Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) - Latest plans & speculation

[Bletchleyite]

In what way are those ticket barriers different from those at other stations?

Sorry, the actual gates are badly designed - they are slow and awkward to use compared with the (presumably more expensive) Cubic gates you get at other stations.

The large gateline is practical, but it dominates the station, which gives a feeling of "revenue protection over passenger facilities". Practical but ugly and unwelcoming, and taking up what should be a wide, open circulating space more like Picc's concourse.

One considerable improvement would be the removal of the large advertising/signage panel above it, leaving the concourse space feeling more open.

 

[Purple Orange]

Sorry, the actual gates are badly designed - they are slow and awkward to use compared with the (presumably more expensive) Cubic gates you get at other stations.

The large gateline is practical, but it dominates the station, which gives a feeling of "revenue protection over passenger facilities". Practical but ugly and unwelcoming, and taking up what should be a wide, open circulating space more like Picc's concourse.

One considerable improvement would be the removal of the large advertising/signage panel above it, leaving the concourse space feeling more open.

Yes Victoria could be improved further in the concourse area. I think that this issue is overlooked on the basis that many passengers remember what Victoria used to be like. The overall passenger experience has improved vastly. On the one hand I find the roof to be fine (it gives me a sense of openness), access to metrolink platforms is fine, the through platforms are no better, but given the improved facilities most passengers spend less time there than they may have done previously.

There are questions about how the future of Victoria relates to NPR and to me it points towards a reduction of service destinations, but an increase in volumes (both in terms of passengers and trains per hour).

I think we need to start thinking of Victoria as a Manchester version of one of the smaller central London stations that only deals with stopping services from within Greater Manchester, Lancashire, West Yorkshire, Merseyside, Cheshire, and Chester & North Wales.

 

[Greybeard33]

The Yorkshire Post has a story that the DfT favours a £13bn NPR route via Huddersfield over the £17bn route via Bradford that TfN has proposed.

Bradford may miss out on high speed rail stop if Ministers choose cheaper route

Northern leaders face a battle to persuade the Government to back plans for a vital high speed rail station in a Yorkshire city amid pressure to cut costs by choosing a less ambitious route that is billions of pounds cheaper.

www.yorkshirepost.co.uk

...the [TfN] Bradford 'gateway' option would cut the time to travel between Leeds and Manchester from the current minimum of 50 minutes to 26 minutes and 30 seconds and provide a huge boost to the economy of a city which has long been let down by its poor transport links.

The proposal costing around £17.2bn would require a new station in the centre of Bradford, with leaders rejecting the option of a parkway station on the edge of the city. TfN estimates it would create 30,500 jobs, the highest of any of the available options.
But another option set to be presented to Ministers by the Department for Transport is a cheaper option which largely follows the existing trans-Pennine route through Huddersfield and does not serve Bradford at all.
Though this route would cost between £13bn and £13.5bn, a saving of £4bn against the Bradford city centre route, northern leaders do not support it. It is estimated that it will create just 21,000 jobs and be three minutes slower travelling between Leeds and Manchester.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think we need to start thinking of Victoria as a Manchester version of one of the smaller central London stations that only deals with stopping services from within Greater Manchester, Lancashire, West Yorkshire, Merseyside, Cheshire, and Chester & North Wales.

That's what it was in the 90s after the opening of the Windsor Link - basically an S-Bahnhof - but it isn't any more now TPE are back and other express services (e.g. Wales) may well return. It might not justify being another Picc (though it'd be nice if it was) but it should at least be to the standard of Liverpool Lime St as it's close to as significant.

TBH as I mentioned just removing that pointless advertising structure above the gateline would help, it makes the gateline the central feature, which really isn't what you want. If it had a full departure board on it, fine (that's something Vic is very much missing), but as it is it's ugly and it makes the wrong point. Yes, OK, passengers *can't* be trusted to pay, but you don't want to shout that as the main feature of your station.

The Arena bridge is also a bit ugly, but it sort of blends in like the Euston mezzanine.

 

[mwmbwls]

The Yorkshire Post has a story that the DfT favours a £13bn NPR route via Huddersfield over the £17bn route via Bradford that TfN has proposed.

Bradford may miss out on high speed rail stop if Ministers choose cheaper route

Northern leaders face a battle to persuade the Government to back plans for a vital high speed rail station in a Yorkshire city amid pressure to cut costs by choosing a less ambitious route that is billions of pounds cheaper.

www.yorkshirepost.co.uk

What a surprise. The stonewalling of TfN and the recent proposals for a HS2/NPR turnback junction at Manchester Piccadilly were, in hind-sight, straws in the wind. Does this presage the eventual abolition of TfN? The next question is where does this leave 15 & 16 at Piccadilly and the central Manchester congested infrastructure report?

 

[Bald Rick]

The Yorkshire Post has a story that the DfT favours a £13bn NPR route via Huddersfield over the £17bn route via Bradford that TfN has proposed.

Bradford may miss out on high speed rail stop if Ministers choose cheaper route

Northern leaders face a battle to persuade the Government to back plans for a vital high speed rail station in a Yorkshire city amid pressure to cut costs by choosing a less ambitious route that is billions of pounds cheaper.

www.yorkshirepost.co.uk

Three points.

1) that article says that ‘DfT officials’ prefer the Gateway option. But it is the Secretary of State who will decide what to go and ask Treasury for.

2) it’s not all about cost. It’s about benefit too. Spending around 30% more cash would need to generate 30% more benefit. The journey time via Gateway is quoted as 26m 30s, no doubt that is the non-stop time (which will be of no use to Bradfordians). What’s the equivalent via Huddersfield? If it’s only a minute or two more, then spending 4bn extra for that seems a little extravagant.

3) I wouldn’t describe Gateway as being ‘in the centre of Bradford’. Closer than parkway, granted, but the name ‘Gateway’ does rather hint that it’s not in the city centre!

 

[mwmbwls]

Do we have any exact information as to the location of the Gateway Station?

 

[Bald Rick]

Neither you nor I can know in advance

You’re half right

I have to agree with that - the Huddersfield route is having lots of money spent on it, so it doesn't necessarily "deserve" a new high-speed route as well.
Unless of course this unknown Huddersfield option incorporates aspects of the current route upgrade, hence why it's cheaper...

I think it’s highly unlikely that the via Huddersfield options wouldn’t use some of the infrastructure being built for the current upgrade.

 

[MarkRedon]

You’re half right

Except that now you've all but told me, we both know?
Actually, my point concerns the potential returns on via-Bradford and via-Huddersfield options. Perhaps pouring money into Bradford will never work - but it might, and there are ways to evaluate likely outcomes. After that, good old-fashioned pork barrel politics will have their part to play, too.

 

[Bald Rick]

Except that now you've all but told me, we both know?
Actually, my point concerns the potential returns on via-Bradford and via-Huddersfield options. Perhaps pouring money into Bradford will never work - but it might, and there are ways to evaluate likely outcomes. After that, good old-fashioned pork barrel politics will have their part to play, too.

Well I don’t know what will be chosen, but I do know the options will be given very careful consideration. I suspect it will be a close call.

 

[ABB125]

I think it’s highly unlikely that the via Huddersfield options wouldn’t use some of the infrastructure being built for the current upgrade.

So the Huddersfield option is fairly likely to involve some of the current TransPennine upgrade? That surprises me somewhat: joined-up thinking, in Britain?
The main issue I can think of with this is that (presumably) any relevant TP upgrade sections would be built to UK loading gauge, thus precluding the use of European-sized trains (if indeed that is being considered for NPR), which possibly makes it more likely that the eastern branch of HS2 will be fully built. I'm guessing that (for example) upgrading the Huddersfield-Dewsbury upgrade from UK size to EU size is slightly more complicated than making the bridges slightly wider and the tracks a bit further apart?

Well I don’t know what will be chosen, but I do know the options will be given very careful consideration. I suspect it will be a close call.

To me, the emboldened statement implies more than two options, but would I be right in thinking that you not allowed to spill the beans?

 

[Class 170101]

So the Huddersfield option is fairly likely to involve some of the current TransPennine upgrade? That surprises me somewhat: joined-up thinking, in Britain?
The main issue I can think of with this is that (presumably) any relevant TP upgrade sections would be built to UK loading gauge, thus precluding the use of European-sized trains (if indeed that is being considered for NPR), which possibly makes it more likely that the eastern branch of HS2 will be fully built. I'm guessing that (for example) upgrading the Huddersfield-Dewsbury upgrade from UK size to EU size is slightly more complicated than making the bridges slightly wider and the tracks a bit further apart?

To me, the emboldened statement implies more than two options, but would I be right in thinking that you not allowed to spill the beans?

But remember using the Huddersfield route seems to be implying using part of an existing route as where as the Bradford route would be brand new? A Brand new route like HS2 being easier to construct compared to rebuilding an existing route - just look at West Coast Route Modernisation.

 

[ABB125]

But remember using the Huddersfield route seems to be implying using part of an existing route as where as the Bradford route would be brand new? A Brand new route like HS2 being easier to construct compared to rebuilding an existing route - just look at West Coast Route Modernisation.

I'm imagining bits like the Huddersfield to Dewsbury (which is being significantly rebuilt) section, rather than anything that isn't currently within the Trans Pennine upgrade currently. Although it might be that any shared sections are ones which currently have no upgrades planned, thus benefitting both schemes.

 

[LittleAH]

The Yorkshire Post has a story that the DfT favours a £13bn NPR route via Huddersfield over the £17bn route via Bradford that TfN has proposed.

Bradford may miss out on high speed rail stop if Ministers choose cheaper route

Northern leaders face a battle to persuade the Government to back plans for a vital high speed rail station in a Yorkshire city amid pressure to cut costs by choosing a less ambitious route that is billions of pounds cheaper.

www.yorkshirepost.co.uk

The main issue here is the assumption that the £17bn cost will include a central Bradford station. Given those I know who've had a gander at this, the geology of the city is mighty challenging and the cost of a central station will be very expensive. That £17bn is surely an under-valuation if it's a city station, so it is more than likely ging to be a parkway station, which doesn't particularly make the via Bradford option appealing for proper integration into the rail network.

But a route via Huddersfield would simply be an upgraded Transpennine route, a route via Bradford would also dramatically improve rail links between places such as Halifax & Rochdale that a route via Huddersfield wouldn't!

The NPR route via Bradford won't call at either Rochdale or Halifax so how will it dramatically improve their rail links? So it doesn't matter for Halifax whether the route goes via Huddersfield or Bradford. Actually, Huddersfield would be better for integration in the rail network as it could benefit Wakefield and Castleford with new direct services to Manchester and Liverpool.

But remember using the Huddersfield route seems to be implying using part of an existing route as where as the Bradford route would be brand new? A Brand new route like HS2 being easier to construct compared to rebuilding an existing route - just look at West Coast Route Modernisation.

There's no chance that 30 mins can be achieved via Huddersfield using the current alignment west of Huddersfield. So should the Huddersfield option be chosen, I'd assume that there'd be some significant new infrastructure built through the Pennines to enable at least 140mph running, potentially east of Westtown too. Again this allow for better interconnectivity that the Bradford route.

 

[Class 170101]

There's no chance that 30 mins can be achieved via Huddersfield using the current alignment west of Huddersfield. So should the Huddersfield option be chosen, I'd assume that there'd be some significant new infrastructure built through the Pennines to enable at least 140mph running, potentially east of Westtown too. Again this allow for better interconnectivity that the Bradford route.

So upgrading part of an existing route at Huddersfield itself by the sounds of it, have no lessons been from WCML fiasco?

 

[LittleAH]

So upgrading part of an existing route at Huddersfield itself by the sounds of it, have no lessons been from WCML fiasco?

Clearly you've got an angle and are sticking with it, completely ignoring my point.

To repeat, there is no chance that the current alignment west of Huddersfield could ever achieve 30 minutes between Leeds and Manchester because of line speed constraints through Standedge (45mph), between Diggle and Stalybridge (65mph) etc.

So to achieve the journey time reduction, you would most likely see completely brand new infrastructure build west of Huddersfield to then integrate in with the current railway. Nothing like the WCML whatsoever.

 

[Camden]

On the one hand the West Yorks authorities like to lobby under the pretence of being a 3 million strong city economy but, on the other, they also want what normally goes with that (expensive infrastructure) to be spread out over its true polycentric nature. It's no wonder that London based civil servants don't get it.

Spending £13bn on a new route between Manchester and Leeds is already quite possibly a waste of money, given the low levels of existing ridership, the high number of semi-express trains per hour (5!) and the reasonable amount of time for the journey.

Spending another £4bn to route travellers through Bradford??...

 

[LittleAH]

On the one hand the West Yorks authorities like to lobby under the pretence of being a 3 million strong city economy but, on the other, they also want what normally goes with that (expensive infrastructure) to be spread out over its true polycentric nature. It's no wonder that London based civil servants don't get it.

Spending £13bn on a new route between Manchester and Leeds is already quite possibly a waste of money, given the low levels of existing ridership, the high number of semi-express trains per hour (5!) and the reasonable amount of time for the journey.

Spending another £4bn to route travellers through Bradford??...

Clearly you don't know the route as intimately as I do and spending money on better connectivity in the North of England is no waste of money. Why? York to Liverpool, a journey of 100 miles, takes two hours. Roughly the same time to get to London. That's not semi-express, although the TOC that carries them has it in the name. And it's certainly not got low levels of patronage (pre-covid). Plus it's not even electrified. The £13bn for the Huddersfield will no doubt include upgrading current lines, electrification, ETCS, station upgrades, access for all schemes etc.

Now the point RE West Yorks authorities. For me TfN and the other lobbyists have only really thought of city regions, that's why Bradford has been seen as some sort of necessary that NPR should serve. As my posts above, the Huddersfield route offers more direct connectivity for West Yorkshire than Bradford ever could.

 

[Purple Orange]

Clearly you've got an angle and are sticking with it, completely ignoring my point.

To repeat, there is no chance that the current alignment west of Huddersfield could ever achieve 30 minutes between Leeds and Manchester because of line speed constraints through Standedge (45mph), between Diggle and Stalybridge (65mph) etc.

So to achieve the journey time reduction, you would most likely see completely brand new infrastructure build west of Huddersfield to then integrate in with the current railway. Nothing like the WCML whatsoever.

So we could hypothesise here that a Huddersfield option may include a partial tunnelled route (let’s say this new infrastructure starts west of Stalybridge and joins the existing line west of Huddersfield, while either some or all of the line may be in a tunnel).

This presents two options:

1. A completely new high speed line via Bradford (£17bn)
2. A partial high speed line (maybe 125mph) via Huddersfield (£13bn)

By the time either project is ready for construction, Trans Pennine Route Upgrade east of Huddersfield would likely be completed. Electrification between Manchester & Stalybridge May be completed too and east of Leeds, electrification may be completed as well. The Huddersfield option may just be the last piece in the Trans Pennine Route upgrade jigsaw.

 

[Bald Rick]

So the Huddersfield option is fairly likely to involve some of the current TransPennine upgrade? That surprises me somewhat: joined-up thinking, in Britain?
The main issue I can think of with this is that (presumably) any relevant TP upgrade sections would be built to UK loading gauge, thus precluding the use of European-sized trains (if indeed that is being considered for NPR), which possibly makes it more likely that the eastern branch of HS2 will be fully built. I'm guessing that (for example) upgrading the Huddersfield-Dewsbury upgrade from UK size to EU size is slightly more complicated than making the bridges slightly wider and the tracks a bit further apart?

To me, the emboldened statement implies more than two options, but would I be right in thinking that you not allowed to spill the beans?

It will have to be to U.K. gauge, NPR services will be using existing infrastructure from Leeds eastwards.

Yes there’s more than two options, a lot more, but it’s fair to say they all go via either Bradford or Huddersfield. And no, I’m not going to say any more than that!

 

[Senex]

It will have to be to U.K. gauge, NPR services will be using existing infrastructure from Leeds eastwards.

Yes there’s more than two options, a lot more, but it’s fair to say they all go via either Bradford or Huddersfield. And no, I’m not going to say any more than that!

Then it does seem a fair deduction that some much more dramatic interventions on the Huddersfield route have been considered than were in play only a little while ago. In a webinar reported here eighteen months ago Steve Bell said that with all the possible upgrades that had been considered, Manchester-Leeds could be brought down to 39½ minutes [thus meeting the 40-minute target for the upgrade that had been in the public sphere for the previous couple of years], but that a better balance of spending the budget had led to their settling on a 42-minute target time. Time and argument seem to fit in with what Richard Wells said in another webinar a couple of months ago, also reported here, when he hinted at the range of options that had been considered and how extremely interventionist some of them had been. So the suggestion we've seen here in the last couple of days that the Huddersfield time could be brought down to just 3 minutes more than the 26½ minutes suggested for the Bradford route (i.e. no less than 12½ minutes faster than what is the current TRU target) really does imply some major works on the Huddersfield route.
But if that is the case, how does it fit in with choices already made to deliver 55 mph at Miles Platting instead of the earlier publicised 60 and the apparently possible in one option 70 and the 50 in place of 70 at Stalybridge, along with the choice of 75 instead of 80 for the line in between — unless this whole section could conceivably be replaced by a new, fast alignment?
You clearly can't say — but I do hope that when decisions have finally been taken someone will do a full write-up of everything that was considered, so that, even if it can't be published early, future historians will be able to follow the debates that took place.

 

[Halifaxlad]

You are making a very brave (some would say misguided) assumption that a route to Bradford would serve Rochdale and Halifax.

Being the pragmatist that I am.

The target for Leeds and Manchester

via NPHR is 30 miniutes or less, via TRU is 40 minutes or less.

Quite simply in my opinion a whole new route isn't going to be built all the way from Leeds to Manchester to save 10 minutes!

This idea of a tunnel somewhere between Rochdale and the Calder Valley Line at Sowerby Bridge, as referred to in comments on this forum by someone else a few years ago and very recently in something called 'Network North' an alternative suggestion for HS2. https://twitter.com/philatrail/status/1332296854734860288?s=19

Which is essentially completing what the L&Y aspired to do between Ripponden and Rochdale, would substantially cut journey times down via the Calder Valley Line.

If done Bradford would only be 35 miles away from Manchester whilst Leeds via Dewsbury would be 44 miles away (approximately) As previously pointed out by someone else the Calder Valley is very well laid out especially between Dewsbury - Sowerby Bridge and Rochdale to Manchester where higher speeds could easily be achieved.

Unless the existing line through Halifax was used then any new line would have to be more or less in a tunnel, costing twice as much in tunneling costs when you only need one tunnel to shave a little bit of the existing routes.

and people call me Crayonist!

 

[grangergranger]

I honestly thought the TRU was £2.9bn
Where is £13bn coming from ??

 

[HSTEd]

I honestly thought the TRU was £2.9bn
Where is £13bn coming from ??

Even the via Huddersfield scheme has rather more work in it than TRU.

 

[Purple Orange]

For those in the know, is the £2.9bn TRU budget just for the Huddersfield-Leeds section or is that number intended to cover future works between Manchester & Huddersfield and Leeds & York?

 

[Bald Rick]

For those in the know, is the £2.9bn TRU budget just for the Huddersfield-Leeds section or is that number intended to cover future works between Manchester & Huddersfield and Leeds & York?

It is to cover TRU works from Manchester to York, not including electrification from Huddersfield to Stalybridge or Neville Hill to Church Fenton (which will have additional funding when it comes). Most of that cash will be spent in the next 3-5 years.

The multi billions being discussed on this thread are for NPR, which is a separate project, with (very) separate timescales. If it happens, I wouldn’t expect it to be open before 2040 at the very earliest.

 

[Greybeard33]

But if that is the case, how does it fit in with choices already made to deliver 55 mph at Miles Platting instead of the earlier publicised 60 and the apparently possible in one option 70 and the 50 in place of 70 at Stalybridge, along with the choice of 75 instead of 80 for the line in between — unless this whole section could conceivably be replaced by a new, fast alignment?

Why do you assume that the NPR Huddersfield option would utilise the TRU route between Miles Platting and Stalybridge? It seems clear that the NPR Manchester station will be at Piccadilly, not Victoria, whichever route option is chosen. If NPR uses terminal platforms added to the HS2 surface station, NPR trains will reverse out to the east and the route towards Huddersfield would presumably roughly follow the existing Guide Bridge - Stalybridge alignment (likely with some tunnelled cutoffs).

Even if the more costly option of an underground through station at Piccadilly is selected, with a tunnelled loop around from NW to E under the city centre, the NPR route towards Huddersfield would not necessarily join the TRU line west of Stalybridge.

 

[Bald Rick]

But if that is the case, how does it fit in with choices already made to deliver 55 mph at Miles Platting instead of the earlier publicised 60 and the apparently possible in one option 70 and the 50 in place of 70 at Stalybridge, along with the choice of 75 instead of 80 for the line in between — unless this whole section could conceivably be replaced by a new, fast alignment?

As mentioned above, the benefit of that work will be being taken for at least 15 years beforehand any NPR new route is in service. I’d be very surprised if any of the via Huddersfield options aren’t in tunnel nearly the whole way. No other way of doing it.

 

[Technique]

Longtime lurker, interesting thread so far. I just hope everyone learns some lessons from HS2 when NPR is taken forward. The first is the hybrid bill process (assuming this si the way NPR is approved as TfN has suggested it would be): the railway (and associated price tag) that goes into the parliamentary committee may not bear all that much resemblance to the one that comes out.

The second is that we must think more coherently about how any new infrastructure would release capacity network, and provide a coherent message throughout which explains that the usage and operating pattern of the existing line would change, with potentially better connectivity between places on the same line. I don't know to what extent TRUP will help address the many compromises of the Standedge route timetable pre-Covid, but I am pretty sure not all the constraints will be ironed out even with electrification and more passing loops, four-tracking etc.

Given the pre-Covid Mcr-Leeds TPE service featured five (?) express services each way per hour off peak, when some continental high speed line barely carry that in a day (hello Spain!), I do find it depressing that we are still talking about 'upgrading the upgrade' of the existing line, but by the same token I am hardly surprised. (I also find it depressing that there seems to be a consensus that the case for NPR is more pressing than HS2 2b East, when there is only 1tph fast pre-Covid between Leeds and Birmingham but i digress!)

 

[Purple Orange]

It is to cover TRU works from Manchester to York, not including electrification from Huddersfield to Stalybridge or Neville Hill to Church Fenton (which will have additional funding when it comes). Most of that cash will be spent in the next 3-5 years.

The multi billions being discussed on this thread are for NPR, which is a separate project, with (very) separate timescales. If it happens, I wouldn’t expect it to be open before 2040 at the very earliest.

Thanks. Therefore it should be realistic to expect the existing line to be fully electrified by the time NPR breaks ground. In such a scenario we will have a line capable of 40 min journeys between Manchester & Leeds with possibly 6 tph frequencies. Then we will seek to spend £13bn for 30 min journeys with 6 tph?