HS2 preferred route to Leeds and Manchester announced

[Chester1]

How many trains will head south on NR track after HS2 completion? If the extra through platforms are built and tram trains done (I know thats a big if) then there should be sufficient capacity with 7 terminating NR platforms. Four through platforms would be able to handle 16tph and 7 terminating platforms 2tph each? 30tph south + HS2 services seems a high limit on capacity. Does seem a little excessive to have 4 HS2, 12 terminating, 4 through and 2 Metrolink platforms.

 

[HSTEd]

The HS2 side might need more than four eventually

 

[edwin_m]

How many trains will head south on NR track after HS2 completion? If the extra through platforms are built and tram trains done (I know thats a big if) then there should be sufficient capacity with 7 terminating NR platforms. Four through platforms would be able to handle 16tph and 7 terminating platforms 2tph each? 30tph south + HS2 services seems a high limit on capacity. Does seem a little excessive to have 4 HS2, 12 terminating, 4 through and 2 Metrolink platforms.

HS2 probably won't reduce the number of trains in the existing station much as most of the 3TPH London and 2TPH Birmingham will still be needed to serve intermediate stations. Capacity of the classic lines will actually increase as the fastest trains will be making extra stops so have an average speed closer to the slower ones.

Six tracks eastwards out of the classic station could then probably handle 50-60TPH in total so even in its present configuration Piccadilly could be acting as a constraint, especially if longer trains mean less double-stacking in terminal platforms.

 

[Chester1]

HS2 probably won't reduce the number of trains in the existing station much as most of the 3TPH London and 2TPH Birmingham will still be needed to serve intermediate stations. Capacity of the classic lines will actually increase as the fastest trains will be making extra stops so have an average speed closer to the slower ones.

Six tracks eastwards out of the classic station could then probably handle 50-60TPH in total so even in its present configuration Piccadilly could be acting as a constraint, especially if longer trains mean less double-stacking in terminal platforms.

The maximium number of services that are ever likely to be needed from Piccadilly South / East even with massive growth are:

2tph to Leeds
2tph CrossCountry
1tph to Cardiff
8tph to Manchester Airport (Express)
4tph to Sheffield (Express)
1tph classic compatible HS2

4tph to Glossop
4tph to New Mills Central / Hope Valley stopper
4tph to Hazel Grove / Buxton
4tph to stopping service to Macclesfield / Stoke
4tph to Altrincham / Chester / Crewe via Middlewich
4tph to Crewe via Manchester Airport
4tph to stopping service to Crewe via Stockport

And finally if no tram trains:

4tph to Rose Hill

In total that is 50tph: 12tph to the airport, 24tph through Stockport (significantly above realistic potential line capacity) and 14tph through Ardwick. Realistically Stockport probably has a maximum capacity of 18tph, reducing that total to 44tph. In this circumstance 12 terminating platforms would be needed but it is a ludicrously optimistic prediction of future services.

Tram Trains could replace Glossop and Rose Hill (and limit New Mills Central to 2tph). That reduces the maximum number of trains to 34tph. If 16tph used 4 through platforms, 18tph is probably still too much for 7 terminating platforms without double stacking.

I can see the point of adding 4 seperate HS2 platforms but I very much doubt rail growth will continue to the point were 4 HS2, 4 through and 12 terminating platforms are needed without a major tram, train, or Tram-train infrastructure project being built. 20 heavy rail platforms would make Piccadilly nearly as big as Waterloo!

 

[edwin_m]

In total that is 50tph: 12tph to the airport, 24tph through Stockport (significantly above realistic potential line capacity) and 14tph through Ardwick. Realistically Stockport probably has a maximum capacity of 18tph, reducing that total to 44tph. In this circumstance 12 terminating platforms would be needed but it is a ludicrously optimistic prediction of future services.

Tram Trains could replace Glossop and Rose Hill (and limit New Mills Central to 2tph). That reduces the maximum number of trains to 34tph. If 16tph used 4 through platforms, 18tph is probably still too much for 7 terminating platforms without double stacking.

I can see the point of adding 4 seperate HS2 platforms but I very much doubt rail growth will continue to the point were 4 HS2, 4 through and 12 terminating platforms are needed without a major tram, train, or Tram-train infrastructure project being built. 20 heavy rail platforms would make Piccadilly nearly as big as Waterloo!

It's an optimistic scenario but the sort of thing TfGM would consider realistic as a long-term projection, and you appear also to be saying yourself that if something similar happened then Piccadilly with HS2 in the trainshed wouldn't be big enough.

I believe we should be erring on the side of future-proofing here, rather than taking out station capacity that won't be restorable for several generations if ever. It's probably cheaper to build HS2 on a new structure than to adapt the existing station, which offsets part of the financial penalty of not developing that piece of land for other purposes. And whatever is built may also need to include some facility for Northern Powerhouse Rail.

 

[Chester1]

It's an optimistic scenario but the sort of thing TfGM would consider realistic as a long-term projection, and you appear also to be saying yourself that if something similar happened then Piccadilly with HS2 in the trainshed wouldn't be big enough.

I believe we should be erring on the side of future-proofing here, rather than taking out station capacity that won't be restorable for several generations if ever. It's probably cheaper to build HS2 on a new structure than to adapt the existing station, which offsets part of the financial penalty of not developing that piece of land for other purposes. And whatever is built may also need to include some facility for Northern Powerhouse Rail.

Yes your probably right. One senario were id revert back to supporting extending platforms 1-4 would be something like Lord Adonis proposal last year to put 4 platforms underneath Piccadilly and tunnel to east of Stalybridge for Northern Powerhouse Rail. In that senario most airport traffic would be stopping at the low level platforms and then using HS2 to the Airport. That would remove 4tph and allow many more to be replaced with a highspeed shuttle service. There aren't many senarios were Piccadilly would need 24 heavy rail platforms. The land next to Piccadilly is becoming increasingly valuable therefore there is a limit to the extent future proofing is financially viable. Id prefer tram trains running through one side of Piccadilly and 16tph through the other to most trains terminating, providing there is enough capacity. There are plenty of places in the city centre that a long walk from Piccadilly.

 

[edwin_m]

If they are underground platforms for NPR, I think they would be alongside Piccadilly not directly underneath it, as excavating under a heavy Victorian structure carrying a busy railway station isn't the best idea. So any development alongside the station would probably be impossible anyway, unless it was designed to include the NPR platforms in the basement.

 

[Chester1]

If they are underground platforms for NPR, I think they would be alongside Piccadilly not directly underneath it, as excavating under a heavy Victorian structure carrying a busy railway station isn't the best idea. So any development alongside the station would probably be impossible anyway, unless it was designed to include the NPR platforms in the basement.

I think the proposal was to use the undercroft underneath Piccadilly that is partly dissued and partly used for Metrolink (which would then be moved). Id guess the line would need to slope very steeply into a tunnel north of Piccadilly and would require the neighbouring road being rebuilt on top of the start of the tunnel.

 

[edwin_m]

I think the proposal was to use the undercroft underneath Piccadilly that is partly dissued and partly used for Metrolink (which would then be moved). Id guess the line would need to slope very steeply into a tunnel north of Piccadilly and would require the neighbouring road being rebuilt on top of the start of the tunnel.

From what I've seen of that undercroft it would be extremely difficult to get heavy rail platforms in there - it was hard enough with Metrolink. And getting the trains out at the country end without demolishing chunks of the viaduct would be even harder.

 

[HSTEd]

We also have to consider that a spur might be constructed either eastwards or westwards from the Airport, with traffic being routed over the HS2 tracks into Picadilly.

 

[WatcherZero]

Current Piccadilly thinking is keep the existing bays.
HS2 has two terminal platforms for services to London/Birmingham
HS3/NPR has two underground platforms for services to Liverpool/Leeds
Metrolink expanded to four platforms to accommodate tram train services.

A 3rd city centre crossing is also being looked at that would produce a tunnelled route under the city for Atherton/Bolton to Rose Hill/Marple which may or may not use the same platforms as NPR.

 

[WatcherZero]

Consultation response Files seem to be dropping now, each time I reload the page theres a new one.

Edit: They seem to be being marked as invisible, new files are appearing then a couple of minutes later are disappearing again, I'm downloading them as they appear.

The Secretary of State’s decision is to confirm six of the seven changes included in the
November 2016 consultation:

• Relocating the Western Leg Rolling Stock Depot (RSD) – moving the RSD from a site
near Golborne to a site north of Crewe between the A530 Nantwich Road and the West
Coast Main Line (WCML) near Wimboldsley
• Changing the alignment over a 26km length of route in the Middlewich-Northwich area of
Cheshire, raising the route as it passes through the Cheshire salt caverns to avoid brining
and gas storage infrastructure
• Changing the alignment of the route on the approach to Manchester Piccadilly station to
improve the operational efficiency of the station and avoid direct residential impacts and
a primary school
• Changing the route near East Midlands Airport, so the route follows the eastern side of
the A42 more closely, avoids a tunnel under the airport, does not cross the A42, and
reduces the impacts on some communities
• Locating the route through Long Eaton on a high level viaduct through the town
immediately adjacent to the existing low-level rail corridor
• The re-alignment of the route between Derbyshire and West Yorkshire. The route in
South Yorkshire will be the route consulted in 2016 which in part follows the M1 and M18,
serves Sheffield City Centre via a spur from the HS2 line and includes provision for a
northern junction allowing trains to run between Sheffield and Leeds city centres using
HS2

The Secretary of State has decided not to proceed with the proposed change of route at Measham, which would have seen the alignment move to the east of Measham, away from the A42. Instead, the Secretary of State is confirming a modified version of the 2013 Preferred
Route to the west of Measham. In Measham itself, the route is moved approximately 80m further east from the 2013 Preferred Route and viaduct extended from 145m to 600m to
mitigate commercial property impacts.

Manchester-Wigan chord removed to save money despite heavy consultation response it should be reinstated, the Secretary says he would be happy for it to return if it appears under the NPR budget.
Shimmer estate it says only 16 properties will be demolished and they believe it will have no adverse impact so the rest of the properties do not need to be demolished.
Piccadilly approach says going ahead with proposed amendment as planned because it minimises non-rail land take, says that the area may be altered in future to accommodate NPR.


Financial case they are estimating the full network will produce an operating excess across the whole GB network after allowing for renewals of £300m per year and that if only 2a was completed that would be a profit of £150m per year. This is comprised of £2.6bn more in revenue and £2.3bn more spent on subsidising new services on the classic network using freed up capacity.

 

[WatcherZero]

They are mooting having one Crewe platform be 400m long allowing a classic compatible to split for Liverpool/Lancashire and freeing a path between Crewe and London for a stoke service.

Option 1: Crewe platform extended and one hourly Liverpool/Preston service splitting there allowing 1tph for Macclesfield/Stoke/Stratford, Stratford is transferred from a call on the Liverpool service to a call on the stoke service.

Option 2 (Central Case): Split two services per hour at Crewe allowing one classic compatible per hour to sit in Crewe as a hot spare and to increase capacity south of Crewe on Liverpool-London services by 50%.

Option 3: Build a new junction north of Crewe Hub after 2b comes in to operation and instead of staying in Crewe the 4th train forms an additional Preston/Lancaster fast (illustrative calling pattern only).

The infrastructure costs of these proposals haven't been estimated yet (but will be significant as they are proposing a complete demolition and rebuild with new track alignments, platform layouts and signalling replacement as well as track renewal) so they only have potential revenue/economic impacts. Option 1 £1bn in 2027 and £0.8bn from 2033, Option 2 £1.8bn in 2027 and £1.6bn from 2033, Option 3 £2.7bn from 2033.

 

[PR1Berske]

This report is so much bird tray lining. The massive increase in billions of cost , the threat of demolishing homes, the continued uncertainty of routes and stock, it's all too much mist in the air being grabbed by a hairnet.

I remain utterly opposed to this establishment stitch up to grant London Euston a new railway at the cost of billions. This report does nothing to convince me, not by a single inch.

 

[The Planner]

I think most of us are well aware of your views.

 

[Tobbes]

This report is so much bird tray lining. The massive increase in billions of cost , the threat of demolishing homes, the continued uncertainty of routes and stock, it's all too much mist in the air being grabbed by a hairnet.

I remain utterly opposed to this establishment stitch up to grant London Euston a new railway at the cost of billions. This report does nothing to convince me, not by a single inch.

Umm, ok. And your evidence for any of this is....

 

[Tobbes]

What's the overall view of these changes and the final Phase 2a & b routing? I've not followed the ins and outs as closely as I should've done.

 

[PR1Berske]

Umm, ok. And your evidence for any of this is....

The overall cost has risen with every announcement and update. We are now over budget by billions before a single spade has touched the ground, and I believe that people have the right to be curious about whether a new railway into Euston is worth demolishing homes in Yorkshire.

 

[Noddy]

The overall cost has risen with every announcement and update. We are now over budget by billions before a single spade has touched the ground, and I believe that people have the right to be curious about whether a new railway into Euston is worth demolishing homes in Yorkshire.

Pretty certain there's been lots of archaeological work along the route already...

 

[IanXC]

The overall cost has risen with every announcement and update. We are now over budget by billions before a single spade has touched the ground, and I believe that people have the right to be curious about whether a new railway into Euston is worth demolishing homes in Yorkshire.

The amendments in South Yorkshire reportedly save £1.5bn.

 

[daodao]

Consultation response Files seem to be dropping now, each time I reload the page theres a new one.

Edit: They seem to be being marked as invisible, new files are appearing then a couple of minutes later are disappearing again, I'm downloading them as they appear.




Manchester-Wigan chord removed to save money despite heavy consultation response it should be reinstated, the Secretary says he would be happy for it to return if it appears under the NPR budget.
Shimmer estate it says only 16 properties will be demolished and they believe it will have no adverse impact so the rest of the properties do not need to be demolished.
Piccadilly approach says going ahead with proposed amendment as planned because it minimises non-rail land take, says that the area may be altered in future to accommodate NPR.


Financial case they are estimating the full network will produce an operating excess across the whole GB network after allowing for renewals of £300m per year and that if only 2a was completed that would be a profit of £150m per year. This is comprised of £2.6bn more in revenue and £2.3bn more spent on subsidising new services on the classic network using freed up capacity.

The northernmost sections of HS2b will only have 2-3 trains per hour, in particular north of Crewe and north of the branch to Sheffield. Are they really worth the massive cost and disruption, and in the case of the line to Leeds and York, will this roundabout route really be significantly quicker than the ex-GN ECML?

 

[The Planner]

The amendments in South Yorkshire reportedly save £1.5bn.

As well as the main works civils contracts for phase 1 coming in either at the estimates or below them.

 

[edwin_m]

The northernmost sections of HS2b will only have 2-3 trains per hour, in particular north of Crewe and north of the branch to Sheffield. Are they really worth the massive cost and disruption, and in the case of the line to Leeds and York, will this roundabout route really be significantly quicker than the ex-GN ECML?

There is the possibility of using some of these less busy sections for regional services as part of NPR/HS3/whatever. That isn't in the business case for HS2 but it's an opportunity being looked at separately.

 

[quantinghome]

The northernmost sections of HS2b will only have 2-3 trains per hour, in particular north of Crewe and north of the branch to Sheffield. Are they really worth the massive cost and disruption, and in the case of the line to Leeds and York, will this roundabout route really be significantly quicker than the ex-GN ECML?

Current plans are for 9 services north of Sheffield:
3no. London - Leeds
2no. Brum - Leeds (both via Sheffield, which is disappointing as it will take half an hour longer)
2no. London - Newcastle (bypassing Leeds, so yes, it is quicker than ECML)
1no. London - York (bypassing Leeds)
1no. Brum - Newcastle (bypassing Leeds)
This doesn't include additional NPR services from Sheffield to Leeds (and maybe beyond).

So, yes, definitely worth it and certainly no less disruptive than trying to upgrade existing lines (you may want to check up on how the great western upgrade is going).

 

[anti-pacer]

Is this HS2 actually definite or is there chance it may end up shelved after the next election?

 

[eastdyke]

Is this HS2 actually definite or is there chance it may end up shelved after the next election?

Labour party policy is/was to complete HS2. So unless there is a major re-shaping of British Politics, quite possible but perhaps unlikely, then there is only a small political risk.

I think the other risk to HS2 is the potential for meltdown in the World economy. I rate that higher than the political risk.

 

[Chester1]

Labour party policy is/was to complete HS2. So unless there is a major re-shaping of British Politics, quite possible but perhaps unlikely, then there is only a small political risk.

I think the other risk to HS2 is the potential for meltdown in the World economy. I rate that higher than the political risk.

It is highly unlikely that the Tories will risk another election until after Brexit has happened on 31st March 2019. The deal with the DUP lasts until the end of the (double length) parliamentary session at the end of May 2019. By this stage the construction of HS2 phase 1 will have been happening for a while and phase 2a legislation will have passed. The legislation for phase 2b is due to be introduced to parliament in Autumn 2019 and pass during 2021. It is possible that the phase 2b route could be changed again but it is unlikely.

 

[daodao]

Current plans are for 9 services north of Sheffield:
3no. London - Leeds
2no. Brum - Leeds (both via Sheffield, which is disappointing as it will take half an hour longer)
2no. London - Newcastle (bypassing Leeds, so yes, it is quicker than ECML)
1no. London - York (bypassing Leeds)
1no. Brum - Newcastle (bypassing Leeds)
This doesn't include additional NPR services from Sheffield to Leeds (and maybe beyond).

So, yes, definitely worth it and certainly no less disruptive than trying to upgrade existing lines (you may want to check up on how the great western upgrade is going).

How many trains are planned on the line to Manchester Piccadilly? One to Birmingham and 2 to London hardly seems worth the effort, particularly as the final 10 miles is planned to be in a tunnel. A station at Manchester Airport will not be adequate compensation for the residents of North Cheshire for loss of stops at Stockport/Wilmslow/Macclesfield on express services to these destinations, particularly as it is very difficult/expensive to park there or drop off/collect passengers.

 

[CdBrux]

A station at Manchester Airport will not be adequate compensation for the residents of North Cheshire for loss of stops at Stockport/Wilmslow/Macclesfield on express services to these destinations, particularly as it is very difficult/expensive to park there or drop off/collect passengers.

That depends on where they live, could be just as easy. As for access and charges it should be made quite easy. You do realise it is in no way the same location as the existing airport station?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I think the other risk to HS2 is the potential for meltdown in the World economy. I rate that higher than the political risk.

I agree