SkyscraperCity Forum banner

The Northern Cities | Governance & Infrastructure (including HS3)

1.3M views 10K replies 272 participants last post by  Little Spoon  
#1 ·
.
Image

Liverpool reflected in the Mersey: "Collaborating with other cities
and other countries is the future, and it helps to be able to shape
much of that future ourselves," says elected mayor Joe Anderson.



Will the north follow Scotland and search for greater power?

The most remarkable thing about the fast train between Liverpool and Leeds is that it doesn't exist. Sure, some trains move more swiftly than others, but there's none that even the most hucksterish rail operative would call fast. Not in 2014, between two of England's leading cities, both with aspirations to have futures as well as pasts.

So it is that an hour and three-quarters after setting off from Liverpool Lime Street, you arrive in Leeds, 60-odd miles away. A London train leaving Liverpool at the same time for the 210-mile journey would arrive only 20 minutes later. And that train would be full of people doing business, preparing for meetings. The Leeds train is not full of anyone much at all.

"Yep, not the greatest of journeys," says Keith Wakefield, leader of Leeds city council when I fetch up in his office, "but I've got a better illustration." A better illustration, that is, of how the northern cities fail to connect. Manchester, Leeds's neighbour across the Pennines, is 35 miles away or an hour by train. "But only half a per cent of Leeds people ever go to Manchester; and it's the same the other way round."

Wakefield's "half per cent" statistic might seem arcane but it says plenty about how England operates. Open a map and you can draw a neat, relatively short line linking Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds, moving across country. But people and businesses, tend not to move this way, as Wakefield suggests. Northerners who leave home, whether for the day or for good, tend to head south. All roads – and fast trains – lead to London.​


http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/aug/31/one-north-regeneration-railways-jobs-cities

'


Image

Manchester town hall: northern leaders have overcome past divisions
to bring forward a coherent plan for investment.



Whichever way Scotland votes, more power must be devolved in England

Even if the people of Scotland vote against independence, all of the mainstream political parties have promised Holyrood greater powers and responsibilities. If the nation avoids separation, this could still precipitate a constitutional conundrum south of the border as England – led by its core cities – asks "What about us?" The upcoming conference season will be a good time for politicians to offer some answers.

IPPR North has long argued that greater English devolution can both unlock national economic prosperity and drive a new wave of public service reform.​


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/31/however-scotland-votes-england-must-change

'


Image


Why the ‘One North’ transport proposals make my heart sink


According to a popular online journey planner, I could at this moment leave my front door in south Manchester and, using public transport, be in the centre of Leeds in an hour and a quarter. I could travel to the centre of Liverpool in one hour and two minutes. Getting to the large Sharston industrial estate, in south Manchester, would also take me exactly one hour and two minutes.

As a proud resident of the north of England, I am not lacking in visions of how life here could be improved. Strangely, these have never included taking a diagonal sash stretching from Newcastle to Liverpool and transforming it into an ersatz imitation of the south-east commuter belt. Economic investment and regeneration are desperately needed, of course, and perhaps I should be cheering the proposals announced today by the civic leaders of five big cities to improve transport infrastructure to the tune of £15bn and create an economic powerhouse under the banner One North.

In truth, the plans and their paucity of imagination makes my heart sink. Who will really benefit from these developments? It is unlikely to be the poorest, the jobless, those on the merry-go-round of insecure, low-paid employment. People in poverty need employment opportunities close to home, not because they do not have the time to travel, but because they do not have the money. Despite being the most densely populated major country in Europe, England has longer and more expensive commutes than any competing country, with train passengers in particular paying up to three times as much in real terms to get to and from work each day. I can only shrug at proposals to make public transport faster, when the real need is to make them cheaper.​


http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...commentisfree/2014/aug/05/one-north-transport-proposals-england-northern-cities

.
 
See less See more
Preview image for a collapsed post.
3
#8,081 ·
Call it blue-sky thinking or whatever, but it would turn 3 HS2 captive routes into just one; clockwise & anti-clockwise. It’s also a much more efficient system in terms of throughput, cost & capacity.
There's no reason to think a circular network is more efficient though. Circle lines are a nightmare to operate - there's a reason why LU got rid of circular operation on the circle line, and why other systems (e.g. Nexus) have avoided loops.
 
#8,082 ·
Well we've already known that more tram-train is the plan at the Sheffield HS2/NPR 'hub' for at least two years, as there was something posted on SSC quoting Clive Betts MP as saying the preferred way for creating the extra capacity needed was to convert existing local rail services over to TT. That would free up platforms at Sheffield station, but of course it helps there that Sheffield to Mexborough has two parallel rail lines - one which is the congested fast line (part of the Midland Loop) needed for NPR (and any Leeds HS2 service via Sheff - eg the modelled Brum CS - Leeds 2tph) and the other slower bendy freight line already being a Tram-Traiin line as far as east Rotherham; so not as easily (cheaply) done in the other cities perhaps.

Of course HS2 Ltd and TfN will expect such TT extensions / conversions to be funded locally by the Combined Authorities, so it conveniently gets the job of increasing residual capacity for their projects off their balance sheet. This is the sort of thing I meant in the above post about moving public money from one silo to another to disguise true costs.
What services would shift to tram-train? As far as I can make out most services running north of Sheffield are regional or long-distance and unsuitable for conversion. So you'd not release much capacity.
 
#8,083 ·
What services would shift to tram-train? As far as I can make out most services running north of Sheffield are regional or long-distance and unsuitable for conversion. So you'd not release much capacity.
Services from Piccadilly to Glossop/Hadfield and Rose Hill could move to tram train, which may bring about segregation of the line through Guide Bridge between NPR services and Metrolink & Sheffield stoppers. Given the plane from GM and designing the new metrolink station in a tunnel, it suggests to me that this is a part of the thinking.
 
#8,084 ·
Services from Piccadilly to Glossop/Hadfield and Rose Hill could move to tram train, which may bring about segregation of the line through Guide Bridge between NPR services and Metrolink & Sheffield stoppers. Given the plane from GM and designing the new metrolink station in a tunnel, it suggests to me that this is a part of the thinking.
Sorry, was thinking specifically in respect to Sheffield station and its northern approaches.
 
#8,086 ·
What services would shift to tram-train? As far as I can make out most services running north of Sheffield are regional or long-distance and unsuitable for conversion. So you'd not release much capacity.
No I don't think loads of capacity could be released this way, and for some PAX (say Doncaster to Sheffield) the converted service might be poorer (longer end to end time if they work near Sheffield station rather than the city centre 'proper'). But that's what the MP revealed and I've seen it repeated in press reports, though I don't think it's ever been revealed which services they were proposing.

I assume it must be accompanied by a recasting of service patterns - as you say most trains north out of Sheffield go to mid to long distance ultimate destinations, but its often these that have to serve the commuter intermediate stops like Rotherham Central, Swinton, Mexborough, Conisbrough; move those over to TT on the parallel 'freight line' as far as Mexborough then extended on the main line as far as Donny - where the bonus could be future street running of this TT in central/suburban Doncaster (Donny gets a tram system on the cheap as an extension of Sheffield's).
As NPR proposals are rumoured to include a new Dearne Valley Parkway station (at Goldthorpe or Thurnscoe area, nr the new junction with HS2) as an intermediate on the Sheff-Leeds NPR link the chain of short separated existing halt stations at Bolton-u-D, Goldthorpe, Thurnscoe could be closed to local rail (consolidated)? Maybe a street run extension of TT from Swinton would make up for that?

The other one I think WAS mentioned was converting the line to Worksop that runs East out of Sheffield and serves local stations such as Darnall and Woodhouse (with proposals to open a new station at the Advanced Manufacturing Park/Waverley Housing development). That line bears off a little way north of Sheffield Station so it contributes to the worst pinch point at the northern throat.

I think the issue is not just about relieving some of the existing capacity for HS2/NPR but also realising that continued PAX growth was going to demand more and more local rail services into Sheffield and TT conversion would mitigate this too.
 
#8,087 ·

Maybe elements of truth, maybe not.

Looks like announcement could be sooner rather than later though.
 
#8,088 ·

Maybe elements of truth, maybe not.

Looks like announcement could be sooner rather than later though.
IMHO this is the better approach. It enables a faster delivery of NPR due to the use of existing infrastructure and maximises the investment in the Trans Pennine Route Upgrade (TRU)

I have always found it curious that TRU plans have omitted Piccadilly to Stalybridge and Stalybridge to Huddersfield thus far. The journey times between Leeds & Manchester after the planned TRU work is 43 minutes (down from 49 minutes). Therefore by building a shorter stretch of new line between Piccadilly and Huddersfield, it is reasonable to expect journey times at around 35 minutes to be established.
 
#8,089 ·
Repeating what I said elsewhere , but,

"We shall see, but whenever there is a leak from a senior civil servant to a newspaper about a project there is often an axe to grind in one direction to another. I remember Stories in the Times about a senior civil servant boasting about cancelling Crossrail when Cameron came to power . I know Gus O'Donnell has been very vocal in calling Hs2 a white elephant and that is should never have been agreed to."
 
#8,090 ·
Repeating what I said elsewhere , but,

"We shall see, but whenever there is a leak from a senior civil servant to a newspaper about a project there is often an axe to grind in one direction to another. I remember Stories in the Times about a senior civil servant boasting about cancelling Crossrail when Cameron came to power . I know Gus O'Donnell has been very vocal in calling Hs2 a white elephant and that is should never have been agreed to."
Got to say the narrative behind this story in a newspaper with no credibility for decent reporting of infrastructure schemes is incoherent. It looks to have been planted for political purposes to create outrage - or maybe even to make Boris look good when it doesn't happen. Note the claims were not picked up by other media.

I recall plenty of similar scare stories about HS2, that it was about to be cancelled - all were tosh. :rolleyes:

I doubt HS2 was really much of a factor in that silly bi-election result, where there was a lot of tactical voting. It will revert to being Tory-held in the next GE.

"could be scrapped at a secret Whitehall meeting this week"
Meaning it won't be.....
 
#8,091 ·
The headline of NPR being scrapped is just for clicks, but rather if it becomes a case of the full bells & whistles NPR via Bradford not going ahead in place of a route via Huddersfield with a combo of upgrades (Trans Pennine Route Upgrade - TRU) plus shorter sections of new build, then that is not NPR being scrapped, but different. It is also a far more pragmatic option, making the most of TRU.
 
#8,092 ·
The headline of NPR being scrapped is just for clicks, but rather if it becomes a case of the full bells & whistles NPR via Bradford not going ahead in place of a route via Huddersfield with a combo of upgrades (Trans Pennine Route Upgrade - TRU) plus shorter sections of new build, then that is not NPR being scrapped, but different. It is also a far more pragmatic option, making the most of TRU.
To make the most of TRU, you would turn the existing line into a high frequency commuter route - imagine the Airedale and Wharfedale lines on steroids. But this requires the removal of long distance services. You could, perhaps, achieve this by upgrades and cut-offs along the existing route to create a fully four-tracked route to separate the long distance and commuter trains, but then why constrain yourself to the existing route? It sounds like penny-pinching and misses a golden opportunity to connect Bradford properly.
 
#8,093 ·
I mean £4billion difference in costs isn't pennies, although it depends on whether you're providing benefits of the same scale.

The big problem with the NPR programme seems to me to be that the government doesn't really understand how the economies of the northern city-regions function, and the northern politicians didn't really understand what the government wanted the scheme to achieve. There are many perfectly good reasons not to serve places like Bradford, Huddersfield and Warrington with a system like NPR, but if you don't connect those places into the network directly they won't just magically start functioning as suburbs of Liverpool or Leeds.
 
#8,094 · (Edited)
To make the most of TRU, you would turn the existing line into a high frequency commuter route - imagine the Airedale and Wharfedale lines on steroids. But this requires the removal of long distance services. You could, perhaps, achieve this by upgrades and cut-offs along the existing route to create a fully four-tracked route to separate the long distance and commuter trains, but then why constrain yourself to the existing route? It sounds like penny-pinching and misses a golden opportunity to connect Bradford properly.
I see your point, and I agree with it, but isn’t that situation predominantly an issue where we only have TRU and nothing more? If say, the NPR project becomes a mix of new-build line between Manchester Piccadilly & Huddersfield plus utilising TRU between Huddersfield & Leeds, then you can get the high capacity commuter benefits west of Huddersfield on the existing line. East of Huddersfield, TRU is four-tracking as far as Ravenshorpe, which TRU is enabling an increase in stoppers & semi-fast services.

As @Cherguevara said, there appears to be a lack of understanding about what the government really wants from this scheme and the government’s understanding of what the economies of the northern cities need. So as an academic question, what service provision would be optimal between Leeds & Manchester? How many fast intercity services? How many commuter services?

TRU (on it’s own) is set to facilitate 4 fast, 2 semi-fast and 2 stoppers each hour on the Huddersfield line. If there is a section of new build line between Manchester Piccadilly & Huddersfield, then there is available capacity vacated on the route through Stalybridge to Victoria for higher frequency commuting services.
 
#8,095 ·
As @Cherguevara said, there appears to be a lack of understanding about what the government really wants from this scheme and the government’s understanding of what the economies of the northern cities need. So as an academic question, what service provision would be optimal between Leeds & Manchester? How many fast intercity services? How many commuter services?

TRU (on it’s own) is set to facilitate 6 fast, 2 semi-fast and 2 stoppers each hour on the Huddersfield line. If there is a section of new build line between Manchester Piccadilly & Huddersfield, then there is available capacity vacated on the route through Stalybridge to Victoria for higher frequency commuting services.
I don't think you can start to ask that question until you decide what kind of spatial hierarchy you want. If you want to boost the secondary centres of West Yorkshire and the Mersey/Cheshire area then it doesn't just matter what the provision is between Manchester and Leeds or Manchester, but between the smaller centres and their larger neighbours too. No amount of intervention based around the TPU can deliver the kind of services such a strategy would need.

The problem with the whole agglomeration agenda in the north has been that both national and local politicians refuse to make explicit the likely trade offs of any decisions. The NIC model broke this down pretty well; you can either have superManchester and prosperous smaller centres, or you can have two roughly equal metropolitan hubs (Manchester and Leeds) plus some backwater cities. If central government had said "from a rail investment POV we only really care about the connections between the major metropolitan hubs" then the response would probably have been TPU plus x £billion for intracity transport infrastructure, but what they said was we want to "Level Up" the towns and cities in the north, which from a northern perspective looks like "we want to increase activity in Bradford, Wakefield, Sheffield, Barnsley etc." It would appear they want to do the former, but get the credit for doing the latter.
 
#8,096 ·
I don't think you can start to ask that question until you decide what kind of spatial hierarchy you want. If you want to boost the secondary centres of West Yorkshire and the Mersey/Cheshire area then it doesn't just matter what the provision is between Manchester and Leeds or Manchester, but between the smaller centres and their larger neighbours too. No amount of intervention based around the TPU can deliver the kind of services such a strategy would need.

The problem with the whole agglomeration agenda in the north has been that both national and local politicians refuse to make explicit the likely trade offs of any decisions. The NIC model broke this down pretty well; you can either have superManchester and prosperous smaller centres, or you can have two roughly equal metropolitan hubs (Manchester and Leeds) plus some backwater cities. If central government had said "from a rail investment POV we only really care about the connections between the major metropolitan hubs" then the response would probably have been TPU plus x £billion for intracity transport infrastructure, but what they said was we want to "Level Up" the towns and cities in the north, which from a northern perspective looks like "we want to increase activity in Bradford, Wakefield, Sheffield, Barnsley etc." It would appear they want to do the former, but get the credit for doing the latter.
‘Levelling up’ has always been an election slogan, which has been designed to mean whatever we want it to mean, but therefore means nothing at all.

Regarding the service provision that is required, I think we have to make an assumption first and foremost, but answervitvfrom the perspective of what does Leeds & Manchester need? Therefore what does Bradford, Huddersfield, Stalybridge need?

As a hypothesis I’d argue there should at a minimum be:
  • 4 fast trains per hour between Leeds & Manchester, calling at Huddersfield, within 35 minutes.
  • 4 commuter trains per hour between Leeds & Manchester, calling at stations such as Huddersfield, Dewsbury, Stalybridge, Greenfield, Mossley, Slaithwait etc.
Therefore how can that be delivered, given that TRU enables 4 fast (in 43 minutes), 2 semi-fast & 2 stoppers?
 
#8,098 ·

Apparently the reports of NPR being scrapped have been denied.
As have claims that covid added £1.6 billion to the cost of HS2. Just scaremongering by the usual suspects, treat these stories as B/S.


Downing Street has dismissed reports that the cost of the HS2 high speed rail line has risen by £1.6bn as a result of the Covid pandemic.

And Boris Johnson's spokesman said the Government is still committed to building Northern Powerhouse Rail - which will connect HS2 to destinations such as Liverpool, Newcastle and Hull - despite claims that the scheme could be scrapped.

Boris Johnson's spokesman said reports that Northern Powerhouse Rail will be axed are wrong. Speaking to journalists, he acknowledged there had been speculation the Government would scrap Northern Powerhouse Rail, adding: "And that is incorrect."
 
#8,099 ·
Unless it’s a classic “leak to see what the reaction is and then backtrack when we realise it’s a terrible idea”.

Good news it’s back on. Can’t wait for the next report which will in itself call for another report, and then another report, and then a feasibility study to test whether they should release another report.
 
#8,100 ·
As have claims that covid added £1.6 billion to the cost of HS2. Just scaremongering by the usual suspects, treat these stories as B/S.

To be honest I think the truth sits somewhere in the middle. Yes, NPR via Bradford may be canned, but NPR via Huddersfield might go ahead.