Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) - Suggestions and speculation

[Bald Rick]

And/or you end up with a steeply graded tunnel to minimise the depth of the shafts.

Longer tunnel then. You need someone with a Maths degree to work out what is the ideal vertical profile to minimise tunnelling cost

 

[Maltazer]

This document has some illustrations of what they did for the Gotthard base tunnel

https://www.era.europa.eu/sites/default/files/events-news/docs/7-safety-concept-gotthard_tunnel_en.pdf

Presumably a Pennines base tunnel could use a similar approach (if for once it was built using tried and tested technology instead of trying to be "innovative" or "world beating").

Note: there don't seem to be any escape tunnels - passengers are expected to escape to a fireproof area at one of the two special stations and will eventually be picked up by a recovery train

 

[Ianno87]

This document has some illustrations of what they did for the Gotthard base tunnel

https://www.era.europa.eu/sites/default/files/events-news/docs/7-safety-concept-gotthard_tunnel_en.pdf

Presumably a Pennines base tunnel could use a similar approach (if for once it was built using tried and tested technology instead of trying to be "innovative" or "world beating").

Note: there don't seem to be any escape tunnels - passengers are expected to escape to a fireproof area at one of the two special stations and will eventually be picked up by a recovery train

Although frequency and type of trains will also determine the solution. E.g. an NPR tunnel may well have more frequent trains than Gotthard.

 

[MarkyT]

Note: there don't seem to be any escape tunnels - passengers are expected to escape to a fireproof area at one of the two special stations and will eventually be picked up by a recovery train

The other running tunnel is the emergency egress, accessed via 'transverse galleries' linking the two bores every 375m.

 

[Bald Rick]

... And the Gotthard took 17 years to build.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The other running tunnel is the emergency egress, accessed via 'transverse galleries' linking the two bores every 375m.

Can anyone see the obvious issue with that, assuming the door release handle isn't integrated with the signalling?

 

[Ianno87]

Can anyone see the obvious issue with that, assuming the door release handle isn't integrated with the signalling?

Presumably there'll be something like the fire alarm setting the signals in the other running tunnel to red or something at the adjacent point.

 

[Bald Rick]

Red button in the drivers cab would do it.

 

[Bevan Price]

The soap powder factory that occupies/dominates the view next to Bank Quay has closed. They also used to occupy the peninsula across the Mersey - (connected by the transporter bridge) so a straighter run through Bank Quay would be possible. The questions would be where do you go from Ditton Junction - (having gone past Fiddlers Ferry NPR Park and Ride) and what would need to be demolished to make the line viable east of Bank Quay?


Using the extant unused tunnel from Edge Hill?

Apart from trees & other vegetation, plus maybe some removed bridges or crossings, there are not a lot of obstructions on the Low Level line between Warrington and the approaches to Broadheath / Altrincham **. However, between Fiddlers Ferry and the Warrington area, there are numerous curves that makes the line unsuitable for high speed running . Also, the line fits between the Sankey Canal and the River Mersey over that section, so there is no easy option to rebuilt the line with a straighter alignment.

(** - I think there is some obstruction of the old trackbed in the Lymm area.)

 

[daodao]

Apart from trees & other vegetation, plus maybe some removed bridges or crossings, there are not a lot of obstructions on the Low Level line between Warrington and the approaches to Broadheath / Altrincham **. However, between Fiddlers Ferry and the Warrington area, there are numerous curves that makes the line unsuitable for high speed running . Also, the line fits between the Sankey Canal and the River Mersey over that section, so there is no easy option to rebuilt the line with a straighter alignment.

(** - I think there is some obstruction of the old trackbed in the Lymm area.)

The trackbed of this old LNW line has completely disappeared east of Sinderland Crossing. There would also be major conflict with Sustrans, as the route west of Sinderland Crossing is part of the Transpennine cycle route.

The bottom line is there is a good existing railway between Liverpool and Manchester - the original intercity line via Chat Moss. The journey time could be reduced to 30 minutes non-stop by using electric trains and cutting out the intermediate stop. There is no need to spend vast sums of money on an alternative route.

 

[Purple Orange]

The bottom line is there is a good existing railway between Liverpool and Manchester - the original intercity line via Chat Moss. The journey time could be reduced to 30 minutes non-stop by using electric trains and cutting out the intermediate stop. There is no need to spend vast sums of money on an alternative route.

One of the aims is to connect Leeds & Liverpool to Manchester Airport, while Piccadilly is clearly a preferred location for all fast services. The Castlefield corridor also needs to be avoided.

1. How do you get from the Chat Moss across Central Manchester and to the airport without running through Oxford Road and Piccadilly P13?
2. How do you connect Liverpool & Leeds services through Manchester without having some fast services go to Victoria and some going to Piccadilly?
3. How do you run 4 tph non-stop along the Chat Moss in less than 30 minutes without significantly reducing the number of services to all the intermediate stations?
4. And if you propose no infrastructure in central Manchester, what are you saying needs to be compromised?

 

[daodao]

That assumes the purpose is simply to connect together Liverpool and Manchester.

The NPR line was an idea invented in Liverpool, as a means of getting the city onto HS2 properly. That you can use it to also create a new route to Manchester via Warrington simply adds more value to the infrastructure needed.

Warrington area already suffers a large amount of physical damage from HS2. At least this line would put its centre 15 minutes from both Liverpool and Manchester city centres, and 10 minutes from an airport.

One of the aims is to connect Leeds & Liverpool to Manchester Airport, while Piccadilly is clearly a preferred location for all fast services. The Castlefield corridor also needs to be avoided.

1. How do you get from the Chat Moss across Central Manchester and to the airport without running through Oxford Road and Piccadilly P13?
2. How do you connect Liverpool & Leeds services through Manchester without having some fast services go to Victoria and some going to Piccadilly?
3. How do you run 4 tph non-stop along the Chat Moss in less than 30 minutes without significantly reducing the number of services to all the intermediate stations?
4. And if you propose no infrastructure in central Manchester, what are you saying needs to be compromised?

Why is there such an obsession with serving Manchester Airport? In the future, it is likely that air travel will never again reach its 2019 peak. The need for long-distance travel with its adverse impact on global warming has been undermined by the efficiency of electronic communication. As an example, I attended a conference today via Zoom, which ran extremely smoothly; a similar conference exactly a year ago was held at a Manchester Airport hotel, with 100 delegates and speakers travelling from all over the UK, and with some speakers flying in from Europe.

Why is Piccadilly clearly a preferred location for all fast services? Its current and potential access from the West and North is atrocious. A rail line from Liverpool to Manchester via Ringway Airport would follow an extremely roundabout route; the journey would probably take longer even at high speed than via the current direct Chat Moss route, and the line would cost a fortune to build. The proposal also seems to require a reversal at Piccadilly for a Liverpool-Leeds journey, which would add approximately a 5 minute delay to any through journey. 2 tph, each of 200m length, is perfectly adequate for a Liverpool to York express service via Chat Moss, Victoria (a decent main line railway station, unlike Oxford Road and Piccadilly platforms 13/14) and Standedge, with an additional 2 tph semi-fast service from Piccadilly (platforms 1-3) to Leeds and beyond. There is a need to improve and electrify the Standedge route, and that is what NPR should be focussing on, as it is affordable and deliverable within a reasonable timescale.

 

[HSTEd]

Why is Piccadilly clearly a preferred location for all fast services? Its current and potential access from the West and North is atrocious. A rail line from Liverpool to Manchester via Ringway Airport would follow an extremely roundabout route; the journey would probably take longer even at high speed than via the current direct Chat Moss route, and the line would cost a fortune to build.

That is simply not true.

A high speed route will leave the Chat Moss in the dust, even with the slight detour to Manchester Airport.

 

[Senex]

That is simply not true.

A high speed route will leave the Chat Moss in the dust, even with the slight detour to Manchester Airport.

Even with stops in Warrington and at the Airport? I wonder. If there isn't to be a genuine high-speed line from Liverpool to Manchester, non-stop, then maybe exploiting Chat Moss to the maximum, with no stoppers and some further upgrading, might be a half-decent substitute.

Why all the fuss about Warrington? Are we thinking that NPR, if it's ever built, should stop in Halifax as well as in Bradford (if that wasn't bad enough to start with), or that on an upgraded Standedge line everything should be stopping at Dewsbury, or even that a station for Coventry is desperately needed on HS2? Surely the point of building high-speed lines is to get between major centres fast.

 

[Purple Orange]

Even with stops in Warrington and at the Airport? I wonder. If there isn't to be a genuine high-speed line from Liverpool to Manchester, non-stop, then maybe exploiting Chat Moss to the maximum, with no stoppers and some further upgrading, might be a half-decent substitute.

Why all the fuss about Warrington? Are we thinking that NPR, if it's ever built, should stop in Halifax as well as in Bradford (if that wasn't bad enough to start with), or that on an upgraded Standedge line everything should be stopping at Dewsbury, or even that a station for Coventry is desperately needed on HS2? Surely the point of building high-speed lines is to get between major centres fast.

I think the question of whether an NPR line is built between Liverpool & Manchester depends on whether Liverpool gets a new HS2 link or not. If it does, then it makes sense to also link Manchester & Liverpool this way too. It’s really a Liverpool HS2 line.

 

[daodao]

I would respond directly to your response to my questions @daodao but @Ianno87 @edwin_m @HSTEd and @Starmill have given some very good responses already. Plus you didn't actually address any of the questions I posed to you.

Reading through your comments generally, I get the impression you’d rather not see any rail investment in Manchester at all. Would that be correct?

As you have asked for specific responses, I shall provide them below:

1. How do you get from the Chat Moss across Central Manchester and to the airport without running through Oxford Road and Piccadilly P13? I would continue to run 1 tph Northern service from Liverpool to the Airport, either via the CLC line (which should be electrified) or the Chat Moss route.
2. How do you connect Liverpool & Leeds services through Manchester without having some fast services go to Victoria and some going to Piccadilly? I would run 2 tph express Liverpool-Victoria-Huddersfield-Leeds-York and 2 tph semi-fast Piccadilly-Leeds and beyond.
3. How do you run 4 tph non-stop along the Chat Moss in less than 30 minutes without significantly reducing the number of services to all the intermediate stations? Where is the demand for more than 2 tph non-stop trains Liverpool-Manchester?
4. And if you propose no infrastructure in central Manchester, what are you saying needs to be compromised? Better use should be made of existing infrastructure, with TPE and TfW kicked off the Castlefield line and certain lines converted to Metrolink to free up terminal capacity.

One thing that is overlooked is that as most journeys are relatively short in the Liverpool/Manchester/Leeds area, rail does not have the advantage over other modes for many door-to-door journeys that it does when going to London, with its excellent local public transport system and where car use is problematic and difficult. The final few miles of a journey by public transport outside London can be very difficult/slow in so many instances.

I do support affordable rail investment in Manchester, in particular electrification of the CLC and Standedge routes and Wigan-Bolton (and in the longer term other routes), together with other infrastructure changes to make the Standedge route faster. Additional sidings are needed east of Victoria to enable Scotch and Welsh services to terminate there. I support more Metrolink lines, e.g. to Rose Hill and Glossop, conversion of the Atherton line, and an extension to Middleton. I support HS2 phases 1 and 2a, which have been approved. I just feel that HS2 phase 2b and a mega NPR are neither needed nor affordable and cannot realistically be delivered in a reasonable time scale. I am only too aware of how long it has taken for obvious improvements recommended 30-50 years ago, such as electrification from Manchester to Blackpool and Liverpool to Wigan, to be implemented; these have only happened in the last few years.

 

[Purple Orange]

As you have asked for specific responses, I shall provide them below:

1. How do you get from the Chat Moss across Central Manchester and to the airport without running through Oxford Road and Piccadilly P13? I would continue to run 1 tph Northern service from Liverpool to the Airport, either via the CLC line (which should be electrified) or the Chat Moss route.
2. How do you connect Liverpool & Leeds services through Manchester without having some fast services go to Victoria and some going to Piccadilly? I would run 2 tph express Liverpool-Victoria-Huddersfield-Leeds-York and 2 tph semi-fast Piccadilly-Leeds and beyond.
3. How do you run 4 tph non-stop along the Chat Moss in less than 30 minutes without significantly reducing the number of services to all the intermediate stations? Where is the demand for more than 2 tph non-stop trains Liverpool-Manchester?
4. And if you propose no infrastructure in central Manchester, what are you saying needs to be compromised? Better use should be made of existing infrastructure, with TPE and TfW kicked off the Castlefield line and certain lines converted to Metrolink to free up terminal capacity.

One thing that is overlooked is that as most journeys are relatively short in the Liverpool/Manchester/Leeds area, rail does not have the advantage over other modes for many door-to-door journeys that it does when going to London, with its excellent local public transport system and where car use is problematic and difficult.

I do support affordable rail investment in Manchester, in particular electrification of the CLC and Standedge routes and Wigan-Bolton (and in the longer term other routes), together with other infrastructure changes to make the Standedge route faster. Additional sidings are needed east of Victoria to enable Scotch and Welsh services to terminate there. I support more Metrolink lines, e.g. to Rose Hill and Glossop, conversion of the Atherton line, and an extension to Middleton. I support HS2 phases 1 and 2a, which have been approved. I just feel that HS2 phase 2b and a mega NPR are neither needed nor affordable and cannot realistically be delivered in a reasonable time scale. I am only too aware of how long it has taken for obvious improvements recommended 30-50 years ago, such as electrification from Manchester to Blackpool and Liverpool to Wigan, to be implemented; these have only happened in the last few years.

Thanks for your answers. As others have said about phase 2b, the design for that leg is at a very advanced stage already, and the key to that section is not just connecting up a completed HS2 scheme, but rather unlocking all the demand on the Crewe & Stoke lines. Commuter services in the south of Manchester are not what they should be. As long as long distance services clog up those lines through Stockport, it will always be a poor service.

Your point about 2 tph between Liverpool and Manchester would be a downgrade on current services, given there is the EMR service via the CLC. Add to the mix that there are plans to run tram-trains on that line, it would suggest everything needs to go via the Chat Moss. There is also the issue of attracting people out of the car, which frequency is a factor in achieving that.

A final thought I’d give you is, we have seen an increasing trend for businesses to relocate further in to the centre of our cities. We are also seeing more people move in to the central areas too. Combined there is s population of over 4.5 million people, with two city centres to focus upon. 2 tph ain’t going to cut it. I’d say 4 tph is hardly going to scratch the surface.

 

[daodao]

Your point about 2 tph between Liverpool and Manchester would be a downgrade on current services, given there is the EMR service via the CLC. Add to the mix that there are plans to run tram-trains on that line, it would suggest everything needs to go via the Chat Moss.

On this specific point, I would retain 2 tph semi-fast on the CLC line via Warrington as well, and would electrify this line at 25 kV; I do not support its conversion to Metrolink.

 

[Purple Orange]

On this specific point, I would retain 2 tph semi-fast on the CLC line via Warrington as well, and would electrify this line at 25 kV; I do not support its conversion to Metrolink.

I agree that the CLC should be electrified but the line should be purely for all stop services.

 

[edwin_m]

How do you get from the Chat Moss across Central Manchester and to the airport without running through Oxford Road and Piccadilly P13? I would continue to run 1 tph Northern service from Liverpool to the Airport, either via the CLC line (which should be electrified) or the Chat Moss route.

And if you propose no infrastructure in central Manchester, what are you saying needs to be compromised? Better use should be made of existing infrastructure, with TPE and TfW kicked off the Castlefield line and certain lines converted to Metrolink to free up terminal capacity.

Either of which means using Oxford Road and P13. Doesn't matter who operates it, it's still a longer-distance service going through Castlefield.

How do you run 4 tph non-stop along the Chat Moss in less than 30 minutes without significantly reducing the number of services to all the intermediate stations? Where is the demand for more than 2 tph non-stop trains Liverpool-Manchester?

One thing that is overlooked is that as most journeys are relatively short in the Liverpool/Manchester/Leeds area, rail does not have the advantage over other modes for many door-to-door journeys that it does when going to London, with its excellent local public transport system and where car use is problematic and difficult. The final few miles of a journey by public transport outside London can be very difficult/slow in so many instances.

You've answered your own question here - there's more to service frequency than just meeting demand. Liverpool and Manchester are two large cities close together, there are lots of people wanting to travel between them but for a service to be attractive it has to be frequent enough that people don't need to consult a timetable. Glasgow to Edinburgh is the obvious example.

My rule of thumb for this is that the service interval should be no more than a third of the journey time, but there doesn't seem to be a hard and fast rule and others quote an interval of 10-15min as representing "turn up and go". Frequency of the trunk leg is particularly important if services from the surroundings into each city are less frequent than would be ideal, because if the half-hourly local just misses the half-hourly express every half hour then the end-to-end journey time gets a lot longer.

 

[Class 170101]

On this specific point, I would retain 2 tph semi-fast on the CLC line via Warrington as well, and would electrify this line at 25 kV; I do not support its conversion to Metrolink.

I would electrify the CLC route at 25KV and wonder if it could be fed from Liverpool and Manchester and perhaps in the middle from where the line crosses the WCML near Warrington already thereby avoiding the need for a new feeder station.

However on the topic of NPR surely its pointless building Very High Speed Route that stops at Warrington as one wouldn't be able to reach the highest speeds before needing to stop there. What is the highest worthwhile speed if a station is built in Warrington (and Manchester Airport)?

 

[Bletchleyite]

However on the topic of NPR surely its pointless building Very High Speed Route that stops at Warrington as one wouldn't be able to reach the highest speeds before needing to stop there. What is the highest worthwhile speed if a station is built in Warrington (and Manchester Airport)?

NPR is going to be 140mph tops, isn't it? I agree that going above that is pretty pointless for a relatively short route like that. TBH, as I've said before, if it saved significant money I would support reducing HS2 proper to 140mph - the UK simply isn't that big a place as to need it.

And lastly, regarding the lines that stand to be depopulated of express trains by this, it is also worth noting those living along the Chat Moss, classic CLC and Runcorn routes could be able to benefit from the introduction of Merseyrail (or Merseyrail-type) services. Nowhere else in the north matches Liverpool for local metropolitan rail use, so the prospects of this being successful are high.

Careful, we'll have people suggesting Merseyrail to Wick next, as is wont to happen on here.

But you're correct there - the Merseyrail service concept - 4tph for most of the day, everything all stations[1], simple network of fixed routes rather than everywhere to everywhere once an hour, simple ticketing (just Anytime Day Singles/Returns and off peak day tickets valid after 0930, plus the PTE stuff) is an incredibly successful concept - it is basically identical to the incredibly successful S-Bahn concept in Germany and other similar things Europe wide (and of course the Tube, other than the Met Line which confuses tourists and so they often avoid it). And at Liverpool Central you've got 8tph that get in the way by not connecting to anything, so that's potentially two whole Lime St routes that can convert. (The CLC you'd get for free because it already goes to Hunts X, so that's two more).

[1] Yes, I know, Capenhurst. I'd expect that stop back in every train once the 777s are in service.

 

[Class 170101]

A Pennine tunnel probably wouldn't be on the scale of the new Gotthard base tunnel (57km/34 miles) and is likely to be in 2 or 3 shorter segments.

A better model might be the Ceneri Base Tunnel, just opened on the Gotthard route to complement the longer Gotthard Base Tunnel further north.
It is 15.4km (9.6 miles) long and is twin single bores (built without TBMs) with cross-passages, taking 10 years to build.
Rescue is by special rescue trains.
Tunnel speed is 250km/h (155mph).
Ceneri Base Tunnel - Wikipedia

Another recent one is the Romerike tunnel east of Oslo - 14.5km/9 miles) and took 5 years to build 1994-99.
Double track, two intermediate shafts and a maximum depth of 120m - the M62 has a maximum elevation of 372m.
Tunnel speed is 210km/h (130mph).
Romerike Tunnel - Wikipedia

But surely none of the tunnels mentioned here would be appropriate for the cross Pennine tunnel? These tunnels are around and over 10 miles in length, surely the Cross Pennines Tunnel would be much shorter than this?

Why is Piccadilly clearly a preferred location for all fast services? Its current and potential access from the West and North is atrocious. A rail line from Liverpool to Manchester via Ringway Airport would follow an extremely roundabout route; the journey would probably take longer even at high speed than via the current direct Chat Moss route, and the line would cost a fortune to build. The proposal also seems to require a reversal at Piccadilly for a Liverpool-Leeds journey, which would add approximately a 5 minute delay to any through journey. 2 tph, each of 200m length, is perfectly adequate for a Liverpool to York express service via Chat Moss, Victoria (a decent main line railway station, unlike Oxford Road and Piccadilly platforms 13/14) and Standedge, with an additional 2 tph semi-fast service from Piccadilly (platforms 1-3) to Leeds and beyond. There is a need to improve and electrify the Standedge route, and that is what NPR should be focussing on, as it is affordable and deliverable within a reasonable timescale.

The only way to improve services to both Piccadilly and Victoria for NPR would be to build an underground station thats in between them with entrances to both ends, Victoria one end and Piccadilly the other end, in a similiar way to Liverpool Street / Moorgate on Crossrail but in Manchester much further apart.

 

[Camden]

NPR is going to be 140mph tops, isn't it? I agree that going above that is pretty pointless for a relatively short route like that. TBH, as I've said before, if it saved significant money I would support reducing HS2 proper to 140mph - the UK simply isn't that big a place as to need it.]

All of the HS2 spurs are 230kph, so the difference between HS2 core speed and the likely speed of NPR is moot. A standard 230kph HS2 spur to Liverpool literally has a double purpose as a 230kph NPR line.

 

[nimbus21]

There are several conceivable alignments for Liverpool–Warrington–Manchester Airport–Manchester.

But Manchester–Bradford–Leeds? That's hard without serious tunnelling. A route along the Calder Valley/Rochdale Canal corridor seems obvious... but it's not a wide valley and much of it is already built up. Even then, you'd need to branch off somewhere near Halifax to make for Bradford, at which point the tunnelling starts.

If this ever goes ahead, it's great news for (a) Peel Group and (b) tunnelling contractors.

I've no idea what the latest proposal is but previously the plan for a central Bradford station was to have it underground beneath Bradford Interchange with west-east tracks. The current tracks out of the Interchange head southwards to Halifax and Eastwards to Leeds

 

[MarkRedon]

It will be a political decision to build NPR and a political decision as to whether the line serves Bradford or Huddersfield. Johnson claims to favour levelling up. On those grounds, a via-Bradford routing will be the Yorkshire political preference. Huddersfield will be well served by a revitalised Standedge route. Bradford needs serious investment after a century of decline and hollowing-out. A well-sited gateway station on a genuinely fast line connecting Bradford into the trans-Pennine conurbation and beyond would be a major enabler of that investment. If the difference is 4 billion pounds, that might well be worth - spending? no, investing - in an act of serious levelling-up.

The icing on the cake would be a Bradford Gateway with good links to Forster Square and the Interchange, but that may conflict with the need to site the station in a way which maximises inward investment.

Disclaimer: I have lived and worked in West Yorkshire for a quarter of a century, commuting from the Aire Valley to Wakefield or to Huddersfield or to Manchester, always by train.

 

[Bald Rick]

Bradford needs serious investment after a century of decline and hollowing-out.

Indeed. Playing Devil’s advocate, would spending £4bn (extra) on a railway be the best way to do that? It may be, but equally there may be other ways to revitalise Bradford for less cash.

 

[MarkRedon]

Indeed. Playing Devil’s advocate, would spending £4bn (extra) on a railway be the best way to do that? It may be, but equally there may be other ways to revitalise Bradford for less cash.

Playing (very loosely!) saintly defender, that may be so - but I doubt it's a zero-sum game. In an ideal world (not our pox-ridden Brexit-infested one) UK plc would try to position itself "globally"(!) on a northern arc that linked Dublin, Belfast, Liverpool, Manchester, Bradford, Huddersfield, Sheffield, Leeds and Hull to Rotterdam, Amsterdam and North Germany. Very high capability transport links are needed to bind it all together. That vision has existed in Brussels, does exist in the northern English cities - but is not shared in London.

 

[Ianno87]

Playing (very loosely!) saintly defender, that may be so - but I doubt it's a zero-sum game. In an ideal world (not our pox-ridden Brexit-infested one) UK plc would try to position itself "globally"(!) on a northern arc that linked Dublin, Belfast, Liverpool, Manchester, Bradford, Huddersfield, Sheffield, Leeds and Hull to Rotterdam, Amsterdam and North Germany. Very high capability transport links are needed to bind it all together. That vision has existed in Brussels, does exist in the northern English cities - but is not shared in London.

Does it matter if "Huddersfield" substitutes for "Bradford" completely on that list? How else can Bradford be connected into this?

Don't get distracted by one having city status and the other not. That's not really relevant.

 

[Greybeard33]

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.

In view of the political importance of the Red Wall agenda, I suspect the route decision will be made by No.10, not the Transport Secretary or the Chancellor. And will depend on which adviser has the PM's ear at the time.

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.

The article says that the Huddersfield route would be 3 minutes slower, i.e. 29m 30s from Leeds to Manchester.