• 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!

NPR - the shambles continues

Status
Not open for further replies.

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,633
The transport corridor from Birmingham to Leeds has a high population density, very congested roads and particularly substandard intercity, regional and local rail services. It's a prime candidate for a new main line. Without it, HS2 is essentially a WCML bypass. With it, all North-South intercity lines are relieved - WCML, MML, ECML and XC.

There are multiple ways to "skin this cat", the proposed "Y" network solution of a line from Birmingham via Nottingham and Sheffield is far from the only way to do this.

I have a lot more sympathy with the "reverse S" or variants thereof, possibly an "F" network.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,909
Even at 12 coaches you'd only manage about 660 seats per train, HS2 is targeting 1,100 seats per train. If you fill them to the same percentage capacity then your HS2 ticket prices could be on average 60% of the price of the existing services, but with the extra passengers being in the same income. However having detailed above that the costs would be at least slightly lower, the overall "profit" would still be higher.
Depends on the type of train and the calculation of what you call a seat. 12 car 321s currently have just under 850 seats, a 10 car Class 720 was something around 1000 seats but that included tip up seats, not sure I'd want to travel from London to Manchester on either without lots of spreading out space (even before covid before anyone says).


And the IRP gets that upgraded sooner and over a wider area.
Or more likely binned and called something else, something similar was alluded to higher up the thread.
 

quantinghome

Established Member
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Messages
2,262
There are multiple ways to "skin this cat", the proposed "Y" network solution of a line from Birmingham via Nottingham and Sheffield is far from the only way to do this.

I have a lot more sympathy with the "reverse S" or variants thereof, possibly an "F" network.
I'm not ideologically wedded to any shape of network. Provided it achieves what is required, I'd be happy with whatever network is most efficient.

All these different high level options were looked at right at the start of the process, and the Y network emerged as the best option. I can't see what's changed since then to force a fundamental change of plan.
 

CdBrux

Member
Joined
4 Mar 2014
Messages
768
Location
Munich
I'm not ideologically wedded to any shape of network. Provided it achieves what is required, I'd be happy with whatever network is most efficient.

All these different high level options were looked at right at the start of the process, and the Y network emerged as the best option. I can't see what's changed since then to force a fundamental change of plan.

What has become NPR and Midlands Connect were not at all in the thinking when HS2 was settled to the Y network, for me the objectives now are quite different. Had the current objectives been there from the start you may well not have got the Y but rather more emphasis on M62 corridor for example, links to east branch city centres, high chance to have a connection in Brum to the SW,... The speed vs capacity balance may well have been different as well
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
The speed vs capacity balance may well have been different as well

Speed is a useful function to allow more than just the WCML to be relieved by being able to match or better journey times to/from London (which given that this is the primary flow of lots of intercity journeys is likely to be where there would be a focus). However in doing so it would also significantly improve capacity and speeds between the West Midlands and North East.

I'm not sure that many of the other options would want to change those goals overly much, although there may be a change if there's a desire to improve connectivity/speed/capacity between other city pairs (such as Manchester/Leeds). However given how little spare capacity there was on the network an over provision of rail capacity is unlikely to be an issue.

Even if it were to be an issue then it could be used to enable road capacity to be reduced. For instance building HS lines with comparable carbon emissions and then closing a section of motorway half the length would reduce carbon emissions over doing nothing over a few decades.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,633
All these different high level options were looked at right at the start of the process, and the Y network emerged as the best option. I can't see what's changed since then to force a fundamental change of plan.
Well for one thing, NPR now exists (at least in the transport plan) and provides a high speed connection from Manchester to Near Leeds.

That changes things dramatically - I expect that if the analysis was run now, taking the proposed NPR work as committed, we would get an 'F' network.

If its build HS2 from south of Chesterfield to Leeds or build 20km or so from Marsden to Leeds, the latter wins every time.

We are also experiencing a strategic change in how rail transport is viewed and used which has progressed significantly since that high level work was done. That was so long ago, in railway terms, that London Overground was brand new!

Also technological improvements mean that solutions like reversing all trains in Manchester Piccadilly is considered a practical option - which also changes the argument for a "through" station in Birmingham dramatically. We can now have a station that is operationally "through" without the expense of actually building one.
 

quantinghome

Established Member
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Messages
2,262
Well for one thing, NPR now exists (at least in the transport plan) and provides a high speed connection from Manchester to Near Leeds.
Marsden is not Near Leeds.

That changes things dramatically - I expect that if the analysis was run now, taking the proposed NPR work as committed, we would get an 'F' network.
NPR as it stand doesn't give you an F network. But assuming a new build line from Marsden to Leeds is built, it gives you:

- improved Leeds-Birmingham times
- improved Leeds-London times and
- consequent relief to the existing network.

However, none of these improvements would be as good as a more direct line roughly following the northern part of the M1. It's about 30 minutes slower and doesn't relieve the ECML, MML and XC lines to the same extent as the Y network.

Further downsides to an F network:

- services to York and Newcastle wouldn't be moved onto the new network as the journey times don't work via Manchester (even with super-efficient turnaround).
- likewise it doesn't help XC services from Birmingham to York and further north.
- it doesn't do anything to improve regional rail services between West Yorks, South Yorks and East Mids. You would get marginal relief by moving Leeds-Birmingham traffic elsewhere. But the existing network would still be taking long distance services so couldn't be reworked as a high frequency semi-fast regional service.
- and under the current NPR plan it doesn't relieve the MML as it's still reliant on the existing MML intercity services to provide long distance capacity.

If its build HS2 from south of Chesterfield to Leeds or build 20km or so from Marsden to Leeds, the latter wins every time.
Wins in what respect? Saying Marsden to Leeds is "20km or so" is like me claiming my age is "21 years and a bit"! Any new-build alignment from Marsden to Leeds would have to be almost entirely in tunnel. Even with the shorter distance compared top Leeds-Chesterfield it will be significantly more expensive.

We are also experiencing a strategic change in how rail transport is viewed and used which has progressed significantly since that high level work was done. That was so long ago, in railway terms, that London Overground was brand new!
Can you expand on that? What is this strategic change? How has it changed the fundamental requirements of the rail network? As far as I can see we still have a massively over-utilised rail network in need of new relief lines.

The long term driver is climate change which will only serve to increase rail demand while exacerbating reliability problems on our ageing rail network.

Also technological improvements mean that solutions like reversing all trains in Manchester Piccadilly is considered a practical option - which also changes the argument for a "through" station in Birmingham dramatically. We can now have a station that is operationally "through" without the expense of actually building one.
How does more efficient reversing at Manchester change the high-level option evaluation summarised above? It will make a few minutes' difference, not near enough to change any fundamentals.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,633
However, none of these improvements would be as good as a more direct line roughly following the northern part of the M1.
I think you will find that London-Leeds distances are generally comparable via Birmingham and Manchester and via Birmingham and Nottingham.

The dog leg is already committed by going to Birmingham International in the first place.

It's about 30 minutes slower
30 minutes slower from where to where, using what assumptions?

- services to York and Newcastle wouldn't be moved onto the new network as the journey times don't work via Manchester (even with super-efficient turnaround).
Even if all you do is build Marsden to Leeds as a HSL, journey times for London-York are not absurd.
Slower than the fastest trains but not ridiculously so.

If you build some high speed line between York and Leeds using some of the vast amounts of money you save from the reduced length of the F system (taking NPR as read) you will beat the classic times, at which point the traffic will transfer.

70 ish minutes London-Manchester, IRP 33 minutes Manchester Leeds, 5 minute dwell in Manchester - 108 minutes.

Even classic journey time from Leeds-York is 23 minutes or so with another few minutes to dwell in Leeds.

So probably looking at something like 135 minutes - 2hr15.
25 minutes slower than the fastest, but not that much slower than many of the trains today, which are often longer than 2hr5.

With the track saved from not building the Nottingham-Leeds section of HS2, plus the York branch, you can build a high speed line from Marsden to Leeds and from Leeds to York - with some left over.

At which point you will match the fastest classic trains to York easily, and the traffic will transfer.
You probably save approaching 15 minutes for Marsden-Leeds alone.


- likewise it doesn't help XC services from Birmingham to York and further north.
Uh..... the F network Birmingham-York journey time via Manchester will still absolutely crush the classic one.
Wins in what respect? Saying Marsden to Leeds is "20km or so" is like me claiming my age is "21 years and a bit"! Any new-build alignment from Marsden to Leeds would have to be almost entirely in tunnel. Even with the shorter distance compared top Leeds-Chesterfield it will be significantly more expensive.
Sorry - 30km.
But compared to getting on for four times that from Leeds to Nottingham, plus the York branch.

It isn't going to be more expensive.

Can you expand on that? What is this strategic change?
The ever extending reach of metro-isation.
Railways trend towards being increasingly metro-ised, and the current structure of HS2 does not follow this trend.

It's design for relatively low intensity high speed services between small numbers of stations.
 
Last edited:

quantinghome

Established Member
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Messages
2,262
@HSTEd thanks for the detail reply, which deserves a detailed response.

I think you will find that London-Leeds distances are generally comparable via Birmingham and Manchester and via Birmingham and Nottingham.

The dog leg is already committed by going to Birmingham International in the first place.

30 minutes slower from where to where, using what assumptions?
Leeds to Birmingham and Leeds to London:

Current time Via Manc (your numbers) Via HS2E (journey times stated by HS2)
to Brum 2hrs 80m (IRP numbers) 49m
to Lndn 2h10-2h15 108m (your numbers) 81m

Even if all you do is build Marsden to Leeds as a HSL, journey times for London-York are not absurd

Slower than the fastest trains but not ridiculously so.

If you build some high speed line between York and Leeds using some of the vast amounts of money you save from the reduced length of the F system (taking NPR as read) you will beat the classic times, at which point the traffic will transfer.

70 ish minutes London-Manchester, IRP 33 minutes Manchester Leeds, 5 minute dwell in Manchester - 108 minutes.

Even classic journey time from Leeds-York is 23 minutes or so with another few minutes to dwell in Leeds.

So probably looking at something like 135 minutes - 2hr15.
25 minutes slower than the fastest, but not that much slower than many of the trains today, which are often longer than 2hr5.

With the track saved from not building the Nottingham-Leeds section of HS2, plus the York branch, you can build a high speed line from Marsden to Leeds and from Leeds to York - with some left over.

At which point you will match the fastest classic trains to York easily, and the traffic will transfer.
You probably save approaching 15 minutes for Marsden-Leeds alone.
You wouldn't be able to save 15 minutes for Marsden-Leeds. That would give a Manchester-Leeds journey of 18 minutes. 25 minutes is probably the best you could hope for, and that would be a very fast alignment. Leeds-York is a relative short distance so you won't have time to get to high speeds. But you could perhaps get the time down to 15 minutes.

Even with the high speed sections in place as you propose, based on your timings you would not see a London-York via Manchester journey time less than 2 hours (70m Lon-Manc, 5m dwell, 25m NPR Manc to Lds, 5m dwell, 15m Lds-York, being generous with the NPR and).

Uh..... the F network Birmingham-York journey time via Manchester will still absolutely crush the classic one.
The 2019 XC timetable had York-Birmingham timed at 1h52. Via Manchester on current NPR plans it would be about 1h45. With your proposed additional high speed sections that may come down to 90 minutes. So fair enough, you could save 20 minutes on the current journey. Certainly an improvement on existing, but not crushing it compared to HS2E which would have dropped the journey to under 1 hour.

Sorry - 30km.
But compared to getting on for four times that from Leeds to Nottingham, plus the York branch.

It isn't going to be more expensive.
Weren't you going to build a York branch?

To match the design capacity of HS2E the NPR line would have to cater for 400m long trains and UIC 'GC' structural loading gauge. Big tunnels. Tunnelling is an order of magnitude more expensive than surface rail. And a major rebuild at Leeds. And York as well if you don't want additional 400m length terminating platforms at Leeds.

The ever extending reach of metro-isation.
Railways trend towards being increasingly metro-ised, and the current structure of HS2 does not follow this trend.

It's design for relatively low intensity high speed services between small numbers of stations.
Low intensity? HS2 will be the most intensely used high speed line in the world. Have you considered how many trains per hour HS2 was going to get on each branch? Then add on the additional services Midlands connect and NPR were hoping to add to it.

HS2 is all about metro-isation - getting rid of the jack-of-all-trades railway and giving similar speed trains their own tracks, allowing a massive increase in frequency, both on HS2, and the classic network.

@quantinghome - what was Operation Princess, out of interest?
Hi Jimbo, welcome to the forum.

Operation Princess was the grandiose title given by Virgin Cross Country to its new service launched in 2002. New trains, new clockface timetable with double the train frequency, reduced journey times.

It was so-named because the Cross Country route was called the 'Cinderella' service of BR's intercity network.

It was a complete disaster. The timetable didn't work. The new trains were very short and inefficiently laid out so didn't have nearly enough capacity. A more robust timetable was sorted out by the end of 2003, but with longer journey times, there weren't enough trains to run the network, which had to be cut back to the core routes we have today. Arguably the cross country network has never really recovered.
 
Last edited:

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,633
@HSTEd
You wouldn't be able to save 15 minutes for Marsden-Leeds. That would give a Manchester-Leeds journey of 18 minutes. 25 minutes is probably the best you could hope for, and that would be a very fast alignment. Leeds-York is a relative short distance so you won't have time to get to high speeds. But you could perhaps get the time down to 15 minutes.
I suppose this depends on your definition of "high speed" and what a high performance multiple unit is.
I like to point at the Shinkansen for inspiration, where ~30km stop to stop journeys are regularly done in 10-11 minutes. And sixty kilometres could reliably be covered in 20 minutes or even less.

All axles motored and huge installed power can work miracles.

Weren't you going to build a York branch?
Yes, but it is not essential.


To match the design capacity of HS2E the NPR line would have to cater for 400m long trains and UIC 'GC' structural loading gauge. Big tunnels. Tunnelling is an order of magnitude more expensive than surface rail. And a major rebuild at Leeds. And York as well if you don't want additional 400m length terminating platforms at Leeds.
The tunnels dimensions are not set by the dimensions of the rolling stock any more - they are set by the fact that modern bored tunnels are circular and a need for evacuation walkways and large tunnel cross sections to disperse shockwaves.

A tunnel for a conventional train and a GC gauge high speed train won't differ that much in cost any more.

I'd also hesitate to agree that tunneling costs an "order of magnitude" more than surface running any more.
One of the reasons that railways all over the world are going more and more for tunnel solutions is the dramatic reduction in relative cost between the two in the modern era.
Low intensity? HS2 will be the most intensely used high speed line in the world.
The core of the line might be, but the service patterns are not.
It's made of a series of comparatively low intensity service patterns all stacked onto a line, rather than a true "metro" lookalike.

HS2 is all about metro-isation - getting rid of the jack-of-all-trades railway and giving similar speed trains their own tracks, allowing a massive increase in frequency, both on HS2, and the classic network.

I'd argue if we were going for metro-isation we'd have built a Piccadilly style split approach at Curzon Street and the London-Birmingham trains and Birmingham-Points North trains would be the same trains.

No point terminating any trains anywhere except the ends of the network.
 

gallafent

Member
Joined
23 Dec 2010
Messages
517
No point terminating any trains anywhere except the ends of the network.
Hmm, I have a vague recollection of 2xTGV Paris->Bordeaux, then only one unit going forward to Toulouse. Many years ago now so I don't know if they still do this kind of thing on that network. For optimising passenger capacity vs demand, this sort of "terminate half the train" approach might well have merit!
 

Austriantrain

Established Member
Joined
13 Aug 2018
Messages
1,307
Hmm, I have a vague recollection of 2xTGV Paris->Bordeaux, then only one unit going forward to Toulouse. Many years ago now so I don't know if they still do this kind of thing on that network. For optimising passenger capacity vs demand, this sort of "terminate half the train" approach might well have merit!

It is also quite common where doubled 200m-sets are used, eg on Austrian RJ services. It saves staff and above all rolling stock.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Hmm, I have a vague recollection of 2xTGV Paris->Bordeaux, then only one unit going forward to Toulouse. Many years ago now so I don't know if they still do this kind of thing on that network. For optimising passenger capacity vs demand, this sort of "terminate half the train" approach might well have merit!
The plan for Scotland is a double unit splitting at Carlisle for both Glasgow and Edinburgh.
Liverpool/Preston are supposed to be served in the same way, with a split at Crewe.
Among other reasons, there would not be a need for 400m platforms at some stations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top