Transport for the North's long term ambition

Last week I wrote about the “Building the North's New Railways” report which was launched at an event hosted by the Northern Rail Industry Leaders. Within the piece I described some of the challenges that are facing the industry, as set out in the report and how the industry is looking to work together in order to deliver rail upgrades across the North. In this blog I want to look more broadly at what a “Northern Powerhouse Railway” may look like and look at the wider transport planning framework as set out by Transport for the North.

First of all I should point out that the headline £70bn figure for transport investment between 2020 and 2050 covers both rail and road upgrades and is formed in part by money that it is already assumed will be invested in the North over the period. TfN assumes that £39-43bn will be invested in the North based on current levels of committed investment outlined in the Highways England Road Investment Strategy and Network Rail’s Control Period. This means a further £21-37bn will be required if TfN is to deliver the upgrades it says are needed to the road and rail network across the North. The £70bn figure is a huge sum of money, however it equates to only £2.3bn of investment each year over the next 30 years.

If current levels of committed investment are continued to 2050, £1.3bn to £1.4bn will be invested per year over the period. Therefore TfN are seeking a further £900m per year in order to achieve a full package of road and rail upgrades which would go far beyond that which Highways England and Network Rail have already proposed.

It is now up to Transport for the North to prove that there is a viable business case for the proposals that it is suggesting. The NRIL report forms a crucial part of proving the business case as TfN and NRIL need to demonstrate that there will be sufficient numbers of skilled workers in place in order to undertake such a large package of works in the North over 30 years. Without having the workforce in place and without investment in new technologies, schedules could slip and costs could spiral.

Over the past few years I have written at length about the challenges that face not just the North, but the UK as a whole. The Northwest Electrification Programme and GWML electrification, which both ended up over budged and years behind schedule demonstrate what can happen if there are not enough skilled workers in place to undertake the work that is being proposed.

Now that TfN and NRIL have identified the challenges and are now seeking to ensure that the industry trains enough new workers and invests in new innovative technologies, it may just be possible that the ambitious plan set out by TfN can be achieved

So let's take a look at what is being proposed....

Rail

Rail forms a key part of TfN's plan as infrastructure improvements in the right places can bring about transformational benefits to the entire region. Cutting journey times and increasing capacity on the railways would serve to encourage people to switch from road to rail and help to bring the north

together.

Electrification of the Pennine route between Manchester and Leeds has been talked about for years and was supposed to form part of Network Rails Control Period 5 (CP5) package of upgrades. However due in part to the issues raised above and in my previous blog, this hasn't happened and at one point it looked as if electrification had been scrapped all together

So far Network Rail has upgraded signalling and stations at key locations along the Calder Valley route. These upgrades should provide benefits to passengers when new trains finally begin to arrive in the North, starting from this year. I will be taking a look at the improvements that have already been completed in detail in a future blog.

Plans for what is now being called the Transpennine Route Upgrade (TRU) have been submitted to the Department for Transport for considerations, which it is hope will include electrification. The £3bn package of works aims to, in the words of Network Rail deliver “faster, longer, more frequent and more reliable services across the north of England, from Newcastle, Hull and York towards Manchester and Liverpool via Leeds”. Work is expected to begin in spring/summer 2019 and take up to 5 years to complete.

Transport for the North's own proposals which are much larger in scope are set to be submitted to the Government for review in 2020 and it is hoped that if approved work could start in 2024. The points below taken from the TfN's Strategic Transport Plan shows the scale of the ambition that TfN has. The building of new lines, stations and significant upgrades are proposed to take place between 2020/4 and 2050. Links are proposed to connect HS2 to a new Northern Powerhouse Rail which will provide connectivity from Liverpool to Hull.

• A new twin-track line linking Liverpool to HS2 and onwards to Manchester and other Northern cities, via Warrington and Manchester Airport

• Significant upgrades and integration with HS2 linking Leeds and Sheffield

• Significant upgrades between Sheffield, Leeds and Hull

• Significant upgrades of the Hope Valley corridor between Manchester and Sheffield 

• Significant upgrades between Newcastle and Leeds 

• Hub concepts for Northern Powerhouse Rail stations

Ultimately TfN suggest that “all passenger routes to be served by a minimum two trains per hour. Long distance services to achieve average journey speeds of at least 80mph. Inter-urban services to achieve average journey speeds of at least 60mph. Local and suburban services to achieve average journey speeds of at least 40mph. Rail to directly serve each of the North’s international airports. Infrastructure to be available to enable a weekday inter-peak level service on Sundays and public holidays. Major ports in the North to be served by a network that will support movement and future growth of rail freight. A 50% improvement in the average speed of freight services by 2028.”

It is hoped that a new line connecting Leeds and Manchester could deliver a Leeds to Manchester journey time of 40 minutes and a York to Manchester journey time of 62 minutes. As for capacity, TfN suggests six inter-urban services per hour should operate formed of eight carriages, and up to two local services per hour should operate, in both directions.

[Click to enlarge]

Map source: Trnasport for the North's final strategic transport plan 2019

Key

1. Junction on HS2 mainline for Leeds – North East services
2. Junction on HS2 Leeds spur to facilitate through services via existing Leeds station
3. Junction on HS2 mainline for Sheffield – Leeds services 
4. Junction at Manchester Piccadilly to support Northern Powerhouse Rail platforms
5. Junction on HS2 Manchester spur for Manchester – Liverpool services
6. South facing junction on HS2 mainline for London – Liverpool services

• Light Puplre - Upgrades
• Dark Purple - Transpennine Upgrade
• Light Green - Northern Powerhouse Rail new line
• Dark Green - Linking Liverpool to HS2
• Blue - HS2

Roads

Reading the report it doesn't seem as if there is one grand proposal which will connect East with West, however a number of individual schemes are being assessed. Proposals range from grade separation of the A69/A68 and A69/A6079 junctions through to building a new link road connecting the A534 west of Congleton with the A536 to the north.

What is clear though is that road schemes are equally susceptible to cuts as they are for rail. For example schemes to improve the M62 and M53 have been in the words of the report “re-scoped”. Now to be honest I don't know what that means in the context of the report, but to me it sounds like kicked into the long grass?

Proposals to improve the the M56 between Altrincham and Manchester which were due to begin in 2019 have been delayed to 2020 (or after the completion of works taking place on the M62 between junctions 10-12), Highway's England states that the decision was “based on feedback from our customers and stakeholders of their experiences on our network“

Highway England has reassessed the SMART motorway upgrade as a whole and as a result the upgrade of the M6 between junctions 21a-26 has been deferred, with no new start date given. However the completion date for the upgrade of the M62 between junctions 10 and 12 remains unchanged as work is already underway and is due for completion in spring 2020. The start date for work between junctions 20 and 25 of the M62 also remains unchanged and will commence in Autumn 2019.

Proposals to dual the remaining sections of single carriageway on the full length of the A66 from the A1(M) to the M6 are still in the planning phase. However in the meantime major improvements should be made to two junctions on the A69 and should be completed by 2020

A study into the area which covers the M60, M62, M602, M61 and M66 has concluded that there is a strong case for the “substantial” upgrade to the M60 to improve journey times and East–West connectivity.

It looks like the proposal to construct a Trans-Pennine tunnel connecting Manchester and Sheffield have been thrown out, TfN states that “although a long tunnel under the Peak District National Park would be technically feasible, the cost would be prohibitive and offer poor value for money”. TfN is now working on an alternative which includes proposals for partially tunnelled route on the line of the existing A628 and enhancements to M60, M67, M1 and M18/A1.

I must admit to skimming over some of the 86 page report, but I got the feeling that while road enhancements form part of the proposed £70bn investment, the vision on how they can be improved in order to connect East and West was not as clearly defined as the vision for rail enhancements.


Hopefully over the coming 12 months we will begin to get a clearer picture of what Transport for the North is proposing and whether or not the Government will release the additional £21-37bn over 30 years that TfN is asking for.


My thoughts about SMART

To be honest I'm not sure if the postponement of SMART upgrades is a blessing or a curse, anecdotal evidence from regular commuters suggests that SMART just doesn't work. People complain of the hard shoulder not being used by motorist even when it is open to traffic and dangerous changes to speed restrictions between gantries (when working in combination with speed cameras).

My experiences of SMART is on the M6 heading into Birmingham and I did see cars sat in lanes 2, 3 and 4 driving below the speed limit when lanes 1 (hard shoulder open at the time), 2 and 3 were clear. Never mind middle lane hogging, witnessing lane 3 and 4 hogging while drivers were driving under speed limit and the carriageway ahead was clear, was a new one on me.

I have also experienced the speed limit changes, with gantries displaying speeds of 60mph, which would then drop at the next gantry to 40mph, with speed cameras in operation. This speed differential causes drivers to use the brakes, which has the potential to lead to the dreaded “phantom traffic jam”, which leads to congestion. Highways England say that gantry signals should be sufficiently visible that drivers have the time to slow down without braking, but I would dispute that statement. Reducing the speed of a car or indeed HGV by 20mph from the time of seeing the gantry sign to reaching the gantry and possible speed camera is difficult.

I do fully understand the principles behind the SMART motorway, controlling the speed of traffic has been shown to smooth the flow and opening the hard shoulder in effect increases capacity without the need to widen the motorway. But sometime what looks good on paper doesn't always translate to the real world, not when you factor in driver behaviour (or misbehaviour).

Maybe it's a case of driver education, many people haven't even driven on a SMART motorway yet and would not be fully aware of the rules when they do enter a sections of SMART motorway. But I also believe better policing of lane hogging drivers is needed and that a more gradual decrease in speed between gantries could also help.


The TfN report can be found here: https://transportforthenorth.com/wp-content/uploads/TfN-final-strategic-transport-plan-2019.pdf

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook

 For more information 

e-mail info@EngineeringBlog.co.uk

The problem with Crossrail North

In my last blog regarding the subject of Crossrail North I identified potential difficulties in funding and building a new east-west railway and explained how it is very different from Crossrail 2. Another issue which I did not mention however is that London has one combined transport authority known as TfL (Transport for London).

The size of TfL and nature of its centralised organisation means that it has the resources available to develop detailed proposals which it is then able to put forward to the government. The initial route for Crossrail 2 (CR2) was safeguarded in 2008, proposals have since been refined and improved. Whilst here in the North we are still waiting for Transport for the North (which has yet to receive statutory status) to publish its "Strategic transport plan".

TfN states "Transport for the North is developing an integrated, multi-modal Strategic Transport Plan to make it easier for passengers and freight to move throughout the region across all transport modes. This plan will build on the March 2015 Northern Transport Strategy to make a prioritised case for investment in the North of England to 2050." [1]

As far as I can tell the DfT will retain full control over funding for northern transport projects, but TfN will have ultimate responsibility for setting out the future strategy in the North. So that means even if TfN decides a new rail link is needed, it will not have direct access to funding via passenger revenues and taxes, or the recourses available to TfL.

As it stands Crossrail North (CRN) would require the full backing of the DfT and would be entirely funded by central government, unlike  CR2 which would still require the backing of the DfT but will be 50% funded by London though fares, taxes and other means.

In terms of planning CR2 is almost 10 years ahead of CRN, TfL has already prepared a funding and financing study for the line and the route is in the refinement stage. CRN meanwhile isn't even a line on a map, so while CRN should happen we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that if CR2 funding were pulled, then CRN would happen tomorrow or anytime soon.

It feels like we in the North are being left in the dark and the lack of information has provided a vacuum which is being filled by speculation by the press and local officials. I believe TfN should be more visible in the North and should be more active in keeping the public apprised of progress it is making in formulating a strategy.  

What is unclear is if TfN will have (or has had) any input regarding electrification of the Trans-Pennine route, is the uncertainty being driven solely by the DfT and the overspend on GWML electrification or did the TfN study have any bearing comments made by Chris Grayling regarding electrification? 

Despite the difficulties and the fact that it does not compare to Crossrail 2 I still feel the North requires and deserves improved rail links. I don't want to sound like a DfT PR man and I wouldn't say that I am a particular fan of Grayling, but I do not think the current rhetoric coming from some northern quarters is particularly helpful.

Two announcements which should provide some answers are the release of TfN's strategy which will not be published until 2018 and the list of schemes (if any beyond renewals) which the government is willing to commit to during control period 6 covering the period 2019 to 2024.

The CP6 HLOS (high-level output specification) which was published on the 20th of July this year (2017) did not set out any priorities for investment other than renewals and maintenance and no formal funding package was agreed. The government is expected to announce the funding available in October, however it is not certain if the DfT will be committing to any rail infrastructure investment during CP6.

All I can say for now is watch this space.....


Written by Chris Howe

Follow on Twitter and Facebook

 For more information 

e-mail Blog@EngineeringFocus.co.uk

Call: 07393 565 863

Trans-Pennine electrification and Crossrail North

I feel that I should begin this post with a disclaimer as I know investment in the North is a contentious issue, however I do believe there needs to be some balance brought to the debate. So to begin, I am based in the North and I wholeheartedly agree that at the very least the Trans-Pennine rail route between Manchester, Leeds, York and Selby should be electrified, in addition the government should be investigating options for a new Trans-Pennine rail route.

However, with no decision yet made regarding electrification other than to say it has not been cancelled (to date Aug 2017), I feel I should point out that electrification is just one part of the project to upgrade east-west rail links otherwise known (currently) as the Great Northern Rail Project.

The only 2 statements from the government which provides any indication of their position on electrification are the following:

"Major upgrades to the Manchester – Leeds – York route are currently being designed and developed, to enable us to deliver better journeys for passengers from 2022", DfT spokesperson told Railway Gazette 24th of July 2017.

and

“If there are bits of the TransPennine network that are complicated to do and we have a bi-mode train, we can say: ‘Here is a section we can have a diesel.’ We will be electrifying TransPennine but we can do it in a smarter way" Chris Grayling Financial Times 21st of July 2017.

I have already covered the cancellation of Swansea - Cardiff and MML electrification in detail, which helps to explain some of the reasons why it is not possible to simply throw money at a project. Instead this post will focus on the Trans-Pennine route, the challenges ahead and what is being done to improve services. I will also examine the differences between Trans-Pennine links and potential investment in Crossrail 2


New Trains

First of all, there are big changes on the way for both Northern and TransPennine Express which will vastly improve services for passengers without the need for further electrification.

Northern will begin to introduce brand new diesel and electric trains from Dec 2019 and in the meantime will introduce 8 "Flex" bi-mode trains converted from electric class 319s to diesel-electric class 769s. The new Flex trains will be able to operate solely on electric power on the parts of the network already electrified, but will also be able to operate off of the electrified network to places such as Windermere.

Northern already has 20 electric class 319s in service, operating between, Liverpool, Manchester and Preston and from May 2018 will be in operation between Preston and Blackpool. 

TransPennine Express have already begun to fully refurbish their fleet of 51 class 185 trains which will feature plug and USB sockets at each pair of seats, bigger tables, refitted toilets, wifi and LED lighting.

From 2018 brand new five car trains will be introduced to operate between Liverpool, Manchester, Huddersfield, Leeds, York, Scarborough and Newcastle. From 2019 the new trains will also begin operating to Middlesbrough. 

New trains will also allow the introduction of direct links between Liverpool and Glasgow from 2018. In addition from 2019 the Liverpool to Newcastle service will be extended to Edinburgh.

Between 2018 and 2020 a total of 44 brand new trains will be introduced on the TransPennine Express network which will provide 20,000 addition peak time seats per day.


Infrastructure upgrades

To facilitate new services and increased capacity Network Rail have already been busy upgrading the Network between Liverpool - Manchester and Leeds. The projects listed below are just some of the key improvements that are underway, planned or already complete.

The projects listed below are ones that are underway, completed or planned and will provide tangible benefits for passengers. I have tried to focus on upgrades that will improve capacity and or journey times rather than just like for like renewals.

• Liverpool Lime Street Improvement Programme is part of a £340m package of upgrades and renewals across the Liverpool City Region. This complex phase will be vital in order improve capacity and service reliability. Once complete the upgrade will allow for 3 new services an hour to operate from the station.

• Huyton Roby 4th track will be complete later this year and will allow intercity services to overtake local stopping services along the route which will improve journey times between Liverpool and key northern towns.

• Weaver to Wavertree re-signalling works will take place over the summer and will result in improved reliability.

• Halton Curve which will be complete by Dec 2018 will allow new services to operate initially between Chester and Liverpool Lime St via Helsby, Frodsham, Runcorn, Liverpool South Parkway. In the future it is hoped that services will be extended to serve North Wales.

• Ordsall Chord will connect Manchester Victoria and Piccadilly stations for the first time. The new chord will allow direct trains to operate between Manchester Airport and the North of England and will reduce congestion at Manchester Piccadilly.

• Calder Valley upgrade phase 1 which was completed in 2016 saw the renewal of track and signalling between Manchester Victoria and Littleborough which will lead to improved journey times and reliability. In December 2016 a new bay platform at Bradford was also delivered, the new platform removed a conflict between trains to and from Manchester and other onward services.
• Phase 2 will see further renewals of track and signalling between Littleborough and Bradford Interchange. The upgrade once complete will "paving the way for faster journeys between Manchester Victoria and Bradford interchange" Network Rail

• North West electrification which has already transformed journeys between Liverpool - Manchester and Scotland will be fully completed in early 2018 when the final section between Preston and Blackpool is finished. The £300m project has increase capacity and reliability between Liverpool and Manchester and between Manchester and Scotland. 

Smaller renewal projects, upgrades and vegetation management schemes are underway across the Network with some work already underway or planned to support future electrification of the Pennine route,  

The problem with new rolling stock and rail upgrades is that they take time to be delivered. New franchises for Northern and Transpennine Express were let in April 2016, yet passengers will not begin to benefit from New trains until 2018. Until the new trains arrive passengers will not fully benefit from work being undertaken by Network Rail, so it is easy for passengers to feel as though nothing is being done to improve services, which is far from the truth.

Crossrail North ("HS3", "Northern Powerhouse Rail")

People in the North have always felt as if we get a rough deal when it comes to transport investment, a feeling which has been recently exacerbated with growing uncertain about Trans-Pennine electrification and the Transport Sectary's apparent support for Crossrail 2, although the project has yet to gain funding.

Having followed a number of projects in the North recently I can't say I fully support the view that we are hard done to, however I know that if the North is to grow and thrive east-west rail links must be improved and believe that proposals for a new line should be explored in detail.

In order to examine the potential causes for the discrepancy between spending in the North and in London I have explored 3 potential proposals for Crossrail North (CRN) and compared them with the proposals for Crossrail 2. In order to do this I have estimated distances for CRN and CR2 so that they may be compared.

As we do not yet know what a "Crossrail North" would look like I have calculated some approximate distances for 3 potential routes.

• Liverpool to the ECML at the junction with the Leeds and Selby railway via Manchester, Halifax, Bradford and Leeds. Potential distance 135km with 25-30km of mountainous or hilly terrain.

• Liverpool to the ECML at the junction with the Leeds and Selby railway via Manchester, Huddersfield and Leeds. Potential distance 125km with 20-25km of mountainous or hilly terrain.

• Manchester West to a junction with HS2 North of Garforth via Leeds, bypassing Halifax, Huddersfield and Bradford. Potential distance 72km with 25-30km of mountainous or hilly terrain.

A true east-west railway should span from Liverpool to Hull, a distance of approximately 190km, this could include new sections of track, upgrades to the existing infrastructure and further electrification. E-W journey times could potentially be improved with infrastructure improvements between Manchester and Leeds, but would people living in Liverpool and Hull argue that they are missing out on investment in favour of Manchester and Leeds?

Would CRN have to be a high-speed line (say 200 to 225 km/h)? With a potential line distance of 60km or more between Manchester and Leeds, trains would have to travel at an average speed of 120km/h non-stop to achieve the 30 minute journey time which IPPR are campaigning for.

120km/h (75mph) is easily achievable however that is simply the average speed and does not factor in acceleration or additional stops at or close to Halifax, Huddersfield or Bradford. The terrain between Manchester and Leeds is also challenging which could require sections of track with a maxim speed lower than 120km/h.

IPPR North currently has a petition running calling for "More money for transport in the North", whilst I do not fully support the Crossrail 2 vs Crossrail North argument I would urge people to show support for improved transport in the North.

Crossrail 2

The route from Broxbourne to Epsom and Shepperton would be approximately 60km in length with approximately 30km of tunnelling underneath central London between Tottenham Hale and Wimbledon with a spur between Severn Sister and Alexandra Palace. The tunneled sections would constitute the only genuinely new sections of railway that would be constructed. As with the Elizabeth Line (Crossrail) the above ground sections of the line would use existing lines, with upgrades, renewals and improved stations. 

The estimated cost for CR2 is said to be £30bn of which 50% would be paid for by London itself through fares and by other means.

CR2 if built to the same standard as the Elizabeth Line would have a maximum speed of 140km/h and be designed to handle 24 trains per hour.

Comparison

It is difficult to compare CR2 and CRN as they are completely different types of railway, CRN would be a regional railway linking distant population centres spanning 180km, whereas CR2 connects suburban lines through a densely populated region to central London spanning just 50km

Looking at population and GVA (Gross Value Added) of the North vs London also demonstrates difficulty in comparing CR2 to CRN.

The combined GVA of the North West, North East and Yorkshire and Humber regions combined in 2015 was £316bn, whereas the GVA for London alone was £378bn, generating 22% of the UK's entire wealth.

At first glance, the £316bn generated by the North seems comparable to the £378bn generated by London, but when you compare the "North" as described above which spans an area of 37,000 km² compared with London just 1,500 km² you see that providing transport connectivity over such a large area is not straight forward. Building a "Crossrail North" on its own would not unlock the potential of the North as a whole.

If we look at population spread also, we find that combined population of the 6 city regions spanning 180km east to west which could potentially benefit from improved east-west links has a combined population of 8.4m, whilst the population of Greater London spanning just 50km north to south is 8.5m.


Conclusion?

Can a satisfactory conclusion be drawn from all this? It's difficult to say, but I do know that whilst investment is vital, simply securing funding is only the beginning. As we have witnessed with electrification, providing fully costed proposals, robust plans and the skilled workforce required are the first hurdles to overcome before work can begin. Construction of course brings its own set of challenges and if not planned correctly can fall foul of unforeseen complications which can add to the cost and delay completion.

Would the £59 billion ‘catch-up cash’ demanded by IPPR North solve all of the North's transport problems? That all depends on how it is spent and over what period, it is all well and good having funding available, but are there £59bn worth of costed 'shovel ready' transport proposals in the pipeline and is there a large enough skilled workforce available to undertake the work? 

Perhaps as the Glasgow-Edinburgh and GWML electrification programmes come to an end the government can reassess its position on electrification and which lines to prioritise next. I doubt Network rail will want its new multi million point electrification trains sitting idle once the GWML is complete.

The only thing that I feel certain of is that improving transport links in the North will not be simple and any comparison between spending on improvements in the North vs investment in Crossrail 2 are unproductive.

Follow us on Twitter and Facebook - For more information e-mail Blog@EngineeringFocus.co.uk