Jump to content
Image restoration from pre-May 2021 continues and may take an indefinite period of time.

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

 

Apologies for 2005 - my recollection was a comment by Mike Storey about the  HS2  network "as concieved in 2005" which I am now not able to locate. I had got the impression from his postings that he might have been involved with the development of the original proposal in some way, so assumed that would be authoratative.

 

2005 was meant as "date for start of work drawing up original proposal" - I take it 2009 is when Network Rail put a proposal on the table for government approval?

 

My point about the Phase 2a hybrid bill is indeed - project "approved" in 2009, Phase 2a bill not lodged until 2017 = 8 years lost without even putting a bill before parliament. We are now 12 years from first "approval" and the legislative process for Phase 2b will not even begin for several years...

 

Under such circumstances Government approval becomes a somewhat meaningless concept , which is why I keep putting it in inverted commas

 

It seems that it may be 20 years between an initial design team sitting down and saying "Let's go to Leeds and Manchester! What  needs to be done?" and any enabling legislation for HS2 East being laid before parliament  (never mind any actual vonstruction or opening). That's a quite grotesque lead time

Having said that, the plan was always to progress Phase 1 first, so a fairer comparison would be from 2009 up to the Phase 1 hybrid bill, which was published in 2013.  During that four year period it was necessary to define a route, do several stages of business case, design it, carry out consultation and re-work as required.  Royal Assent was in 2017 but main contracts didn't start until 2020.  Some of that period was definitely government delay but some may have been taken up with tendering and selecting contractors, and some was "enabling works" let on a separate contract as they would have delayed the main work if not started early.  

 

Phase 2a could have been done in similar timescales had the government wanted to, and importantly if the design industry had the capacity to do both at once.  

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Edwin_m said:

Having said that, the plan was always to progress Phase 1 first, so a fairer comparison would be from 2009 up to the Phase 1 hybrid bill, which was published in 2013.  During that four year period it was necessary to define a route, do several stages of business case, design it, carry out consultation and re-work as required.  Royal Assent was in 2017 but main contracts didn't start until 2020.  Some of that period was definitely government delay but some may have been taken up with tendering and selecting contractors, and some was "enabling works" let on a separate contract as they would have delayed the main work if not started early.  

 

Phase 2a could have been done in similar timescales had the government wanted to, and importantly if the design industry had the capacity to do both at once.  

 

 

A further serious issue then is that it is taking 4 years to get a hybrid bill through parliament. I know that

 a general election intervened in both cases, and in the case of Phase 2a there were a lot of other major issues affecting parliament in 2017-2021. But it is still shocking, given that other , often lengthy, bills are normally passed in a single session of under a year.

 

Really we need the bill for Phase 2b West deposited in the next 12 months to get it through before the general election.

 

I think something was said about trying to break the presumption that Parliament can only manage one hybrid bill at a time, and also about preparing bills for more manageable sized pieces, presumably in the hope they will go through more quickly

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

(that again raises the issue of how the North West is getting everything, and those east of the Pennines must wait...)

 

Since Yorkshire is Gods own county I'm sure the good Lord will provide !!!!!!!!!!

 

Brit15

  • Like 1
  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 01/12/2021 at 20:20, Ravenser said:

 

 

If this was the spirit within the team drawing up the original HS2 proposal , it becomes obvious why the East Midlands was so badly served by the initial proposal.

 

I am deeply uncomfortable with the idea of conurbations and regions being openly labelled as "inferior" and "superior"

 

1. It is unlikely the date for getting to Leeds has been delayed , because it was so far in the future  to start with. It always was at least 20 years from now

 

We have a decade to design a light rail system for Leeds and another decade to build it in time for HS2 to run through to Leeds on the original timetable for opening. In a sane world that should be quite enough. Pretty well all the London Underground deep tubes were designed and built in a period of 15 years.

 

2. I'm unclear that there has been any delay to NPR opening, since there was no firm agreed proposal, and therefore no timetable for doing it.  Utilising part of HS2 West will arguably speed opening, since there are fewer NPR works to carry out, requiring fewer skilled resources (which are finite)  It will also reinforce the economics of both HS2 West and NPR. In general a smaller construction project ought to proceed faster than a large one, all other things being equal.

 

3. If Nottingham generated less passenger traffic than Derby despite a greater population that is perhaps a reflection of the train service provided. Perhaps there is potential for a better service to Nottingham to generate a good deal more traffic?

 

However deeply disturbed you are, it is a provable fact that High Speed lines work at their best if segregated and if pointed at primary flows only. The relegation of HS2 East to a mediocre shunt-along in between locals and MML services will, in no doubt, consign this part of HS2 to the dustbin, after experience in service, even it even gets that far. Just how will that "benefit" the East Midlands?

 

If you honestly think that an entire Mass Transit system, to the extent envisaged for West Yorkshire, can be developed, designed and delivered inside 20 years, then I suggest you visit the doctor, urgently.

 

Nice try on NPR timescales - just as evasive as any politician on what has happened so far. What was "promised", by this govt, was that the delay to approving HS2 Phase 2b would result in a coordinated NPR/HS2 approach for the entire scheme. It has not. It has just merely promised a further review of what had already been "reviewed".

 

HS2 Phase 2 West had mostly already been brought forward to be built in conjunction with Phase 1. Your logic makes no sense.

 

Nottingham, as far as I am aware, had pretty much the same service as Derby. How does your explanation work exactly?

 

As for historic timescales, others have covered much of what you have either falsified or totally exaggerated, but your quaint assertion about my involvement in HS2, leading to you believing a false start date, is concerning (as I was actually working on the 2012 Olympics by then). In fact, Network Rail did produce a plan in 2010, which was vastly different to that which HMG eventually approved, but it was generated by a clear belief that upgrading existing lines would take twice as long and be twice as expensive. A lesson apparently "unlearned" by this lot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

 

However deeply disturbed you are, it is a provable fact that High Speed lines work at their best if segregated and if pointed at primary flows only. The relegation of HS2 East to a mediocre shunt-along in between locals and MML services will, in no doubt, consign this part of HS2 to the dustbin, after experience in service, even it even gets that far. Just how will that "benefit" the East Midlands?

 

If you honestly think that an entire Mass Transit system, to the extent envisaged for West Yorkshire, can be developed, designed and delivered inside 20 years, then I suggest you visit the doctor, urgently.

 

Nice try on NPR timescales - just as evasive as any politician on what has happened so far. What was "promised", by this govt, was that the delay to approving HS2 Phase 2b would result in a coordinated NPR/HS2 approach for the entire scheme. It has not. It has just merely promised a further review of what had already been "reviewed".

 

HS2 Phase 2 West had mostly already been brought forward to be built in conjunction with Phase 1. Your logic makes no sense.

 

Nottingham, as far as I am aware, had pretty much the same service as Derby. How does your explanation work exactly?

 

As for historic timescales, others have covered much of what you have either falsified or totally exaggerated, but your quaint assertion about my involvement in HS2, leading to you believing a false start date, is concerning (as I was actually working on the 2012 Olympics by then). In fact, Network Rail did produce a plan in 2010, which was vastly different to that which HMG eventually approved, but it was generated by a clear belief that upgrading existing lines would take twice as long and be twice as expensive. A lesson apparently "unlearned" by this lot.

Mike, can I suggest you've been living outside the UK for too long if you think that is an acceptable way to respond to someone's assertions that you happen to disagree with.  For what it's worth, two things occur to me about the recent announcements, which lead me to accept the conclusions:

1. You can't have a genuinely high speed service between EM Parkway and Leeds which stops at Toton, Chesterfield and Sheffield.  A train service either operates at high speed, or it stops.  It breaks the laws of physics to do both.

2.  ANY solution proposed for Bradford would be sub-optimal.  The city cannot escape the fact that it is on the "wrong" side of Leeds and surrounded by steep hills.  You either have a line that is convenient for Bradford or convenient for everywhere else.  Bradford has two convenient links to Leeds, the second of which should have been electrified decades ago and now will be, at some point.....

 

Going back a few pages the Leeds West congestion was discussed.  Now admittedly, this was only one day's observation and only mine, but 3 years ago I spent the evening rush hour "spotting" at the West end of Leeds platforms.  There were an enormous number of train movements and the vast majority were no more than 3 coaches long (some were Pacers, now thankfully gone but have they been replaced by anything longer?).  In my youth I travelled on the (less-frequent, I accept) Trans-Pennine services which were a Type 4 and 8 coaches.  If you're running out of capacity, you don't fill all the available paths with short trains, you lengthen the trains; if there is a shortage of DMUs, well the UK is awash with off-lease EMUs, so how about some local electrification?

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

Nottingham, as far as I am aware, had pretty much the same service as Derby. 

They may be equivalent to London but there are other places to travel to, and which will benefit from HS2.  Nottingham to Birmingham is over an hour, including several minutes reversing in Derby, and will be less than half that if HS2 is built as proposed in the IRP.  Derby to Birmingham has twice as many trains (in non-Covid-times), including some that skip the stops that Nottingham trains make.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

and surrounded by steep hills.

Can I suggest examining what has been done in South Korea? S Korea is a very mountainous place - but when the high speed line from Seoul to Busan was created, they don't seem to have worried too much about the mountains and simply bored any number of tunnels through those mountains to get the railway where it needed to go. It is very impressive. Surely we can copy their example?

 

Yours, Mike.

Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, KingEdwardII said:

Can I suggest examining what has been done in South Korea? S Korea is a very mountainous place - but when the high speed line from Seoul to Busan was created, they don't seem to have worried too much about the mountains and simply bored any number of tunnels through those mountains to get the railway where it needed to go. It is very impressive. Surely we can copy their example?

 

Yours, Mike.

Technically possible, but the combined population of Seoul and Busan is approaching ten times that of the Leeds-Bradford conurbation, so rather easier to justify in Korea.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Northmoor said:

 

 

Going back a few pages the Leeds West congestion was discussed.  Now admittedly, this was only one day's observation and only mine, but 3 years ago I spent the evening rush hour "spotting" at the West end of Leeds platforms.  There were an enormous number of train movements and the vast majority were no more than 3 coaches long (some were Pacers, now thankfully gone but have they been replaced by anything longer?).  


Not to take anything away from your post as I largely concur with what you’ve posted, but just to elaborate a little on your one evening rush hour observation from three years ago.

 

The Serco/Abellio Northern Rail franchise had probably ended a short period before your observation, but you might recall that that franchise was originally let as a ‘no growth’ franchise so it was always going to be an uphill struggle to match available rolling stock against a background at that time of increasing passenger numbers using Leeds.

 

The incoming replacement Arriva Northern Trains franchise largely inherited the existing rolling stock position from Northern Rail, but with plans for additional new build DMUs and EMUs - classes 195 & 331 constructed by CAF - which have been introduced and have had their own teething problems.  Added to which of course the franchise only lasted a little over three years until operations were taken over by DfT Directly Operated Railways under the ‘Northern’ brand.  
 

Three years ago virtually all TransPennine Express (TPE) services were in the hands of single 3 car class 185 units*  From memory, only a very very small number of peak hour services were operated with two units.

 

Yes,  as you say,  the Pacers have gone.  But in my part of West Yorkshire the two services that were previously operated by 2 or 3 car class 144s are now worked by refurbished 2 car 150s or 158s.

 


*Those with a long memory will recall that there was a proposal in the late 2000s  to build some non-powered trailers to extend most of the TPE class 185s to 4 cars.  DfT prevaricated and the opportunity was lost. 

Edited by 4630
  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

All this farting about in the UK whilst China has built a new high speed line from China to the capital of Laos, Vientiane, (Not in Yorkshire !!!!!) - opens tomorrow. Soon onwards through Thailand to Singapore. Will be built and running before our government publishes a map of our "proposals" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

https://www.voanews.com/a/china-launches-high-speed-rail-through-laos-in-first-leg-of-southeast-asia-corridor/6336517.html

 

It's absolutely pathetic what is happening in this country, the place where railways were invented.

 

I'm absolutely disgusted with our useless government. Useless in every category. (and the opposition ain't any better).

 

What do we plan ? - HS2 through Warrington Bank Quay Low Level - Yippee, can't wait  !!!!

 

Brit15

 

 

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, APOLLO said:

All this farting about in the UK whilst China has built a new high speed line from China to the capital of Laos, Vientiane, (Not in Yorkshire !!!!!) - opens tomorrow. Soon onwards through Thailand to Singapore. Will be built and running before our government publishes a map of our "proposals" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

https://www.voanews.com/a/china-launches-high-speed-rail-through-laos-in-first-leg-of-southeast-asia-corridor/6336517.html

 

It's absolutely pathetic what is happening in this country, the place where railways were invented.

 

I'm absolutely disgusted with our useless government. Useless in every category. (and the opposition ain't any better).

 

What do we plan ? - HS2 through Warrington Bank Quay Low Level - Yippee, can't wait  !!!!

 

Brit15

 

 

 

 

 

Whilst I very much agree that the UK spends way too much time (and money) on consultants reports, puts them in a draw , waits then decides to have another report. Rinse and repeat to make it look as something is happening whilst doing absolutely nothing we should never forget China is an authoritarian dictatorship whose government can do whatever they wish. Should your property or business be inconveniently in the way of a project you have little say in the process and most likely have to accept whatever compensation offered. Courts are controlled by the party so no point in challenging there. 

Edited by class26
  • Like 3
  • Agree 7
  • Round of applause 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, APOLLO said:

I 100% agree re China, well those who run it, the CCP.

 

However they DO get things done quickly.

 

Brit15

I'll not comment on the politics of China but IIRC the German HS lines (NBS?) were very slow to get approval because of the checks and balances in their constitution that limit the power of the central government that were put in the post war constitution for very good historical reasons.

 

Jamie

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, class26 said:

 

 we should never forget China is an authoritarian dictatorship whose government can do whatever they wish. Should your property or business be inconveniently in the way of a project you have little say in the process and most likely have to accept whatever compensation offered. Courts are controlled by the party so no point in challenging there. 

Yep

The new High Speed Line into Hong Kong, just bulldozed it's way through residential areas with no objections tolerated.

Using China as a comparison is IMHO null & void.

Even Chinese state police covered the security even though Hong Kong was nominally autonomous at the time.

 

Best compare the UK with European countries, several of which have developed HS lines, e.g. France, Spain, Italy, Germany.

Edited by melmerby
  • Agree 3
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, KingEdwardII said:

Can I suggest examining what has been done in South Korea? S Korea is a very mountainous place - but when the high speed line from Seoul to Busan was created, they don't seem to have worried too much about the mountains and simply bored any number of tunnels through those mountains to get the railway where it needed to go. It is very impressive. Surely we can copy their example?

 

Yours, Mike.

 

 

The Midland went round that one with it's West Riding Lines project, a long time ago.

 

Versions 1.0 and 2.0 involved tunnels under Bradford of the order of 5 miles lone, with a sub-surface station at Forster Square , and lines rising to join the Forster Square - Shipley line to the north.

 

Version 3.0 involved a high level route carried across Bradford city centre on a long viaduct, and a high-level station next to Forster Square. Bradford Corporation were desperate enough for a main line to London to back this . WW1 intervened and the scheme was quietly dropped in 1919

 

I again note that the whole of the deep tube network under Central London was proposed, designed, built and opened in under 20 years before 1914, without resort to martial law or shooting people. More recently the Docklands Light Railway was concieved in 1981, and the initial system opened in 1987. By 1991 it had been extended to Bank, and a major upgrade to the initial system completed in 1992. The first study relating to what became Croydon Tramlink took place in 1985-6; the system opened in 2000. I can't recall the exact dates for the Tyne and Wear Metro, but I think they were of the order of 10 years from concept to opening.  In the 1980s and 1990s , we were already a democracy

 

If it now takes over 20 years to build a modest light rail project then we need to get our finger out and sort out the grotesque waste of time . There have already been 2 sets of light rail proposals for Leeds, so I don't think we are quite starting cold, and we ought to be a little way into the process. Having regard to the time lines for the Tyne and Wear Metro, DLR, Tramlink, Sheffield Supertram, Manchester Metrolink, Midlands Metro and NET - all pretty comparable systems - a decade from here to get a initial  system running does not seem unreasonable. I'm not clear why it should now take twice as long as it did a generation ago

 

My feeling is that where HS2 East is heading is, literally, Bradford Interchange, via a new route into Leeds from the east. Effectively it becomes the Midland Mainline 2.0 ,. extended back to West Yorkshire, reversing Beeching's cut-back of the route. Such a service would certainly tap into Bradford as a market - changing at Leeds to an ECML service is not particularly competitive, as we see today. With HS2 providing extra capacity and a back up to current ECML services at Leeds , both conurbations in West Yorkshire are served, and that ought to be sufficient to underpin HS2 Easts economics.

Edited by Ravenser
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

VIENTIANE: A sleek red, blue and white bullet train departed a new Vientiane station on Friday signalling the opening of Laos' US$6 billion Chinese-built railway -- a project tangled in debt and high hopes of an economic boost.

The 414-kilometre route took five years to construct under China's trillion-dollar Belt and Road Initiative.

 

https://www.bangkokpost.com/business/2226147/laos-opens-chinese-built-railway-line

 

Brit15

  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Northmoor said:

Mike, can I suggest you've been living outside the UK for too long if you think that is an acceptable way to respond to someone's assertions that you happen to disagree with.  For what it's worth, two things occur to me about the recent announcements, which lead me to accept the conclusions:

1. You can't have a genuinely high speed service between EM Parkway and Leeds which stops at Toton, Chesterfield and Sheffield.  A train service either operates at high speed, or it stops.  It breaks the laws of physics to do both.

2.  ANY solution proposed for Bradford would be sub-optimal.  The city cannot escape the fact that it is on the "wrong" side of Leeds and surrounded by steep hills.  You either have a line that is convenient for Bradford or convenient for everywhere else.  Bradford has two convenient links to Leeds, the second of which should have been electrified decades ago and now will be, at some point.....

 

Going back a few pages the Leeds West congestion was discussed.  Now admittedly, this was only one day's observation and only mine, but 3 years ago I spent the evening rush hour "spotting" at the West end of Leeds platforms.  There were an enormous number of train movements and the vast majority were no more than 3 coaches long (some were Pacers, now thankfully gone but have they been replaced by anything longer?).  In my youth I travelled on the (less-frequent, I accept) Trans-Pennine services which were a Type 4 and 8 coaches.  If you're running out of capacity, you don't fill all the available paths with short trains, you lengthen the trains; if there is a shortage of DMUs, well the UK is awash with off-lease EMUs, so how about some local electrification?

 

Thank you for your condescending advice on how to respond. If you care to read the original posting, I was quoting his original phrasing with one word changed. 

 

You are correct that serving Chesterfield and Sheffield, a belated change to the HS2 plan, would not be high speed, which is why both stations were out on a by-pass route, partly classic, which could be, er-hem, by-passed, for the faster services.

 

It is essential to serve Bradford, and TfN's Option 1/A for NPR would have done so. But that has been ignored.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

I again note that the whole of the deep tube network under Central London was proposed, designed, built and opened in under 20 years before 1914, without resort to martial law or shooting people. More recently the Docklands Light Railway was concieved in 1981, and the initial system opened in 1987. By 1991 it had been extended to Bank, and a major upgrade to the initial system completed in 1992. The first study relating to what became Croydon Tramlink took place in 1985-6; the system opened in 2000. I can't recall the exact dates for the Tyne and Wear Metro, but I think they were of the order of 10 years from concept to opening.  In the 1980s and 1990s , we were already a democracy

 

If it now takes over 20 years to build a modest light rail project then we need to get our finger out and sort out the grotesque waste of time . There have already been 2 sets of light rail proposals for Leeds, so I don't think we are quite starting cold, and we ought to be a little way into the process. Having regard to the time lines for the Tyne and Wear Metro, DLR, Tramlink, Sheffield Supertram, Manchester Metrolink, Midlands Metro and NET - all pretty comparable systems - a decade from here to get a initial  system running does not seem unreasonable. I'm not clear why it should now take twice as long as it did a generation ago

 

My feeling is that where HS2 East is heading is, literally, Bradford Interchange, via a new route into Leeds from the east. Effectively it becomes the Midland Mainline 2.0 ,. extended back to West Yorkshire, reversing Beeching's cut-back of the route. Such a service would certainly tap into Bradford as a market - changing at Leeds to an ECML service is not particularly competitive, as we see today. With HS2 providing extra capacity and a back up to current ECML services at Leeds , both conurbations in West Yorkshire are served, and that ought to be sufficient to underpin HS2 Easts economics.

 

It was not the "whole" of the deep level tube system in London that was constructed inside 20 years, just parts of four of them (five if you count the W&C). I agree construction was rapid, although relatively short tunnelling bores were involved, but it should be noted that (a) consideration of these lines started in the 1880's, involving multiple different companies and routes, and (b) construction began on some of them before legal and parliamentary processes were anything like complete. It took until the 1930's before any of these lines were complete in the modern sense, and then supplemented by the 1960's and 1980's-2000's additions.

 

DLR was conceived in 1972, in a report by Travers Morgan to the GLC. But LUL wanted to build a conventional tube line out to the Isle of Dogs and Woolwich, which was ultimately rejected. So matters did not get settled until the 1980's, and only the first, sub-optimal, short section opened within a few years. It took another 35 years to get what we have now.

 

The initial, three Croydon Tramlink routes used largely BR or ex-BR rights of way, so was hardly difficult to build.

 

Tyne & Wear Metro was actually faster, from initial report to first section opening, than you suggest, but again was based almost entirely on using a very willing BR's routes (just six miles of new infrastructure was needed).

 

My point is that it has always taken around 20 years to get from initial thoughts to running trains inside metropolis', except where existing infrastructure is readily available, so such a timescale is perfectly reasonable. Both the Leeds Supertram proposals were completely rejected, due to cost, in the 2000's. The new outline proposal by West Yorks (Mass Transit), which is mostly quite different to Supertram, does not even specify mode as yet, so there is a long way to go. It is also very ambitious in its reach. This means that the ability to lose trains from the mainline network, and thus capacity into Leeds NR station, is a long, long way off.

 

I applaud your feelings about an eastern approach to Leeds serving Bradford for HS2. However, I cannot see this being considered, given it will not supplement the Standedge NPR route chosen, other than relieving perhaps two GNER paths per hour, and will be incredibly expensive. I think that ship has sailed, but I hope I am wrong.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Edwin_m said:

They may be equivalent to London but there are other places to travel to, and which will benefit from HS2.  Nottingham to Birmingham is over an hour, including several minutes reversing in Derby, and will be less than half that if HS2 is built as proposed in the IRP.  Derby to Birmingham has twice as many trains (in non-Covid-times), including some that skip the stops that Nottingham trains make.  

 

All true, but then, I guess, is that the primary purpose of HS2? If it is to generate relatively short distance traffic, rather than to alleviate demand on existing routes, then perhaps it should not be part of the HS2 network, but just be a feeder route to it, just as with other lines? But that would really anger the people of Leeds and Bradford, so I expect they will not choose to say that.

 

I still question why Nottingham has so much less business to London than Derby on a very similar service.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

 

All true, but then, I guess, is that the primary purpose of HS2? If it is to generate relatively short distance traffic, rather than to alleviate demand on existing routes, then perhaps it should not be part of the HS2 network, but just be a feeder route to it, just as with other lines? But that would really anger the people of Leeds and Bradford, so I expect they will not choose to say that.

 

I still question why Nottingham has so much less business to London than Derby on a very similar service.

Nottingham and Derby are about as far from London as Birmingham is, and I don't think anyone questions that Birmingham should be a primary HS2 destination (other than those that question HS2 as a whole).  Nottingham to Birmingham is a further than Manchester to Leeds, and I don't think anyone questions that should be a primary NPR route (other than those that question NPR as a whole). 

 

So I don't think these journeys can be described as too short for high speed. Nor are they as fast today as many journeys that are replaced by high speed in the original plans.  From London you can be in Warrington or York in a similar time to Nottingham or Derby, .  

 

I'd be interested in a source for your Nottingham vs Derby to London figures - certainly before Covid Nottingham had the same number and similar length of trains to Derby and Sheffield combined, suggesting the number of passengers was in a similar ratio.  I can only think it's because many people in the Nottingham area with access to a car will drive to Grantham for a faster service.  

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mike Storey said:

 

 

 

The initial, three Croydon Tramlink routes used largely BR or ex-BR rights of way, so was hardly difficult to build.

 

Tyne & Wear Metro was actually faster, from initial report to first section opening, than you suggest, but again was based almost entirely on using a very willing BR's routes (just six miles of new infrastructure was needed).

 

My point is that it has always taken around 20 years to get from initial thoughts to running trains inside metropolis', except where existing infrastructure is readily available, so such a timescale is perfectly reasonable. Both the Leeds Supertram proposals were completely rejected, due to cost, in the 2000's. The new outline proposal by West Yorks (Mass Transit), which is mostly quite different to Supertram, does not even specify mode as yet, so there is a long way to go. It is also very ambitious in its reach. This means that the ability to lose trains from the mainline network, and thus capacity into Leeds NR station, is a long, long way off.

.

as you note, there have already been two sets of light rail/metro proposals for the Leeds area, so we are not really at initial thoughts with  blank sheet of paper.

 

Capital Transport's DLR Official Handbook makes no reference to any proposals prior to 1981, and in fact the whole scenario for Docklands had changed radically between 1972 and 1981-2. In 1972, the area was still supposed to have a long term future as "the greatest port in the world" ; by 1981 it was an abandoned wasteland and a government body had just been set up in a desperate attempt to do something - anything - with this vast derelict tract of London. By 1992 the DLR was running from Bank to Island Gardens and Stratford, with 2 unit trains, lengthened stations, a glitzy new major station at Canary Wharf, and an upgraded frequency and capacity. By 1994-5 the Beckton Extension was under construction. Certainly the DLR has continue to develop since then, but a substantial light rail system was up and running from nothing between 1981 and 1992

 

You say that a number of other systems were speeded by reuse /adaptation of existing rail lines. However if one of the objectives is to relieve the western approach to Leeds City, then by definition that is going to be what happens in and around Leeds as well. One or two non-electrified local lines need to be removed from Leeds City, and re-routed into West Yorks Mass Transit to release capacity. Complete new build lines may well take longer, but we are surely looking at an Initial System based on conversion of 1 or 2 existing NR lines

 

At that point, what needs to be done looks very like Tyne and Wear Metro or Manchester Metrolink (or even Croydon Tramlink) -so a similar time frame of a decade to do it  seems perfectly reasonable. You can tunnel under the city centre as in Newcastle or run light rail vehicles through the streets as in Manchester and Croydon . Both approaches are proven.  Come to that , how long did the link line through Liverpool that replaced Liverpool Central and Liverpool Exchange take to design and build?

 

No doubt there would be strong aspirations for a Phase 2 expansion of the West Yorks system. But given that HS2 trains were never going to reach Leeds before 2040 under any scenario, there would seem to be plenty of time to get an Initial System West Yorks Mass Transit up and running before Leeds City needs to accomodate HS2 services

 

1 hour ago, Mike Storey said:

 

I applaud your feelings about an eastern approach to Leeds serving Bradford for HS2. However, I cannot see this being considered, given it will not supplement the Standedge NPR route chosen, other than relieving perhaps two GNER paths per hour, and will be incredibly expensive. I think that ship has sailed, but I hope I am wrong.

 

 

 

 

The pre-announcement press leaks here indicated construction of a shortened HS2 east to the E Midlands and a new high speed railway north of Sheffield to Leeds. That provoked comments about "why build two ends of a high speed route but not the middle?"

 

In the event, this section is not explicitly mentioned in the IRP, which floats off almost all issues in West Yorkshire to a further review , described as "how to get HS2 to Leeds" , with West Yorks Mass Transit specifically made a major item for the study and explicity references to the capacity issues at the west end of Leeds City

 

My take is that it has been decided Bradford will not be served by NPR , but that  it will instead get an extension of HS2 East services from Leeds, and a proper mainline service to London at last . (that will also serve Leeds, Sheffield, and Birmingham en route). The new review is then to nail down all the interrelated issues around Leeds.

 

Electrification of Bradford Interchange /Leeds City makes little sense unless you are preparing to bring London trains into Interchange rather than Forster Square. As far as I'm aware most trains into  Bradford Interchange from the Leeds direction are Calder Valley services continuing to Manchester. That's why it hasn't been electrified so far.

 

The justification for a new high-speed route between Sheffield and Leeds is that Wakefield -Leeds must be extremely congested, and it's never been particularly high speed. MML are already running services from St Pancras beyond Sheffield to Leeds - Beeching's decision to concentrate West Yorks on Kings Cross and cut the Midland back to Sheffield is already crumbling

 

While HS2 East might be a backup to the ECML route at Leeds, by contnuing to Bradford Interchange you end up focussing HS2 East on Sheffield and Bradford (where there is no alternative ) and picking up a share of the Leeds market . Chiltern's Marylebone /Snow Hill service is endlessly cited by those who oppose any high speed rail at all, but it does demonstrate that a "back up service" can attract significant traffic

 

One issue with NPR is - if you have enough trains on the core Liverpool/Manchester/Leeds section to give a good frequency, what do you do with those trains east of Leeds? That level of capacity isn't needs onward to Newcastle and York. With a Standedge route NPR into the west end of Leeds, and an "upper HS2 East" running into the east end of Leeds, it becomes possible to send 1-2 tph down to Sheffield instead of up to York. 

 

And for good measure , an hourly Bradford/Leeds/Sheffield/Derby/E Midland Pkway / Bhm Curzon St would also offer connections between major conurbations.

 

Its not too  difficult to come up with 3-4 tph each way on an Upper HS2 East between Leeds and Sheffield, without touching current LNER or XC services

Edited by Ravenser
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ravenser said:

.

as you note, there have already been two sets of light rail/metro proposals for the Leeds area, so we are not really at initial thoughts with  blank sheet of paper.

 

Capital Transport's DLR Official Handbook makes no reference to any proposals prior to 1981, and in fact the whole scenario for Docklands had changed radically between 1972 and 1981-2. In 1972, the area was still supposed to have a long term future as "the greatest port in the world" ; by 1981 it was an abandoned wasteland and a government body had just been set up in a desperate attempt to do something - anything - with this vast derelict tract of London. By 1992 the DLR was running from Bank to Island Gardens and Stratford, with 2 unit trains, lengthened stations, a glitzy new major station at Canary Wharf, and an upgraded frequency and capacity. By 1994-5 the Beckton Extension was under construction. Certainly the DLR has continue to develop since then, but a substantial light rail system was up and running from nothing between 1981 and 1992

 

You say that a number of other systems were speeded by reuse /adaptation of existing rail lines. However if one of the objectives is to relieve the western approach to Leeds City, then by definition that is going to be what happens in and around Leeds as well. One or two non-electrified local lines need to be removed from Leeds City, and re-routed into West Yorks Mass Transit to release capacity. Complete new build lines may well take longer, but we are surely looking at an Initial System based on conversion of 1 or 2 existing NR lines

 

At that point, what needs to be done looks very like Tyne and Wear Metro or Manchester Metrolink (or even Croydon Tramlink) -so a similar time frame of a decade to do it  seems perfectly reasonable. You can tunnel under the city centre as in Newcastle or run light rail vehicles through the streets as in Manchester and Croydon . Both approaches are proven.  Come to that , how long did the link line through Liverpool that replaced Liverpool Central and Liverpool Exchange take to design and build?

 

No doubt there would be strong aspirations for a Phase 2 expansion of the West Yorks system. But given that HS2 trains were never going to reach Leeds before 2040 under any scenario, there would seem to be plenty of time to get an Initial System West Yorks Mass Transit up and running before Leeds City needs to accomodate HS2 services

 

 

 

Again, I applaud your ambitions, but the reality so far, is rather different. Please read the attached (developed from a report commissioned from Jacobs) which formed part of the Business Case submitted to govt this summer. These ideas bear little relation to the original Supertram proposals. The plans largely supplement, rather than replace, existing rail lines, with the main exception in Phase 1 being Leeds to Bradford! An awful lot of re-design will be needed if your scenario is to be met. Furthermore, the plan states that, if "approval" were to be given this year, then construction could start in the second half of this decade. You may not agree, but I honestly believe that is highly fanciful, given all the hurdles that must be crossed first.

 

https://ehq-production-europe.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/19f92794afcfd08a028c58636382729ad5cb9228/original/1611847511/Mass_Transit_Vision_2040_-_2_page_spreads.pdf_4c037ef645e631e67d24deba5c0f4228?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIBJCUKKD4ZO4WUUA%2F20211203%2Feu-west-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20211203T210606Z&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=9baefc4abce63d9fd867bff300420572310c160d079f9904c49791d83d481606

 

Incidentally, the original light rail plans (people movers) for East London were drawn up by Travis Morgan, commissioned in 1972 by the GLC. The DLR as we know it, did not get approved until the 80's, and was taken forward by the newly formed  LDDC, and not LUL. This extract, from Wkipedia, summarises the early days neatly, but a longer version is in one of the books I have on the DLR.

 

As early as 1972, consideration was given to how to redevelop the moribund Docklands. Travis Morgan & Partners were commissioned by the London Docklands Study Team to consider the issue. They proposed, among other recommendations, that a "minitram" people-mover system capable of carrying up to 20 people in each unit should be constructed to connect the Docklands with the planned Fleet line tube railway terminus at Fenchurch Street railway station. The Greater London Council formed a Docklands Joint Committee with the Boroughs of Greenwich, Lewisham, Newham, Southwark and Tower Hamlets in 1974 to undertake the redevelopment of the area. A light railway system was envisaged, terminating either at Tower Hill tube station or at nearby Fenchurch Street, but both options were seen as too expensive. Nonetheless, in 1976 another report proposed a conventional tube railway for the area and London Transport obtained Parliamentary powers to build a line from Charing Cross station to Fenchurch Street, Surrey Docks (now Surrey Quays railway station), the Isle of Dogs, North Greenwich and Custom House to Woolwich Arsenal. This was intended to be the second stage of the Fleet line – which had been renamed the Jubilee line, the first stage of which opened in 1979 from Stanmore to Charing Cross. However, when the Thatcher Government came to power, the plans to extend the Jubilee line were halted and the new government insisted that a lower-cost option should be pursued.

  • Informative/Useful 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The DLR is a special case in the UK (well, since the original Railway Mania anyway) in the sense of major railway transport infrastructure built before any of the traffic sources existed.  By the early 1980s, the only transport link to the Isle of Dogs was a single bus route to Central London.  LRT saw no demand for anything more and the local authority actually had to persuade people to live in the council housing there.

 

You could say it worked out quite well in the end?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...