Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) - Latest plans & speculation

[thejuggler]

This half way house also gets over the issue of serving Bradford, as a complete new Manchester-Leeds route would have to cover off the Bradford issue.

I never saw a city centre station on a new high speed line viable, even with a new through station you still have to get to it from Leeds and back out again to Manchester. Without unviable tunnels and viaducts the topography will win.

A parkway station somewhere near the M62 made no sense whatsoever as a Bradford stop. It would become a park and ride for Leeds and Manchester.

 

[nick.c]

I’m expecting it to be almost all in new tunnel from Ardwick to Marsden. I don’t see how it can be done otherwise.

Hopefully we won't have to wait much longer to find out! It will be a disappointment if the IRP (due tomorrow) just sets out a vague aspiration for a new line from Manchester to near Huddersfield without any indication of possible viable alignments.

 

[Purple Orange]

Hopefully we won't have to wait much longer to find out! It will be a disappointment if the IRP (due tomorrow) just sets out a vague aspiration for a new line from Manchester to near Huddersfield without any indication of possible viable alignments.

It’s a strategy document. We shouldn’t expect there to be that level of detail in the IRP, but we may be surprised. The most important thing the IRP can do is to be clear on what infrastructure is in scope and by inference, what is therefore out of scope.

For example, we should learn the following:

• If NPR services will reverse at Piccadilly;
• If Huddersfield is to be a principal stop on the NPR network;
• If Liverpool services are to run through Warrington to Manchester Airport and then Piccadilly.

If those aspects are clear, we therefore know that

1. The underground Piccadilly station is discarded;
2. The route via Bradford are both off the table;
3. A trans pennine tunnel would need to surface west of Huddersfield and not east of Huddersfield.
4. Liverpool fast services to Leeds will not go through Victoria and there will need to be a level of significant upgrades & new build from the HS2 line towards Liverpool.

With this level of information, coupled with what we already know (i.e. south Manchester HS2 tunnel capped at 9 tph), we can then begin to understand service patterns and speculate what may be needed to deliver that.

If the opposite is true in some aspects (let’s say the Liverpool-Manchester upgrades are confined to the Chat Moss or the CLC), we therefore know that some of the Leeds-Manchester services will need to remain on the existing line and that the Leeds-Manchester Airport services will need to terminate somewhere other than Liverpool.

 

[nick.c]

It’s a strategy document. We shouldn’t expect there to be that level of detail in the IRP, but we may be surprised. The most important thing the IRP can do is to be clear on what infrastructure is in scope and by inference, what is therefore out of scope.

Thank you for providing such a clear analytical framework. The rail investment issues that the IRP seeks to address certainly involve a great deal of complexity and trade-offs between the competing options.

 

[Roast Veg]

Thank you for providing such a clear analytical framework. The rail investment issues that the IRP seeks to address certainly involve a great deal of complexity and trade-offs between the competing options.

"Competing options" is some very careful wording. The options only exist because the treasury have tightened the noose, and now they expect the people of the north and East Midlands to make the best of it.

 

[A0wen]

Hopefully we won't have to wait much longer to find out! It will be a disappointment if the IRP (due tomorrow) just sets out a vague aspiration for a new line from Manchester to near Huddersfield without any indication of possible viable alignments.

Well hang on - there's a couple of years work, plus no doubt a public inquiry to get to the point where any alignment is known. And it creates a huge amount of uncertainty on the communities which may be affected by this - this was seen with both HS1 and HS2. To say that possible viable alignments should be published now is monumentally irresponsible and is a simple enthusiasts view of the world. The challenges which need to be considered include a route out of Manchester - which is fairly densely packed now, a route across the Pennines which isn't easy plus the close proximity of the Peak District national park which is protected, a decision on serving places like Huddersfield - does it serve their existing station or does it mean a new 'parkway' station to avoid digging up half the town. All those factors need to be considered.

It's not as simple as getting hold of a pack of Crayolas and an enlarged OS Landranger of the area.

 

[Ianno87]

"Competing options" is some very careful wording. The options only exist because the treasury have tightened the noose, and now they expect the people of the north and East Midlands to make the best of it.

Or "competing options" is different ways of achieving the same (or similar) output. You only need 1 of them to achieve the output.

Well hang on - there's a couple of years work, plus no doubt a public inquiry to get to the point where any alignment is known. And it creates a huge amount of uncertainty on the communities which may be affected by this - this was seen with both HS1 and HS2. To say that possible viable alignments should be published now is monumentally irresponsible and is a simple enthusiasts view of the world. The challenges which need to be considered include a route out of Manchester - which is fairly densely packed now, a route across the Pennines - a national park and therefore protected, a decision on serving places like Huddersfield - does it serve their existing station or does it mean a new 'parkway' station to avoid digging up half the town. All those factors need to be considered.

It's not as simple as getting hold of a pack of Crayolas and an enlarged OS Landranger of the area.

This.

The strategy needs to come first, state the required outputs, and how in principle they are achieved; only then is a detailed route (and its local impacts) justified. The strategy will probably be based on a deliverable concept, but the actual alignment will need some further detailed refinement before being fit for full public consultation.

One step at a time.

 

[Roast Veg]

Or "competing options" is different ways of achieving the same (or similar) output. You only need 1 of them to achieve the output.

But the options on the table deliver wildly different outputs. The output that appears to have been chosen is being dictated by the price, not the other way around.

 

[Ianno87]

But the options on the table deliver wildly different outputs. The output that appears to have been chosen is being dictated by the price, not the other way around.

The proper term in a strategic sense would be "Conditional Outputs"; conditional on enabling them (through infrastructure provision) being fund-able, affordable, value for money, deliverable, etc etc.

 

[A0wen]

"Competing options" is some very careful wording. The options only exist because the treasury have tightened the noose, and now they expect the people of the north and East Midlands to make the best of it.

Well what do you suggest ? A blank cheque from the Treasury and to hell with how it's ever going to be paid for ?

The reality is IF the benefits case for some of the linkages to the North or East Mids aren't strong enough, they shouldn't be progressed. Sorry, the "build a line to everywhere" approach as pursued by the Victorians is the reason why we ended up with a network which was far too big and unsustainable to begin with. The same mistakes cannot be repeated with either HS2 or NPR.

 

[Roast Veg]

Well what do you suggest ? A blank cheque from the Treasury and to hell with how it's ever going to be paid for ?

The reality is IF the benefits case for some of the linkages to the North or East Mids aren't strong enough, they shouldn't be progressed. Sorry, the "build a line to everywhere" approach as pursued by the Victorians is the reason why we ended up with a network which was far too big and unsustainable to begin with. The same mistakes cannot be repeated with either HS2 or NPR.

That's not what I am advocating for, and I don't know why you think it was. I am (in full acknoledgement of my local bias) advocating that the outputs that affect me most should be unconditional, because I want to see them realised.

 

[YorksLad12]

There's trackbed of two lines totally unused bar the station at Gorton(?) - bring those back as far as Guide Bridge. The conflicting moves and stopping services play havoc from Guide Bridge all the way to Ardwick. 7 minutes for 4 miles Guide Bridge - Ardwick.. could do better!

Leeds-Manchester P services could even terminate in Platform 0 (used as a NR car park currently) and Platform 1 - they could get all the way from Stalybridge without a single conflicting movement or junction.

This is kind-of why I'm expecting NPR to be downgraded to TRU-plus. New, segregated track would allow services to be speeded up without all of the major construction outlay and planning stuff. There would still be problems from Guide Bridge to Stalybridge and Stalybridge to Standedge and Dewsbury to Leeds though.

On the referred-to trackbed of two unused lines as far as Guide Bridge, are there now any railway infrastructural installations upon it that would need to be relocated and would that said relocation pose operational difficulties?

Probably (and the M60). But I suspect that resiting those, while inconvenient (especially if there are route closures to allow it to happen), would still work out cheaper than a whole new line.

If HS2 hadn't been invented, would we be happy with four-tracking (parts of) the existing route, especially if electrified? I think so. I suspect that's what we'll be offered, especially if Leeds-Manchester comes down to below 40 minutes. Of course, we'll then get in to arguments about how Leeds-Manchester-Liverpool is faster via Victoria...

 

[Purple Orange]

This is kind-of why I'm expecting NPR to be downgraded to TRU-plus. New, segregated track would allow services to be speeded up without all of the major construction outlay and planning stuff. There would still be problems from Guide Bridge to Stalybridge and Stalybridge to Standedge and Dewsbury to Leeds though.


Probably (and the M60). But I suspect that resiting those, while inconvenient (especially if there are route closures to allow it to happen), would still work out cheaper than a whole new line.

If HS2 hadn't been invented, would we be happy with four-tracking (parts of) the existing route, especially if electrified? I think so. I suspect that's what we'll be offered, especially if Leeds-Manchester comes down to below 40 minutes. Of course, we'll then get in to arguments about how Leeds-Manchester-Liverpool is faster via Victoria...

Leeds-Manchester is expected to be 41 minutes after this current planned section of TRU is completed (I.e. leaving Huddersfield-Stalybridge untouched). It would have to be a huge screw up for a new build line to Huddersfield to only achieve a 2 min saving.

 

[YorksLad12]

Leeds-Manchester is expected to be 41 minutes after this current planned section of TRU is completed (I.e. leaving Huddersfield-Stalybridge untouched). It would have to be a huge screw up for a new build line to Huddersfield to only achieve a 2 min saving.

Points of order:
1. If it achieved a 5 minute journey time saving, that is also less than 40 minutes - I didn't give a predicted number because I don't know one. My point was about non-NPR journey time improvements you'd be happy with if you'd never heard of NPR/HS3/HS2.
2. With this Government...

 

[CdBrux]

Whatever the outcome, everyone will be disappointed to some extent I reckon.

Considering everyone had thrown a long wishlist into the frame of which it would probably be nigh on impossible to satisfy even with unlimited money then this is inevitable. Not that it will prevent them complaining

 

[Ianno87]

Hard to believe, but... https://twitter.com/_CaitlinDoherty/status/1461004549318221836?t=y5yNy4e7igPmLVwL2DQQWQ&s=19

As of about an hour ago, the Integrated Rail Plan still hadn’t received final sign off, so I’m told

If true, actually speechless.

 

[Roast Veg]

Hard to believe, but... https://twitter.com/_CaitlinDoherty/status/1461004549318221836?t=y5yNy4e7igPmLVwL2DQQWQ&s=19



If true, actually speechless.

Perhaps there are a couple of versions all ready to go, so Boris, Grant, and Rishi can just pick one tomorrow morning. It's been suggested that they wanted to gauge the public response, and it would go some way to explain the conflicting "leaks".

 

[Purple Orange]

Surely it can’t be delayed again?!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

You never know, Crossrail 2 may be cancelled as a "levelling-up" exercise in reverse....

Hope springs eternal.

 

[matacaster]

Possible solution to Bradford direct access / Leeds (speed / capacity) assuming NPR scrapped.
Build a new straight bit of line in tunnel towards Leeds between Heaton lodge junction using a part of (currently closed section of) Leeds new line formation at gildersome then on viaduct to new high level Leeds station.. A fork left from new line at liversedge would take the closed route which used to run to the Halifax-Bradford line at low moor.

Bradford gets a fast route to HS2 (probably with just a few flagship services) which then trundles on to Leeds in existing line.

Leeds gets a faster service which also brings extra capacity and avoids Morley tunnel and the snakey 2 track route between Dewsbury and Leeds.

 

[edwin_m]

Perhaps there are a couple of versions all ready to go, so Boris, Grant, and Rishi can just pick one tomorrow morning. It's been suggested that they wanted to gauge the public response, and it would go some way to explain the conflicting "leaks".

Maybe they're drafted a speech for each one too. That worked really well last time.

You never know, Crossrail 2 may be cancelled as a "levelling-up" exercise in reverse....

Hope springs eternal.

I think in practice it pretty much has been. Wasn't it a condition of one of the TfL Covid bailouts that no more was to be spent on it, other than to protect the alignment? It's commuter-orientated, it's in the south, and most importantly the government can blame Sadiq for it.

 

[Austriantrain]

Possible solution to Bradford direct access / Leeds (speed / capacity) assuming NPR scrapped.
Build a new straight bit of line in tunnel towards Leeds between Heaton lodge junction using a part of (currently closed section of) Leeds new line formation at gildersome then on viaduct to new high level Leeds station.. A fork left from new line at liversedge would take the closed route which used to run to the Halifax-Bradford line at low moor.

Bradford gets a fast route to HS2 (probably with just a few flagship services) which then trundles on to Leeds in existing line.

Leeds gets a faster service which also brings extra capacity and avoids Morley tunnel and the snakey 2 track route between Dewsbury and Leeds.

This is something my virtual crayon drew lots of times would also give Bradford a much faster service to Manchester, provided it would fit in an upgraded MAN-HUD, and might also have avoided most of the rebuild between Huddersfield and Raventhorpe.

But I suspect some more serious people must have looked at it and regarded it as unfeasible or bad value for money.

 

[JKF]

This is something my virtual crayon drew lots of times would also give Bradford a much faster service to Manchester, provided it would fit in an upgraded MAN-HUD, and might also have avoided most of the rebuild between Huddersfield and Raventhorpe.

But I suspect some more serious people must have looked at it and regarded it as unfeasible or bad value for money.

A lot of historic mining in the Morley area would be one constraint, although I can see the attraction of the Leeds New Line route as it’s very well aligned for this or similar options, and Gildersome tunnel has only been backfilled with colliery spoil for about a third of its length. I suspect it would need reboring to fit a new line, and is very soggy due to an underground spring/river.

Also a station serving Birstall/Gildersome area, the large retail park and maybe some sort of parkway/park and ride with good motorway access could be stuck up that way, although it wouldn’t really be justified on a high speed service. There are a lot of large towns with no railway out that way, the problem mainly is that historic lines pointed the wrong way, towards Bradford not Leeds.

 

[daodao]

The reality is IF the benefits case for some of the linkages to the North or East Mids aren't strong enough, they shouldn't be progressed. Sorry, the "build a line to everywhere" approach as pursued by the Victorians is the reason why we ended up with a network which was far too big and unsustainable to begin with. The same mistakes cannot be repeated with either HS2 or NPR.

Exactly, which is why I feel strongly that the HS2 western leg should stop at Crewe. North Cheshire and South Manchester don't need "levelling up". It's Yorkshire that seems to be drawing the short straw, but the economic case for full HS2 there clearly doesn't add up. Speeding up trains to Scotland is also not warranted for a country that may not be part of the UK by the time HS2 is built.

IMO, no more high speed lines should be approved until after HS2 phase 2a has been built and been open for a few years, so that it becomes clearer where any further extensions might be beneficial from a purely economic perspective.

 

[takno]

Exactly, which is why I feel strongly that the HS2 western leg should stop at Crewe. North Cheshire and South Manchester don't need "levelling up". It's Yorkshire that seems to be drawing the short straw, but the economic case for full HS2 there clearly doesn't add up. Speeding up trains to Scotland is also not warranted for a country that may not be part of the UK by the time HS2 is built.

IMO, no more high speed lines should be approved until after HS2 phase 2a has been built and been open for a few years, so that it becomes clearer where any further extensions might be beneficial from a purely economic perspective.

Whether Scotland is part of the UK or not is wholly irrelevant to whether you want to improve connectivity, reduce traffic on existing lines and reduce carbon from flights.

More importantly, the line is being built and funded as a UK national asset right now. If they decide to specifically not serve Scotland then they will have to cough up 8 billion in Barnett residuals. It's very unlikely you could make that stack up

 

[A0wen]

Exactly, which is why I feel strongly that the HS2 western leg should stop at Crewe. North Cheshire and South Manchester don't need "levelling up". It's Yorkshire that seems to be drawing the short straw, but the economic case for full HS2 there clearly doesn't add up. Speeding up trains to Scotland is also not warranted for a country that may not be part of the UK by the time HS2 is built.

IMO, no more high speed lines should be approved until after HS2 phase 2a has been built and been open for a few years, so that it becomes clearer where any further extensions might be beneficial from a purely economic perspective.

Whilst I take your point - part of HS2's rationale was to provide capacity, so killing it at Crewe would leave the issue of capacity into Manchester which is still at a premium and inhibits possible improvements to local services there unresolved.

The reality is a couple of bits of Yorkshire will "draw the short straw" depending on what else gets announced today.

If MML electrification goes ahead then there's a benefit to Derby, Nottingham, Chesterfield and Sheffield (yes, I'm aware only one of those is actually in Yorkshire).

If there is an improved trans-Pennine link between Manchester and Leeds then the effects of that will be felt much further out.

If all of these improve throughput at Manchester then services which originate further out such as Manchester or Preston heading east will also benefit.

There's no doubt going to be some "we're being victimised again" cries from probably from Liverpool and Bradford - but both those cities need to take a look at themselves and ask why when Manchester and Leeds have managed to regenerate themselves successfully, they haven't managed to do this and alot of it is down to local politics and attitudes.

 

[Gareth]

There's no doubt going to be some "we're being victimised again" cries from probably from Liverpool and Bradford - but both those cities need to take a look at themselves and ask why when Manchester and Leeds have managed to regenerate themselves successfully, they haven't managed to do this and alot of it is down to local politics and attitudes.

Ignorant post of the day. The big difference between those two sets of cities is that the latter are considered the "regional capitals" of their respective government-drawn regions - a decision made by civil servants decades ago based on size and geography. This matters massively in a highly centralised country where the national government calls all the shots.

Local government is little but a service delivery outfit - emptying bins, fixing streetlights etc. Cranky councillors have no bearing on where HS2 goes or doesn't go.

Additionally, Liverpool and Bradford are quite different in terms of their size, economies and their respective relations with Manchester & Leeds. Bradford is a lot closer to Leeds and the size difference is greater than with Liverpool & Manchester.

Also, Liverpool has had plenty of "regeneration". It could actually do with less of it and for the government to stop hobbling the city with centralised economic planning which focuses on only certain other cities and allow it (and everywhere else for that matter) the tools and the incentive to grow its own economy.

Justifying cutting places out of vital bits of national infrastructure because you perceive them to be more in need of "regeneration" is an interesting take though, I'll give you that.

 

[Ianno87]

Also, Liverpool has had plenty of "regeneration". It could actually do with less of it and for the government to stop hobbling the city with centralised economic planning which focuses on only certain other cities and allow it (and everywhere else for that matter) the tools and the incentive to grow its own economy.

The first part of this contradicts the second; improved rail links are completely about regeneration and economic growth.

You want less regeneration of Liverpool, but also want the economic stimulus provided by a new railway?

 

[ainsworth74]

For discussion of the actual IRP itself please see this thread. For discussion of the HS2 specific elements of the IRP announcement please see this thread.

As there is now some concrete information the Forum Staff have decided to draw a line under this thread but we are quite happy for someone to start a fresh thread to discuss their own ideas and speculation for relevant topics. But sometimes it's good to start a fresh when the situation has changed substantially from when a thread started

 

[matacaster]

Off-topic, but could a small guide rail be positioned above each canopy with a cheap remotely operated camera able to run along and underneath it which would move from end to end of the canopy. This could allow inspection without making a line closure necessary, which I assume would be very costly.

Reports are emerging that "a new station in Bradford" will be announced next week in the DfT response to criticisms about the TRU/NPR project.

TransPennine Express services ‘worse’ under state-owned OLR

Operator, which covers trains across north of England and southern Scotland, cancelled more than 90 trains in a day this month

www.theguardian.com

Is this part of Bradford councils cunning plan to have more unconnected stations in Bradford than Pontefract?