It's cleary a problem to the residents who will live by it. Probably will lower property value too, which is not what you want in a city supposed to benefit from the project. Also it can't be easily claimed to be a necessary cost cut when you look at the no expense spared phase 1 part of the route, and even if that wasn't the case, it would be better to build a station further from the centre connected to one of the Metrolink stops which would be even cheaper and not cause problems for residents.
-
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!
Publication of Integrated Rail Plan for the North and Midlands
- Thread starter ainsworth74
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Residents? Do you even know the area? It's basically all low-rise light industrial type-properties at the moment.
And anyone moving there to new developments after the railway has been built will know full well there's a railway there.
If Liverpool wants a captive HS2 station, that means a lot of land take and tunnelling. At an educated guess, £5bn+. To save a couple of minutes.
The London tunnel from Old Oak to Ruislip was added, whilst the Chiltern tunnel was extended 2.6km to finish at Gt Missenden.
The last two are one signalling renewal project. If you include them you should include all the others, including New Street Resignalling, Bristol East, etc.
Approximately 7.93491 miles
It’s pretty obvious where it will go - there’s a reason HS2 enters a tunnel at Ardwick depot. Why would the new line to Yorkshire do anything other than enter tunnel there too?
The issue with tunnelling all the way is going to be the nature of the geology and also locating the necessary evacuation shafts. At a guess I expect it will have to ‘come up for air’ at least once.
Sorry, I forget sometimes the 'news' can be misleading. I'll take your word for it since I presume you live there. You didn't counter my cost argument though. It's cheaper to build away from the city centre and connect to a tram stop at the end of it's line than it will ever be to build in the city centre.
Not sure about that - the proposed HS2 site is pretty much outside the core of the built up city centre. Like I say, mainly light industrial type stuff that easy to move, plus some semi-derelict land.
Suggest the bigger challenge will be the interaction with some of the main roads in the area (e.g. the end of Mancunian Way, where it meets Great Ancoats Street).
For the avoidance of doubt, below is the proposed HS2 route out of the new station adjacent to Piccadilly ( as published on the Government website). Immediately after crossing the A665 the route falls at 2.5% (1:40) and enters tunnel in the Ardwick depot area. I can’t see how the NPR line could be any different.
Of course it isn’t.
Building an underground box straight and level long enough to accommodate 400m trains and wide enough for, say, 4 platforms, below sea level, certainly is though. Doable, but very, very expensive.
Of course it isn’t.
Building an underground box straight and level long enough to accommodate 400m trains and wide enough for, say, 4 platforms, below sea level, certainly is though. Doable, but very, very expensive.
You don't seem to grasp the size of the issue, HS2 will deliver 3 x 400m trains each hour purely from London, not to mention the services from Birmingham or the NPR services too, that's way too many passengers to dump at Wythenshaw tram stop and let people use Metrolink to complete the journey.
How is Piccadilly not in the core of the city? Unless I'm dumb and the actual plan is elsewhere.
Because Piccadilly is actually on the edge of the core of the city. The area just to the east of the present station / approach tracks is very much not "city centre" - which is why the HS2 station is planned to go there as developable space.
This is the current Piccadilly HS2/NPR proposal six platforms and the NPR junction at Tonge St just West of Ardwick Depot.
LOL The Irony
On Moderation
All @MattRat needed to do was look at google maps to see this was the case.
Of course it'd be cheaper to dump it in an industrial wasteland and tram everyone in, but that won't be the best use of money for the project. Firstly, you'd have the problem of connecting passengers wanting onwards destinations like Salford and Bolton are dumped miles away from where they want to be (ie: Piccadilly, Castlefield or Victoria).
You have an out of date map there, here's the new alignment
No you have the out of date map the tunnel portal is between Midland Street and Rondin Road next to Ardwick Station.
To say nothing of the rather large number of km north of the border that will be in scope in that time.
LOL The Irony
On Moderation
Yes it is indeed.
I would hope it will be running very hot for the next 20 years, by all previous standards, if we are to decarbonise the railways.
If the government is really serious about decarbonising the economy, many industries will have to be totally transformed. The government shows no sign of understanding this.
Indeed - The Tories have gone back on their Manifesto pledge on HS2. However on NPR, it was only. "We will build Northern Powerhouse Rail between Leeds and Manchester and then focus on Liverpool, Tees Valley, Hull, Sheffield and Newcastle." No mention of Bradford, that came from TfN.
Page 29 for clarity: https://www.conservatives.com/our-plan/conservative-party-manifesto-2019
Jozhua
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2019
- Messages
- 1,859
The "Integrated Rail Plan" would be better described as the "No Idea, Can't Be Arsed".
I was expecting detailed plans of expected service patterns in 2030, 2040, etc. Instead we're left with "we might do this" "could probably do that" "uuuh this should do"...
To be successful, the IRP should have followed a general cohesive strategy, with certain stated goals. I would have chosen the following:
-To increase capacity to cope with the record passenger demand being seen, with scope for selling more, cheaper seats.
-To modernise the railway to make it more operationally efficient, more accessible and more resilient.
-To enable the railways to better compete with road and air transport.
With these goals in mind, I would then build the perfect service pattern. What level of service do different towns/cities need, how fast should they be and how much capacity will be required?
Once this is completed, you should bring the plans back to reality - figure out the most effective way of delivering as much of this as reasonably possible. You can create different plans based on the funding available.
Rather, government seems to have done it all backwards. No concrete plans for the actual service they want to run - they don't even know how fast this Transpennine "Upgrade" will be? There are so many gaps, so much uncertainty in a document designed to bring certainty.
For a government obsessed with controlling costs, they have unwittingly backed themselves into a tricky corner. It's going to be very difficult for the industry to deliver these plans in a cost-effective manner when government cannot commit to anything. Multiple billion pounds have been wasted on designing HS2 east, now with nothing to show for it. Maybe if government should decide what it wants before it does things - once it has made a commitment, it should stick to it.
I am looking forward to getting my hands on a copy of the IRP, if not because I am in need of some new toilet paper.
Lots of planning was done in the region around maximising the benefits of the location in Toton, now it is to all be binned. Services between Nottingham/Derby will likely also suffer, now that they will have to share tracks with more high speed trains.
I was expecting detailed plans of expected service patterns in 2030, 2040, etc. Instead we're left with "we might do this" "could probably do that" "uuuh this should do"...
To be successful, the IRP should have followed a general cohesive strategy, with certain stated goals. I would have chosen the following:
-To increase capacity to cope with the record passenger demand being seen, with scope for selling more, cheaper seats.
-To modernise the railway to make it more operationally efficient, more accessible and more resilient.
-To enable the railways to better compete with road and air transport.
With these goals in mind, I would then build the perfect service pattern. What level of service do different towns/cities need, how fast should they be and how much capacity will be required?
Once this is completed, you should bring the plans back to reality - figure out the most effective way of delivering as much of this as reasonably possible. You can create different plans based on the funding available.
Rather, government seems to have done it all backwards. No concrete plans for the actual service they want to run - they don't even know how fast this Transpennine "Upgrade" will be? There are so many gaps, so much uncertainty in a document designed to bring certainty.
For a government obsessed with controlling costs, they have unwittingly backed themselves into a tricky corner. It's going to be very difficult for the industry to deliver these plans in a cost-effective manner when government cannot commit to anything. Multiple billion pounds have been wasted on designing HS2 east, now with nothing to show for it. Maybe if government should decide what it wants before it does things - once it has made a commitment, it should stick to it.
I am looking forward to getting my hands on a copy of the IRP, if not because I am in need of some new toilet paper.
Playing the North and South off against each other is a genuis ploy on the side of the government. An indifferent Midlands/North when London sees transport finding cut to the bone is very valuable politically.
Most people don't live in the city centre anyway. Toton was always a compromise, but overall journeys were to be considerably shorter - especially going Northwards to Leeds and beyond, which is currently very poorly served.
Lots of planning was done in the region around maximising the benefits of the location in Toton, now it is to all be binned. Services between Nottingham/Derby will likely also suffer, now that they will have to share tracks with more high speed trains.
stephen rp
Member
- Joined
- 25 Jun 2016
- Messages
- 191
It's hard to read the IRP and not speculate about what it could all mean.Just a gentle reminder this thread is not in the speculative discussion section.
This thread is for discussion regarding the actual proposals in the Integrated Rail Plan for the North and Midlands
If anyone wishes to discuss anything speculative or anything else, please create a new thread, or use an existing one, as appropriate.
Thanks
We are not asking people to not speculate; on the contrary, we welcome speculation; please do create a new thread if any existing thread don't already cover whatever you wish to speculate about.
A selection of currently active speculative threads that may be of interest can be found below:
- Potential options for the proposed high speed line from Manchester towards Leeds
- What is the purpose of Bradford to Leeds electrification?
- Could Liverpool see a new underground HS2 station?
- London etc to - Leeds via HS2 West
- Post IRP service in Yorkshire
- Future MML services post HS2 and capacity through Trent junctions
- Ideas for service patterns on TransPennine Route Post-IRP
- Could ECML improvements benefit places like at Huntingdon?
- Integrated Rail plan for Midlands and North of England: Could more be done to level things up?
- Sheffield to Leeds via Cudworth?
- What could be achieved if we increased public subsidy of railways to levels like those in Austria?
- Extend Eastern Stub to ECML?
If anyone wishes to ask us any questions about this and/or provide any feedback, please contact us directly (and not by replying on this thread); thanks
Austriantrain
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 1,323
I consider this to be fallacy:
1. The sum of users at a station does not only consist of residents, but - in a similar amount - of visitors, who will gravitate towards the city center, because that is where workplaces, shops, hotels, entertainment etc are
2. While it is true that most residents do not live in the city center, they will need public transport to access the station and that invariably (except for really huge cities such as London) will be best towards the center. If you don’t provide access, you exclude anyone that doesn’t have a car, which at least on environmental purposes is self-defeating (quite apart from the fact that a lot of drivers will, once in their car, simply drive through to their destination instead of changing on to the train).
daodao
Established Member
I have now had an opportunity to read the IRP in more detail. My comments are as follows:
- Proposals to serve the East Midlands and Sheffield, which are based on the southern part of the previous HS2 Eastern leg plans. These are an improvement over previous proposals because they provide direct fast links from London to Derby and Nottingham city centres and a new fast link from Birmingham to Nottingham, as well as being linked with full electrification of the MML. The proposed HS2 service to Chesterfield and Sheffield is similar to that previously proposed. I welcome this element of the proposals and there has already been detailed planning, but the timescale for implementation seems overlong.
- Proposals for the HS2b western leg extension into Manchester city centre, with a new station at Hale Barns (close to but not at the Airport), which are linked with the new NPR high-speed line from Warrington BQ LL to Marsden linking into existing lines at these points. The HS2 extension has already been planned in detail, but the proposed NPR line does not have previous detailed plans and there is no clarity about the actual routes for the sections from Warrington BQ LL to Warburton or Piccadilly to Marsden. Without such detail, it is difficult to estimate the cost of these sections and thus the BCR, and the timescale for achieving the NPR element extends well into the 2040s.
The document admits that the journey time from Manchester to Liverpool by the proposed devious route would still be 35 minutes and thus not improved. The farcical existing headline journey time quoted of 50 minutes from Liverpool to Manchester (Piccadilly) is misleading, given that the current fastest journey time between the 2 cities is 40 minutes (which was achieved in 1910 by several routes, and was 35 minutes with 1 less stop pre-Covid). Running onto existing lines west of Warrington and east of Marsden is likely to suffer from capacity constraints.
The value of the HS2 extension from Crewe to Manchester is partly dependent on the use of the section from High Legh to central Manchester by NPR. It will also focus development on an area that doesn't need "levelling up", namely South Manchester and North Cheshire (e.g. house prices in much of South Trafford are already some of the highest in the UK) and on Manchester Airport (inappropriate given the need to reduce air travel because of its adverse effects on climate change).
I have not previously been convinced about the benefit of extending HS2 north of Crewe, and feel that the NPR element of the proposals has not been assessed properly for practicability or actual cost and will take ages to deliver. It does not improve journeys between Manchester and Liverpool and the benefit of NPR over full electrification of the existing Standedge line and the current TUR works seems dubious. - Crumbs to fob off West Yorkshire and NE England, in terms of limited improvements to the ECML, and local transport enhancements around Leeds. The latter includes electrifying the line to Bradford Exchange (but not beyond), and a metro/light rail system, which has been on the agenda for 50 years (but not yet delivered) since Leeds realised that scrapping the modernised 1st generation tram system in the 1950s was a mistake. Frankly, while these developments are welcome (if actually delivered), these areas are being short-changed, to the benefit of their rival (Manchester).
Last edited:
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
This is true, but in the UK flows are very unbalanced. The demand on HS2 will be primarily for trips from the regions to London and return. Thus, the central London station is important, and so is a non central station outside of London.
In theory, and possibly in Austria. But the combination of Advance tickets, unreliable buses and late first/early last services you often get in the UK, most people will drive to the InterCity station, while those without cars will typically take a taxi or ask a friend or family member to drive them there.
You are missing the point of most of this - capacity. Even if it doesn't speed anything up, capacity for local services on Chat Moss and the CLC will be increased, and Victoria and Castlefield potentially relieved a bit more.
The IRP document text which refers to the Midlands Rail Hub plans doesn't mention Leicester. They will fix Nottingham to Birmingham (rightly) within HS2 so it appears they aren't bothered about Leicester to Birmingham unfortunately.
QSK19
Member
I think they’d argue that electrification of the whole MML would be a great benefit to Leicester; but, as you say, it doesn’t do anything about Leicester to Birmingham.
I do think, though, that there is a risk of Loughborough being a really big loser of HS2. If creating extra paths from EMP northwards is going to be too difficult, I fear that they’ll take the decision to terminate EMR Intercity services at Leicester (on the basis that HS2 will maintain London connectivity for EMP northwards). That would effectively put Loughborough in no-mans land, leaving it with Regional services only.
Do you think they would actually do this? And if so, would they path 2tph to Loughborough so that it isn’t cut off from the Intercity network?
Austriantrain
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 1,323
If you don’t want to cut off the whole southern MML towards the North, you will have to run services from St Pancras through to EMD to connect with HS2.
BUT this should really go in speculative. Maybe a mod can move it? Thank you!
I don’t doubt that, but if HS2 and NPR do not change this, then leveling-up will be a failure.
This is not only true in Austria, but everywhere on the European continent I have ever been. Public Transport will invariably have a strong focus on the main railway station, even in small cities.
Actually, it is also a rationale used in the IRP itself, both regarding the drawbacks of a Bradford PW station and the advantages of HS2 trains now reaching Nottingham and Derby centers instead of just Toton. So obviously official UK view as well.
It doesn’t mean that there is no need for parkway stations, but in a complementary role, not as main station.
Last edited:
Class 170101
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 7,955
But could NR ever get its house in order? Even could NR get its house in order as far as the Treasury and the DfT are concerned? I have my doubts that they could as far as the Treasury are concerned because they want costs of the 1970s and 1980s and probably in absolute terms which wouldn't be achiveable rather than 1970s / 1980s + inflation for reflecting the costs of that period today.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,764
The people of Britain have no knowledge how much is currently spent on railways.
I don't think doubling, or tripling, or even quadroupling transport spending would lead to "rejection" or anything like that.
OK. Back on the topic of this thread, i.e. the IRP, does anybody know what the next step is? I.e. does this report get put on a shelf in Whitehall until the next government in 2024 commissions a "Digital Network Connectivity Review" (or whatever buzzword name they give it)? And then says the same things again, with a few tinkering at the edges?
Or are shovels going in the ground in a few weeks time?
What is happening with this plan?
Or are shovels going in the ground in a few weeks time?
What is happening with this plan?
I think that the way I would probably phrase it now is that the journey times under the new plan including Sheffield to London Euston have a credibility problem.
And to those who might retort that it is in an official government document, I would say that this increases rather than decreases the doubt about its accuracy, for obvious reasons!
And to those who might retort that it is in an official government document, I would say that this increases rather than decreases the doubt about its accuracy, for obvious reasons!
- Status