• 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!

Transport for the North Strategic Transport Plan

Status
Not open for further replies.

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Agreed, about 3km out from Warrington at which I assume all trains would probably stop. The curve might be eased a little if the viaduct was reconstructed, which it might have to be anyway due to design or condition. The current viaduct is perfectly straight. A replacement might allow the curve to start a little to the east so the new structure is on the curve. 1200m radius might be possible in that case. What might that give? 120MPH under similar assumptions perhaps? Alternatively The new line could avoid the city centre and other rail connections entirely, or be in tunnel under it, in which case there is the considerable addition expense of an underground station perhaps.
I can't see a 1200m curve getting much above 100mph even if cant is pushed right to the max.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
I can't see a 1200m curve getting much above 100mph even if cant is pushed right to the max.

Even so, if a Liverpool bound train is calling at Warrington such a restriction would have little impact on journey time only around 3km from the stop. For HS2 trains from London, the potential for full speed non-stop running as far as the 'Liverpool Junction' would be the attraction of routing this way.
 

Eccles1983

On Moderation
Joined
4 Sep 2016
Messages
841
I dont get the clambour for trams on the atherton line.

It takes away a valuable diversion route to Wigan N/W and would also need a lot of work doing to make it actually work around the cresent area.

Then what happens at Hindley? Does it continue to Wallgate or stop? If it continues then you may as well complete the entire lot and run it to kirkby. Otherwise you've ended up making a bigger mess than what actually reasonably works now.
 

aylesbury

Member
Joined
3 Feb 2012
Messages
622
Interesting watched on the news a big wish list but its only that ,a certain ex deputy PM thaught so to ,he walked out!
 

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,752
Location
York
Agreed, about 3km out from Warrington at which I assume all trains would probably stop. The curve might be eased a little if the viaduct was reconstructed, which it might have to be anyway due to design or condition. The current viaduct is perfectly straight. A replacement might allow the curve to start a little to the east so the new structure is on the curve. 1200m radius might be possible in that case. What might that give? 120MPH under similar assumptions perhaps? Alternatively The new line could avoid the city centre and other rail connections entirely, or be in tunnel under it, in which case there is the considerable addition expense of an underground station perhaps.
View attachment 41616
I reckon 1200 m should allow just under 110 mph. If all trains were stopping at Warrington, then it wouldn't matter. But surely the main purpose of a new route would be to connect the top-level centres by genuine fast services, i.e. Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, Hull, and Newcastle, and such services would not stop in places like Warrington (or, if I dare say it, Bradford). There would clearly be other stations, like Warrington, and those would be served by second-level services, as with the Japanese pattern.
Though I must confess to being puzzled as to what the justification for this new line is if the best Liverpool-Manchester timing it can produce is 28 minutes, unless the argument is capacity rather than speed (or that if one is building the Liverpool connection to the south, then the short extra spur to connect to Manchester is not too desperately expensive an add-on). There are trains almost as fast now between Liverpool and Manchester Victoria, even if they are to be decelerated through an additional stop from May, and it does not seem impossible that four or five minutes could be shaved off their timings for vastly less cost than building the new line via Warrington. (Incidentally, can anyone explain why, when it is considered essential to get rid of stops at places like Stalybridge, Dewsbury, or Garforth east of Manchester, in order to speed things up, it is reasonable to add stops at Lea Green and Newton-le-Willows and so slow things down between Liverpool and Manchester?)
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,554
Location
Mold, Clwyd
The extra Chat Moss stops are to compensate for the loss of the Airport semi-fast.
Though Newton le Willows (and Earlestown) is also getting a stop on the Chester-Bradford-Leeds.
Then there's the Liverpool-Calder Valley to come - maybe this will pick up the TPE intermediate stops.

I can't see the new line to Liverpool doing other than run along the M62 corridor and then join HS2 around Culcheth.
Anything else would be very destructive and expensive.
 

TBirdFrank

On Moderation
Joined
30 Dec 2009
Messages
218
The MP for Stalybridge - who hails from Hartlepool was completely unaware of the betrayal of the population of Tameside by NR and TPE so far as eastbound services go - he isn't now.

As for Prescott walking out because he can't see how it will be done - now remind me - just who was the fat git who promised to renationalise Railtrack in 2001???

Before the present competitive situation between Ringway and Speke I did conjecture on the Lymm line being used as the core of a fast link between the two. Inter-Terminal transport would take less than the time to move around Heathrow if done properly.
 

Class83

Member
Joined
8 Jun 2012
Messages
494
I can't see the new line to Liverpool doing other than run along the M62 corridor and then join HS2 around Culcheth.
Anything else would be very destructive and expensive.

Yes, this is the only sensible solution I can see as well, a reasonably clear corridor exists for a line, and if you're already next to the M62 a high speed rail line is the least of your noise/pollution worries. Possibly with a 'Warrington North' station by the M62.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
Yes, this is the only sensible solution I can see as well, a reasonably clear corridor exists for a line, and if you're already next to the M62 a high speed rail line is the least of your noise/pollution worries. Possibly with a 'Warrington North' station by the M62.

That's even further between Crewe and Liverpool than via Warrington, and remember the junction to and from the HS2 main line will be limited to about 230kmh. The parkway would not serve Warrington very well except as a portal for those living there (and having access to a car they can leave in the car park all day) to get to other places, so will probably not contribute much towards economic development of the town. Not serving Warrington properly would also not make it a particularly useful segment to incorporate into NPR via the airport to Manchester and beyond so the whole length of new construction would have to be justified on perhaps 2 or 3 trains an hour, and if not suitable for such use might still require other existing routes to be upgraded at significant cost for NPR.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,629
The biggest problem with an M62 alignment is that it means a drastic dog leg around Warrington to reach the airport.

How about an alignment on the south side of Warrington, have to tunnel under Penketh and the MSC/Stockton Heath, but you can have the station in an open box in the bend of the Mersey between Lower Walton and Sankey Bridges?
Its got more tunnel but its going to be shorter so might not cost much more overall
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
But surely the main purpose of a new route would be to connect the top-level centres by genuine fast services, i.e. Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, Hull, and Newcastle, and such services would not stop in places like Warrington (or, if I dare say it, Bradford). There would clearly be other stations, like Warrington, and those would be served by second-level services, as with the Japanese pattern.

I don't see a problem with making a regular stop at an 'edge city' location like Warrington near a major hub such as Liverpool. Manchester Airport will be the equivalent approaching Manchester, and Old Oak common that for London. Such locations can provide a secondary hub for the areas with a different set of rail-based or other public transport connections, as well as easier road access for many with more room for parking expansion. In the case of Warrington, the town is also a fairly large settlement in its own right that can also become a focus of economic development. To expand my idea illustrated up thread, east of Warrington I would largely use existing solum into central Liverpool, reconfiguring for (largely) dedicated use of reconfigured pairs via Liverpool South Parkway to Edge Hill and thence to whatever terminal arrangement is proposed. Additional stations at South Parkway and Widnes could also be incorporated which could allow (say) a skip stop pattern for London trains, all stopping at Warrington then alternately at South Parkway or Widnes, the site of which would be a reasonably close replacement for the regular London train calls at Runcorn and allow all Liverpool HS2 services via the Weaver Junction route to be removed. Standard NPR calling pattern from Liverpool would be South Parkway, Widnes South, Warrington, Manchester airport, Piccadilly... and beyond!
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,331
Can I remind members that this thread is for discussion of Transport for the North's Strategic Transport Plan.

Your own ideas for alternative improvements and schemes are off topic!
 

GreatAuk

Member
Joined
16 Jan 2018
Messages
60
The biggest problem with an M62 alignment is that it means a drastic dog leg around Warrington to reach the airport.

How about an alignment on the south side of Warrington, have to tunnel under Penketh and the MSC/Stockton Heath, but you can have the station in an open box in the bend of the Mersey between Lower Walton and Sankey Bridges?
Its got more tunnel but its going to be shorter so might not cost much more overall
I was wondering if that's what they had in mind actually - looking at the (admittedly crude) diagram in the report it appears that that's the sort of alignment they might be going for. It would make sense as although still not really any good for serving the centre of Warrington itself (sadly don't think my dream of a tunnelled link to a new underground Warrington station will ever pass a CBA...), as a parkway style station it might actually be accessible to more of Warrington, particularly given the new 'Western Link' road that is planned for precisely that location, and there would still be lots of space for car parks and nearby development.

There is however lots of landfill round there I believe, so that might make tunnelling interesting...

Have to admit being a bit disappointed that there aren't more details of potential routes in the report, as i presume someone must have planned one out properly to generate the estimated journey time etc.... I'm slightly sceptical about this 'consultation' too, as without an actual route all they can ask people is 'would you like really fast trains?' without much context of what that will actually look like in practice, what will need demolishing, how much it will cost etc...
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,668
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
But there's clearly not going to be a station at, say, Lymm. Having intermediate stations would destroy the high speed. The only stations will be Liverpool, Warrington, the Airport and Piccadilly.

It was an attempt at humour, I wasn't being serious. I have family in the Tatton area and I know how HS2 has galvanised opinion, with rural Cheshire's primary concern being the effect on the value of their houses.
 

thejuggler

Member
Joined
8 Jan 2016
Messages
1,186
Where is this new Manchester to Bradford line going to be built?

Leeds to Bradford is enough of a headache. Two city centres at 200-300 feet above sea level each side of a hill about 600 ft above sea level. All this in 10 miles.

With a suggested trip time of 7 minutes it won’t be cheap and thats before even thinking about getting from Bradford across the Pennines.

Proving the economic case will not be easy.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,668
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
Leeds to Bradford is enough of a headache. Two city centres at 200-300 feet above sea level each side of a hill about 600 ft above sea level. All this in 10 miles.

With a suggested trip time of 7 minutes it won’t be cheap and thats before even thinking about getting from Bradford across the Pennines.

Proving the economic case will not be easy.

The canal basin & Aire Valley are the ideal solution if the line can be brought across Bradford itself. Yes it would be reworking stations like Apperley Bridge & Kirkstall Forge, as well as considering a possible Shipley bypass to the east of the station or at least reworking P3 & P4 to add through lines in-between, but for the most part the Aire Valley line could be 4 tracked if there was the will and of course the money. The difficult thing would be getting a line through Bradford, it would currently either require a tunnelled solution, which would need to be quite deep given that Bradford Beck already runs directly underneath both City Hall and parts of the Broadway development, or finding a way to clear a surface route, which again would be difficult as the only clear line of sight without significant hills is occupied by the aforementioned shopping centre.
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
I don't see a problem with making a regular stop at an 'edge city' location like Warrington near a major hub such as Liverpool. Manchester Airport will be the equivalent approaching Manchester, and Old Oak common that for London. Such locations can provide a secondary hub for the areas with a different set of rail-based or other public transport connections, as well as easier road access for many with more room for parking expansion. In the case of Warrington, the town is also a fairly large settlement in its own right that can also become a focus of economic development. To expand my idea illustrated up thread, east of Warrington I would largely use existing solum into central Liverpool, reconfiguring for (largely) dedicated use of reconfigured pairs via Liverpool South Parkway to Edge Hill and thence to whatever terminal arrangement is proposed. Additional stations at South Parkway and Widnes could also be incorporated which could allow (say) a skip stop pattern for London trains, all stopping at Warrington then alternately at South Parkway or Widnes, the site of which would be a reasonably close replacement for the regular London train calls at Runcorn and allow all Liverpool HS2 services via the Weaver Junction route to be removed. Standard NPR calling pattern from Liverpool would be South Parkway, Widnes South, Warrington, Manchester airport, Piccadilly... and beyond!


Have you taken TfN's plan for a 4 minute saving over current times between Liverpool and Manchester as a gauntlet thrown down, by responding with a calling pattern which is likely to be slower than current timing, and indeed not much faster than the current CLC service?
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
Any Warrington station must be at a crossing point for an existing railway line - Bank Quay, Central or near where the M62 crosses the WCML. NPR should be trying to get people out of their cars for the whole journey, and local rail connections are vital to this.
 

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,752
Location
York
Where is this new Manchester to Bradford line going to be built?
If—and I still think it's a very big if—a 30-minute Manchester-Leeds time can be achieved over the Huddersfield route, then what is the case for huge expenditure on a new line the long way round via Bradford? This seems more of a proposal to stimulate the economic development of Bradford than a scheme to link the Powerhouse centres of Manchester and Leeds.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,629
If—and I still think it's a very big if—a 30-minute Manchester-Leeds time can be achieved over the Huddersfield route, then what is the case for huge expenditure on a new line the long way round via Bradford? This seems more of a proposal to stimulate the economic development of Bradford than a scheme to link the Powerhouse centres of Manchester and Leeds.

Given that the current fastest time (that I can find) between Leeds and Piccadilly is 51 minutes..... good luck with that.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,668
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
If—and I still think it's a very big if—a 30-minute Manchester-Leeds time can be achieved over the Huddersfield route, then what is the case for huge expenditure on a new line the long way round via Bradford? This seems more of a proposal to stimulate the economic development of Bradford than a scheme to link the Powerhouse centres of Manchester and Leeds.

Isn't that the point of the TfN proposals, to not only to improve links between major cities but to also simulate economies elsewhere? Proposing a new alignment between Manchester-Bradford-Leeds doesn't negate the need to improve the exiting North TP route, indeed this is one of the primary aspirations of TfN before any new route is detailed.
 

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
8,677
Isn't that the point of the TfN proposals, to not only to improve links between major cities but to also simulate economies elsewhere? Proposing a new alignment between Manchester-Bradford-Leeds doesn't negate the need to improve the exiting North TP route, indeed this is one of the primary aspirations of TfN before any new route is detailed.

The map clearly shows TRU as still happening alongside any NPR route via Bradford.
 

thejuggler

Member
Joined
8 Jan 2016
Messages
1,186
The canal basin & Aire Valley are the ideal solution.......... The difficult thing would be getting a line through Bradford, it would currently either require a tunnelled solution, which would need to be quite deep given that Bradford Beck already runs directly underneath both City Hall and parts of the Broadway development, or finding a way to clear a surface route, which again would be difficult as the only clear line of sight without significant hills is occupied by the aforementioned shopping centre.

Thereby demonstrating the Aire Valley is probably not an 'ideal solution'.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
Sorry, I thought the smilie at the end might have helped. I wasn't referring to terrace houses in Warrington, but jokingly about the well off of Stockton Heath and beyond who might benefit with a update to their house descriptions.

I must have been using my mobile connection where I have images blocked to save on data. On the old design forum smilies appeared with images disabled but that doesn't happen anymore.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,668
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
Thereby demonstrating the Aire Valley is probably not an 'ideal solution'.

Well compared to other possible solutions its still potentially going to be easier, the topography of Bradford is such that the centre sits in a large bowl with steep assents to the West, South & East. The alternative options would be tunnelling east to avoid the steep climb out of Bradford (in idea mooted by parts of Bradford Council), try to work with the existing alignment bearing in mind these are busy commuter routes through quite heavily populated areas and thus not likely to be easy to 4 track, or have some form of parkway avoiding the centre altogether. The first two come with as many and more issues as running through the city centre, and the third frankly comes under the section "What would be the point?". If a new line is towards be driven to Bradford, only for it to still give the centre a wide swerve then we might as well stick to what we have and have passengers changing at Leeds or Huddersfield as now.

Now I do seem to remember in the early days of planning for the Broadway that there was some suggestion that the final design might allow for additional floors / structures to be added to the current build, which stemmed from the days when a business consortium in the city where plugging the idea of a Bradford Crossrail. Now its a long shot for sure, but perhaps there would be a way to reconfigure the upper decks of the Broadway to accommodate a viaduct passing over? Meyer Bergman would know more, and as I say it is a long shot but would potentially offer a surface route across the city. It would still need to pass between the Victoria Hotel and Courts building, across Hall Ings & the current structure and then descend towards Forster Square. But as the former Post Office building next to the Midland Hotel is derelict and the retail units beyond easily replaced elsewhere, so long as a way to support a rail viaduct and possibly associated station could be found then it *might* be possible. Thereafter the Aire line would just need reconfiguring to allow 4 tracking and you've got a reasonably straight (save a turn at Shipley) & level (read fast) route into Leeds.

Of course all this is the stuff of the Crayolaista until TfN reveal what possible routes they might be considering!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top