North franchises ‘will not deliver transformational infrastructure’

[Philip Phlopp]

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?

Franchise bidders are generally told what infrastructure to plan towards (as was the case with the Northern and TransPennine ITT documents). They'll then feed their ideas, thoughts and in some cases funding or planning into the usual RUS/RUS updates and any other ongoing projects, such as the Northern electrification plan, and it's then up to DfT, ORR and NR to decide what to take forward.

 

[Senex]

Franchise bidders are generally told what infrastructure to plan towards (as was the case with the Northern and TransPennine ITT documents). They'll then feed their ideas, thoughts and in some cases funding or planning into the usual RUS/RUS updates and any other ongoing projects, such as the Northern electrification plan, and it's then up to DfT, ORR and NR to decide what to take forward.

So is it really no longer possible to expect to see a TOC-driven upgrade programme like that on the Chiltern route? The original idea at privatisation was that a TOC would decide what additional infrastructure provision it wanted and what extra it would be prepared to pay in access charges, and if the sums added up then Railtrack would carry out the work. The great failure of this approach was WCML, but even on XC only a fraction of what was talked about actually got done. The impression one gets now is that the TOCs are very much the bit players in the whole infrastructure business.

As to Manchester to Sheffield, we know that Network Rail etc are suggesting a loop on the Hope Valley line and a re-doubling of the Dore North Curve. But apart from that, are there any other NR schemes for the line in the offing? It certainly seems too late for the Trans-Pennine TOC to be putting up ideas for anything that could be done during the lifetime of the franchise. There are things that could be done to get higher speeds and as faster timing, but is there any serious prospect of anything during this franchise, either TOC-driven or NR-driven?

 

[WatcherZero]

It doesn't look like we will see a similar one again no, it requires a long franchise length and the government has generally erred on the side of shorter franchise lengths (which gives them the benefit of being able to announce investment themselves and more often and is generally better financially for the Dft as they recapture economic growth by rebasing franchise payments sooner).

EU franchising law allows a rail franchise to be awarded for up to 15 years initial duration (bus franchise 10 years) and it can be renewed by up to 50% of initial franchise length for a total of 22.5 years. The brown report recommended 7-10 years with 3-5 year extensions and while in opposition the Conservatives wanted 15-22 years while in the final years of the labour government they favoured 12-15 year lengths. When the Lib-Con coalition came in their initial policy was 12-15 year lengths however when put in to practise what the Conservatives have done is an average of 7/8 years usually based around managing the construction and commencement of services on a single infrastructure upgrade program.

 

[Haydn1971]

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.

OK, so what's the fix for this ? Flyovers at Stockport, bypass points on the Hope Valley, new chords ?

 

[yorksrob]

OK, so what's the fix for this ? Flyovers at Stockport, bypass points on the Hope Valley, new chords ?

Reopen Peak Forest to Matlock.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

OK, so what's the fix for this ? Flyovers at Stockport, bypass points on the Hope Valley, new chords ?

Woodhead.

Yes, yes, I know. It doesn't fit into the grand scheme of things today, but it could play some role in the future, and it would have been useful to have the Woodhead route when the time comes to electrify the Hope Valley.

It's not an urgent scheme, but it's one which would provide capacity and journey option benefits in the fullness of time. I'd consider doing something in CP6 and CP7 to reclaim the newer Woodhead 3 tunnel, perhaps repairing or re-boring Joseph Locke's tunnels, or building a new tunnel for either rail or National Grid.

The remaining portions of the Woodhead route will need some new OLE sooner rather than later too, which could dovetail relatively nicely into the re-opening and electrifying of the rebuilt section of the route.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

OK, so what's the fix for this ? Flyovers at Stockport, bypass points on the Hope Valley, new chords ?

Modern signalling would help a lot.
The current (semaphore AB) signal sections are too long for a trunk route.

 

[Greybeard33]

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.

The Northern franchise agreement does in fact require Northern to operate an hourly service on the Hope Valley line from Dec 2017, in addition to the hourly TPE and EMT semi-fasts. However, it appears that the additional Northern services will be semi-fasts, stopping only at Reddish North, Brinnington, Bredbury, Romiley, Marple and New Mills Central. Stations from Chinley to Dore (inclusive) do not get any more weekday trains. Maybe this stopping pattern is to allow paths for the freight traffic?

I believe previous proposals for four semi-fasts per hour on the Hope Valley involved "flighting" the services in two half-hourly pairs, with one of each pair routed via Stockport and the other via Marple. This would enable the Liverpool-Nottingham/Norwich service to be routed via the Dore South Curve to reduce journey times, but would not do much to enhance Sheffield services.

I do not see why TfGM's aspirations for Metrolink tram-train services to Marple Rose Hill should take precedence over provision of improved Manchester-Sheffield services via the Reddish North line - this is the shortest surviving route between the two cities. The tram-trains could run via Guide Bridge and Hyde like the current Rose Hill service.

 

[Haydn1971]

Woodhead.

Not the right route, the existing Tunnel 3 isn't fit for a modern railway - I recognise that older tunnels exist, but Woodhead Tunnel 3 has lost its grandfather rights now.

The suggested new trans-pennine road tunnel is mooted at nearly 20 miles, which sits nicely with a tunnel starting somewhere near Stocksbridge, running under Howden Moors and popping out at the western end of the Longdendale Valley, if not further - building a combined road and rail tunnel set (separate tunnels) has a lot going for it, with shared safety and ventilation infrastructure.

The Woodhead as we know it, will never happen, long live the new Woodhead !
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Reopen Peak Forest to Matlock.

What exactly would this achieve ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Modern signalling would help a lot. The current (semaphore AB) signal sections are too long for a trunk route.

In my experience of the route, the slow bit going to Manchester is between Disley Tunnel and Stockport. Coming the other way, it's often traffic between Piccadilly and Stockport.

It's noticeable that the 158's have a higher top speed coming east between Edale and Hathersage, I've recorded 90mph on a phone app, but not checked speeds of the 185's as I try to avoid the crush and travel from Oxford Road any ways. So could line speed improvements be made ? And if so, where ?

 

[222ben]

Reopen Peak Forest to Matlock.

1tph manchester routed via mml freeing 1tph for freight somewhere on wcml
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Reopen Peak Forest to Matlock.

1tph roued via mml so 1 tph on wcml freed up

 

[daodao]

The Northern franchise agreement does in fact require Northern to operate an hourly service on the Hope Valley line from Dec 2017, in addition to the hourly TPE and EMT semi-fasts. However, it appears that the additional Northern services will be semi-fasts, stopping only at Reddish North, Brinnington, Bredbury, Romiley, Marple and New Mills Central. Stations from Chinley to Dore (inclusive) do not get any more weekday trains. Maybe this stopping pattern is to allow paths for the freight traffic?

I believe previous proposals for four semi-fasts per hour on the Hope Valley involved "flighting" the services in two half-hourly pairs, with one of each pair routed via Stockport and the other via Marple. This would enable the Liverpool-Nottingham/Norwich service to be routed via the Dore South Curve to reduce journey times, but would not do much to enhance Sheffield services.

I do not see why TfGM's aspirations for Metrolink tram-train services to Marple Rose Hill should take precedence over provision of improved Manchester-Sheffield services via the Reddish North line - this is the shortest surviving route between the two cities. The tram-trains could run via Guide Bridge and Hyde like the current Rose Hill service.

It will be much easier for a segregated Metrolink service to run via Reddish, with the section from Romiley to Marple Bridge Junction run as 2 separate single tracks (Metrolink and NR) as at Navigation Road. More capacity could be provided on Manchester-Sheffield express trains by lengthening them at busy times; a half-hourly service is adequate.

 

[yorksrob]

What exactly would this achieve ?

• Better local and tourist access to/from the Peak district

• Alternative paths for freight, freeing up Hope Valley capacity and increasing resilience

• Better regional connectivity/increased capacity between the North West and the East Midlands

• An additional route between London and Manchester increasing resilience

Those are the ones that spring to mind.

 

[Greybeard33]

It will be much easier for a segregated Metrolink service to run via Reddish, with the section from Romiley to Marple Bridge Junction run as 2 separate single tracks (Metrolink and NR) as at Navigation Road. More capacity could be provided on Manchester-Sheffield express trains by lengthening them at busy times; a half-hourly service is adequate.

Deansgate Jn to Navigation Road is only 27ch of single line whereas Romiley to Maple Wharf Jn is 1mi 4ch - more than 3 times longer. And the residual heavy rail service to New Mills Central would be much more frequent than through Navigation Road, so TfGM accepted many years ago that segregated single lines are not a feasible solution for the Marple Viaduct. The TfGM proposal is for tram-trains to share the double track infrastructure. So they could equally share the Hyde line with the occasional freight, leaving the Reddish North line clear for the New Mills/Sheffield services.

 

[Haydn1971]

• Better local and tourist access to/from the Peak district
  

• Alternative paths for freight, freeing up Hope Valley capacity and increasing resilience
  

• Better regional connectivity/increased capacity between the North West and the East Midlands
  

• An additional route between London and Manchester increasing resilience
  

Those are the ones that spring to mind.

I don't actually see how this removes stone freight from the Hope Valley, given the stone comes out of Hope Valley.

We are after all looking to improve connectivity between Sheffield and Manchester, not add another convoluted route and boost tourism in an already busy Derbyshire.

 

[yorksrob]

I don't actually see how this removes stone freight from the Hope Valley, given the stone comes out of Hope Valley.

We are after all looking to improve connectivity between Sheffield and Manchester, not add another convoluted route and boost tourism in an already busy Derbyshire.

For starters, everything from Peak Forest and Buxton has the opportunity to go South rather than North.

How exactly is the route 'convoluted' ? It's the most direct corridor between the North West and the East Midlands and would mean that those passenger services wouldn't always have to take the convoluted route via Dore.

BTW, this thread is about 'transformational infrastructure', rather than just improving connectivity between Sheffield and Manchester (although this route would help to do just that as the Hope Valley could be used for linking Sheffield and Manchester, rather than as a convoluted NW - SE corridor).

 

[daodao]

Deansgate Jn to Navigation Road is only 27ch of single line whereas Romiley to Maple Wharf Jn is 1mi 4ch - more than 3 times longer. And the residual heavy rail service to New Mills Central would be much more frequent than through Navigation Road, so TfGM accepted many years ago that segregated single lines are not a feasible solution for the Marple Viaduct. The TfGM proposal is for tram-trains to share the double track infrastructure. So they could equally share the Hyde line with the occasional freight, leaving the Reddish North line clear for the New Mills/Sheffield services.

Even if there is tram/train interworking as you suggest over Marple Viaduct, routeing Metrolink via Reddish avoids overhead line issues (DC vs AC) and interaction with even more trains that would happen if Metrolink ran via Guide Bridge and Hyde. I would envisage a separate tram route from Ashburys to the Piccadilly tram station.

Only 2 diesel stopping trains per hour would be left (similar to that envisaged through Navigation Road) to run on the Marple Bridge to Romiley section, plus some freight. The Stockport stop on the fast Manchester-Sheffield trains facilitates connections and it is much easier to access the MSJ&A line from the Stockport direction than by entering Piccadilly via the ex-GC lines.

 

[JohnB57]

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.

The M62 doesn't cross any of our National Parks. Its nearest point to the Peak District National Park is around four miles, so not even a nearby "scar".

The M62 was and remains a massively transformational engineering achievement in many ways and your description, inaccurate though it is, still does a dis-service to those who designed and built it.

 

[Haydn1971]

How exactly is the route 'convoluted' ? It's the most direct corridor between the North West and the East Midlands and would mean that those passenger services wouldn't always have to take the convoluted route via Dore.

Have you not noticed the amount of bends in the route, especially along the Wye Valley - plus much of the route is a national walk, the tunnels would need bringing up to standards. I could see this as a heritage thing, but not strategic.

BTW, this thread is about 'transformational infrastructure', rather than just improving connectivity between Sheffield and Manchester (although this route would help to do just that as the Hope Valley could be used for linking Sheffield and Manchester, rather than as a convoluted NW - SE corridor).

Firstly, reopening a twisting old line isn't transformational, second, the northern way, northern powerhouse isn't about the Midlands, it's about linking the trio of Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield to Liverpool, Manchester Airport, York and beyond.

Second, you've not got a chance in hell of opening a railway, old or new in a National Park - Ordsal Chord would be a walk in the park by comparison .

Lastly, I didn't bring wild idea of reopening a twisting Derbyshire railway line into the debate about transformational infrastructure, so don't start BTW'ing me

 

[Class 170101]

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.

Is it really prudent to convert this route to Metrolink? It is the diversionary route when the line through Stockport is closed for both EMT and TPE fast services.

 

[yorksrob]

Have you not noticed the amount of bends in the routes, especially along the Wye Valley - plus much of the route is a national walk, the tunnels would need bringing up to standards. I can see this as a heritage thing, not strategic.


Firstly, reopening a twisting old line isn't transformational, second, the northern way, northern powerhouse isn't about the Midlands, it's about linking he trio of Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield to Liverpool, Manchester Airport, York and beyond.

Second, you've not got a chance in hell of opening a railway, old or new in a National Park - Ordsal Chord would be a walk in the park by comparison .

Lastly, I didn't bring wild idea of reopening a twisting Derbyshire railway line into the debate about transformational infrastructure, so don't start BTW'ing me

Firstly, being made of concrete and brand new doesn't make something transformational infrastructure - providing an important link in the transport network which didn't exist previously and relieving pressure on the rest of the network as this line would do, does.

Secondly, you can repeat the word 'twisting' as many times as you like, but that doesn't alter the effect that the route is no more twisting than many existing railway routes and was built to carry top link express trains and heavy freight.

Thirdly, the route is pre-existing, so must have some form of grandfather rights even in the national park.

Fourthly, I've already explained about how this link can relieve capacity on the Hope valley and the North needs to be linked to everywhere else anyway - that's what connectivity is.

Fifthly, this would be transformational infrastructure so I'll BTW as much as I see fit (BTW) .

 

[Haydn1971]

So, coming back to my original question, how does a line via Buxton remove stone freight that originates halfway along the Hope Valley Line ?

 

[yorksrob]

So, coming back to my original question, how does a line via Buxton remove stone freight that originates halfway along the Hope Valley Line ?

It doesn't, however it does remove freight trains that originate in Peak Forest.

 

[daodao]

Is it really prudent to convert this route to Metrolink? It is the diversionary route when the line through Stockport is closed for both EMT and TPE fast services.

It is desirable to reduce the cost of running suburban rail services around Manchester and improve the service offered with better frequencies. Conversion to Metrolink light rail has been successful with other similar lines.

It is not affordable to retain lines merely for diversionary purposes. If the line is closed east of Chinley, there is no alternative anyway, and there would still be an alternative route west of Chinley via Hyde.

 

[Greybeard33]

Even if there is tram/train interworking as you suggest over Marple Viaduct, routeing Metrolink via Reddish avoids overhead line issues (DC vs AC) and interaction with even more trains that would happen if Metrolink ran via Guide Bridge and Hyde. I would envisage a separate tram route from Ashburys to the Piccadilly tram station.

Only 2 diesel stopping trains per hour would be left (similar to that envisaged through Navigation Road) to run on the Marple Bridge to Romiley section, plus some freight. The Stockport stop on the fast Manchester-Sheffield trains facilitates connections and it is much easier to access the MSJ&A line from the Stockport direction than by entering Piccadilly via the ex-GC lines.

In the peak there are 4tph to Marple, of which 3tph continue to New Mills Central - too many for reliable operation over a single line.

Any semi-fast Sheffield trains on the Marple line would be in addition to, not instead of, the existing 2tph via Stockport. They would terminate at Piccadilly, so would not have to cross the station throat to the South Junction line.

After the North TPE Manchester Airport services are rerouted via the Ordsall Chord, there will be only 2 TPE semi-fasts per hour between Piccadilly and Guide Bridge. TfGM also has aspirations to convert the Glossop/Hadfield line to tram-train, which would leave the TPEs and freight as the only heavy rail traffic through Guide Bridge if the Rose Hill tram-trains also used this line. Depending on the tram-train frequency required, Ashburys to Guide Bridge could be re-quadded.

I think tram-train electrification to Rose Hill would be at 25kV AC, not 750V DC, whichever route is used, so as to allow for future electrification of the Hope Valley line. The tram-trains could be dual voltage like the Sheffield ones.

If, on the other hand, Woodhead were reopened or there were to be a new Woodhead base tunnel, there would have to be cuts to stopping services to clear paths for expresses to be reintroduced on the double track line between Hyde Junction and Dinting. As the saying goes "you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs"!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The M62 doesn't cross any of our National Parks. Its nearest point to the Peak District National Park is around four miles, so not even a nearby "scar".

The M62 was and remains a massively transformational engineering achievement in many ways and your description, inaccurate though it is, still does a dis-service to those who designed and built it.

I stand corrected. However, there is a campaign to create a South Pennines National Park, which would span the M62. I agree that the motorway was a great engineering achievement, but I stand by my description of it as a scar across the Pennines. When walking across it on the Pennine Way, the contrast between the hurtling, noisy traffic and the wild, remote landscape either side is dramatic. If the M62 did not already exist, a proposal to build it today would encounter so much opposition I doubt it would be approved.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Daodao: who is proposing closure of the Hope Valley east of Chinley? I have never heard of such a proposal post-Beeching.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Daodao: who is proposing closure of the Hope Valley east of Chinley? I have never heard of such a proposal post-Beeching.

Indeed, the very mention of that "proposal" was something that would have the adrenaline coursing its way through my elderly body...

 

[notlob.divad]

Daodao: who is proposing closure of the Hope Valley east of Chinley? I have never heard of such a proposal post-Beeching.

I think they where looking at temporary closed, a train broken down, points failure and the like. Not permanent closure. It was in reference to the line in question being a diversionary route.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
All of this talk of Metrolink, is not going to be the Transformative Infrastructure that is required to bring about a step change in the northern economies. Metrolink expansion serves a relatively small number of people and businesses Manchester/Salford/Stockport conurbation maybe the biggest north of the river Trent but it is not the only one.

In my opinion there is only 1 truly transformative piece of infrastructure that could be built. The distance from Hyde to Penistone via the Woodhead pass is 21 miles. The tunneling for cross-rail was 26 miles and they are already lining up a 2nd version. A 20ish mile tunnel linking HS2 West and HS2 east and an extension to Liverpool, combined with a redesign and relocation of the Manchester and Leeds HS stations to allow through trains. Services: Liverpool - Manchester - Sheffield - East Midlands, Newcastle - Leeds - Manchester - Liverpool/Birmingham, and a modification to the planned Birmingham <-> Leeds, as Birmingham - East Midlands - Sheffield - Leeds - Newcastle.

I do not expect this to be built before HS2, but the Northern parts of HS2 should be built in a way to facilitate this in the future. If that means dropping the Airport off the HS network just like they have done with Heathrow then it is a price worth paying. Classic compatible sets from the South could still run from the junction at Crewe direct to the airport.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I do not expect this to be built before HS2, but the Northern parts of HS2 should be built in a way to facilitate this in the future. If that means dropping the Airport off the HS network just like they have done with Heathrow then it is a price worth paying. Classic compatible sets from the South could still run from the junction at Crewe direct to the airport.

I should well imagine that the powers-that-be at Manchester Airport with all their future expansion plans already prepared would not take that proposal lying down.

 

[notlob.divad]

I should well imagine that the powers-that-be at Manchester Airport with all their future expansion plans already prepared would not take that proposal lying down.

I'm sure they won't. It was an if we have to drop the airport off the HS network, not a statement that we should. I am sure better brains than mind could find a route that achieved both aims.

 

[JohnB57]

I agree that the motorway was a great engineering achievement, but I stand by my description of it as a scar across the Pennines. When walking across it on the Pennine Way, the contrast between the hurtling, noisy traffic and the wild, remote landscape either side is dramatic. If the M62 did not already exist, a proposal to build it today would encounter so much opposition I doubt it would be approved.

I agree with you about the dramatic landscape - I was brought up there.

But the M62 had to be built when and where it was and functioning without it would be impossible today. Even the most ardent environmentalist can surely see that it's better to concentrate traffic on one relatively fast moving highway rather than clogging up all of the other routes.

What would your alternative have been?