HS2 Sheffield

[JohnB57]

The parkway is clearly a sop for those in locations like mine who would have had moderately convenient access to HS2 at Meadowhall. Sheffield Midland is not an option and, if the new route is adopted, nor will the proposed parkway, but they had to offer something. It will not be funded and will be quietly dropped.

As others have indicated, Sheffield's various pressure groups don't seem to realise that the city may get high speed trains, but it certainly won't get a high speed railway.

 

[Haydn1971]

but who would pay?



If Rotherham and Meadowhall are to have direct HS2 CC services; that might be expected to resolve the political issue within South Yorkshire. But that then would be contingent on someone other than HS2 paying for the upgrade to the Barnsley and Rotherham lines. Which in turn makes it most unlikely that funding will be forthcoming for a parkway. I think that experience is consistent that parkways in themselves (without an associated major trip generator) dont work on HSR lines.

Sheffield will of course be happy with the arrangement, as will Chesterfield, however the rest of the City Region won't be, so there will be a strong push from Barnsley, Doncaster and Bassetlaw to improve their links via SCRIF - Doncaster and Bassetlaw may well be unworried, they will retain an excellent direct service to London, albeit with less trains per hour.

So the biggest losers Rotherham and Barnsley could well be appeased by extended services from Sheffield and station modifications to accommodate a 200/400m Classic Compatible unit - Barnsley will need to close the nearby level crossing, plus build a third platform (to the eastern side sensibly), Rotherham may be happy to settle with a Meadowhall terminating/calling service, but again, some work would be required to build a third platform to accommodate a terminating area, which may help at Sheffield by not parking 200/400m trains for long periods, especially during the off peak.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The parkway is clearly a sop for those in locations like mine who would have had moderately convenient access to HS2 at Meadowhall. Sheffield Midland is not an option and, if the new route is adopted, nor will the proposed parkway, but they had to offer something. It will not be funded and will be quietly dropped.

It would be interesting to see how the diagramming works now, taking a stop out of five services and cutting the journey time of some (assuming routing via Sheffield options), plus changes on the Crewe line could impact on the overall schedules - two trains per hour could end up being 10 minutes apart with a 50 minute wait for the next one.

 

[Spod]

not clear what you are meaning here; what is the 'York connection'?

The current plan (here's the 2013 detailed map) is for the HS2 line to split south of Leeds, just north of the M62, with services stopping at Leeds taking the left fork while the right fork bypasses Leeds and the local line towards York and ends where it joins the ECML somewhere past Church Fenton. This would enable services to Newcastle etc. to run at reasonably high speeds for as far as possible.

Now HS2 is to be rerouted much closer to Doncaster (as per the map on page 20 of this PDF: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/535307/CS550A_South_Yorkshire_Report_WEB.pdf ) it might be cheaper to link to the ECML near Doncaster. I'd assume it would be slower to follow the ECML with its older infrastructure and heavy, mixed traffic than to take a dedicated route with uniform traffic, but that might be compensated by the shorter route. The option may of course have already been considered and rejected if the original route bypassing Leeds worked out much quicker.

 

[edwin_m]

A connection at either Doncaster or Church Fenton would need two grade-separated junctions and some track in between. Unless the Doncaster connection is significantly shorter than the Church Fenton one (measured from the Leeds line junction) or avoids difficult structures the cost is likely to be similar, in which case the Church Fenton option should be preferred on grounds of maximum journey time saving.

 

[Senex]

The current plan (here's the 2013 detailed map) is for the HS2 line to split south of Leeds, just north of the M62, with services stopping at Leeds taking the left fork while the right fork bypasses Leeds and the local line towards York and ends where it joins the ECML somewhere past Church Fenton. This would enable services to Newcastle etc. to run at reasonably high speeds for as far as possible.

Now HS2 is to be rerouted much closer to Doncaster (as per the map on page 20 of this PDF: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa.../535307/CS550A_South_Yorkshire_Report_WEB.pdf ) it might be cheaper to link to the ECML near Doncaster. I'd assume it would be slower to follow the ECML with its older infrastructure and heavy, mixed traffic than to take a dedicated route with uniform traffic, but that might be compensated by the shorter route. The option may of course have already been considered and rejected if the original route bypassing Leeds worked out much quicker.

On the HS2 plans it is the Leeds line that is the divergence at that junction just north of the M62, so the York-bound trains would continue on at line-speed until the junction with the old route just north of Church Fenton. The junction would be with the Leeds lines, which are the older pair. The alignment is good and could certainly allow 125 if not 140 right through to the outskirts of York.

If a junction with the ECML were made closer to Doncaster, there would presumably be no speed problems about the Selby Deviation part, but how much rebuilding work would be needed between the new junction and Templehirst Jn?

 

[HSTEd]

As I understand it the York branch is laid out for 140mph - certainly some of its curves seem far too tight for 320kph.
It is worth noting that 20 minutes from Doncaster to York means you could almost come off HS2 and run into Doncaster station and only be a few minutes slower than the line required, and that would allow CCs into Hull with very short journey times.

A high speed York bypass would slash journey times to Newcastle etc. and spending less money further south might allow that to be built. [Church Fenton to around Shipton by Belinborough would enable trains to remain at whatever the line speed is (by it 250km/h or 320km/h) for much longer and then allow them to continue at ~225km/h all the way to Northallerton]. 2 hours to Newcastle might be achievable.

 

[snowball]

As I understand it the York branch is laid out for 140mph - certainly some of its curves seem far too tight for 320kph.

I think the layout is designed for the possibility that a future top-speed line could continue north across the M1 east of junction 46.

 

[Senex]

A high speed York bypass would slash journey times to Newcastle etc. and spending less money further south might allow that to be built. [Church Fenton to around Shipton by Belinborough would enable trains to remain at whatever the line speed is (by it 250km/h or 320km/h) for much longer and then allow them to continue at ~225km/h all the way to Northallerton]. 2 hours to Newcastle might be achievable.

It would indeed, but the problem with that is the importance of York itself as a traffic-centre. It has more passengers and more passengers changing trains than Newcastle, and -- more to the point for this question -- it has more London passengers than Newcastle.

 

[HSTEd]

It would indeed, but the problem with that is the importance of York itself as a traffic-centre. It has more passengers and more passengers changing trains than Newcastle, and -- more to the point for this question -- it has more London passengers than Newcastle.

You would expect it to, considering that trains to Newcastle take so much longer.
You might be able to provide paths for both Newcastle and York, if you split CC sets at Toton and send half to York and half to Sheffield.
Also Newcastle isn't that much less than York in traffic terms.

 

[edwin_m]

I think the layout is designed for the possibility that a future top-speed line could continue north across the M1 east of junction 46.

Certainly the intention seems to have been something of the sort - continuing north at maximum speed from where the York branch starts a lower-speed curve to the east. There are indeed a number of issues about whether you might serve York or bypass it - not only is York a major traffic centre but the trains that HS2 would largely replace also provide the main link between York, Darlington, Durham and Newcastle.

This was one of the issues leading to the ruling out of an east coast high speed route to Scotland - if you want to go fast to Edinburgh you probably need to bypass York and non-stop or bypass Darlington and Durham - but must then provide another service to replace these calls.

Note also also that HS2 is only about 30min faster than the existing ECML from London to York and beyond, and there are ECML speed-ups to come as well as whatever Northern Powerhouse Rail turns out to be. Together these could eventually lead to London trains via HS2 bypassing York to give better times to Teesside and Tyneside. York would then get a London service only slightly slower via the ECML plus some Birmingham or NPR trains (where there would be a worthwhile time saving) using the York connection off the HS2 route. Some of those (in a feeble attempt to drag this back on topic) might also serve Sheffield.

 

[DimTim]

I'm beginning to feel we are losing track of where we are going! Let's bypass Birmingham, lets bypass Nottingham/Derby, lets bypass Sheffield/Leeds, now the suggestion to bypass York, Teeside. Next it will be Newcastle because the King Edward Bridge is too slow!

Surely the objective of a high speed network is to link centres of population. If I want to travel from York University to the Open University in Milton Keynes - what use is the high speed network if all trains bypass centres of population.

 

[quantinghome]

I'm beginning to feel we are losing track of where we are going! Let's bypass Birmingham, lets bypass Nottingham/Derby, lets bypass Sheffield/Leeds, now the suggestion to bypass York, Teeside. Next it will be Newcastle because the King Edward Bridge is too slow!

Surely the objective of a high speed network is to link centres of population. If I want to travel from York University to the Open University in Milton Keynes - what use is the high speed network if all trains bypass centres of population.

The answer is that these places are served by spurs off the main high speed line. The French TGV network does this pretty much everywhere, and of course the Victorians did it in the UK. The East Coast, West Coast and Great Western main lines bypass the main population centres, with some obvious exceptions.

The objective of a high speed network is to link the MAJOR population centres. It can't link every population centre, otherwise it stops being a high speed network. Looking at your specific journey, whilst not designed to link York to Milton Keynes directly, it will considerably improve what the rail planner indicates is a problematic journey. Taking HS2 from York and changing in Birmingham for Milton Keynes (which post HS2 is likely to be a more frequent service) will be a significant improvement on today. Who knows, there may even be a direct journey on the classic network once the capacity is freed up.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Given it looks like any 'NPR' service from Leeds to Sheffield will be using the existing line from near Thurnscoe, what is the scope for improving the speed and reliability of this route? At present this section is a bit of a slog on a XC train. I notice that some (but not all) of the route appears to have been 4 track in the past. The curve near Rotherham is rather constrained - have there been plans in the past to ease this? I also understand that mining subsidence has been an issue in the past. Does this still impose a speed restriction?

 

[JohnB57]

It's also fair to say that taking a less populous route allows the opportunity to develop new residential areas to service existing conurbations.

However, I think it's a reasonable observation that, if HS2 is justified and economised too heavily on the basis of spurs off of the core, the day won't be too far away before the high-speed element becomes very fuzzy and it might just as well be just another, albeit new and modern, traditional mainline. Sheffield's demotion is a case in point, but there will no doubt be others down the line. No pun intended.

 

[Senex]

It's also fair to say that taking a less populous route allows the opportunity to develop new residential areas to service existing conurbations.

However, I think it's a reasonable observation that, if HS2 is justified and economised too heavily on the basis of spurs off of the core, the day won't be too far away before the high-speed element becomes very fuzzy and it might just as well be just another, albeit new and modern, traditional mainline. Sheffield's demotion is a case in point, but there will no doubt be others down the line. No pun intended.

HS2 is very much a "spurs off the core railway" following straight on the from pattern of the WCML and ECML. During the Grouping years and the earlier years of the BR regime these two lines came to be regarded as essentially London to Glasgow and London to Edinburgh, with great English cities being perfectly adequately served by spurs off the core from the south and no decent spurs to the north (except for Leeds, where the northern connections have never been too bad).

HS2 seems to have been designed from the start to emulate this approach. The main line on the west side is designed to run to the junction near Wigan with the WCML, clearly in anticipation of a later continuation to the real destination of Glasgow, with Birmingham and Manchester both being served by spurs (and with nothing special for Liverpool at all). Connections to the north from Birmingham and Manchester will be somewhat roundabout (and in the case of Manchester may well be not significantly faster than the direct route to Preseton). The fact that on the east side Leeds too is on a branch (look at the layout of the junction) suggests that there the ultimate destination is seen as Scotland. So on both sides of the country it really does look as though the old notion that only London to Scotland matters lives happily on.

 

[snowball]

Isn't that because of the extreme cost and destructiveness of building a new high-speed line through a city and out the other side?

Also that, given the economic and population structure of GB, the demand for jouneys between places such as Manchester and Glasgow is much less than the demand for journeys between either of those and London.

 

[Chris125]

My reading is that terminating at Sheffield city centre could not justify a 2ph business case; but that HS2 Ltd are exploring options for the services to carry through to Barnsley and Rotherham (hence also Meadowhall) in order to boost modelled demand.

I imagine they won't commit to Barnsley and Rotherham before there are separately funded plans for electrification.

 

[Senex]

Isn't that because of the extreme cost and destructiveness of building a new high-speed line through a city and out the other side?

Yes, so the only reasonable way of doing it is by tunnelling, as was done with HS1 to get it to St Pancras, to take just one example. And that is very expensive. But if the cost of tunnels can be justified to keep the Chilterns NIMBYs happy, then how much more would it be justified by serving the cities of Birmingham, Manchester, and Leeds much better?

 

[HowardGWR]

Yes, so the only reasonable way of doing it is by tunnelling, as was done with HS1 to get it to St Pancras, to take just one example. And that is very expensive. But if the cost of tunnels can be justified to keep the Chilterns NIMBYs happy, then how much more would it be justified by serving the cities of Birmingham, Manchester, and Leeds much better?

In fact NIMBYs have had very little effect on the choice of tunneling in the Chilterns. The fact that the area tunnelled is in the AONB is the important reason. Since the construction of the M40, the planning policies and legislation have been beefed up for both NPs and AsONB. If you lay over the AONB map onto the Chiltern HS2 route, you will see what I mean.

If the M40 were to be planned today, I suspect there would be a huge change in its route and design.

 

[snowball]

There's already a major tunnel proposed under south Manchester. It's not clear that another on the north side would be justifiable in comparison to the published proposal, especially given the cost pressure that has contributed to the Sheffield rerouting.

 

[Haydn1971]

I imagine they won't commit to Barnsley and Rotherham before there are separately funded plans for electrification.

I recall some demand numbers for Barnsley-London being chuckled at in the last office I worked at - think the daily demand was something like 7 passengers.

 

[JohnB57]

I recall some demand numbers for Barnsley-London being chuckled at in the last office I worked at - think the daily demand was something like 7 passengers.

That's the daily missionary group...

 

[nerd]

I imagine they won't commit to Barnsley and Rotherham before there are separately funded plans for electrification.

Indeed; but that may well mean not committing to 2ph HS2 from Euston to Midland, unless funding for northwards electrification is otherwise assured.

The key additional stop would likely be Meadowhall, which HS2 Ltd have tended to argue could be in itself a potential trip generator as great as (or greater than) Sheffield city centre. Which in turn may well be why Sheffield City Council were so strongly agin having that as the only South Yorkshire stop. 2ph to Barnsley/Rotherham means 2ph to Meadowhall.