Northern Hub latest

Status
Not open for further replies.

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
23,812
Looks like another local media organisation has been tipped off about their local pet project:

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news...il-hub-and-help-for-rural-motorists-1-4718955

I haven't seen this mentioned recently, but a while back there was a general view amongst posters that the project would be scaled back, beause the DfT had not yet 'guaranteed' it would happen...

Another one to look at in detail on Monday then?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
9,477
Would be a kick in the teeth that they announce a £500m Heathrow western link (subject to final business case) then a week later refuse the much wider benefiting £560m Northern Hub
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
26,777
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
I haven't seen this mentioned recently, but a while back there was a general view amongst posters that the project would be scaled back, beause the DfT had not yet 'guaranteed' it would happen...

Another one to look at in detail on Monday then?


I do hope that this is just not "mollification" of the Trans-Pennine Forum. I thought that "The Harrying of the North" ended when William the Conqueror finally got over his fit of pique.
 

Joseph_Locke

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2012
Messages
1,878
Location
Within earshot of trains passing the one and half
Scaled back? The only significant regional railway project in the northwest in living memory? On what planet are people, exactly? Politicians might be stupid, but they value their jobs ...

As far as I am aware, five out of the six journey time schemes are funded, as are three (and a half) of the ten capacity schemes (with two on hold pending development of electrification proposals on the Diggle route).

In order to "scale back" the Hub,there would have to be no more funding committed, which for a project with a benefit cost ratio of >4 would be astonishing.

It would be better all round if those who knew nothing desisted from making things up to make themselves seem important.
 

The Planner

Established Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
10,605
It would be incredibly odd to scale it back considering the amount of work gone into it so far and is still going on.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
23,812
What I was referring to earlier was based on the fact that in previous threads on the Northern Hub there had been a number of posts quoting local politicians in the relevant areas area who at the time were trying to bounce the government into commiting to the entire scheme all at once.

Because the government weren't confirming 100% of the project would be done without rechecking all the figures, this was considered a sure sign that it would be scaled back.
 

johnnychips

Established Member
Joined
19 Nov 2011
Messages
2,580
Location
Sheffield
It would be better all round if those who knew nothing desisted from making things up to make themselves seem important.

Reading the previous posts on this thread, I cannot see how this comment is appropriate. Debate, certainly; sarcasm, no.
 

bluenoxid

Established Member
Joined
9 Feb 2008
Messages
2,177
It would be incredibly odd to scale it back considering the amount of work gone into it so far and is still going on.

Having seen a lot of work and millions thrown at projects for the plug to be pulled, I would never say never.
 

Rational Plan

Member
Joined
3 Aug 2011
Messages
235
What I was referring to earlier was based on the fact that in previous threads on the Northern Hub there had been a number of posts quoting local politicians in the relevant areas area who at the time were trying to bounce the government into commiting to the entire scheme all at once.

Because the government weren't confirming 100% of the project would be done without rechecking all the figures, this was considered a sure sign that it would be scaled back.

Yes well, local politicians also like to be seen to battle to save projects in their area even if they were never in much doubt, this is especially important if local and central government are of different parties.
 

Joseph_Locke

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2012
Messages
1,878
Location
Within earshot of trains passing the one and half
Reading the previous posts on this thread, I cannot see how this comment is appropriate. Debate, certainly; sarcasm, no.

It's a comment. It is my view of many transport "pundits", most MPs, most local councillors who once owned train sets, and certain Secretaries of State for Transport. Is criticising these people for making baseless statements sarcasm? I'd call it my duty.
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
It would be incredibly odd to scale it back considering the amount of work gone into it so far and is still going on.

There are proposals in the Northern Hub which work has not yet commenced on. Service frequency enhancements and new services on lines not being electrified would likely have been the main area of doubt. This is because the extra services would likely use the cascaded DMUs off the newly electrified lines and then longer term the 142s, 144s and 150s will all still be in service, so they will need replacing meaning a new train order will still be required.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
26,212
Location
Yorks
As far as I am aware, five out of the six journey time schemes are funded, as are three (and a half) of the ten capacity schemes (with two on hold pending development of electrification proposals on the Diggle route).

Personally, I'd have thought that the capacity schemes ought to be a higher priority IMO.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
23,812
Wording in the HLOS is:

46.Northern Hub: The Secretary of State wishes to fund completion of the Northern Hub programme of enhancements, as modified by the Government’s commitment to electrification. In addition to the works necessary to meet the increased commuter demand into Manchester, she seeks expansion of capacity between Liverpool and Manchester, at Manchester Airport, at Rochdale, and across central Manchester with additional platforms at Manchester Piccadilly station.
 

Scouseinmanc

Member
Joined
7 Jan 2009
Messages
126
Location
Manchester
Northern Hub Clears Final Funding Hurdle:

The Government said it will fund the 'completion in full of the Northern Hub cluster of rail enhancements' with £322m from the £9bn rail programme announced on Monday.

The cash will pay for outstanding track and capacity upgrades across Manchester city centre, Manchester Airport and across to Liverpool. The funding is in addition to £477m of Northern Hub schemes already approved across the North of England such as electrification of the North Trans Pennine route between York and Manchester.

The Government has today committed to providing:

■More track capacity between Piccadilly and Oxford Road Stations, and two new platforms at Piccadilly, allowing for more trains on this critical linkage around central Manchester. This will allow more trains to Oxford Road Station and Piccadilly stations for better access to employment, and more trains to link the north and south of Manchester and growth in usage of rail freight to serve Trafford Park.
■An extra platform at Manchester Airport allowing longer trains to serve the airport as business grows from across the north of England, supporting continued growth of the only major two-runway airport outside of the South East.
■Extra capacity on the route from Liverpool to Manchester to allow more longer-distance and commuter trains to run between Victoria, Newton-le-Willows and Liverpool.
■Extra capacity at Rochdale enabling more trains to run on the busy section for commuters from Rochdale into Manchester, and supporting further improvements in services on the Manchester-Bradford, and in future Manchester-Burnley, route.
Cllr Andrew Fender, chairman of the Transport for Greater Manchester Committee, said: "Taken together, these investments will change the face of rail services in the North of England in a manner that has not been seen for several generations.

"The Northern Hub and electrification programmes will be a catalyst to help drive economic growth across the north, so today's announcement is fantastic news and testament to the hard work done behind the scenes by all our partners to make our voice heard by the Government.

"The projects covered will provide access to larger markets, enable businesses to recruit from a wider pool of talent, enable employees to commute more quickly, and lead to greater transport flexibility and improved business efficiency.

Graham Botham, Network Rail's principal strategic planner for London North Western, said: "The government's decision to support full funding of the Northern Hub is excellent news for passengers across the north, who will enjoy faster, more frequent services: up to 700 extra a day. The project demonstrates how investment in infrastructure can unlock economic potential by better connecting towns and cities - it will deliver £4bn of benefits to the Northern economy and create between 20,000 and 30,000 new jobs. The project will also create the capacity for 44million more passenger journeys a year, whether for leisure or business - a welcome boost to allow the northern economy to continue to thrive."

Network Rail has been leading the argument for Northern Hub for several years and sets out the benefits as follows:


■Two new fast trains per hour between Manchester Victoria and Liverpool
■Six fast trains an hour between Leeds and Manchester (as opposed to four now)
■Journey times between Leeds and Manchester could be reduced by about 10 minutes
■Journey times between Liverpool and Manchester could be reduced by 10-15 minutes
■New direct service through Manchester city centre to Manchester Airport
■Faster journey times to Sheffield and the East Midlands, Chester, Bradford, Halifax, Hull, Newcastle and the North-East
Transport Secretary, Justine Greening, said: "Investment on this scale, in every region of the country, shows how this coalition government is focused on delivering an affordable, reliable and faster railway network that drives jobs and growth."
 

MarkAshmore

Member
Joined
4 Jul 2011
Messages
7
■Six fast trains an hour between Leeds and Manchester (as opposed to four now)
■Journey times between Leeds and Manchester could be reduced by about 10 minutes.

What worries local rail users at the busy stations between Stalybridge and Huddersfield is that there is no commitment to increasing the frequency from just 1 train per hour, all trains being diverted to Piccadilly and no trains from Ashton going beyond Stalybridge. Hardly progress.
 

burty76

Member
Joined
19 Jun 2011
Messages
64
I dont see there being an issue for users of Greenfield, Mossley, Slaithwaite and Marsden.

The current off-peak hourly service and half-hourly peak will be maintained, with trains running to Piccadilly, which is arguably more convenient for most people than Victoria.

Is there really no 4 tracking planned around Marsden? I assumed there would need to be a passing place installed there, along with 4 tracking through Mirfield and the second through track added at Dewsbury.
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
What worries local rail users at the busy stations between Stalybridge and Huddersfield is that there is no commitment to increasing the frequency from just 1 train per hour, all trains being diverted to Piccadilly and no trains from Ashton going beyond Stalybridge. Hardly progress.

The other option was to lose the stopper altogether and have the 1 Piccadilly-Leeds semi-fasts calling at 2 of the Mossley, Greenfield, Marsden and Slaithwaite and the other 1 calling at the other two. The local councillors were fuming at the thought of adjacent villages not getting a service to each other and overlooked the fact that they would have faster journey times to Manchester and Huddersfield and a direct service to Leeds using better rolling stock.
 

snail

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2011
Messages
1,847
Location
t'North
■Six fast trains an hour between Leeds and Manchester (as opposed to four now)
■Journey times between Leeds and Manchester could be reduced by about 10 minutes.

What worries local rail users at the busy stations between Stalybridge and Huddersfield is that there is no commitment to increasing the frequency from just 1 train per hour, all trains being diverted to Piccadilly and no trains from Ashton going beyond Stalybridge. Hardly progress.
How many of those hourly trains are full when they arrive at the local stations? Isn't one effect of the improvements to increase capacity for fast trains so there will be less pressure on the stoppers?
 

MarkAshmore

Member
Joined
4 Jul 2011
Messages
7
How many of those hourly trains are full when they arrive at the local stations? Isn't one effect of the improvements to increase capacity for fast trains so there will be less pressure on the stoppers?

Mossley and Greenfield are in the top third busiest stations in Greater Manchester, and that is with just an hourly service. Every other busier station bar two north of Bolton have a more frequent service.
Increasing capacity on fast TPE trains would have no effect on loadings on the stoppers, they are very different markets.
All local peak trains are filled to over-capacity now. Saturday trains are so full that it is not unusual for people to be left behind.
What concerns us is if you arrive at Piccadilly from the South are you going to traipse all the way to Platforms 13 to 16 for a train going round the Ordsall Chord to Victoria before setting off towards Leeds when there is a "semi-fast" train on an adjacent platform going your way?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The other option was to lose the stopper altogether and have the 1 Piccadilly-Leeds semi-fasts calling at 2 of the Mossley, Greenfield, Marsden and Slaithwaite and the other 1 calling at the other two. The local councillors were fuming at the thought of adjacent villages not getting a service to each other and overlooked the fact that they would have faster journey times to Manchester and Huddersfield and a direct service to Leeds using better rolling stock.

I beg to differ; the councillors did not overlook anything.
The journey time to Piccadilly may be a little bit faster but add in the time to get from Piccadilly to the main shopping and entertainment areas
around St Anne's Square and Deansagte and it is slower.
A connection to Leeds would be welcome but not at any price.
Which is why many would like services to both Victoria and Piccadilly.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I dont see there being an issue for users of Greenfield, Mossley, Slaithwaite and Marsden.

The current off-peak hourly service and half-hourly peak will be maintained, with trains running to Piccadilly, which is arguably more convenient for most people than Victoria.

Is there really no 4 tracking planned around Marsden? I assumed there would need to be a passing place installed there, along with 4 tracking through Mirfield and the second through track added at Dewsbury.

Have you not seen the current loadings even outside of the peak?
Almost no other stations as busy as these have such an infrequent service!
Of course it is an issue for users.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Any word on 4-tracking the 5 miles from Diggle to Marsden by re-instating the two unused Standedge tunnels ?

Somewhere in the documents it does say that the Network Rail Study shows that electrification means the extra tunnels are not needed.
What no-one knows is whether the loops at Diggle and Marsden that were referred to in earlier documents will be lengthened.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
26,777
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
I have been reading the article in the September 2012 issue of Modern Railways about the new viaduct between London Bridge station and Metropolitan Junction which has allowed track quadrupling in a very busy part of London with its associated changes to the existing buildings that lie on the line of these new works and wonder if there are lessons to be learned from this new structure that could apply to any future track quadrupling from Manchester Piccadilly station to the Deansgate station area to tie in with the project new island platforms 15 and 16 at Manchester Piccadilly station.
 
Last edited:

John55

Member
Joined
24 Jun 2011
Messages
800
Location
South East
I have been reading the article in the September 2012 issue of Modern Railways about the new viaduct between London Bridge station and Metropolitan Junction which has allowed track quadrupling in a very busy part of London with its associated changes to the existing buildings that lie on the line of these new works and wonder if there are lessons to be learned from this new structure that could apply to any future track quadrupling from Manchester Piccadilly station to the Deansgate station area to tie in with the project new island platforms 15 and 16 at Manchester Piccadilly station.

While some work has been done to create new partial viaducts west of London bridge there has been no additional track installed yet. London Bridge to Metropolitan Junction remains 2 tracks only.

The main lesson to be learned is that a railway with 30 x 8 or 12 coach trains per hour over a double track railway in the peak can justify a lot of money to be spent to increase its capacity whereas a railway with 8-10 x 2/3/4/6 coach trains doesn't justify spending so much money on!
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
26,777
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
The main lesson to be learned is that a railway with 30 x 8/12 coach trains per hour over a double track railway in the peak can justify a lot of money to be spent to increase its capacity whereas a railway with 8-10 x 2/3/4/6 coach trains doesn't justify spending so much money on!

When looked at in isolation, I tend to agree with with you, but my line of thinking was seeing that Manchester viaduct section as an intergral part of the Manchester city centre lines connected with the Ordsall Chord project and its associated rail service provision benefits that are associated to that specific project.
 

OxtedL

Established Member
Associate Staff
Quizmaster
Joined
23 Mar 2011
Messages
2,445
When looked at in isolation, I tend to agree with with you, but my line of thinking was seeing that Manchester viaduct section as an intergral part of the Manchester city centre lines connected with the Ordsall Chord project and its associated rail service provision benefits that are associated to that specific project.
In the context of what you have quoted, what you have said makes absolutely no sense. Hopefully you can see that you were responding to a comment about how a very busy and high capacity rail route justifies more spend than a fairly busy route with less current demand, which is important in the context of spending lots of money carving through a city centre. What you've given in response is a description of the prospective project, rather than an alternative way of thinking.

My apologies if I've missed a subtext here.
 
Last edited:

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
26,777
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
My apologies if I've missed a subtext here.

It all depends on how you view the benefit changes to the rail hub status of a city the size of Manchester that will be made once the Ordsall Chord is fully operational. I am not, as you imply, putting forward an alternative way of thinking, but just citing a pre-existing fact of railway infrastructure that could benefit from the point that I endeavoured to make in my original posting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top