Posted 13th September 2024 | 4 Comments
Mayors publish plan for new railway linking Midlands and North
A plan for a new railway to replace the axed sections of HS2 to Crewe and Manchester is being published today by the mayors of the West Midlands and Greater Manchester.
The proposal is for an 80km line between Lichfield and High Legh, which is near Warrington and just south of the M56 motorway. At this point it would join the Northern Powerhouse network.
The scheme is the result of work chaired by former Network Rail chief executive Sir David Higgins, led by Arup and involving a private sector consortium which includes Arcadis, Addleshaw Goddard, EY, Dragados, Mace and Skanska. Their plan is a bid to solve the problem of capacity north of Birmingham which will not be relieved by Phase 1 of HS2 between London and the West Midlands.
The mayors say the new line would cost 60 to 75 per cent of the HS2 line, and allow speeds of up to 300km/h. As a result, the journey time between London and Manchester would be 30 minutes shorter than at present, and only about 15 minutes longer than would have been achieved with HS2 throughout.
The line would be built in two sections by a private consortium as a Staffordshire Connector and a Cheshire Connector, which would be joined at Crewe.
The Staffordshire Connector would make use of land and powers already secured for HS2 Phase 2A, while the Cheshire Connector would require land north of Crewe being secured through future consents for Northern Powerhouse Rail.
The report says that by making use of land already bought for Phase 2A between the West Midlands and Crewe, it would save taxpayers some £2 billion in costs from the HS2 Phase 2 cancellation by reusing much of the land, powers, and design work that has already been paid for with public money. The report points out that ‘other approaches would be able to make only minimal (if any) use of these “sunk” costs’.
The report concedes that the design at Crewe will be ‘challenging’, because of the complexity of the existing railways in this area, and that one option could be a new north-south avoiding line for through trains.
Transferring passenger trains to the new line north of Birmingham would release additional paths for freight on the West Coast Main Line, which the report says ‘is the most heavily-used freight corridor in the nation’.
It continues: ‘This will greatly contribute to the Government’s target of 75 per cent rail freight growth by 2050, a key pillar in reducing carbon emissions from transport.’
The report also points out that ‘“doing nothing” on this corridor is not a viable option, from either economic or operational perspectives’.
Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burham said: ‘The report is clear: if we fail to put in place a plan soon to fix rail capacity and connectivity between the North and the Midlands, the already-congested West Coast Main Line and M6 will become major barriers to economic growth in the UK.
‘But there is good news for the Government. The report concludes that we do not have to revive HS2 to unlock those benefits. There is a viable option to build a new rail line between Lichfield and High Legh, connecting HS2 to Northern Powerhouse Rail, with almost all of the benefits of HS2 delivered quickly and crucially at a significantly lower cost.
‘Doing nothing is not an option as demand for rail services on the West Coast Main Line is set to exceed capacity within a decade. We are ready to work with Government, colleagues in the West Midlands and the business community to build a railway fit for the 21st century. But we do need early decisions to end the uncertainty.’
Recently-elected West Midlands Mayor Richard Parker added: ‘This report confirms what we’ve been saying – additional rail capacity to and from the North is vital for the West Midlands. It’s about more than quicker journeys; it’s about connecting people, communities, and businesses to jobs and opportunities.
‘I’ll work with the government to ensure this happens, but we must also learn from successful rail systems around the world to deliver the best network and real value to the public. Without this extension, we will continue to be reliant on the West Coast Main Line, which is already maxed out and impacting on the people of this region and wider. We need to free up capacity and we need to get this right – for our future and our economy.’
Sir David Higgins, who when he was at Network Rail once told Railnews ‘we are trashing the West Coast Main Line’, said: ‘Our review sets out a plan to get connectivity between the Midlands and the North West back on track. We don't pretend that solving the rail challenges between these two places will be easy. We know it will be hard graft. What we need now is for the new government to work together with the business community and Combined Authorities – take the practical steps to make a new rail link a reality. We have conclusively shown that a new line can be built cheaper and faster – we now need to get on and deliver it.’
Reader Comments:
Views expressed in submitted comments are that of the author, and not necessarily shared by Railnews.
david C smith, Bletchley
Mention is made re. the Peak Forest line ( ex Midland Railway) , where restoration of the missing few miles through Bakewell could give extra North - South freight capacity. This could take cement traffic off the Hope Valley route, which in turn could then support new service between Manchester and Nottingham / Leicester , using the Totley curve to directly link Hope valley and Erewash valley lines. The most obvious way would involve some EMR St Pancras to Nottingham trains to be extended to Manchester , giving an Intercity standard of provision from Leicester and Nottingham to Manchester.
Michael T., Reading
Do NOT downgrade from the slab track to ballast... as is building to the past and making it outdated before first shovel is in ground.
Applying Logic to the project would make it more 'cost effective' as that seems to be the driving issue. The govt has not learned the Yank and Chinese Ideology of BORROW to INVEST in heavy infrastructure = economic Growth!
The spur to East Midlands (toton)... scotch it... built to a New East Midlands Parkway at East Midlands Airport! Combine the station with the Airport. (duh)
Trains would then carry on to have two to four trains per hour to Nottingham, Derby, and up spine to Sheffield. IF you look at the track zone between East Midlands Airport, Nottm, Derby, Sheffield, etc... there is ample what used to be tracks that is now vacant land adjacent to the existing track.
1. Either move the existing track slightly further apart and add OHLE and have a pair of platforms at Nottm and Derby to have Full Sized (width) trainsets.
or
2. add an additional set of tracks adjacent to the existing up / down line in and out of Nottm and Derby. There is ample room as it looks on maps to have had 10 to 16+ tracks between the two - Once Upon a Time! Ditto to Sheffield.
A 400m trainset could stop at East Midlands Airport, split with Half going to Nottm and half going to Derby and the alternating trainset would go to Sheffield - splitting at Sheffield to serve Doncaster/York and Leeds with 200m trainsets at full loading gauge.
3. As nothing has been constructed at MCR airport.. shift the design slightly so the HSR station platforms are under the existing MCR airport station.
Putting a station a long jaunt distance away and adding the Luton DART type people mover and lumbering passengers with a £10 fare to go less than 1km... face facts, it was only designed to be on other side of runway to have the last km (mile) distance be the most costly (private enterprise cash cow). Kill it before it has a chance to fester into life. There is absolutely ZERO reason for the MCR airport HSR, existing HSTs, and Trams stations to all be - highly intertwined/conjoined/interlaced.
If do not build it with future proofing Now, it would just be yet another bottleneck on the Network when opens.
The adding HSR tracks to the WCML (should have been shown in all publications as a grey - - - - dashed line, immediately adjacent to the WCML out of Euston to the last point it joins the WCML.
The public perception would then be the true reality of it being a bypass of commuter towns, opening of train's flight paths for More Local Commuter Faster Services with the HSR Trainsets on their own purpose build tracks.
Fact is there is not that much difference is the track geometry in a station between standard UK (narrow envelopes) and UIC gauge. 20cm each side of existing train tracks. Shifting the tracks at 20ish cm away from existing platforms = it is a UIC Gauge platform. 20 each side is 40cm added to existing 2.8m is 3.2 metres and they are planned to be in the 3.2x metre range of width of trainsets.
A TBM that cuts through 7m of ground or a 17m width of ground is the SAME to the TBM. A larger cutting head on the TBM. The spoil removed is reused to make concrete so zero net sum gain/loss in size choice.
Ingenuity, imagination... a TBM with an expandable cutting front. It cuts a 10m diameter bore for HSR and when making subsurface trains, as approaching the would be station, the head expands to 17, 18, 20m? for 500m and then retracts back to usual size. The Two running tunnels could then be excavated between the tunnels, add roof and floor... and stairs, lifts, escalators to/from platform level. We could END the UK obsession with OPEN - cut and cover Station Boxes! o=O=o. Running to Station sized and back to running diameter size. Yes the concrete segments can be made to have a conical opening widening into station with the larger O diameter having room for platforms, then the reduce, reduce back to o size. Also have the TBM offset so the distance between tracks and far side from platform wall remains the same throughout the station bore.
This can be used to make subterranean platforms at any depth.
Put thinking caps on lads and show the world, our European Engineering Approach to these stations!
Charles Brady, Okehampton
There is already a largely disused track bed linking “the Midlands” and the North , the former Midland Railway north of Derby. It might be of limited use for higher speeds for passenger trains, but if the real threat is future freight capacity, this is hardly of importance.
This country has got to get its head around how to complete infrastructure projects within time and budget, (perhaps taking a leaf from the book of the Chinese?). Another Civils organisation is reported this morning to have failed, and there are few IT projects that end up on time, at the price quoted and up to the job, especially carried out for government departments or organs of the welfare state.
Future reluctance by Government to unleash almost limitless funds to improve the railways will be completely understandable unless there is a sea-change in project management and cost control. However, such expenditure will no doubt continue to be deemed acceptable for motorways and other road projects.
david C smith, Bletchley
It is imperative to bring British infrastructure costs down ( problem with stop - start nature of schemes ?) before much more can be attempted. Once we can get this sorted, it will render better benefit / cost situations, making such works more viable.
Remembering the island we live in is smaller than most other countries, 300 km /hr is the fastest we should ever need, with 250 km / hr in many places.In some places, completely new construction will be the most appropriate, whilst upgrading could be a best option in others. Also , tilt - technology can make its contribution too.