Publication of Integrated Rail Plan for the North and Midlands

[The Planner]

Would have been better with a through station under New Street with 4 platforms. All trains could have gone through with trains heading north east from an underground junction north of New Street. Curzon Street wasn't the best idea.

4 platforms would never be enough, and the New St option was looked at and discounted. It would also be a lovely dog leg to get back NE.

 

[Starmill]

"Railway professionals" aren't people who draw fancy track layouts and lines on maps and shout "Build it all!".

They are the people who almost certainly have advised this report on the costs and practical deliverability of these proposals, and their associated capacity outputs.

I agree but I think that it's also true that slashing the new off line infrastructure on the Eastern Leg but continuing to promise ultra fast journey times for Sheffield and direct fast services to Nottingham and Derby centres will come at huge cost which currently isn't currently apparent. I.e. the removal of local services from heavy rail infrastructure or enormous, disruptive upgrades that weren't anticipated until yesterday (or both). Alternatively the government will need to admit that the ultra fast journey times from Sheffield, Derby and Nottingham in this plan are undeliverable.

 

[Roast Veg]

It's already quicker to change at Birmingham to get to Edinburgh. Doesn't mean it's more convenient. In the case of the northeast under this plan you'll be changing for the sake of about 30 miles at high speed, which is extremely unlikely to work out quicker than a through train.

Taking an example journey from Bristol to Newcastle, the service will run at significantly higher speeds between Curzon Street and Marsden saving a projected 39 minutes (compared to today) (IRP page 18). Assuming a 10 minute change from Curzon Street to Moor Street (IRP page 119), and a worst case wait of 20 minutes (IRP page 59) for a HS2/NPR train, that's still a faster journey.

 

[Purple Orange]

Pretty much the only people who lose from it are the inhabitants of Stockport and Coventry, and possibly Penrith depending on exactly what the Scottish service calling pattern ends up being and if Windermere services are extended to Preston/Lancaster if Oxenholme loses its London service. (Oxenholme station is in the middle of a field so is mostly a parkway station).

Residents of Stockport are getting two HS2 stations right on their doorstep. If that is genuinely considered a loss, then HS2 has no case to answer.

 

[quantinghome]

"Railway professionals" aren't people who draw fancy track layouts and shout "Build it all!".

They are the people who almost certainly have advised this report on the costs and practical deliverability of these proposals, and their associated capacity outputs.

Well, time will tell I guess.

One would like to think the report was written by people who understood the real-world implications of the words they were writing, and of course that should have been the case. But a quick look up this thread will show you the number of serious questions already being asked of the plan, only a day after it was published.

How do you think this report measures up as a professionally-written strategic document? Say compared to the original HS2 command paper, or the traction decarbonisation strategy?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Residents of Stockport are getting two HS2 stations right on their doorstep. If that is genuinely considered a loss, then HS2 has no case to answer.

It is a loss, but a minor one, as most people who travel from Stockport use it as a "parkway" station and can easily switch to the new Manchester Airport one.

The loss will be to people who normally walk or cycle to catch London trains there. That is, on balance, an acceptable loss, but I think we should acknowledge that it is indeed a loss, just one outweighed by the benefits.

Similarly Coventry will lose its 3tph fast to London, which is a loss too, but similarly those using it as a "parkway" can switch. However, again, the gain outweighs the loss, and Coventry doesn't justify those trains alone, like many stations (e.g. the quieter ones on Merseyrail) it receives the service it does because it is operationally convenient to do so.

You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't recognise downsides too, and perhaps look to mitigate them with e.g. quality bus services as @Starmill suggested.

 

[doa46231]

Absolutely nothing fictional about it. You need to get your facts right. The vast majority of travel on the south west route is leisure and the number of "blue rinsers" is well above what you see on other intercity routes, as well as families. Any attempt to wreck connectivity between the north and south west will be fought very very hard , why should the south west lose out even more just to benefit Boris' train set

Judging by Mr. Sunaks reduction in air passenger duty on domestic flights, they are trying to encourage folk in the North to fly to the south West, rather than take an expensive and inconvenient train!

 

[JonathanH]

It is definitely a disincentive for some.

Yes, but it is not the only disincentive for all. Some people might be happy to trade the disincentive of a change for some other aspect of the overall journey.

 

[Purple Orange]

It is a loss, but a minor one, as most people who travel from Stockport use it as a "parkway" station and can easily switch to the new Manchester Airport one.

The loss will be to people who normally walk or cycle to catch London trains there. That is, on balance, an acceptable loss, but I think we should acknowledge that it is indeed a loss, just one outweighed by the benefits.

Similarly Coventry will lose its 3tph fast to London, which is a loss too, but similarly those using it as a "parkway" can switch. However, again, the gain outweighs the loss, and Coventry doesn't justify those trains alone, like many stations (e.g. the quieter ones on Merseyrail) it receives the service it does because it is operationally convenient to do so.

You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't recognise downsides too, and perhaps look to mitigate them with e.g. quality bus services as @Starmill suggested.

Yes for those who travel directly to Stockport on foot, bus or cycle. Yet it’s no major deal. It’s a 10 min journey to Piccadilly, and is physically a part of the Greater Manchester city fabric. It’s a bit like saying someone who once traveled from south London to Waterloo for the Eurostar is now inconvenienced by having to spend 10-15 mins crossing London to St. Pancras by jumping on the tube.

Coventry is a different kettle of fish, as that is treble the distance away from Birmingham compared to Stockport to Piccadilly.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Judging by Mr. Sunaks reduction in air passenger duty on domestic flights, they are trying to encourage folk in the North to fly to the south West, rather than take an expensive and inconvenient train!

I agree. I am an absolute fan of the railways in the UK but right now if I was back in my UK home and wanted to get to Newquay I would fly from either MAN or LPL rather than get the train from PRE.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It’s a bit like saying someone who once traveled from south London to Waterloo for the Eurostar is now inconvenienced by having to spend 10-15 mins crossing London to St. Pancras by jumping on the tube.

They are. It's just not a reason not to make the change, because the benefits outweigh the downsides.

Coventry is a different kettle of fish, as that is treble the distance away from Birmingham compared to Stockport to Piccadilly.

10 minutes to Brum Intl, where they can change to HS2 at the Airport/Interchange station. No need to go into Brum, and that station will replace most of the "parkway" function of Cov. So overall very similar.

However, as the journey to London is much shorter, the relative inconvenience is greater, if you see what I mean.

Again not a reason not to build HS2, but we do need to recognise that no project will only have upsides.

 

[Glenn1969]

Residents of Stockport are getting two HS2 stations right on their doorstep. If that is genuinely considered a loss, then HS2 has no case to answer.

But the Airport station will only happen with 50% developer funding if I read the document right. So like the Toton local station it isn't guaranteed?

 

[Bletchleyite]

But the Airport station will only happen with 50% developer funding if I read the document right. So like the Toton local station it isn't guaranteed?

Without the Manchester Airport station I would strongly oppose HS2 2B. A south Manchester parkway station is absolutely essential. Without it, the hourly residual classic line service will suffer severe overcrowding (as people would continue using Stockport for that function), and it won't have much impact on flights, either. I'd probably say it was easily as important as Piccadilly, given that most travel will be Manchester-London return, not London-Manchester return and most people don't live in city centres.

If it isn't built, it'd be better to have at least some HS2 trains from Piccadilly join HS2 at Crewe, retaining Stockport's role.

 

[XC victim]

Have you ever travelled on XC?. Mothers with children, grannies were my companions when I did, and they were going long distances. It's the younger couples and families that undertake long journeys by car.

That has always been my experience too. Changing trains XC trains at Birmingham New St is always a nightmare with connections missed, lots of stairs and the hassle of boarding an already overcrowded train (and having to kick other passengers out of your reserved seats).

 

[Purple Orange]

Without the Manchester Airport station I would strongly oppose HS2 2B. A south Manchester parkway station is absolutely essential. Without it, the hourly residual classic line service will suffer severe overcrowding (as people would continue using Stockport for that function), and it won't have much impact on flights, either. I'd probably say it was easily as important as Piccadilly, given that most travel will be Manchester-London return, not London-Manchester return and most people don't live in city centres.

If it isn't built, it'd be better to have at least some HS2 trains from Piccadilly join HS2 at Crewe, retaining Stockport's role.

I can’t see it not being built, there is too much political will to see it delivered.

 

[Roast Veg]

I can’t see it not being built, there is too much political will to see it delivered.

The whole leg was designed around it - it'll happen one way or another.

 

[Glenn1969]

I can’t see it not being built, there is too much political will to see it delivered.

The document makes it clear it won't happen without 50% developer funding

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can’t see it not being built, there is too much political will to see it delivered.

Agreed, I'd be astonished if it wasn't. But then again, the Ordsall Chord was built without the other essential works to enable its effective use...

The document makes it clear it won't happen without 50% developer funding

I doubt that would be too hard to achieve. Stations aren't that expensive in the scheme of things, and planning gain from a large business park would easily fund it.

 

[Purple Orange]

The document makes it clear it won't happen without 50% developer funding

Negotiations between political bodies will happen.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Again not a reason not to build HS2, but we do need to recognise that no project will only have upsides.

I agree it is obvious but sometimes I feel that some people just do not seem to understand this.

 

[irish_rail]

This. People are fixated with granny and her heavy baggage, but granny is hardly using the train. It’s letting a romanticised view of the realities of rail travel prevent improvements for the majority of the travelling public.

Do you regularly travel on this route? Well I do a heck of a lot between Plymouth and Bristol whilst at work, and there is a very large proportion of over 60s travelling on these trains. The demographic of the south west is much older than the rest of the UK and making this part of the UK have fewer through journeys really isn't the best idea.

 

[Peterthegreat]

Do you regularly travel on this route? Well I do a heck of a lot between Plymouth and Bristol whilst at work, and there is a very large proportion of over 60s travelling on these trains. The demographic of the south west is much older than the rest of the UK and making this part of the UK have fewer through journeys really isn't the best idea.

I regularly travel on the Sheffield to Birmingham section (several times a month) and totally agree with you.

 

[Ianno87]

Do you regularly travel on this route? Well I do a heck of a lot between Plymouth and Bristol whilst at work, and there is a very large proportion of over 60s travelling on these trains. The demographic of the south west is much older than the rest of the UK and making this part of the UK have fewer through journeys really isn't the best idea.

Care to provide some evidenced quantification. I'm sure you're right of course, but the world of railway planning doesn't fly on reassurances of "large proportions".

Having said that, my Mum is approaching 70, not massively rail clued up, and regularly travels Bolton to Cambridge (200 miles, 5+ hours) which unavoidably requires 2 or more changes. So not massively convinced that introduction of 1 change of train on a South West-North journey is some sort of massive inhibition to that market.

 

[JKF]

It’s not just oldies or luggage-encumbered families that don’t like changes. Some of us like the simplicity of booking one seat, settling into it with a book or electronic device and relax until we get to our destination. Faffing about on escalators, squinting at monitors, squashing back in through the crowds in the vestibule, that little game of musical chairs getting into a window seat when someone is already sat in the aisle seat, all unnecessary hassle.

It’s a shame they can’t make (or at least make future provision for) a short but fast connecting spur out to somewhere like Bromsgrove, to speed up intercity services from the south-west that from past experience crawl into the city behind local stoppers and through cluttered junctions. Not the only city where something like this is needed, as anyone winding through Guide Brisge will know. In comparison it’s such a joy getting on a Javelin and rocketing out of the city so fast.

 

[Ianno87]

It’s not just oldies or luggage-encumbered families that don’t like changes. Some of us like the simplicity of booking one seat, settling into it with a book or electronic device and relax until we get to our destination. Faffing about on escalators, squinting at monitors, squashing back in through the crowds in the vestibule, that little game of musical chairs getting into a window seat when someone is already sat in the aisle seat, all unnecessary hassle.

Noted.

But there's a difference between
1. Merely preferring a direct train (which most people clearly do for very obvious reasons)
2. The provision direct train being fundamental to choosing to make the journey by rail at all, compared to the other factors at play (e.g. fares availability)

I think 2 is, quite often, over-exaggerated. *Especially* when (for example) 2tph with a change can often be more attractive than 1tph direct.

After all, 7 million people per year change trains at Birmingham New Street- so it can't be *that* much of a barrier...

 

[Roast Veg]

After all, 7 million people per year change trains at Birmingham New Street- so it can't be *that* much of a barrier...

Including a significant amount on to, and off of, XC NE/SW services. I don't think you'll find a single call along the route with more passenger turnover than at New Street.

 

[adrock1976]

Noted.

But there's a difference between
1. Merely preferring a direct train (which most people clearly do for very obvious reasons)
2. The provision direct train being fundamental to choosing to make the journey by rail at all, compared to the other factors at play (e.g. fares availability)

I think 2 is, quite often, over-exaggerated. *Especially* when (for example) 2tph with a change can often be more attractive than 1tph direct.

After all, 7 million people per year change trains at Birmingham New Street- so it can't be *that* much of a barrier...

Regarding changing trains at New Street, did Virgin (and Arriva after 2007) recommend to avoid it if at all possible?

This may have been not long after Operation Princess collapsed.

 

[CdBrux]

Agreed, I'd be astonished if it wasn't. But then again, the Ordsall Chord was built without the other essential works to enable its effective use...



I doubt that would be too hard to achieve. Stations aren't that expensive in the scheme of things, and planning gain from a large business park would easily fund it.

Haven't GMCA already more or less agreed to fund it?

 

[Ianno87]

Regarding changing trains at New Street, did Virgin (and Arriva after 2007) recommend to avoid it if at all possible?

This may have been not long after Operation Princess collapsed.

They made a big thing of it in 2007, when XC started to be recast into the current pattern (e.g. removing direct XC services via the Northern WCML). Some people, predictably, kicked up a stink about it when it was proposed, so there was things like "if you don't like New Street, you can change at Coventry /Cheltenham /Wolverhampton /Stafford /Derby instead"

That was, of course, in the context of old, gotty, cramped, pre-rebuild Birmingham New Street. It's now a much more pleasant place to change trains.

 

[Roast Veg]

That was, of course, in the context of old, gotty, cramped, pre-rebuild Birmingham New Street. It's now a much more pleasant place to change trains.

Moor Street to Curzon Street ought to be more pleasant still.