IRP, Rail Revolution or Rail Betrayal? Northern Powerhouse Rail

On the 18th of November 2021 the Government published its long-awaited Integrated Rail Plan (IRP) that sets out how the Government will attempt to improve rail links across the North and Midlands. In this blog I hope to set out the main points from and unpick some of the claims made within the report.

This part, in a two part blog looks into the detail of the Northern Powerhouse Rail proposal. Part one looks at the HS2 East announcement and the possible implications of cancelling the eastern leg of HS2

Northern Powerhouse Rail (HS3)

Northern Powerhouse Rail is where things start to get a little more complicated, as far as I can tell the Government has rejected all 3 proposals put forward by Transport for the North, which were:

"Option 1 was a mixture of new-build high-speed line, covering roughly half the route from Liverpool to Leeds, and upgrades to the existing lines into Leeds (via Huddersfield) and Liverpool (via Warrington Bank Quay) for the rest of the route.

Option 2 was for an entirely new-build high-speed line between Leeds and Manchester, including a new station on the outskirts of Bradford; a new line from Warrington to Liverpool (with a parkway station at Warrington); and an underground Piccadilly station with a connection allowing it to be used for Sheffield services. •

Option 3 was the same as Option 2, but with a new central station underground at Warrington (still offering less convenient interchange to Bank Quay); and an underground station in the vicinity of the existing Bradford Interchange station."

Instead, the Government suggests a patchwork of upgrades, electrification and new sections of track from Liverpool to York.

Liverpool

Starting in Liverpool, it is suggested that there will be further works carried out to enhance Liverpool Lime Street station, presumably on top of the £500m that was spent in 2018 to improve the station's platform layout. However, it is difficult to see what the enhancement will achieve. Even after the £500m re-build the station will have no room for additional services beyond 2035.

HS2 phase 2a will introduce 2 additional trains per hour to London and Transport for Wales intend to introduce a new hourly service between Liverpool and Llandudno and an hourly service to Shrewsbury from Liverpool (with a service every 2 hours extended to Cardiff), that's on top of the hourly Chester to Liverpool via Runcorn service that was introduced in 2019. Beyond that, there is no scope to get any more trains into Liverpool Lime Street owing to the restrictions imposed by the 4 track approach into the station. Anyone who has taken the train to Liverpool Lime St will be aware of the deep cutting that the approach sits in, there is nothing in the IRP that suggests the Government will invest in new tracks into the station, which would be incredibly costly.

Liverpool to Manchester

Travelling out from Liverpool Lime St, HS2/NPR trains will use existing lines to Warrington Bank Quay, where new platforms would be constructed. The only way this could be achieved would be by using the Skelton Junction to Ditton Junction line which is currently used for freight. The line was primarily used by freight trains bringing coal to Fiddler's Ferry power station, but those flows ceased in 2020 when the power station closed. This line would have to be electrified and new low-level platforms constructed below the existing Warrington Bank Quay station. 

As you can see from the approximate map below, the line is curvaceous to say the least, meaning the approach into Warrington Bank Qual LL will be slow. The existing track alignment under Bank Quay is also curvaceous and would have to be re-aligned to allow for platforms to be built. 

Approximate possible route through Warrington using an existing line

 

Using this approach would mean that HS2 services bound for London that would otherwise have connected to HS2 at Crewe via Runcorn, would be diverted away from and therefore no longer serve from Runcorn. 

From Warrington Bank Quay there would be a new section of track connecting to HS2 phase 2b into Manchester. It had already been proposed that passive provision for new NPR/HS2 junctions be added to the bill for HS2 phase 2b. The junctions would be located West of Manchester Airport and would allow HS2 trains from Liverpool to head south to Crewe and then on to London, and NPR trains to head to Manchester using the tunnel that will be constructed as part of HS2 from Manchester Aiport to a new station to be constructed adjacent to Manchester Piccadilly. As The new HS2 station at Piccadilly will be a terminus this will mean NPR trains from Liverpool that would be travelling east would have to reverse, which is far from idea, as this will impact overall capacity and has the potential to impact service reliabilty.

Manchester to Leeds 

Heading east from Manchester the Government has suggested building a section of new railway from Piccadilly/HS2 to just east of Standedge tunnel, located approximately 10 miles from Huddersfield. From there NRP trains would continue over the existing line to Huddersfield and then on to Leeds. The Government suggests building 40 miles of new railway in total, from Warrington to Standedge tunnel, which would include the section of HS2 from just west of Manchester Airport to Manchester Piccadilly.

Northern Powerhouse Rail as set out in the IRP

Instead of building a new dedicated line that would have served a new through station at Bradford, the Government's watered-down plan is to invest in "significant improvements to the previous Transpennine Route Upgrade (TRU) plans", parts of which are already either underway or in the planning phase. Network Rail has already submitted plans to double the number of tracks and electrify the line from Huddersfield to Dewsbury. 

The Government says it now plans to electrify the whole route, instal digital signalling throughout, provide significantly longer sections of three and four-tracking, and gauge upgrades to allow intermodal container freight services. 

Full electrification of the Transpennine route from Manchester to Leeds via Huddersfield was another promise the Government made in 2012 and was another promise the Government broke when it "paused" plans for electrification. The "pause" turned into cancellation of full electrification, with the Government instead instructing Network Rail to draw up plans for discontinuous electrification with scaled back upgrades of the Pennine route. 

The Government also says it will also electrify the route from Leeds to York with some new sections of four-tracking and it will upgrade and electrify the Leeds to Bradford section of the Calder Valley Line.

The IRP briefly mentions Hull, but any proposals fall under the banner of "Future possibilities". The IRP states "The Government has identified a core pipeline of schemes and any further schemes (such as Hull upgrades) will be subject to affordability, delivering commitments on time and to budget, and complementary investments being made. Given the scale of the IRP core portfolio, the Government considers that this – alongside the development work at Leeds and on the Midlands Rail Hub – needs to be the immediate focus for the supply chain and delivery bodies.". 

The IRP is littered with and phrases such as "core pipeline", "subject to affordability", "focussing on delivering", "undertake a study" and "optimal solution" which make it sound like the Government is doing something, whilst in reality it commits the Government to nothing. There's nothing in the IRP to suggest that it forms the basis of a single unified plan which will be looked at as a whole, it's more like an ad-hoc wish list of projects the Government would like to possibly see complete. An ad-hoc approach risks abstraction, whereby the business case for the whole cannot be considered, instead, each proposal must be judged by its own merits, which risks deliverability.  

Put simply the Government has worded the IRP in such a way that it doesn't have to commit to anything and certainly doesn't make any promises which can be broken later.

As far as "Northern Powerhouse Rail" goes, that's it, 40 miles of new track (including HS2 into Manchester) and a patchwork of upgrades which may or may not go ahead, subject to there being a positive business case.

Twitter - Facebook - Youtube

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

Northern Rail Industry Leaders, Building the North's New Railway

We want a faster, more reliable, high capacity railway in the North and "we deserve it" the words of Mike Hulme Co-chair of the Northern Rail Industry Leaders speaking today at the launch of the "Building the North's New Railways" report. I'm certain these words will resonate with any commuters from the North who perhaps looks to South at projects like Crossrail and think, why haven't we got a Crossrail of the North?


As a passionate campaigner and supporter of the railways, but still, somewhat of an outsider, it was fascinating to hear what each of the speakers had to say as to why the North does not yet have its own Crossrail. I came away with a clearer understanding of the challenges facing the industry which could act to stifle investment in transport in the North, but also a sense that we are at the cusp of a seismic shift in the future of the railways right across the North.

Mike Hulm, Co-chair of NRIL

But first I want to skip to the very end of the conference, I was the guy sitting at the back who asked the awkward question, a straightforward question I thought about improvements to the Oxford Rd to Manchester Piccadilly corridor, which as far as I knew was up until fairly recently a shovel ready project which was almost about to begin. My two-part question, was "what has happened to the project" and "are they starting from scratch?" with regards to design and funding of the project, which at one stage formed the backbone of what was called Northern Hub. Admittedly possibly a question for another time, however, I asked the question, the room fell silent breifly, but I did get answer of sorts (no disrespect to Mr. Wood who did answer) but he said that the area in question is particularly challenging, with high-frequency passenger services mixed with slow-moving freight trains powered sometimes by diesel, sometime electric, which means that untangling the corridor is not straight forward, adding we will know more in the summer...

Why bring this up? One, my own curiosity, but also to get a sense of where Transport for the North is up to with regards to investment and unblocking a bottleneck at a key part of the East-West railway network. The answer I got though did underline one of the challenges facing the North as a whole, the East-West corridor is extremely congested, it serves, local, regional, intercity and freight services all competing for only a finite number of train paths. It would seem then that providing greater capacity and reduced journey time is a monumental challenge. But a challenge TfN and those within the industry are willing to take on in order to unlock a potential prize of £100bn worth of economic benefits by 2050.

 

Q and A  panel from left to  right 

• Mike Hulme, Co-chair NRIL
• Justin Moss, Co-Chair NRIL
• Tim Wood, Transport for the North
• Lucy Prior, RTS solution
• Daniel Cochlin, Head of External Affairs Northern Powerhouse Partnership
• Professor Simon Iwnicki, University of Huddersfield

The focus of the report however, wasn't directly about the technical challenges or what Northern Power House Rail will look like, it was about something often overlooked and something which as it turns out could potentially be a greater hurdle than the engineering changelings that lay ahead. Northern Powerhouse Rail Director Tim Wood said something that is crucial for future of rail investment in the North; that the Treasury will not release funds if TfN cannot prove that there is the skilled workforce in place to undertake the improvements that are being proposed.

When people talk about investment, they usually talk about how much a project will cost or how the Government should invest more in the North. What I took from the speaker's comments is that Government is willing to invest but there is a massive skills shortage facing the industry and it is up to the industry to train the skilled engineers required to undertake such a massive undertaking as connecting East and West with a fast, high frequency rail network

In response the industry via this report seems to be saying that they need a steady stream of work so that they can be confident enough to invest in training the thousands of workers needed, not just engineers on the ground but, architects, project managers and procurement professionals, to name but a few. Not only that the but also to invest in new technologies that will be required to help deliver additional capacity, better customer interfaces and help to deliver projects on time and on budget.

This potentially could leave the industry, TfN and Government at an impasse with neither the Treasury or industry willing to budge. However, and now comes the good news, the industry has taken up the challenge and in the words of Mark Hulme, "today is a call to arms". A call from the 8 companies who helped produced the report to the industry, from SMEs and large companies to Universities and government bodies, on how the industry as a whole can overcome the shortages of skilled men and woman and how they can use technology and big data to improve efficiency.

Throughout the report and today's talks there was a common theme, that the industry needs a smooth and stable pipeline of work, with a working figure of between £2b and £3bn each year over 30 years. But also crucially that industry if willing to change, modernise and train the skilled workforce needed in order to deliver a transformation upgrade of railways across the North.

It's worth mentioning not once did I hear the phrase we need HS3 (Northern Powerhouse Rail) instead of HS2, it's clear to business leaders and the rail industry in the North that we need both. In the words of Tim Wood "we need HS2 and we need East West capacity as well, it is about capacity not just speed"

In the next blog I hope to set out key objectives of the report and if there are any clues as to what a new Northern Powerhouse East-West railway might look like.


One last quote to finish on, which gives a good sense of the mood within the industry in the North currently; "Northern Power House Rail and HS2 are coming and we need to be ready" Tim Wood

Read part 2: Transport for the North's long term ambition

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

TransNorth set to revolutionise transport in the North

Plans for a 'TransNorth' rail network as well as road investments will be set out by Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne and Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin today.

The Chancellor will announce the first Northern transport strategy produced in conjunction with Transport for the North (TfN) which brings together northern transport authorities. The strategy report will contain a comprehensive transport strategy covering roads, rail, freight, airports and smart ticketing.

It is the Government's intention to 'connect up the north' in order to create a single economy, which it is hoped will allow northern towns and cities to pool their strengths in order to create "Northern Powerhouse"

Plans set out in the report include:

• Slashing journey times between major northern cities with investment in high speed rail
• Developing new east-west road connections including a road tunnel under the peak district
• Introducing Oyster-style smart travel cards and simpler fares across the North.

A key focus of the report is to develop the concept of "High Speed 3" which will form the backbone of a ‘TransNorth’ network.  This 'TransNorth' network will provide fast rail links between Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Newcastle and Hull.

With trains reaching 140mph in some sections it is hoped that a journey time of 20 minutes could be achieved between Liverpool and Manchester. A target of 30 minutes between Manchester and Leeds has been set, with a time of just 45 minutes between Leeds and Hull. It is also claimed that journey times between Manchester and Newcastle could be cut by 25%

Studies produced by Network Rail set out different options for creating a network along with cost estimates.  Options produced include upgrading existing routes to building new lines. The government will provide funding in order to develop the options identified.

The Government will also set out how it will deliver HS2 in the North sooner by preparing a dedicated hybrid Bill to lay during the next Parliament. The aim of bill will be to bring HS2 to Crewe sooner than planned.

As well as improvements to rail services, the Government is to continue with major improvements to the North’s road network. The M62 is to be expanded to to four lanes between Leeds and Manchester and the M6 will also be upgraded to 4 lanes

The A1 will be upgraded to provide continuous motorway standard between London and Newcastle and the M1 will be widened to 4 lane running between Yorkshire and Humber.

It is expected that Transport for the North will become a representative body for the whole of the North of England and will be led by an independent chair. The Government will provide up to £6.4m in order to support Transport for the North’s strategic work and rail option development.

Update: Link to the he Northern Powerhouse document

2013 work progressing on upgrading the WCML between Warrington and Preston

2015 New electric services between Liverpool and Manchester

Work to increase capacity at Manchester Oxford Road is due to start early 2016

In early 2016 work will also begin to add an additional 2 through platforms at Manchester Piccadilly

Government proposals could see HS2 reaching Crewe earlier than planned.