Northern Powerhouse Rail Progress As Recommendations Made To Government
The title of this post, is the same as that of this article on Transport for the North.
This is the introductory paragraph.
Northern leaders have agreed an initial preferred way forward for a new railway network that will transform the region’s economy.
And these are the rail improvements proposed.
- A new line to be constructed from Liverpool to Manchester via the centre of Warrington, Read more…
- A new line to be constructed from Manchester to Leeds via the centre of Bradford. Read more…
- Significant upgrades and journey time improvements to the Hope Valley route between Manchester and Sheffield. Read more…
- Connecting Sheffield to HS2 and on to Leeds. Read more…
- Significant upgrades and electrification of the rail lines from Leeds and Sheffield to Hull. Read more…
- Significant upgrades of the East Coast Mainline from Leeds to Newcastle (via York and Darlington) and restoration of the Leamside Line. Read more…
The Read more links point to my initial thoughts.
No more detail is given, but the list is followed by this paragraph.
The move comes ahead of the much-anticipated publication of a new report that will set out long-term investment plans for rail upgrades in the North. The Government’s Integrated Rail Plan – due to be published by the end of this year – is expected to recommend how investment in rail projects like Northern Powerhouse Rail, HS2 Phase 2b, and the TransPennine Route Upgrade (a separate project) will be delivered.
I am waiting for the Government’s Integrated Rail Plan with interest.
Why Is Manchester The Odd City Out?
I find the different reactions of the large Northern cities interesting.
I have seen no comment and moaning from Leeds, Newcastle and Sheffield, and Liverpool and the rest of Lancashire seems to have accepted their Tier 3. fate.
Only Manchester seems to have a serious objection.
I know Liverpool well, as I went to Liverpool University in the 1960s, met my late wife there and we lived together in the city for a couple of years.
I still visit the City regularly, as I like the city’s weather and outlook and do business with my old University.
I have visited Manchester many times, often for football (I support Ipswich, despite being a Londoner!) and I find the city very different to Liverpool.
But I don’t seem to warm to Manchester, as I do to Liverpool and the other large cities of the North.
Or is it Manchester doesn’t warm to me?
Andy Burnham is not a Mancunian and could it be, that his hard stand against the Government, is driven by wanting to be more Mancunian, than the Mancunians.
Manchester puzzles me, but it does seem to be out of step with the rest of the North.
Northern Cities And COVID-19
If you look at the official Government statistics for the total number of cases of COVID-19, as of May 3rd, the number of cases in the two major cities in the North West as follows.
- Leeds – 1463 out of a city population of 789,194 (0.18%) and a metro population of 2,638,127 (0.05%)
- Liverpool – 1454 out of a city population of 494,814 (0.29%) and a metro population of 2,241,000 (0.06%)
- Manchester – 1154 out of a city population of 547,627 (0.21%) and a metro population of 3,748,274 (0.03%)
- Newcastle – 939 out of a city population of 300,196 (0.31%) and a metro population of 1,650,000 (0.06%)
- Nottingham – 537 out of a city population of 321,500 (0.17%) and a metro population of 1,610,000 (0.03%)
- Sheffield – 2191 out of a city population of 582,506 (0.38%) and a metro population of 1,569,000 (0.14%)
Note.
- All populations come from Wikipedia.
- Why is Liverpool 40% worse than Manchester?
- Why is Sheffield the worst?
I will add a few smaller towns andcities.
- Blackpool – 465 out of an urban population of 139,720 (0.33%)
- Caldervale – 252 out of an urban population of 200,100 (0.13%)
- Hull – 469 out of a city population of 260,645 (0.18%)
- Middlesbrough – 566 out of an urban population of 174,700 (0.32%)
- Stoke-on-Trent – 509 out of a city population of 255,833 (0.20%)
- York – 315 out of a city population of 209,893 (0.15%)
I’d like to see full statistics plotted on a map or a scatter diagram.
The latter is a very powerful way to plot data and often they highlight data points that lie outside the underlying pattern of the data.
Funding Award to Supply An 8MW Electrolyser
The title of this post, is the same as that of this Press Release from ITM Power.
This is the main body of the Press Release.
ITM Power, the energy storage and clean fuel company, is pleased to announce it has signed an agreement to supply an 8MW electrolyser in the UK. The agreement, including associated project costs, has a total value of £10m and funding will fall across FY2021 and FY2022. Further details will be announced in due course.
I bet they’re pleased!
To get a hold on what 8 MW looks like, these Class 90 locomotive each have a power output of just under 4 MW and are capable of hauling an eight-coach express train at 110 mph.
Working at full rate, the electrolyser will be able in a year to convert 70 GWh of electricity into hydrogen.
Why Would You Want An 8MW Electrolyser?
These are a few ideas.
Green Hydrogen For Humberside
This is a project described in this ITM Power Press Release.
This is the first three paragraphs.
ITM Power, the energy storage and clean fuel company, is pleased to announce that it has won, with partner Element Energy, a first stage deployment project in the UK Government’s Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund competition “Decarbonisation of Industrial Clusters” to assess the feasibility and scope of deploying green hydrogen with some major industrial partners in Humberside.
“Green Hydrogen for Humberside” will lead to the production of renewable hydrogen at the Gigawatt (GW) scale distributed to a mix of industrial energy users in Immingham, Humberside. Decarbonisation of this cluster is critical in reaching the UK’s legally binding 2050 net zero emission targets. Humberside, the UK’s largest cluster by industrial emissions, (12.4Mt of CO2 per year), contributes £18bn to the national economy each year and has access to a large renewable resource from offshore wind in the North Sea.
The project will work with customers in the region to establish the feasibility of switching to renewable hydrogen and justify a number of 100MW deployments of electrolysers. The project will cost the supply of hydrogen to these end users. This includes the electricity supply to the electrolyser, the hydrogen production facility, hydrogen distribution across the Humber and conversion of existing processes to use renewable hydrogen.
The study talks about a number of 100 MW deployments of electrolysers.
Will the 8MW electrolyser be a demonstrator for this project?
To Convert Surplus Renewable Energy Into Hydrogen Which Is Injected Into The Gas Grid
The Wikipedia entry for ITM Power has a section entitled Energy Storage Power To Gas. This is the first paragraph.
Power-to-Gas is a methodology of introducing such hydrogen to the natural gas network, essentially converting renewable electrical power to a clean gas that can be more conveniently stored using existing assets. There are two main Power-to-Gas mechanisms. The first involves metering pressurised hydrogen into the gas network directly. The second involves combining hydrogen with carbon dioxide via a methanation process to produce synthetic natural gas prior to introduction to the grid.
The electrolyser could be used to convert a lot of electricity into zero-carbon hydrogen for use in the UK gas network.
Improving The Resilience Of The UK Gas Network
This article on the BBC is entitled Major Power Failure Affects Homes And Transport and it describes a major power failure, when two generators failed in August 2019.
Could the 8MW electrolyser be part of the solution to make the UK power network more robust, if parts of the network fail?
To Create Feedstock For An Oil Refinery Or Petro-Chemical Plant
Hydrogen can be used as a feedstock for an oil refinery or petro-chemical plant.
This ITM Power Press Release, describes such a project, where wind power from the North Sea is used to create hydrogen for Phillips 66 Limited’s Humber Refinery.
As Part Of An Experimental Steel-Making Plant
This is pure speculation on my part, but steel-making creates lot of carbon-dioxide.
I do believe that using hydrogen to make steel is possible and ITM Power are based in the steel-city of Sheffield.
On the other hand look at the HYBRIT web site.
This is the introductory paragraph.
In 2016, SSAB, LKAB and Vattenfall joined forces to create HYBRIT – an initiative that endeavors to revolutionize steel-making. HYBRIT aims to replace coking coal, traditionally needed for ore-based steel making, with hydrogen. The result will be the world’s first fossil-free steel-making technology, with virtually no carbon footprint.
During 2018, work started on the construction of a pilot plant for fossil-free steel production in Luleå, Sweden. The goal is to have a solution for fossil-free steel by 2035. If successful, HYBRIT means that together we can reduce Sweden’s CO2 emissions by 10% and Finland’s by 7%.
This page on their web site is entitled Steel Making Today And Tomorrow. This image compares traditional blast furnace steelmaking with HYBRIT.
Note that at the heart of the process is the production of hydrogen from renewable electricity. This process will need a large electrolyser.
Could someone be doing something similar in Sheffield or more likely, Scunthorpe?
- British Steel may be owned by the Chinese, but it has a record of innovation.
- We will need a lot of long steel products, like railway rails and girders, in which British Steel specialise.
- In a few years, Humberside will have enough renewable electricity from North Sea wind to create an electro-magnetic gun to fire space capsules at Mars.
I will be watching out for hydrogen steelmaking.
Is Jim Ratcliffe Up To Something?
Jim Ratcliffe is a very rich man and the chairman and CEO of INEOS, which has a turnover of $83billion.
Consider.
- INEOS must know about hydrogen.
- I read some years ago, how they were using waste hydrogen to generate electricity on Teesside.
- I have a feeling that they have backed a hydrogen fuel-cell company.
- They own the hydrogen factory in Runcorn, where I worked in 1970.
- They have extensive interests in the North West, North East and Scotland.
- The company probably has an enormous carbon-footprint, that they’d probably like to reduce, by perhaps using hydrogen instead of natural gas as a feedstock for some processes, like production of ammonia.
But above all the cost of an 8MW electrolyser would be small change and probably cost a lot less, than running the cycling team.
The Fallback
It could of course be used to produce a large amount of hydrogen to power buses, cars and trains.
The Wrong Kind Of Bleach?
This article on Railnews is entitled 9 September: News In Brief.
It has the following sub-title.
Wrong Bleach Took Caledonian Sleepers Out Of Service
This is the first sentence.
Cleabers who used the wrong specification of bleach in the toilets and shower rooms on Caledonian Sleepers caused significant damage after the chemicals reacted with stainless steel pipes,
To my knowledge stainless steel, especially when it contains increased levels of chromium and some molybdenum, can be very proof to attack from most substances.
Look at this Butler Shba cutlery made in Sheffield from stainless steel with black Delrin plastic handles, which have seen continuous use in my household for fifty years.
Now that’s what I call stainless steel!
Perhaps, the Spanish used the wrong type of stainless steel?
Delrin is a form of polyoxymethylene, which is an engineering plastic.
This plastic has a wide spectrum of usage, including in zips, bagpipes and metered dose inhalers, to name just three of hundreds.
Will HS2 And Northern Powerhouse Rail Go For The Big Bore?
Different Versions Of This Post
The original post was published on the 25th August 2019.
It has been updated on the 21st November 2020 to reflect changes made to High Speed Two (HS2).
The Merging Of High Speed Two And Northern Powerhouse Rail
It looks to me that there will be increasing links and merging between High Speed Two (HS2) and Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR).
This report on the Transport for the North web site, is entitled At A Glance – Northern Powerhouse Rail.
Proposals and possibilities include.
- NPR will have a Western terminal at a new station in Liverpool City Centre.
- HS2 trains would access Liverpool and Manchester via a junction between HS2 and NPR at High Legh.
- There will be six trains per hour (tph) between Liverpool and Manchester via Manchester Airport.
- The route between Manchester and Manchester Airport is planned to be in tunnel.
- There will be six tph between Manchester and Leeds.
In addition, Boris has made positive noises about a high speed line between Manchester and Leeds being of a high priority.
So will the planners go for the logical solution of a High Speed tunnel between Manchester Airport and Leeds?
- There could be a theoretical capacity of perhaps 18 tph, which is the design capacity of High Speed Two.
- Speeds of up to 125 mph or more could be possible. The Gottard Base Tunnel has an operating speed for passenger trains of 125 mph.
- Stations could be at Manchester Airport, Manchester Piccadilly/Piccadilly Gardens/Victoria, Huddersfield, Bradford and Leeds.
- West of Manchester Airport, the route appears easier and the tunnel would emerge close to the airport. Jigh Speed Two is planning that the tunnel emeges just to the North of the Airport and that the station is below ground level.
- East of Leeds the tunnel would join up with existing routes to Doncaster, Hull, Newcastle and York.
I believe such a tunnel could be built without disrupting existing rail services and passengers. Remember building Crossrail’s tunnels was an almost invisible process.
It would result in two rail systems across Northern England.
- Upgraded Classic Rail Routes
- The Big Bore
My thoughts on the two systems follow.
Upgraded Classic Rail Routes
This could include improvements such as these,
- Extra passing loops.
- Selective electrification
- Improved stations
- Comprehensive in-cab digital signalling
- More paths for passenger and freight trains.
Which could be applied to routes, such as these.
- The Huddersfield Line
- The Chat Moss Line
- The Calder Valley Line
- The Hope Valley Line
- The Dearne Valley Line
- The Selby Line
- The Midland Main Line North Of Clay Cross
In addition, there could be the reopening of some closed or freight routes to passenger trains.
This article on Rail Technology Magazine is entitled Network Rail Reveals Detailed £2.9bn Upgrade Plans For TransPennine Route.
It is a comprehensive upgrade that includes.
- Improvement between Huddersfield and Westtown
- Grade separation or a tunnel at Ravensthorpe
- Rebuilding and electrification of eight miles of track.
- Possible doubling the number of tracks from two to four.
- Improved stations at Huddersfield, Deighton, Mirfield and Ravensthorpe.
This project would be a major improvement to the Huddersfield Line.
In Sheffield Region Transport Plan 2019 – Hope Valley Line Improvements, I talked about planned improvements to the Hope Valley Line, which should begin in the next couple of years.
These improvements are given in detail under Plans in the Wikipedia entry for the Hope Valley Line.
The Hope Valley Improvements will cost in the region of tens of millions of pounds and Wikipedia sums up the benefits like this.
These changes to allow three fast trains, a stopping train and freight trains each hour were also supported in a Transport for the North investment report in 2019, together with “further interventions” for the Northern Powerhouse Rail programme.
It seems like good value to me!
So could we see other Multi-million and billion pound projects created to improve the classic routes across the Pennines?
Projects would be fully planned and the costs and benefits would then be assessed and calculated.
Then it would be up to the Project Managers to devise the optimal structure and order in which to carry out all the projects.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see the following techniques used.
- Discontinuous electrification to avoid bridge reconstruction.
- Intelligent, hybrid diesel/electric/battery trains from Bombardier, Hitachi or Stadler, capable of 125 mph running and changing mode at speed.
- Modular digital signalling
- Factory built stations and step-free bridges.
- Removal of all level crossings.
- All stations updated for step-free access between train and platform.
The objectives would be as follows.
- More paths, where needed.
- Faster line speed.
- Less running on diesel.
- Fast station stops.
Hopefully, the upgrading could be done without too much disruption.
Remember though, that disruption to existing users during a project, is most likely down to bad project management.
The Big Bore
The Central Core tunnel of Crossrail between Royal Oak and East London, was virtually a separate project before Crossrail’s stations and much of other infrastructure was built.
I believe that digging the tunnel first gave a big advantage, in that it could be constructed as an independent project, provided that the logistics of delivering the components and removing the junk was done efficiently.
But it did mean that travellers wouldn’t see any benefits until the project was almost complete.
HS2 and NPR are different in that they also envisage upgrading these routes.
- The Huddersfield Line
- The Chat Moss Line
- The Calder Valley Line
- The Hope Valley Line
- The Dearne Valley Line
- The Selby Line
- The Midland Main Line North Of Clay Cross
Only the Huddersfield Line is directly affected by the Big Bore.
Effectively, the Big Bore will provide a by-pass route for passenger trains between Leeds and West of Manchester Airport, to take the fast trains of HS2 and NPR underneath the congested classic lines.
In Changes Signalled For HS2 Route In North I said this about a tunnel between Leeds and Manchester.
To get a twenty-five minute time between Leeds and Manchester with a ten minute frequency, which I believe is the minimum service the two cities deserve, would be like passing a whole herd of camels through the eye of a single needle.
The Swiss, who lets face it have higher hills, than we have in Northern England would create a new route mainly in tunnel between the two cities, with perhaps an underground station beneath the current Grade I Listed; Huddersfield station.
The transport for the North report suggests Bradford Low Moor station, as an intermediate station, so why not Bradford Low Moor and Huddersfield stations?
Note that the Gotthard Base Tunnel, which opened a couple of years ago, deep under the Alps, is about the same length as a Leeds and Manchester tunnel, and cost around eight billion pounds.
It would be expensive, but like Crossrail in London, the tunnel would have big advantages.
- It could be built without disrupting current rail and road networks.
- It would have a capacity of up to thirty tph in both directions.
- Unlike Crossrail, it could handle freight trains.
- It would unlock and join the railway systems to the East and West.
I believe, it would be a massive leap forward for transport in the North of England.
It would be a very big project and probably one of the longest rail tunnels in the world.
Comparison With The Gotthard Base Tunnel
But surely, if a small and rich nation like Switzerland can build the Gotthard Base Tunnel, then we have the resources to build the Big Bore between Manchester Airport and Leeds.
Consider these facts about the Gotthard Base Tunnel.
- It is two single track bores.
- Each bore has a track length of around 57 kilometres or 35 miles.
- The tunnel may be deep, but it is direct and level.
- The maximum speed is 250 kph or 160 mph.
- The operational speed for passenger trains is 200 kph or 125 mph.
- The operational speed for freight is 100 kph or 62 mph.
- It can take the largest freight trains.
To make numbers even more impressive it is joined to the shorter Ceneri Base Tunnel, to provide an even longer route.
Manchester Airport And Leeds Direct
Now consider Manchester Airport and Leeds.
- The current rail distance is 56 miles.
- There are stops at Manchester Piccadilly, Manchester Oxford Road, Manchester Victoria and Huddersfield stations.
- Journey time is eighty minutes.
But the direct distance is only 68 kilometres or forty-three miles.
Surely if the Swiss can blast and dig two 57 km. single-track rail tunnels through solid rock, we can go eleven kilometres further with all the recent experience of tunnelling around the world.
The lengths of the various legs would be as follows.
- Manchester Airport and Manchester – 14 km.
- Manchester and Huddersfield – 35 km.
- Huddersfield and Bradford – 17 km.
- Bradford and Leeds – 13 km
Trains running on the various legs at 200 kph, which is the cruising speed of a 1970s-built InterCity 125, could take the following times for the various legs.
- Manchester Airport and Manchester – 4.2 minutes
- Manchester and Huddersfield – 10.5 minutes
- Huddersfield and Bradford – 5.1 minutes
- Bradford and Leeds – 13 km – 3.9 minutes
Leeds and Manchester Airport would be under thirty minutes apart, even allowing two minutes each for the three stops.
Looking at NPR between Liverpool and Hull, times could be as follows.
- Liverpool and Manchester – 26 minutes
- Manchester and Leeds – 20 minutes
- Leeds and Hull – 38 minutes
Or a Coast-to-Coast time of under ninety minutes.
Train Frequencies
HS2 is being designed to handle eighteen tph, although slower intensive railways in the UK can handle up to twenty-four tph.
At the current time or certainly in a few years time, the theoretical maximum frequency through the Big Bore should be between these two figures. I will assume at least eighteen tph in this post.
The At A Glance – Northern Powerhouse Rail report talks about the following frequencies.
- Liverpool and Manchester via Manchester Airport – Six tph.
- Manchester and Leeds – Six tph
- Leeds and Hull – Two tph
This is all so lacking in ambition. It is like building a new high capacity road and only allowing those with status to use the road.
If Leeds and Manchester Airport can handle eighteen tph, why not use some of it to create an Express Metro under the Pennines?
To me, if the Big Bore is built, nothing short of twelve tph or a train every five minutes is acceptable, at Liverpool, Manchester Airport, Manchester, Huddersfield, Bradford and Leeds stations.
The extension to Hull could be reduced to perhaps six tph, but with the upgrading of the Hull and Leeds Line to perhaps 140 mph, I’d be bold and create a true TransPennine Express;
Hull and Liverpool every five minutes would be the ultimate Marketing Man’s dream.
The Underground Stations
Manchester Airport, Manchester, Huddersfield, Bradford and Leeds would all be through stations deep underground.
- They would be connected to the surface by lifts and escalators.
- Some entrances to the stations would connect to existing stations and others might emerge in City squares like Manchester’s P:iccadilly Gardens.
- Most stations would be just two platforms, as all trains would pass through on either side of a large underground concourse.
- Bay platforms could be added as required.
- All stations would have platform edge doors.
- Passengers would be able to reverse direction by just walking across the concourse.
Stations would build on the lessons learned from Crossrail. But then NPR is closer to Crossrail than a Classic High Speed Line.
Weston Williamson’s Vision For Manchester Piccadilly Station
I wrote about this in The Rival Plans For Piccadilly Station, That Architects Say Will ‘Save Millions’.
I believe that this is the way to create an underground station.
The Terminal Stations
The two main terminal stations for NPR and trains running through the Big Bore would be the proposed High Speed station at Liverpool and the existing Hull station.
But one other terminal station is being created; Edinburgh.
I have been going to Edinburgh station to and from England for perhaps thirty years and the capacity of the station has constantly increased.
Recent developments are extended Platforms 5 and 6, that can take the longest LNER trains.
I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that with the application of digital signalling, that there is capacity for at least eight tph between Edinburgh and Newcastle.
There would certainly be capacity for at least two tph between Liverpool and Edinburgh via Manchester Airport, Manchester, Huddersfield, Bradford, Leeds, York and Newcastle.
In the East the other possibilities for terminals are Doncaster, Newcastle and York.
- I would discount Newcastle, as it lacks capacity and its location would make it difficult to add more.
- Doncaster has good connectivity and space, but do Leeds and Hull offer similar connectivity?
So that leaves Hull, Edinburgh and York, as the only Eastern terminals.
In the West, there is probably a need to connect to the Northern section of the West Coast Main Line (WCML).
Glasgow Central is probably the obvious terminal, but it would need an extra connection at the junction of HS2, NPR and WCML at High Legh.
If necessary Preston could be used, as it has space and lots of connectivity.
Tunnel Size
As Manchester will be served by High Speed Two’s Full-Size trains from Birmingham and London, both Manchester stations will need to be built to accept these trains.
I feel that the whole tunnel between Manchester Airport and Leeds, should be built to the High Speed Two size, so that it can accept the largest possible passenger and freight trains, in the future.
Integration Of HS2 and NPR
The At A Glance – Northern Powerhouse Rail report is proposing this and it looks that the following HS2 services could be possible between Euston and Manchester.
- Two tph – Euston and Hull via Old Oak Common, Manchester Airport, Manchester, Huddersfield, Bradford and Leeds
- Two tph – Euston and Edinburgh via Old Oak Common, Manchester Airport, Manchester, Huddersfield, Bradford, Leeds, York and Newcastle.
Note.
- Manchester Airport, Manchester, Huddersfield, Bradford and Leeds would all have four tph to and from London, by the Western arm of HS2’s Y.
- If in addition there were two tph between Liverpool and Hull and Liverpool and Edinburgh, this would mean four tph from the Big Bore of NPR to both Hull and Edinburgh.
- None of these core services need to terminate in the Big Bore.
I very much feel that integrating HS2 and NPR is the way to go.
Could We See A High Speed Northern Metro?
If we assume that the Big Bore could handle the HS2 frequency of at least eighteen tph, then it would be possible to create a high speed service across the Pennines with the following Metro-like frequencies.
- Liverpool and Hull – 4 tph
- Liverpool and Edinburgh – 2 tph
- Glasgow and Hull – 2 tph
- London Euston and Hull – 2 tph
- London Euston and Edinburgh – 2 tph
This would result in the following frequencies
- Liverpool – 6 tph
- Glasgow – 2 tph
- London Euston – 4 tph
- Manchester Airport – 12 tph
- Manchester – 12 tph
- Huddersfield – 12 tph
- Bradford – 12 tph
- Leeds – 12 tph
- Hull – 8 tph
- York – 4 tph
- Newcastle – 4 tph
- Edinburgh – 4 tph
What would these frequencies do for train travel in the North of England?
Freight
The Gotthard Base Tunnel has been designed so that both freight and passenger trains can use the route.
There is a need for extra freight capacity across the country and I wonder if freight trains could use the Big Bore.
I estimate that the Big Bore would be 68 kilometres if bored straight and level between West of Manchester Airport and Leeds.
Lets assume it is seventy kilometres or 43.5 miles.
So times, through the tunnel at various average speeds would be.
- 125 mph – 21 minutes
- 110 mph – 23.7 minutes
- 100 mph – 26.1 minutes
- 90 mph – 29 minutes
- 80 mph – 32.6 minutes
- 62 mph (Gotthard Base Tunnel speed for freight) – 42 minutes.
Could it be mandated that freight trains can use the tunnel, if they could maintain a particular speed?
Consider.
- A 125 mph train with stops at Manchester Airport, Manchester, Huddersfield, Bradford and Leeds would probably take thirty minutes to transit the tunnel.
- A freight train running at 90 mph would take more or less the same time.
- Fifteen tph would mean a train every four minutes.
- Automatic control of all trains in the tunnel would be a possibility. It appears to work on the much more complicated Thameslink.
I think with the following conditions, one or even two freight trains per hour, in addition to the passenger trains, can pass through the Big Bore in each direction.
- The locomotives have the performance of at least the Class 93 locomotive, which is currently being built.
- Freight trains can be hauled through at a minimum speed, which could be between 90 and 110 mph.
- The passenger trains and train and platform staff work together to produce very short station dwell times.
- All passenger trains are identical.
- Station platforms are designed so that passengers can leave and enter the trains rapidly.
It will be a Big Bore with a capacity to match!
What About Sheffield?
I haven’t forgotten Sheffield, but I think it could be linked across the Pennines by another route.
Under the upgrades for Northern Powerhouse Rail, it is proposed that services between Sheffield and Leeds become 4 tph in 25 minutes along the Dearne Valley Line.
Does Boris Know More Than He Lets On?
The headline on the front cover of Issue 885 of Rail Magazine is Boris Backs New Pennine Railway.
There is also a sub-heading of PM commits to Leeds-Manchester line.
Boris didn’t apply any substance to the speech, except to say that it will be funded.
Conclusion
I believe that my naïve analysis in this post shows that a TransPennine tunnel is possible.
But I believe that the right tunnel could have one big advantage.
Suppose it was built to handle the following.
- A capacity of eighteen tph, which is the same as High Speed Two.
- An operating speed of 140 mph or more. The Gotthard Base Tunnel has a maximum operating speed of 160 mph.
- High Speed Two’s Full-Size trains.
- The largest freight trains.
It would be future proofed for longer than anybody could envisage.
There are also other smaller advantages.
- It would by-pass a lot of difficult areas.
- It would cause very little aural and visual disruption.
- IIf it were designed with care, it would affect the flora and fauna.
- As with the Swiss tunnel, it could be dug level, which would save energy and allow trains to run faster.
- It could be running twelve tph between Leeds and Manchester Airport via Bradford, Huddersfield and Manchester Piccadilly.
- Existing surface railways at the Eastern end could serve Cleethorpes, Darlington, Doncaster, Edinburgh, Hull, Middlesbrough, Newcastle, Scarborough, Sheffield and York
- Existing surface railways at the Western end could serve Barrow, Blackpool, Carlisle, Chester, Glasgow, Liverpool. North Wales, Preston and Wigan.
It would be more like Thameslink for the North turned on its side, rather than Crossrail for the North.
How Will Abellio East Midlands Railway Maximise Capacity On The Midland Main Line?
In this post, I will try and get a feel to how Abellio East Midlands Railway, will maximise capacity on the Midland Main Line.
The Current Service
There are currently two trains per hour (tph) to both Nottingham and Sheffield and one tph to Corby from London.
Ignoring the Corby service, which will be using electric trains, intermediate calls have these frequencies, from South to North.
- Bedford – One tph
- Wellingborough – One tph
- Kettering – One tph
- Market Harborough – Two tph
- Leicester – Four tph
- Loughborough – Two tph
- East Midlands Parkway – Two tph
- Long Eaton – One tph
- Beeston – One tph
- Derby – Two tph
- Chesterfield – Two tph
As the new bi-mode trains will be more modern, with probably shorter dwell times at each station, I suspect that when Abellio East Midlands Railway implement their ultimate timetable, there will be more stops, without degrading journey times.
These are fastest times.
- London and Nottingham is one hour forty minutes
- London and Sheffield is two hours
I feel that round trips to both destinations will be four hours with some speed increases and shorter station dwell times.
- The current two tph to Nottingham and Sheffield needs eight trains to each destination.
- This is a total of sixteen trains.
As each train could be two five-car trains working as a ten-car train, train numbers for the current service could be as high as thirty-two trains.
A first look seems to indicate that there .will be no overall increase in train frequency, although, as I said earlier, the performance of the new trains should allow extra station stops.
It also indicates to me, that any increases in frequency between London and Nottingham/Sheffield will need extra trains.
The Electrified High Speed Line South Of Kettering
Midland Main Line services South of Kettering are as follows.
- Two tph to London and Nottingham
- Two tph between London and Sheffield
- One tph between London and Corby.
From December 2021, there will be two tph between London and Corby.
The maximum number of services between London and Kettering on the electrified section currently envisaged is only six tph or one train every ten minutes.
As the Class 700 trains on Thameslink are capable of using digital signalling and all the new trains will also be similarly equipped, I wouldn’t be surprised that the theoretical capacity of the electrified fast lines could be higher than the proposed six tph. |Especially, when digital signalling is installed.
The number of trains in the fleet, is much more of a limit on services, than the capacity of the Midland Main Line.
If all trains were ten cars, the following numbers of trains would be needed.
- Current two tph – 32 trains
- Increase to three tph – 48 trains
- Increase to three tph – 64 trains
Are there enough passengers to fill all these trains?
Does St. Pancras Have Enough Capacity?
St. Pancras station has four platforms for Midland Main Line services.
- The platforms are long enough to take two five-car Class 222 trains,.
- They would surely accommodate a ten-car formation of the new Hitachi trains.
- Each platform can probably handle three or four tph, giving a total capacity of 12-16 tph.
As four tph to Nottingham and Sheffield and two tph to Corby is only a total of ten tph, there is enough platform capacity for several years to come.
If there is a problem, it is that the large numbers of passengers would overwhelm the stairs and escalators between the ground level of the station and the platforms.
I am certain, that just like the Eurostar platforms at St. Pancras, the Midland Main Line platforms will need better passenger access and facilities.
Will it even be enough, when up to six tph, all of which could be 240 metres long, start to arrive in December 2021?
What could be done to help solve the capacity problem at St. Pancras station in the future?
Better Access To The Midland Main Line Platforms
Consider.
- Space is limited to add extra escalators, lifts and places to wait
- St. Pancras is a Grade I Listed Building.
- As I don’t travel through the station in the Peak, the escalators seem to always be going the wrong way.
Improving the current access will be very difficult.
This Google Map shows the Northern End of the station.
Note.
- The Midland Main Line platforms are the two island platforms on the left.
- The Southeastern HighSpeed platforms are the two island platforms on the right.
- The Eurostar platforms are the three island platforms in the middle.
Could a second entrance to some of the platforms be built here?
It would be very difficult, unless the extension was future-proofed when it was built.
Underground Improvements
Getting between the Midland Main Line platforms and the Underground is an obstable course.
As a Londoner, who’s had the operation to have the Underground Map implanted in my brain, I generally go to the Midland Main Line platforms at St. Pancras by taking one of the following.
A bus from close to my house to outside the station.
- A Metropolitan Line train from Moorgate
- A Northern Line train from Angel.
- A Piccadilly Line train from Manor House
- A Victoria Line train from Highbury & Islington
The last four need a bus to get to the Underground.
I usually come back home, by spending just over a tenner on a black cab!
Crossrail 2
Crossrail 2 should improve matters, but will it ever be built?
Will The New Brent Cross Thameslink Station Allow Cross Platform Interchange Between Midland Main Line and Thameslink Services?
Consider.
- The proposed Brent Cross Thameslink will be just North of Cricklewood station.
- Midland Main Line services through the station would be six tph.
- Thameslink services through the station would be fourteen tph
- The West London Orbital Railway could be built to connect the station to High Speed Two and Heathrow
Would it take the pressure off St. Pancras?
It might do, if a cross-platform interchange could be arranged.
Could Some Midland Main Line Services Use Thameslink?
Consider.
- The obvious service to go through Thameslink would be the two tph service between Corby and St. Pancras.
- Thameslink is currently setup to handle 24 tph, but it has been designed for 30 tph.
- The Corby service will stop at Kettering, Luton and Luton Airport Parkway, to the North of London.
- It could perhaps terminate at the soon-to-be-rebuilt Gatwick Airport station in the South.
It might work!
Especially, if Kettering station were to be rebuilt to have cross-platform interchange between Corby sewrvices and the bi-mode ones going further North.
Splitting And Joining Trains
In Rock Rail Wins Again!, I gave this simple example of how the splitting and joining capability of Hitachi AT-300 trains can be used.
A ten-car train might leave St. Pancras as two five-car units running as a pair. It could split at East Midlands Parkway station and one train could go to Nottingham and the other to Derby. Coming South the two trains would join at East Midlands Parkway.
I feel that Derby, East Midlands Parkway and Leicester are ideal stations on the Midland Main Line, where services could be split and joined.
- They have at least four platforms.
- The platforms are long and straight.
The two terminals at Nottingham and Sheffield could also probably be used to enable services to serve more destinations.
Shorter trains must have advantages on some routes.
- Capacity is better matched to demand.
- Platforms may not need to be extended.
- Services can be run by a driver and a conductor.
Will Abellio East Midlands Railway use splitting and joining to increase the coverage of their services?
Great Western Railway’s Class 800, 801 and 802 trains have the capability to split and join and the operator doesn’t seem to use it. Although, they do split and join Class 387 trains.
Extended Services To And From The North And East
The ability to split and join, that could be used to extend services to the North And East.
Serving Barnsley, South Yorkshire And Leeds
Consider.
- In Sheffield Region Transport Plan 2019 – A New Station At Barnsley Dearne Valley, I talked about a proposed new station at Barnsley Dearne Valley on the route between Sheffield and Leeds.
- The Sheffield Region Transport Plan 2019, also envisages a new Midland Main Line station at Rotherham.
- This report on the Transport for the North web site, is entitled At A Glance – Northern Powerhouse Rail.
- The report states that there will be a fast Sheffield and Leeds service at a frequency of four tph, that taqkes twenty-eight minutes.
- Currently, East Midlands services on this route take just over half-an-hour with only a stop at Wakefield Westgate.
I wonder if there are paths and need for a London and Sheffield service to split at Sheffield with, the two five-car trains going to different destinations.
- Leeds via Rotherham, Barnsley Dearne Valley and Wakefield Westgate, is one possibility.
- Could a service go to Huddersfield?
- Hull is probably too far.
One tph could terminate at Sheffield and one splitting and one tph could split and serve other destinations.
Advantages could include.
- Barnsley and Rotherham get a direct hourly service to London.
- South Yorkshire and Leeds have a direct hourly service to the East Midlands.
- Sheffield and Leeds have an hourly fast service.
I’m sure Abellio have a very workable plan to improve services North of Sheffield.
Serving Lincolnshire And Nottinghamshire
Consider.
- Splitting and joining at Nottingham may allow an increase in direct services to and from Lincoln.
- Perhaps parts of North Lincolnshire could be well-served by a fast train from Nottingham.
- Would Mansfield and Worksop benefit from a direct service from London on the Robin Hood Line, after a reverse at Nottingham.
The five-car trains give the flexibility to do the previously unthinkable.
Conclusion
There is a lot of developments that can or will happen with Midland Main Line services.
Sheffield Region Transport Plan 2019 – Hope Valley Line Improvements
The improvements to the Hope Valley Line are listed under Plans in the Wikipedia entry for the line.
This is said.
Network Rail, in partnership with South Yorkshire ITA, will redouble the track between Dore Station Junction and Dore West Junction, at an estimated cost of £15 million. This costing is based on four additional vehicles in traffic to deliver the option, however, this will depend on vehicle allocation through the DfT rolling stock plan. This work will be programmed, subject to funding, in conjunction with signalling renewals in the Dore/Totley Tunnel area.
Other proposals include a loop in the Bamford area, in order to fit in an all-day (07:00–19:00) hourly Manchester–Sheffield via New Mills Central stopping service, by extending an existing Manchester–New Mills Central service. Planning permission for this was granted in February 2018.
These changes to allow three fast trains, a stopping train and freight trains each hour were also supported in a Transport for the North investment report in 2019, together with “further interventions” for the Northern Powerhouse Rail programme.
So what does that all mean?
All of the stations mentioned like Dore & Totley, Bamford are at the Sheffield end of the Hope Valley Line, where it joins the Midland Main Line.
This map, which was clipped from Wikipedia, shows the lines and the stations.
Note.
- The Midland Main Line runs South to North and West is upwards
- Dore West Junction is close to the Eastern end of Totley Tunnel.
- The Hope Valley Line is double track from Dore West Junction to the West.
- The Midland Main Line is double-track.
- Dore & Totley station is on a single-track chord, between Dore West Junction and Dore Station Junction.
- Another single-track chord connects Dore West Junction and Dore South Junction on the Midland Main Line.
I’ll now cover each part of the work in seperate sections.
Dore Junction And Dpre & Totley Station
This Google Map shows the area of Dore & Totley station and the triangular junction.
Note.
- Dore & Totley station is at the North of the map.
- The Midland Main Line goes down the Eastern side of the triangular junction.
- The Hope Valley Line goes West from Dore West Junction.
- The Midland Main Line goes South from Dore South Junction.
Network Rail’s plan would appear to do the following.
- Create a double-track between Dore Station Junction and Dore West Junction, through the Dore & Totley station.
- Add a second platform and a footbridge with lifts to the station.
Instead of a single-track line handling traffic in both directions, there will be a double-track railway with a track in each direction.
Capacity will have been increased.
In some ways Network Rail are only returning the station to how it existed in the past, so it shouldn’t be the most difficult of projects. But many of this type of project have surprises, so I’ll see it when the new station opens.
The Bamford Loop
On this page on the Friends of Dore & Totley Station web site, this is said about the Bamford Loop.
A Bamford Loop which is a place to halt frieight trains to allow passenger trains to overtake. This is east of Bamford station.
It is around a thousand metres long.
Flying my helicopter between Bamford and Heathersage stations, the track appears almost straight and adding a loop shouldn’t be that difficult.
The only problem is that there is a level crossing for a footpath at Heathersage West.
This will be replaced by a footbridge.
Benefits
The page on the Friends of Dore & Totley Station gives the main benefits of the scheme are to :-
- Increase the number of fast trains from 2 to 3 per hour
- Increase the stopping trains from 1 every 2 hours to 1 per hour
- To provide for 3 freight trains every two hours as at present.
- Allow trains of up to 6 cars to use the route
- Accommodate longer freight trains
- Improve reliability on the route
These seem to be fairly worthwhile benefits from a relatively simple scheme