The Northern Cities | Governance & Infrastructure (including HS3)

Super Furry Animal · Apr 24, 2021

I'm very familiar with the function and need for Parkway stations. What I question is whether it needs to be at Manchester Airport.

Off the top of my head, let's assume the Manchester spur runs in a direct straight line. You could shave some time/distance off the total journey time, have a parkway station at Altrincham adjacent to junction 8 of the M56, and facilitate a western approach into central Manchester which could either be underground at Piccadilly, or located at Victoria. You might construct the tunnel with a couple of lines branching off for two Crossrail-type platforms under Salford Quays for NPR. And if you really wanted, you could construct a fast people mover from Altrincham to plug it into Manchester airport.

Liverpool could have a spur which connects with HS2 south of Newton-le-Willows and enter the system via a delta junction south of Altrincham. Or the Chat Moss route could be significantly upgraded for 140mph running. Or the Altrincham parkway station could be located on the main HS2 trunk (together with people mover) and the whole lot could mirror Chat Moss into Manchester.

I'm sure there are other potential ideas. I just don't think the status quo should be taken for granted.

Little Spoon · Apr 24, 2021

J8 is just as close to Altrincham as J5/6, plus if you located it further away from the airport you then make it a longer distance for people from Didsbury, Cheadle, Wilmslow and Stockport to access the station, let alone there is no access to the airport which people still want.

Super Furry Animal · Apr 24, 2021

Little Spoon said:
J8 is just as close to Altrincham as J5/6, plus if you located it further away from the airport you then make it a longer distance for people from Didsbury, Cheadle, Wilmslow and Stockport to access the station, let alone there is no access to the airport which people still want.

Driving an extra couple of minutes to the next junction along a motorway is going to be a deal breaker for a sub-hour journey to London?

Okay boomer.

Super Furry Animal · Apr 24, 2021

Jon10 said:
Suppose the main NPR axis becomes
Liverpool - Victoria - Leeds.

Then what intensity of attractive services could you run from East of Victoria - Victoria - Piccadilly - Airport,
as a sort of analogy to OOC - Heathrow?

Would that crowd out current trains from the west into Piccadilly, since isn't it just a minor Victoria - Piccadilly service just now?

This needs a bit of framing so I'll start with a summary.

Liverpool and Manchester have significant passenger flows in their own right. They have potential to generate a lot of additional passenger traffic. Depending on the design, services from North Wales, Preston/Blackpool and Southport might also be added to that mix.

The North-West is definitely poly-centric in terms of identity and commercial focal points. But it's small. If you could pick up London's Central line and plonk it on the North, it could comfortably connect Liverpool and Manchester with about 20 miles to spare. Whisper it quietly, but for all the tribalism on these boards, there's not really a geographical point where one North-west conurbation ends and another begins.

However, I do think present designs replicate the British tendency towards centralisation. Leeds, York, and Newcastle are far enough apart to carve their own niche. The North-West doesn't neatly fit any of the models which Whitehall seems to be so fond of. Apart from the principal centres of Liverpool and Manchester, you have Preston, Chester and Warrington; important centres in their own right. I'd also add Wigan and Southport to that list, notwithstanding them being part of Greater Manchester (GM) and the Liverpool City Region (LCR) respectively.

Connections between the LCR and GM alone would account for a lot of westbound traffic on NPR. I used to do the trip regularly. In normal times there were around 8 hourly direct services between Liverpool Lime St and Manchester Pic/Vic. Often standing room only. If memory serves correctly, 3 were semi fast, the rest slow stoppers. But you couldn't rely on it as a turn up and go service because (a) trains were split between Pic and Vic and (b) the timetable was irregular; local services and freight meant a clock-face timetable was impossible to maintain.

It's also easy to forget that the LCR and GM are connected by two motorways, a major A Road, and a number of other rail connections originating in Southport, Kirkby, and Chester. Kirkby can be good for people in the north of the LCR and GM - it has some wasted potential. Chester is good for residents of south Wirral. Fast, direct services from central Liverpool would attract passengers away from packed local services.

So, apart from giving Liverpool a HS2 link, NPR would stimulate demand, encourage modal shift, and open up opportunities for local upgrades. For example, the entire length of the line from Liverpool to Manchester via Warrington Central could probably support 10-15 min metro services. At present it doesn't because it carries mixed modes of traffic. The same is true of the Chat Moss line as far as Newton-le-Willows.

A properly designed NPR - which is integrated into a properly designed HS2 - could catalyse some massive improvements across the rest of the North-west. As with HS2 it's about capacity as much as speed. NPR has potential to release a lot of capacity.

Ploughing on without stopping to think how it might be improved is folly.

Little Spoon · Apr 24, 2021

Super Furry Animal said:
Driving an extra couple of minutes to the next junction along a motorway is going to be a deal breaker for a sub-hour journey to London?

Okay boomer.

Precisely what shouldn’t be getting encouraged. Alternatively we could locate the station close to public transport networks, a large airport, a large populated area and also on the M56.

Northumbriana · Apr 24, 2021

The problem I can see with NPR being a fast inter-city line and having an underground station in Manchester is that what is on either side that requires such infrastructure? Obviously we all know the answer, but what I mean is is it worth it when on one side we have Liverpool and maybe Birmingham. And on the other Leeds, York and Newcastle? All perfectly good destinations, but enough for an inter city tunnel beneath a major city? Stuttgart has Munich, Augsburg, Leipzig, Dresden, Berlin, Zurich, Mannheim, Frankfurt, Paris etc to link to.

As an inter city station Manchester seems more an end of line station. For it to be the centre of anything, it would probably be more suitable for an RER type network. With reasonably fast regional express services calling it major and secondary stations along CLC, TPE line, Chat Moss, etc and running under Manchester. And local services on those lines being retained in some capacity for all station services.

GJMarshy · Apr 24, 2021

Maybe a nice solution?

When you factor in the "Tatton kink" on the current HS2 plan, journey times from Manchester-London would only be a minute extra. The route is an equal compromise to suit E-W & N-S traffic, and adds substantial benefits:

Much more direct & logical route for NPR.
Liverpool/Warrington-London via Mcr. Airport services now possible.
Mcr. airport gets a more conveniently located station parallel with T2.
Salford Quays is connected giving fast access to the expanding jobs market. Also provides the solution for relieving Piccadilly-Cornbrook capacity on Metrolink.
Better oriented station at piccadilly. 6 platform station box parallel to existing railway out of platforms 13/14 (UMIST campus) with the possibility of a Circle Square entrance/exit (princess St.)

Little Spoon · Apr 24, 2021

If there is to be a rail line under Manchester, I think I’d argue more for a Metrolink light rail line underground route connected to the CLC, Altrincham & Didsbury lines in the west and to Guide Bridge, in the South East & the Bury line in the north east.

Scott Darwin · Apr 24, 2021

GJMarshy said:
Maybe a nice solution?

View attachment 1405964

When you factor in the "Tatton kink" on the current HS2 plan, journey times from Manchester-London would only be a minute extra. The route is an equal compromise to suit E-W & N-S traffic, and adds substantial benefits:

Much more direct & logical route for NPR.

Liverpool/Warrington-London via Mcr. Airport services now possible.

Mcr. airport gets a more conveniently located station parallel with T2.

Salford Quays is connected giving fast access to the expanding jobs market. Also provides the solution for relieving Piccadilly-Cornbrook capacity on Metrolink.

Better oriented station at piccadilly. 6 platform station box parallel to existing railway out of platforms 13/14 (UMIST campus) with the possibility of a Circle Square entrance/exit (princess St.)

The Amanda White video from years and years ago explained a route into Manc from the west was not feasible for a shed load of reasons including geology, man made obstacles and listed buildings - hence the tunnel from the south was not only best economically but also by far easiest to deliver.

Super Furry Animal · Apr 25, 2021

Little Spoon said:
If there is to be a rail line under Manchester, I think I’d argue more for a Metrolink light rail line underground route connected to the CLC, Altrincham & Didsbury lines in the west and to Guide Bridge, in the South East & the Bury line in the north east.

I do take your point here. As those of us who frequent these forums are all too aware, funding for infrastructure investment is an issue at the best of times. Rocking-the-boat might result in nothing. It could equally catalyse some amendments to the existing HS2 route to better incorporate NPR. Or at least get some passive provision built into it to facilitate expansion or revision in the future.

I've made a few suggestions over the past few days. I'm not saying I have the answers, or that what I've said is definitely correct.

What I do know is that NRP looks destined to be wholly suboptimal as a pan northern railway because it's trying to shoehorn as much as possible into civil engineering which forms part of HS2. Which was never designed with NPR in mind. So one of two things needs to happen:

(a) NPR needs to forge its own path and concentrate on how it can deliver on the aspirations it originally set out to achieve. The original objective was a 20 min journey from Liverpool to Manchester, then another 30 mins to Leeds. There was also an aspiration for a 10 minute connection between central Manchester and its airport. 50 mins from Liverpool to Leeds would quite simply be game changing to the commercial fortunes of the North. Liverpool to Leeds and all destinations in between could act as as single commercial unit. Journeys between them become short commutes, rather than exhausting full days out. And such journey times would undoubtedly encourage modal shift from car.

A 10 minute connection with Manchester Airport would similarly open up a lot of international commercial opportunities for surrounding businesses. I live in central London. Manchester Airport would be closer to Liverpool and Leeds city centres than Heathrow or Gatwick are to me presently. That would be very significant if it could be realised. Or;

(b) The design of the western leg of HS2 phase 2b needs to be revised so as to help to facilitate some of the deliverables of NPR.

My personal view is that a combination of the two is needed. NPR is Northern Powerhouse Rail. Not Manchester Powerhouse Rail. Manchester is - without doubt - going to be a key central node on such a system, but we need to avoid the trap of assuming that it is the end of all lines. Lots of people already transit Manchester. With enhanced journey times, more will do so. Manchester is not the end of the line. Nor should it be.

Talk of a Metrolink underground route reminds me of the Market Street Subway in San Francisco which was completed in the 1970's (i.e., before silly money from silicon valley flooded in). San Fran proper only has around 800k residents with 4million in the wider conurbation, i.e, less than the 7-8 million in the North-West:

The top layer carries the Muni (municipal tram). Which also curiously runs along Market Street directly above. Albeit slower because of the road traffic, but much nicer.
The lower level carries the BART system, which is faster and only stops at certain stations.
The Market Street Subway was built using cut-and-cover. So the only real option for replicating would be to dig under the M602 or Princes Road. Unless one inverted the concept and built the rails above ground with the roads covered over below. This might be doable down the M602 Corridor as it's already in a cutting (which could be built over).

Here's a cross-section of Embacadero. MUNI trams on mid-levels, BART (or NPR) below. Which could be a template for Salford, Victoria, or Piccadilly:

I might be getting off topic, but while we're on the subject of tunnelling under cities, I think it's worth noting that Liverpool was successful in obtaining the necessary funding from Whitehall to build the Wirral Line Loop and the Northern Line link in the 1970's. Merseyrail is still an incomplete network 50 years on. Nevertheless, the core section of the network which has been constructed has - without doubt - fundamentally transformed suburban rail transport connectively in the LCR. Manchester didn't obtain funding for the Pic-Vic tunnel which is similar to the Northern Line Link in concept and eventually plumped for light rail in the form of Metrolink.

Personally, I think Liverpool needs and lacks a tram system. Manchester needs and lacks a cohesive suburban heavy rail network. My hope is that taking fast, regional intercity services off commuter lines will (a) stimulate greater demand for regional intercity travel, and (b) open up opportunities for enhanced local services. As was oft said about HS2, it's not about speed; it's about capacity.

Warrington (and indeed Wigan) to Manchester is too great a distance with too many passengers to operate with Metrolink rolling stock in my opinion. If Merseyrail extends to Warrington, this could be an opportunity for GMPTE to grow a brandied identifiable heavy rail network. Starting perhaps with Warrington Central - Manchester - Stockport or Macclesfield?

I repeat; I don't have the answers. I just think it's foolheardy to push ahead with proposals which are clearly suboptimal when there's still time and scope to amend them. Apart from the issues with central Manchester, there are also issues with Birmingham Curson Street; a terminus with no connection to the Classic network. This seems a shame as the HS2 network could open up super quick journey times from the North to the South-West and South Wales. And of course, there's no guarantee that Liverpool will even have a dedicated spur but that's been done to death; I'll not be dredging that up for now(!).

NPR is a rare opportunity to think about how public transport in the region might look and develop over the next couple of hundred years. Think how much has changed since the 1830's and how much it might change in the next 200 years. Especially as issues such as climate change become more critical in shaping public discourse and political priorities.

Anyway, this has been interesting, but I think I'll bow out for now. My main takeaway point is this: We should not accept a 'make do' NPR proposal when we could have a much greater return on investment for comparatively little more investment. It might cost more, but still end up lower per head of capita than that which London receives. This would result in a greater long-term return on investment. Especially as this is likely to be the only significant rail development my yet unborn children and grandchildren will see in their lifetimes.

It simply has to be done right from day one.

Little Spoon · Apr 25, 2021

Super Furry Animal said:
I do take your point here. As those of us who frequent these forums are all too aware, funding for infrastructure investment is an issue at the best of times. Rocking-the-boat might result in nothing. It could equally catalyse some amendments to the existing HS2 route to better incorporate NPR. Or at least get some passive provision built into it to facilitate expansion or revision in the future.

I've made a few suggestions over the past few days. I'm not saying I have the answers, or that what I've said is definitely correct.

What I do know is that NRP looks destined to be wholly suboptimal as a pan northern railway because it's trying to shoehorn as much as possible into civil engineering which forms part of HS2. Which was never designed with NPR in mind. So one of two things needs to happen:

(a) NPR needs to forge its own path and concentrate on how it can deliver on the aspirations it originally set out to achieve. The original objective was a 20 min journey from Liverpool to Manchester, then another 30 mins to Leeds. There was also an aspiration for a 10 minute connection between central Manchester and its airport. 50 mins from Liverpool to Leeds would quite simply be game changing to the commercial fortunes of the North. Liverpool to Leeds and all destinations in between could act as as single commercial unit. Journeys between them become short commutes, rather than exhausting full days out. And such journey times would undoubtedly encourage modal shift from car.

A 10 minute connection with Manchester Airport would similarly open up a lot of international commercial opportunities for surrounding businesses. I live in central London. Manchester Airport would be closer to Liverpool and Leeds city centres than Heathrow or Gatwick are to me presently. That would be very significant if it could be realised. Or;

(b) The design of the western leg of HS2 phase 2b needs to be revised so as to help to facilitate some of the deliverables of NPR.

My personal view is that a combination of the two is needed. NPR is Northern Powerhouse Rail. Not Manchester Powerhouse Rail. Manchester is - without doubt - going to be a key central node on such a system, but we need to avoid the trap of assuming that it is the end of all lines. Lots of people already transit Manchester. With enhanced journey times, more will do so. Manchester is not the end of the line. Nor should it be.

Talk of a Metrolink underground route reminds me of the Market Street Subway in San Francisco which was completed in the 1970's (i.e., before silly money from silicon valley flooded in). San Fran proper only has around 800k residents with 4million in the wider conurbation, i.e, less than the 7-8 million in the North-West:

The top layer carries the Muni (municipal tram). Which also curiously runs along Market Street directly above. Albeit slower because of the road traffic, but much nicer.

The lower level carries the BART system, which is faster and only stops at certain stations.

The Market Street Subway was built using cut-and-cover. So the only real option for replicating would be to dig under the M602 or Princes Road. Unless one inverted the concept and built the rails above ground with the roads covered over below. This might be doable down the M602 Corridor as it's already in a cutting (which could be built over).

Here's a cross-section of Embacadero. MUNI trams on mid-levels, BART (or NPR) below. Which could be a template for Salford, Victoria, or Piccadilly:

View attachment 1407417

I might be getting off topic, but while we're on the subject of tunnelling under cities, I think it's worth noting that Liverpool was successful in obtaining the necessary funding from Whitehall to build the Wirral Line Loop and the Northern Line link in the 1970's. Merseyrail is still an incomplete network 50 years on. Nevertheless, the core section of the network which has been constructed has - without doubt - fundamentally transformed suburban rail transport connectively in the LCR. Manchester didn't obtain funding for the Pic-Vic tunnel which is similar to the Northern Line Link in concept and eventually plumped for light rail in the form of Metrolink.

Personally, I think Liverpool needs and lacks a tram system. Manchester needs and lacks a cohesive suburban heavy rail network. My hope is that taking fast, regional intercity services off commuter lines will (a) stimulate greater demand for regional intercity travel, and (b) open up opportunities for enhanced local services. As was oft said about HS2, it's not about speed; it's about capacity.

Warrington (and indeed Wigan) to Manchester is too great a distance with too many passengers to operate with Metrolink rolling stock in my opinion. If Merseyrail extends to Warrington, this could be an opportunity for GMPTE to grow a brandied identifiable heavy rail network. Starting perhaps with Warrington Central - Manchester - Stockport or Macclesfield?

I repeat; I don't have the answers. I just think it's foolheardy to push ahead with proposals which are clearly suboptimal when there's still time and scope to amend them. Apart from the issues with central Manchester, there are also issues with Birmingham Curson Street; a terminus with no connection to the Classic network. This seems a shame as the HS2 network could open up super quick journey times from the North to the South-West and South Wales. And of course, there's no guarantee that Liverpool will even have a dedicated spur but that's been done to death; I'll not be dredging that up for now(!).

NPR is a rare opportunity to think about how public transport in the region might look and develop over the next couple of hundred years. Think how much has changed since the 1830's and how much it might change in the next 200 years. Especially as issues such as climate change become more critical in shaping public discourse and political priorities.

Anyway, this has been interesting, but I think I'll bow out for now. My main takeaway point is this: We should not accept a 'make do' NPR proposal when we could have a much greater return on investment for comparatively little more investment. It might cost more, but still end up lower per head of capita than that which London receives. This would result in a greater long-term return on investment. Especially as this is likely to be the only significant rail development my yet unborn children and grandchildren will see in their lifetimes.

It simply has to be done right from day one.

Some interesting points you make there, and I agree with you about the issue of Liverpool needing a tram network and Manchester needing a better local rail network... both have what the other needs!

You have covered a lot, but I will focus on the valid points you raised on:

Principally what is Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) fundamentally meant to be.
Journey times between the main destinations.
Manchester needing & lacking a cohesive suburban rail network

All three issues are linked and NPR could deliver on these issues.

1. What is NPR?

I think this strikes at the heart of which point of view people take. Everything I read about NPR states a lot about journey times to Manchester from Liverpool & Leeds and journey times to Leeds from Newcastle, but never Liverpool to Leeds or Newcastle to Manchester. In fact Leeds to Manchester has always been the primary focus of attention, which is why there is so much debate about a via Bradford or a via Huddersfield line.

The objectives at a local politics level appears to be focussed on different things too:

Liverpool appears to focus more on a HS2 link first and a fast line to Manchester second
Leeds is now focussed more on the HS2 eastern branch, with the Leeds-Manchester link secondary.
Manchester wants to see a line that links both Piccadilly and the airport with east-west connections, while it seems to be the only one that has pushed an underground station and has gone quiet about that for many months now. It seems less worried about HS2, probably because the line is not under threat.

Therefore the focus from those who are pushing the whole project do not see it as a rail line to get from the every city to every city in the fastest possible time, but to get from a city to a neighbouring city in the fastest and more frequent time. This can have an effect on decisions for cross-Manchester and cross-Leeds infrastructure and given that it seems like Liverpool-Leeds is not a primary objective, and the overall trans pennine journey time is a secondary by-product.

This issue also speaks to your point about doing it right first time, because depending on what the true aspiration is, doing it right might mean a reversal at Piccadilly, while an underground station could represent a waste of capital investment that could be better served elsewhere (such as a Liverpool HS2 station).

2. Journey Times.

Originally we had a proposal which suggested a Liverpool-Manchester route aligned via the Chat Moss (20 mins Liv-Manc + 10 mins Manchester-Airport = 30 mins Liv-Airport). Yet over time this has changed. Liverpool wanted a direct HS2 link too and therefore with a focus of utilising HS2 track as much as possible, we have the via Warrington & Airport line. As a result, from a Liverpool perspective, the journey times to Manchester increase by 10 mins from the original aspiration, but the journey times to the airport decrease by 10 mins, while simultaneously finding a solution for the desire to have a proper HS2 spur.

Leeds-Manchester remains unaffected by this from the perspective of journey times and the only issue is how much the government is willing to back (NPR, Trans Pennine Route Upgrade (TRU) or a hybrid of the two).

Given the project has the pressures of a Liverpool HS2 spur and is required to utilise HS2 track as much as possible, we have the times below:

Route	Original Journey Time	Potential/Likely Journey Time	Route Summary
Liverpool - Manchester	20 mins	30 mins	Via Warrington & Airport.
Manchester - Leeds	30 mins	30-40 mins	30 mins with NPR, 40 mins with just TRU.
Manchester - Mcr Airport	10 mins	8 mins	HS2 line
Liverpool - Mcr Airport	30 mins	20 mins	via Warrington
Leeds - Mcr Airport	40 mins	40-50 mins	via Piccadilly HS2

The question here is whether those potential/likely journey times are acceptable. I’d argue yes they are (apart from the Leeds-Manchester TRU time. More needs to be done to reduce that, to at least 35 mins.

3. Manchester needing & lacking a cohesive suburban rail network

Granted that this is Manchester specific, but it is an important factor nonetheless. Any scenario that removes Trans Pennine Express, Cross Country and Avanti services from the existing lines will contribute to enabling a better local rail network. For that reason, any NPR route that requires use of the Castlefield route or the line through Salford Central to Victoria will mean that this issue also does not get resolved. However, it can enable better direct links between the commuter stations between Liverpool & Manchester and Leeds & Manchester, with the population along those existing routes to get to neighbouring city centres without having to change on to an NPR train to begin with.

greenfinch · Apr 25, 2021

Super Furry Animal said:
I do take your point here. As those of us who frequent these forums are all too aware, funding for infrastructure investment is an issue at the best of times. Rocking-the-boat might result in nothing. It could equally catalyse some amendments to the existing HS2 route to better incorporate NPR. Or at least get some passive provision built into it to facilitate expansion or revision in the future.

I've made a few suggestions over the past few days. I'm not saying I have the answers, or that what I've said is definitely correct.

What I do know is that NRP looks destined to be wholly suboptimal as a pan northern railway because it's trying to shoehorn as much as possible into civil engineering which forms part of HS2. Which was never designed with NPR in mind. So one of two things needs to happen:

(a) NPR needs to forge its own path and concentrate on how it can deliver on the aspirations it originally set out to achieve. The original objective was a 20 min journey from Liverpool to Manchester, then another 30 mins to Leeds. There was also an aspiration for a 10 minute connection between central Manchester and its airport. 50 mins from Liverpool to Leeds would quite simply be game changing to the commercial fortunes of the North. Liverpool to Leeds and all destinations in between could act as as single commercial unit. Journeys between them become short commutes, rather than exhausting full days out. And such journey times would undoubtedly encourage modal shift from car.

A 10 minute connection with Manchester Airport would similarly open up a lot of international commercial opportunities for surrounding businesses. I live in central London. Manchester Airport would be closer to Liverpool and Leeds city centres than Heathrow or Gatwick are to me presently. That would be very significant if it could be realised. Or;

(b) The design of the western leg of HS2 phase 2b needs to be revised so as to help to facilitate some of the deliverables of NPR.

My personal view is that a combination of the two is needed. NPR is Northern Powerhouse Rail. Not Manchester Powerhouse Rail. Manchester is - without doubt - going to be a key central node on such a system, but we need to avoid the trap of assuming that it is the end of all lines. Lots of people already transit Manchester. With enhanced journey times, more will do so. Manchester is not the end of the line. Nor should it be.

Talk of a Metrolink underground route reminds me of the Market Street Subway in San Francisco which was completed in the 1970's (i.e., before silly money from silicon valley flooded in). San Fran proper only has around 800k residents with 4million in the wider conurbation, i.e, less than the 7-8 million in the North-West:

The top layer carries the Muni (municipal tram). Which also curiously runs along Market Street directly above. Albeit slower because of the road traffic, but much nicer.

The lower level carries the BART system, which is faster and only stops at certain stations.

The Market Street Subway was built using cut-and-cover. So the only real option for replicating would be to dig under the M602 or Princes Road. Unless one inverted the concept and built the rails above ground with the roads covered over below. This might be doable down the M602 Corridor as it's already in a cutting (which could be built over).

Here's a cross-section of Embacadero. MUNI trams on mid-levels, BART (or NPR) below. Which could be a template for Salford, Victoria, or Piccadilly:

View attachment 1407417

I might be getting off topic, but while we're on the subject of tunnelling under cities, I think it's worth noting that Liverpool was successful in obtaining the necessary funding from Whitehall to build the Wirral Line Loop and the Northern Line link in the 1970's. Merseyrail is still an incomplete network 50 years on. Nevertheless, the core section of the network which has been constructed has - without doubt - fundamentally transformed suburban rail transport connectively in the LCR. Manchester didn't obtain funding for the Pic-Vic tunnel which is similar to the Northern Line Link in concept and eventually plumped for light rail in the form of Metrolink.

Personally, I think Liverpool needs and lacks a tram system. Manchester needs and lacks a cohesive suburban heavy rail network. My hope is that taking fast, regional intercity services off commuter lines will (a) stimulate greater demand for regional intercity travel, and (b) open up opportunities for enhanced local services. As was oft said about HS2, it's not about speed; it's about capacity.

Warrington (and indeed Wigan) to Manchester is too great a distance with too many passengers to operate with Metrolink rolling stock in my opinion. If Merseyrail extends to Warrington, this could be an opportunity for GMPTE to grow a brandied identifiable heavy rail network. Starting perhaps with Warrington Central - Manchester - Stockport or Macclesfield?

I repeat; I don't have the answers. I just think it's foolheardy to push ahead with proposals which are clearly suboptimal when there's still time and scope to amend them. Apart from the issues with central Manchester, there are also issues with Birmingham Curson Street; a terminus with no connection to the Classic network. This seems a shame as the HS2 network could open up super quick journey times from the North to the South-West and South Wales. And of course, there's no guarantee that Liverpool will even have a dedicated spur but that's been done to death; I'll not be dredging that up for now(!).

NPR is a rare opportunity to think about how public transport in the region might look and develop over the next couple of hundred years. Think how much has changed since the 1830's and how much it might change in the next 200 years. Especially as issues such as climate change become more critical in shaping public discourse and political priorities.

Anyway, this has been interesting, but I think I'll bow out for now. My main takeaway point is this: We should not accept a 'make do' NPR proposal when we could have a much greater return on investment for comparatively little more investment. It might cost more, but still end up lower per head of capita than that which London receives. This would result in a greater long-term return on investment. Especially as this is likely to be the only significant rail development my yet unborn children and grandchildren will see in their lifetimes.

It simply has to be done right from day one.

A tram link for Liverpool would be useful to link the airport via Liverpool South Parkway.

Super Furry Animal said:
I do take your point here. As those of us who frequent these forums are all too aware, funding for infrastructure investment is an issue at the best of times. Rocking-the-boat might result in nothing. It could equally catalyse some amendments to the existing HS2 route to better incorporate NPR. Or at least get some passive provision built into it to facilitate expansion or revision in the future.

I've made a few suggestions over the past few days. I'm not saying I have the answers, or that what I've said is definitely correct.

What I do know is that NRP looks destined to be wholly suboptimal as a pan northern railway because it's trying to shoehorn as much as possible into civil engineering which forms part of HS2. Which was never designed with NPR in mind. So one of two things needs to happen:

(a) NPR needs to forge its own path and concentrate on how it can deliver on the aspirations it originally set out to achieve. The original objective was a 20 min journey from Liverpool to Manchester, then another 30 mins to Leeds. There was also an aspiration for a 10 minute connection between central Manchester and its airport. 50 mins from Liverpool to Leeds would quite simply be game changing to the commercial fortunes of the North. Liverpool to Leeds and all destinations in between could act as as single commercial unit. Journeys between them become short commutes, rather than exhausting full days out. And such journey times would undoubtedly encourage modal shift from car.

A 10 minute connection with Manchester Airport would similarly open up a lot of international commercial opportunities for surrounding businesses. I live in central London. Manchester Airport would be closer to Liverpool and Leeds city centres than Heathrow or Gatwick are to me presently. That would be very significant if it could be realised. Or;

(b) The design of the western leg of HS2 phase 2b needs to be revised so as to help to facilitate some of the deliverables of NPR.

My personal view is that a combination of the two is needed. NPR is Northern Powerhouse Rail. Not Manchester Powerhouse Rail. Manchester is - without doubt - going to be a key central node on such a system, but we need to avoid the trap of assuming that it is the end of all lines. Lots of people already transit Manchester. With enhanced journey times, more will do so. Manchester is not the end of the line. Nor should it be.

Talk of a Metrolink underground route reminds me of the Market Street Subway in San Francisco which was completed in the 1970's (i.e., before silly money from silicon valley flooded in). San Fran proper only has around 800k residents with 4million in the wider conurbation, i.e, less than the 7-8 million in the North-West:

The top layer carries the Muni (municipal tram). Which also curiously runs along Market Street directly above. Albeit slower because of the road traffic, but much nicer.

The lower level carries the BART system, which is faster and only stops at certain stations.

The Market Street Subway was built using cut-and-cover. So the only real option for replicating would be to dig under the M602 or Princes Road. Unless one inverted the concept and built the rails above ground with the roads covered over below. This might be doable down the M602 Corridor as it's already in a cutting (which could be built over).

Here's a cross-section of Embacadero. MUNI trams on mid-levels, BART (or NPR) below. Which could be a template for Salford, Victoria, or Piccadilly:

View attachment 1407417

I might be getting off topic, but while we're on the subject of tunnelling under cities, I think it's worth noting that Liverpool was successful in obtaining the necessary funding from Whitehall to build the Wirral Line Loop and the Northern Line link in the 1970's. Merseyrail is still an incomplete network 50 years on. Nevertheless, the core section of the network which has been constructed has - without doubt - fundamentally transformed suburban rail transport connectively in the LCR. Manchester didn't obtain funding for the Pic-Vic tunnel which is similar to the Northern Line Link in concept and eventually plumped for light rail in the form of Metrolink.

Personally, I think Liverpool needs and lacks a tram system. Manchester needs and lacks a cohesive suburban heavy rail network. My hope is that taking fast, regional intercity services off commuter lines will (a) stimulate greater demand for regional intercity travel, and (b) open up opportunities for enhanced local services. As was oft said about HS2, it's not about speed; it's about capacity.

Warrington (and indeed Wigan) to Manchester is too great a distance with too many passengers to operate with Metrolink rolling stock in my opinion. If Merseyrail extends to Warrington, this could be an opportunity for GMPTE to grow a brandied identifiable heavy rail network. Starting perhaps with Warrington Central - Manchester - Stockport or Macclesfield?

I repeat; I don't have the answers. I just think it's foolheardy to push ahead with proposals which are clearly suboptimal when there's still time and scope to amend them. Apart from the issues with central Manchester, there are also issues with Birmingham Curson Street; a terminus with no connection to the Classic network. This seems a shame as the HS2 network could open up super quick journey times from the North to the South-West and South Wales. And of course, there's no guarantee that Liverpool will even have a dedicated spur but that's been done to death; I'll not be dredging that up for now(!).

NPR is a rare opportunity to think about how public transport in the region might look and develop over the next couple of hundred years. Think how much has changed since the 1830's and how much it might change in the next 200 years. Especially as issues such as climate change become more critical in shaping public discourse and political priorities.

Anyway, this has been interesting, but I think I'll bow out for now. My main takeaway point is this: We should not accept a 'make do' NPR proposal when we could have a much greater return on investment for comparatively little more investment. It might cost more, but still end up lower per head of capita than that which London receives. This would result in a greater long-term return on investment. Especially as this is likely to be the only significant rail development my yet unborn children and grandchildren will see in their lifetimes.

It simply has to be done right from day one.

I tram service would be very useful to improve airport access for LJLA from Liverpool South Parkway.

GJMarshy · Apr 28, 2021

A more refined alignment to the previous attempt with less tunnelling and onward connections to the northern WCML added which allow the Northern-Bound intercity trains from Manchester & Liverpool to be completely removed from the classic network:

The airport station would be connected to the terminals by the western rail link from the existing station which also allows trains from the Knutsford line to run into Manchester via the airport, and trains from Wilmslow to run via Altrincham. A people mover could also be added to provide more frequent transfers direct to T2. This would make for a very well connected station, in fact it would be one of the best connected in the work on-par with Schiphol.

Leeds No.1 · Apr 28, 2021

I don't think there should be stops in Warrington or Salford, at least not on HS2/NPR. The focus should be on Liverpool - Manchester - Leeds services with intermediate locations served by the upgraded existing networks and/or new and expanded urban metro/tram services.

Little Spoon · Apr 28, 2021

I’m not sure an underground line through Manchester should be an NPR or HS2 line at all, but rather a line that connects from the CLC for instance to the Hope Valley line, focussing purely on commuter traffic. Underground from Ardwick to Trafford Park. Fast NPR services then reverse at Piccadilly as currently planned.

Northumbriana · Apr 28, 2021

Little Spoon said:
I’m not sure an underground line through Manchester should be an NPR or HS2 line at all, but rather a line that connects from the CLC for instance to the Hope Valley line, focussing purely on commuter traffic. Underground from Ardwick to Trafford Park. Fast NPR services then reverse at Piccadilly as currently planned.

A Northern 'RER' network could probably all fit through Victoria and its four tracks if it was pretty much dedicated to the job. Could have a Manchester focused network connecting Blackpool, Southport, Liverpool, Warrington, Manchester Airport & Blackburn on one side to Bradford (via Rochdale), Bradford & Leeds (via Huddersfield) and Burnley on the other. With another network through Piccadilly linking from one of the Victoria branches (via Ordsal) and Liverpool (via Warrington) to Manchester Airport and Doncaster (via Sheffield).

Merseyrail would be another RER network focused on Liverpool. And Blackpool to York and Sheffield (via Bradford) to Leeds and Sheffield to Leeds (via Thurscoe & Wakefield) would be the Leeds RER network.

Then just as you say, NPR into Piccadilly with services from Edinburgh (via Newcastle), Middlesbrough, Sunderland, Scarborough and Hull.

Little Spoon · Apr 28, 2021

Northumbriana said:
A Northern 'RER' network could probably all fit through Victoria and its four tracks if it was pretty much dedicated to the job. Could have a Manchester focused network connecting Blackpool, Southport, Liverpool, Warrington, Manchester Airport & Blackburn on one side to Bradford (via Rochdale), Bradford & Leeds (via Huddersfield) and Burnley on the other. With another network through Piccadilly linking from one of the Victoria branches (via Ordsal) and Liverpool (via Warrington) to Manchester Airport and Doncaster (via Sheffield).

Merseyrail would be another RER network focused on Liverpool. And Blackpool to York and Sheffield (via Bradford) to Leeds and Sheffield to Leeds (via Thurscoe & Wakefield) would be the Leeds RER network.

Then just as you say, NPR into Piccadilly with services from Edinburgh (via Newcastle), Middlesbrough, Sunderland, Scarborough and Hull.

Yes I agree that the current network should form a RER network, with NPR going through Piccadilly HS2. Any underground line, if ever built, perhaps should be confined to Metrolink.

Vulcan's Finest · Apr 29, 2021

Following on from the wiring of Colton Junction to Church Fenton, now the other end of the route is seeing electrification work being started - or perhaps I should say restarted?

26 APR, 2021 BY CLAIRE SMITH

Work signals welcome start of Trans-Pennine Route Upgrade electrification

Network Rail has said that overnight piling work has started as part of work to electrify the railway between Manchester Victoria and Stalybridge on the Trans-Pennine Route Upgrade (TRU) scheme.The current phase of steel piling work between Collyhurst and Miles Platting will create foundations for planned mast and overhead electrification equipment and follows on from embankment reconstruction work in the area. The piling work is expected to be completed by the end of this year.

Network Rail director for TRU Neil Holm said: “The overnight piling is early enabling work as part of future plans to electrify the line between Manchester Victoria and Stalybridge, via Ashton, to improve passenger journeys".

Transport for the North has welcomed progress on the scheme but has called on the government to confirm the full extent of the project and to publish the Integrated Rail Plan, which is expected to include the project, in full. Transport for the North has said that committing to full electrification of the line would cut carbon emissions and provide additional track capacity to reduce bottlenecks.

Full article here: Piling work signals welcome start of Trans-Pennine Route Upgrade electrification | New Civil Engineer

eXSBass · Apr 30, 2021

Forgive me - what about from Staleybridge to Hull and Scarborough via Leeds?

Vulcan's Finest · Apr 30, 2021

eXSBass said:
Forgive me - what about from Staleybridge to Hull and Scarborough via Leeds?

Hull and Scarborough are not in the frame yet for wires (although the government finally seems to be listening about the need for a rolling program of electrification).

First off, TRU needs to deliver continuous wires from Liverpool /Manchester via Leeds to York.

The Northern Cities | Governance & Infrastructure (including HS3)

Super Furry Animal

Little Spoon

Super Furry Animal

Super Furry Animal

Little Spoon

Northumbriana

GJMarshy

Little Spoon

Scott Darwin

Super Furry Animal

Little Spoon

greenfinch

GJMarshy

Leeds No.1

Little Spoon

Northumbriana

Little Spoon

Vulcan's Finest

eXSBass

Vulcan's Finest

Top Contributors this Month

Recommended Communities