• 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 (NPR) - Latest plans & speculation

Status
Not open for further replies.

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
It’s only 2021. It shouldn’t take 6 years from now to get spades in the ground given it is almost at the stage of passing legislation.
But zero work has been done on a Liverpool-Warrington-Rostherne route.
It will have to go through all the approval processes for new lines (planning, environment, costing etc).
By itself, the HS2b western leg doesn't do anything for NPR journeys.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,269
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
But zero work has been done on a Liverpool-Warrington-Rostherne route.
It will have to go through all the approval processes for new lines (planning, environment, costing etc).
By itself, the HS2b western leg doesn't do anything for NPR journeys.
Knowing Rostherne quite well (and its iconic mere and Grade I listed church), I sincerely hope that you made this posting somewhat tongue-in-cheek.
 
Last edited:

Purple Orange

On Moderation
Joined
26 Dec 2019
Messages
3,438
Location
The North
But zero work has been done on a Liverpool-Warrington-Rostherne route.
It will have to go through all the approval processes for new lines (planning, environment, costing etc).
By itself, the HS2b western leg doesn't do anything for NPR journeys.

True, but that doesn’t stop politicians making the claim that NPR is not under construction. Additionally NPR could be downgraded to TRU and a link to the junction at Piccadilly. It facilitates Leeds & Manchester to Crewe & Birmingham, but Liverpool would lose out.
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,229
Location
Greater Manchester
Knowing Rostherne quite well (and its iconic mere and Grade I listed church), I sincerely hope that you made this posting somewhat tongue-in-cheek.
The NPR Manchester - Liverpool Junction is just north of Rostherne Mere, between Cherry Tree Lane and the M56 motorway. It will be grade separated and so extend for a considerable distance east and west. See my previous post:
In fact DfT published the detailed plans of the Liverpool junctions in the previous October 2020 HS2 Phase 2b design refinement consultation response, which can be downloaded from
See Section 2.4, Passive provision for two junctions at High Legh, Cheshire.
The map, Fig.6, shows that the east facing junction will be just south of M56 J7/8 and the south facing one pretty much co-located with the junction between the HS2 Golborne spur and Manchester spur.

It also shows provision for a bridge where the NPR line crosses the Golborne spur.
 

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
7,674
Location
Leeds
The NPR Manchester - Liverpool Junction is just north of Rostherne Mere, between Cherry Tree Lane and the M56 motorway. It will be grade separated and so extend for a considerable distance east and west. See my previous post:
And there's also the larger-scale version that I then posted:


Rostherne Mere and the surrounding area is a nature reserve and probably has a load of other designations too. Avoiding (if narrowly) the protected areas has been a key factor influencing the design of the M56, the recent A556 diversion and connection to the M56, the original HS2 alignment and now the HS2 additions for interface with NPR. When the HS2 phase 2b bill goes to parliamentary committee, this area may be a focus of opposition.
 

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
2,909
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
When the HS2 phase 2b bill goes to parliamentary committee, this area may be a focus of opposition.
I strongly oppose further unnecessary destruction of the countryside in the Ashley/Rostherne/Little Bollington/Millington/High Legh/Warburton areas, because I do not believe that there are capacity issues sufficient to justify building HS2 north of Crewe, where the HS2 western leg routes diverge in 3 separate directions. Given that the main rationale for HS2 (an increase in capacity) has much less validity north of Crewe, the vandalism to the countryside and the expense of the proposed tunnelling arrangements from Manchester Airport north to the city centre are not warranted, in my opinion.

As for the proposed high speed NPR route from Manchester to Liverpool via Ringway Airport, its devious route only reduces the journey time from city centre to city centre by less than 5 minutes over the existing Chat Moss line services. This illustrates the weakness of expensive high speed business cases for rail developments for journeys across the north of England, where distances are short and much travel is not city centre to city centre. Improving existing routes, including electrification, is much easier to justify and less expensive, e.g. as is currently being done between Dewsbury and Huddersfield.

By contrast, building HS2 as far north as Crewe (already approved) will provide major capacity improvements on the main WCML and shorten journey times significantly to London, which is well over 150 miles away, and to which many people travel primarily to visit the central zone.
 

Purple Orange

On Moderation
Joined
26 Dec 2019
Messages
3,438
Location
The North
No capacity issues between Stockport & Manchester Piccadilly? You’re having a laugh there.

I assume you opposed the A556 development and the extension of the A555 Manchester Airport expressway? And the M60? And new build tram lines? And new build housing in the Altrincham/Hale/Knutsford area?

To add, I oppose people making journeys by car when there is a greener alternative. HS2 will enable more trains to run on the existing WCML, providing greater frequency and encourage more people to get out of their car and on to the train. The destruction of our planet is principally found in the demand for plastics and sat behind the wheel of a private vehicle.
 
Last edited:

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,229
Location
Greater Manchester
Rostherne Mere and the surrounding area is a nature reserve and probably has a load of other designations too. Avoiding (if narrowly) the protected areas has been a key factor influencing the design of the M56, the recent A556 diversion and connection to the M56, the original HS2 alignment and now the HS2 additions for interface with NPR. When the HS2 phase 2b bill goes to parliamentary committee, this area may be a focus of opposition.
I know this area well. The HS2/NPR alignment passes through farmland in a cutting, avoiding the Rostherne Mere National Nature Reserve. The railway will not be visible from the mere. The area is already blighted by noise and pollution from the M56 motorway and the A556 trunk road, which are in close proximity to the railway alignment.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Knowing Rostherne quite well (and its iconic mere and Grade I listed church), I sincerely hope that you made this posting somewhat tongue-in-cheek.
Not really. There are 2 passive junctions planned for the NPR route to Liverpool.
The south-to-west junction off the HS2 main line, for direct London-Liverpool trains, is indeed just west of the A556, and might be called High Legh, but the east-to-west junction providing the NPR route from Manchester to Liverpool is just north of Rostherne Mere, close to the M56/A556 interchange.

Rostherne church, village and mere used to be quite a remote spot, as was the whole High Legh area.
When I were a lad (in Lymm) it was a Sunday afternoon excursion down the Cheshire lanes; I have ancestors buried in the churchyard for added interest.
A combination of post-war airport, motorway and now high speed rail development has transformed the area, for both good and ill.
 

tonysk14

Member
Joined
24 Apr 2016
Messages
76
I strongly oppose further unnecessary destruction of the countryside in the Ashley/Rostherne/Little Bollington/Millington/High Legh/Warburton areas, because I do not believe that there are capacity issues sufficient to justify building HS2 north of Crewe, where the HS2 western leg routes diverge in 3 separate directions. Given that the main rationale for HS2 (an increase in capacity) has much less validity north of Crewe, the vandalism to the countryside and the expense of the proposed tunnelling arrangements from Manchester Airport north to the city centre are not warranted, in my opinion.

As for the proposed high speed NPR route from Manchester to Liverpool via Ringway Airport, its devious route only reduces the journey time from city centre to city centre by less than 5 minutes over the existing Chat Moss line services. This illustrates the weakness of expensive high speed business cases for rail developments for journeys across the north of England, where distances are short and much travel is not city centre to city centre. Improving existing routes, including electrification, is much easier to justify and less expensive, e.g. as is currently being done between Dewsbury and Huddersfield.

By contrast, building HS2 as far north as Crewe (already approved) will provide major capacity improvements on the main WCML and shorten journey times significantly to London, which is well over 150 miles away, and to which many people travel primarily to visit the central zone.

Manchester Airport hasn't been called Ringway for 20 years.
 

Grimsby town

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2011
Messages
386
I've heard of Rotherham Central and Rotherham Masborough but where is Rotherham Mainline or Parkgate?

WAO

The exact location hasn't been decided yet. Its currently being narrowed down to a single option but it will be between Masborough and Parkgate on the main line.
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
5,038
I strongly oppose further unnecessary destruction of the countryside in the Ashley/Rostherne/Little Bollington/Millington/High Legh/Warburton areas, because I do not believe that there are capacity issues sufficient to justify building HS2 north of Crewe, where the HS2 western leg routes diverge in 3 separate directions. Given that the main rationale for HS2 (an increase in capacity) has much less validity north of Crewe, the vandalism to the countryside and the expense of the proposed tunnelling arrangements from Manchester Airport north to the city centre are not warranted, in my opinion.

As for the proposed high speed NPR route from Manchester to Liverpool via Ringway Airport, its devious route only reduces the journey time from city centre to city centre by less than 5 minutes over the existing Chat Moss line services. This illustrates the weakness of expensive high speed business cases for rail developments for journeys across the north of England, where distances are short and much travel is not city centre to city centre. Improving existing routes, including electrification, is much easier to justify and less expensive, e.g. as is currently being done between Dewsbury and Huddersfield.

By contrast, building HS2 as far north as Crewe (already approved) will provide major capacity improvements on the main WCML and shorten journey times significantly to London, which is well over 150 miles away, and to which many people travel primarily to visit the central zone.
Phase 1 is all about capacity. The aim of phase 2b isn't exclusively (or primarily) to resolve capacity constraints on the West Coast. If you don't take the new high speed route far enough north then you don't get a worthwhile journey time reduction from Edinburgh, so the East Coast stays forever congested with Anglo-Scottish expresses. More generally there isn't enough worthwhile time-saving to get any modal shift from air.
 

Glenn1969

Established Member
Joined
22 Jan 2019
Messages
1,983
Location
Halifax, Yorks
But we keep being told HS2 is ONLY really about South WCML capacity and anything else is a bonus. My pessimistic view is 2b in full won't be completed until 2050 when I will be 81 and possibly too old to get much benefit from it !
 

Purple Orange

On Moderation
Joined
26 Dec 2019
Messages
3,438
Location
The North
Actually phase 2a creates a capacity problem on the WCML between Crewe & Cheadle Hulme and it is fair to say that Stockport-Piccadilly is at capacity.
 

Glenn1969

Established Member
Joined
22 Jan 2019
Messages
1,983
Location
Halifax, Yorks
They will roll Manchester into 2a then. I agree NPR to Leeds will be built but think it will be Leeds only, after 2a and won't serve Bradford because they will use Covid as an excuse to slash costs. I hope I'm wrong but given the Tories previous view of the North I don't see it
 

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
7,674
Location
Leeds
They will roll Manchester into 2a then.
Not a chance. They've been saying for years that 2a will be accelerated, and now it's completed its parliamentary procedure. Any part of phase 2b is another kettle of fish entirely.
 

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
2,909
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
I assume you opposed the A556 development and the extension of the A555 Manchester Airport expressway? And the M60? And new build tram lines? And new build housing in the Altrincham/Hale/Knutsford area?
I am not going to comment on road developments, new tram lines or house building, as they are outwith the scope of this thread, except to state that you cannot presume to know my views on these matters.

Actually phase 2a creates a capacity problem on the WCML between Crewe & Cheadle Hulme and it is fair to say that Stockport-Piccadilly is at capacity.
There might be a capacity problem between Alderley Edge and Cheadle Hulme [which is not part of the WCML], but the planners consider that there are sufficient paths for HS2 services to run via Stockport when phase 2a opens. There should be sufficient capacity to accommodate HS2 services between Cheadle Hulme and Manchester Piccadilly as they will essentially be replacing existing classic services between these points.

Phase 1 is all about capacity. The aim of phase 2b isn't exclusively (or primarily) to resolve capacity constraints on the West Coast. If you don't take the new high speed route far enough north then you don't get a worthwhile journey time reduction from Edinburgh, so the East Coast stays forever congested with Anglo-Scottish expresses. More generally there isn't enough worthwhile time-saving to get any modal shift from air.
The short section of HS2 phase 2b from Crewe to Wigan [if built] is only likely to have a limited effect on reducing Anglo-Scotch journey times.

I have responded to the above points raised following my previous post, but suggest that further discussion on HS2 is not put in this NPR thread.
 
Last edited:

Purple Orange

On Moderation
Joined
26 Dec 2019
Messages
3,438
Location
The North
There is sufficient capacity to accommodate HS2 services from London via Crewe between Cheadle Hulme and Manchester Piccadilly as they will essentially be replacing the existing classic services between these points. While capacity between Stockport and Piccadilly is tight, it is sufficient for current services, bar an additional hourly service for the Mid Cheshire line. In option C of the Manchester capacity consultation this will be provided, albeit at the expense (rush hours excepted) of the Hazel Grove terminating train.

I am not going to comment on road developments, new tram lines or house building, as they are outwith the topic of this thread, except to state that you cannot presume to know my views on these matters.


I stated that I agreed with building HS2 phases 1 and 2a, as this will provide major capacity improvements on the main [existing] WCML.

It is conceivable that there might be a capacity problem between Alderley Edge and Cheadle Hulme [which is not part of the WCML], but the planners have deemed that there are sufficient paths for HS2 services to run via Stockport rather than to need to run via the Styal line when HS2 phase 2a opens.


The short section of HS2 phase 2b from Crewe to Wigan [if built] is only likely to have a limited effect on reducing Anglo-Scotch journey times.

The point is that with 2a, the is no further capacity for more services. We are stuck you the status quo and hence provide a sub standard service for south Manchester commuters.
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
5,038
The short section of HS2 phase 2b from Crewe to Wigan [if built] is only likely to have a limited effect on reducing Anglo-Scotch journey times.
Anglo-Scotch journey times sound like the time taken by an Englishman to get from the sofa to the drinks cabinet.

The difference to the journey time to Glasgow and Edinburgh may not be changed by a huge amount, but at the end of the day it will still have enough effect to get rid of a decent number of flights. In so doing have a more positive effect on the environment than a scratty bit of Cheshire nature reserve.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
They will roll Manchester into 2a then.

‘They’ won’t. The Phase 2a Act has passed, and there is no need to issue a ‘notice to proceed’ as was done for Phase 1. Effectively, Phase 2a is under construction now, albeit it is in the ’pre construction’ phase where the land is being acquired, detail surveys being done, procurement being prepared, detailed designs being prepared etc. Expect bulldozers to arrive in about 3 years. The Manchester branch may only just have bee enacted by then.
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,229
Location
Greater Manchester
The point is that with 2a, the is no further capacity for more services. We are stuck you the status quo and hence provide a sub standard service for south Manchester commuters.
Indeed. And if the three London - Manchester HS2 services are routed via 2a per the DfT's "Statement of Intent" Train Service Specification, and replace all three of the Avanti WCML services, Stoke and Macclesfield will be left with only the XC services to Manchester, plus the Northern stopper. While Milton Keynes will lose its direct Manchester service altogether. Unless an additional path can somehow be squeezed in between Cheadle Hulme and Piccadilly for a fourth London service via Stoke and the WCML.
 

nimbus21

Member
Joined
22 Jan 2018
Messages
30
The population figures for Bradford are for the entire council area, which covers a very large area and definitely does not represent the true population of the city of Bradford. In true terms it is nowhere near the 7th largest in the UK


Leeds metropolitan district includes far away boundaries.

Whilst this is true in terms of population, one also needs to look at the reasons why people might want to travel to a place like Manchester, Leeds or Bradford for work or leisure and I'm afraid on these criteria Bradford is more like Warrington and Widnes neither of which would be a particular highlight destination.
You are making the case as to why Bradford needs to be on the NPR route because it is a huge but underperforming city due to its dreadful rail links.
 

Purple Orange

On Moderation
Joined
26 Dec 2019
Messages
3,438
Location
The North
Indeed. And if the three London - Manchester HS2 services are routed via 2a per the DfT's "Statement of Intent" Train Service Specification, and replace all three of the Avanti WCML services, Stoke and Macclesfield will be left with only the XC services to Manchester, plus the Northern stopper. While Milton Keynes will lose its direct Manchester service altogether. Unless an additional path can somehow be squeezed in between Cheadle Hulme and Piccadilly for a fourth London service via Stoke and the WCML.

It would have to be that 1 tph is routed via Stoke and therefore at a slower speed than the 2 tph via Crewe. Plus if 2a was it, what would happen to the Birmingham to Manchester HS2 trains? In fact it would make much of Curzon Street redundant, because why bother moving the services from New Street?
 

SuperNova

Member
Joined
12 Dec 2019
Messages
957
Location
The North
As for the proposed high speed NPR route from Manchester to Liverpool via Ringway Airport, its devious route only reduces the journey time from city centre to city centre by less than 5 minutes over the existing Chat Moss line services. This illustrates the weakness of expensive high speed business cases for rail developments for journeys across the north of England, where distances are short and much travel is not city centre to city centre. Improving existing routes, including electrification, is much easier to justify and less expensive, e.g. as is currently being done between Dewsbury and Huddersfield.
Firstly, how is a route devious? Now I'm surprised in the lack of journey time improvement but how is it devious?

Secondly, you completely ignore the role of capacity. You cannot simply improve existing routes between Manchester and Liverpool to get the capacity or speed requirements, the Chat Moss route won't simply allow for it. You mention Huddersfield to Dewsbury but conveniently ignore that this used to be a 4 track railway and has the room for improvement. And a lot of the conflicts in Manchester are actually helped through utilising the HS2 infrastructure for NPR (or what ever they will be called services) even if it means a reversal at Piccadilly.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
It would have to be that 1 tph is routed via Stoke and therefore at a slower speed than the 2 tph via Crewe. Plus if 2a was it, what would happen to the Birmingham to Manchester HS2 trains? In fact it would make much of Curzon Street redundant, because why bother moving the services from New Street?
The train via Stoke would be so much slower that no London-Manchester passengers would use it. There might be a case for starting the London-Stoke-Macclesfield service at Phase 2a.
 

Purple Orange

On Moderation
Joined
26 Dec 2019
Messages
3,438
Location
The North
The train via Stoke would be so much slower that no London-Manchester passengers would use it. There might be a case for starting the London-Stoke-Macclesfield service at Phase 2a.

Phase 2a only saves 10 minutes off the phase 1 London-Manchester journey time, so people boarding at Stockport or Piccadilly wouldn’t be inconvenienced. The trains will be every 20 mins, so if the train you want at the time you want happens to arrive in Euston 10 mins before the train leaving Manchester or Stockport 20 mins later, you’re not going to be too bothered I’d have thought.

In fact phase 2a makes the case for the western phase 2b branch in to Manchester far stronger.
  • With phase 2a, there will be the same service level from Cheadle Hume & Stockport in to Piccadilly as there is today, with 3 London trains (90-100 mins) and 2 XC Birmingham trains taking 88 mins.
  • With phase 2b, the 3 London trains become 71 mins each, 2 Birmingham trains take 41 mins, the line facilitates fast Leeds & Liverpool services to be taken off the existing city centre network and frees up capacity through Stockport for other services, to be allocated depending upon demand.
It is really a no-brainer to build HS2 all the way to Manchester now.
 

quantinghome

Established Member
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Messages
2,262
The population figures for Bradford are for the entire council area, which covers a very large area and definitely does not represent the true population of the city of Bradford. In true terms it is nowhere near the 7th largest in the UK
The same can be said for Leeds. Leeds and Bradford have roughly the same population split between the urban city area and outlying towns. Overall Bradford is about 2/3 the size of Leeds whether you look at the whole council area or the 'true' city.

But we keep being told HS2 is ONLY really about South WCML capacity and anything else is a bonus. My pessimistic view is 2b in full won't be completed until 2050 when I will be 81 and possibly too old to get much benefit from it !
Who exactly keeps saying this? Whoever it is, it's rubbish!

If HS2 phase 1 was being built only to relieve the WCML it would be built with a significantly lower scope. You wouldn't need a signalling system to handle 18 tph or 6 platforms at OOC or 10/11 platforms at Euston, or slab track or civils futureproofed for 400 km/h running etc. The only reason these are specified is to allow Phase 2b to be built.

The business case for HS2 is maximised by building all phases in full. The opportunity cost of Phase 2b is huge, because it addresses capacity issue for all three main lines, not just one.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top