve Bradford, that is already 8tph between Micklefield and Neville Hill, 9tph if Selby gets a stopper and before any other Northern turn backs. They will be falling over each other. Even if it works on paper it probably won't in practice.

30min Manchester Leeds is an arbritary figure. Sadly all the focus at the moment is on wires, which do nothing for speed against modern DMUs. During the pause it looked like they might tackle alignment but now they seem to be back with wires and removing stops. If they spent half the money the wires cost on realignment, signalling improvements like approach control and or tilt, they might get somewhere.

 

[mike57]

Ultra high frequency is the enemy of fast trains. Does York-Manchester really need 4tph? Presumably you want a Hull as well, if XC sent 2tph via Leeds and at the least a stopper to serve Bradford, that is already 8tph between Micklefield and Neville Hill, 9tph if Selby gets a stopper and before any other Northern turn backs. They will be falling over each other. Even if it works on paper it probably won't in practice.

30min Manchester Leeds is an arbritary figure. Sadly all the focus at the moment is on wires, which do nothing for speed against modern DMUs. During the pause it looked like they might tackle alignment but now they seem to be back with wires and removing stops. If they spent half the money the wires cost on realignment, signalling improvements like approach control and or tilt, they might get somewhere.

Really I was thinking 3tph from York, 4tph from Leeds, i.e. Hull, Scarborough, Middlesborough and Newcastle. This worked pretty well for a number of years.

I agree about electrificaltion at the moment, I dont see it improving journey times as much as the other improvement could. You are still going to need bimode units unless you wire up diversionary routes, Hull, Scarborough and Middlesborough, Hull may happen, but the other 3 probably wont. I have travelled on bimode trains in France, (Paris - Provins) and they are big, as in tall. How they are going to fit everything within the UK loading gauge will interesting to see. End result could be a maintenance nightmare, or unreliable, or both.

So I agree, new franchises are not going to deliver the improvements needed, in fact for some passengers things will get worse.

Also routing everything through Man Vic is going to reduce connection possibilities for passengers on Liverpool trains, as these will not call at Man Pic which is still the major interchange.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

You are still going to need bimode units unless you wire up diversionary routes, Hull, Scarborough and Middlesborough, Hull may happen, but the other 3 probably wont.

Hull will happen, realistically, Scarborough and Middlesborough will also happen in the longer term.

The TransPennine improvements coming during the new franchises will be a major step change which will, in turn, require or support additional improvements elsewhere.

That's going to be additional capacity, reinstating and lengthening platforms, accelerating the closure of level crossings, and increasing electrification to support more/longer services, and ultimately, to streamline what stock various depots maintain.

 

[Haydn1971]

I'm reading posts in here and seeing a distinct focus on TPE North... Transformation is perhaps more urgent for Sheffield-Manchester than anywhere else on the network, which currently suffers two semi-fast trains and a stopper service from hell... Transformation is perhaps much easier here, with the potential for two express non-stop Sheffield-Manchester services, two semi-fasts picking up Stockport, Chinley and Dore, plus a stopper every hour, rather than the current woefully poor two hour service. I've often seen claims on here that the Hope Valley line hasn't the demand, but I firmly believe there is a huge suppressed demand here.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I am unsure if this has already been discussed on the thread of which I see the thread title specifically mentions infrastructure. Is infrastructure normally a matter that is included in franchise bid applications?

 

[daodao]

I'm reading posts in here and seeing a distinct focus on TPE North... Transformation is perhaps more urgent for Sheffield-Manchester than anywhere else on the network, which currently suffers two semi-fast trains and a stopper service from hell... Transformation is perhaps much easier here, with the potential for two express non-stop Sheffield-Manchester services, two semi-fasts picking up Stockport, Chinley and Dore, plus a stopper every hour, rather than the current woefully poor two hour service. I've often seen claims on here that the Hope Valley line hasn't the demand, but I firmly believe there is a huge suppressed demand here.

There is limited capacity because of the heavy stone and other freight traffic. On weekdays, there is difficulty in making the stopping service hourly because of this issue. The likely future conversion of the route via Reddish North to Marple Rose Hill (ex NS/GC) to Metrolink will mean that remaining trains via Marple Bridge (ex MR/GC) will need to run via Hyde, so all fast passenger trains will need to run via Stockport.

Closure of the Woodhead and Monsal Dale main lines (which are unlikely ever to reopen) has left only 1 direct route for all rail traffic between Manchester and South Yorkshire/East Midlands.