Future of HS2 2b (Eastern Leg deprioritised)

[Purple Orange]

You make an incredibly good point about Leeds station - HS2 website says that the HS2 station at Leeds will be used for NPR, but as it is a terminus station then this would require a reversal for NPR services, as it would at Manchester Piccadilly which seems short sighted. As with Sheffield, Leeds has no proposed direct services Northwards, so the HS2 station would just be used for Birmingham and London services which makes a little bit of a mockery of it being built, although the new platforms would be welcome and free some capacity at Leeds.

Personally, despite that short sightedness on stations and service patterns too, I think the eastern leg of HS2 should be prioritised over NPR at all costs as it delivers the most in terms of HS2. What's the point in only building the western leg, when services from Leeds to London would take the same amount of time via Manchester and not imrpove connectivity to the midlands - it's just extremely stupid but not surprising given the decisions taken on rail infrastructure in the past.

The TransPennine Route Upgrade will allow for 7 car 802's (that can travel at 140mph) to run across the Pennines once completed, which can then use some of the infrastructure that HS2 will deliver, such as Liverpool to Manchester if the Liverpool spur of NPR is built (which it should be). It seems bonkers spending tens of billions of pounds for a new line between Manchester and Leeds just to serve Bradford when the current TransPennine route can also be further enhanced, capacity and speed wise with chunks of new railway integrating into the current one (such as a new alignment from west of Huddersfield to Guide Bridge avoiding the speed restrictions that Marsden to Guide Bridge provides and utilising the new platforms at Man Pic being one example).

NPR services won’t reverse at Leeds, they will go in to the existing through platforms. Other than that I agree that the Eastern branch should be prioritised over a completely new line from Manchester to Leeds via Bradford. In fact I’m of the opinion that such a line will never happen and that NPR will be a new build from Liverpool WCML spur to Manchester HS2 spur, reverse at Piccadilly to York on the existing (but electrified) line, then ECML to Newcastle.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The only thing I would say is that the train design that would be used for HS2 needs to be suitable for the NPR and classic destinations away from HS2 to keep costs down. Having separate design for NPR would be more expensive than using the same one as per HS2.

Unless of course it's one we've already got, and if you're talking a 140mph top speed then the Class 80x is straight in there off the shelf. Indeed, the existing TPE ones could be run on it to start with.

Potentially also some used (and quite old by then, but no doubt still functional) Pendolinos displaced from the WCML by HS2, too. While they've never run at 140mph in service that is their top speed by design.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The only thing I would say is that the train design that would be used for HS2 needs to be suitable for the NPR and classic destinations away from HS2 to keep costs down. Having separate design for NPR would be more expensive than using the same one as per HS2.

Think of Class 800 (and variants) for Current Intercity and Class 170s where many were built and used widely over the GB network due to their design fitting a wide selection of the network.

The HS2 classic-compatible sets will be quite expensive. Being able to run at 360km/h does mean a fairly significant increase in cost and complexity compared to a max speed of 230km/h or so. We are most of the way there with the Class 80x models anyway. I would just make sure that the platform-train interface is the same as on the classic-compatibles so that platform edge doors and 1150mm high platforms can be shared by both types of service.

You make an incredibly good point about Leeds station - HS2 website says that the HS2 station at Leeds will be used for NPR, but as it is a terminus station then this would require a reversal for NPR services, as it would at Manchester Piccadilly which seems short sighted. As with Sheffield, Leeds has no proposed direct services Northwards, so the HS2 station would just be used for Birmingham and London services which makes a little bit of a mockery of it being built, although the new platforms would be welcome and free some capacity at Leeds.

Personally, despite that short sightedness on stations and service patterns too, I think the eastern leg of HS2 should be prioritised over NPR at all costs as it delivers the most in terms of HS2. What's the point in only building the western leg, when services from Leeds to London would take the same amount of time via Manchester and not imrpove connectivity to the midlands - it's just extremely stupid but not surprising given the decisions taken on rail infrastructure in the past.

The TransPennine Route Upgrade will allow for 7 car 802's (that can travel at 140mph) to run across the Pennines once completed, which can then use some of the infrastructure that HS2 will deliver, such as Liverpool to Manchester if the Liverpool spur of NPR is built (which it should be). It seems bonkers spending tens of billions of pounds for a new line between Manchester and Leeds just to serve Bradford when the current TransPennine route can also be further enhanced, capacity and speed wise with chunks of new railway integrating into the current one (such as a new alignment from west of Huddersfield to Guide Bridge avoiding the speed restrictions that Marsden to Guide Bridge provides and utilising the new platforms at Man Pic being one example).

I'm still really quite concerned with the HS2/NPR plans released so far. NPR has been on the horizon for more than long enough now for it to have got to a properly fleshed out design with a route corridor defined enough that discussions with landowners and other stakeholders can begin. At that level of development it should be possible to come up with a timetable showing representative timings from station to station, rather than these hand-wavy indicative ones we've still got. The problem with NPR especially is that a 5 minute delay will be much more impactful to the end business case than it will be on HS2. It's all fine and well suggesting junctions like one between the approach to the Leeds HS2 station and the classic line, but unless you can show your working that the capacity and timetabling will work or can be made to work, then it's not that useful.

There's also the fairly fundamental requirement for passenger modelling. Could you actually fill all the trains which are suggested for the NPR network? How important is a city centre to city centre service, vs one which calls at major intermediate stops?

HS2 was relatively easy to model because it was about taking a known quantity (ICWC/ICEC services) and improving it. Designing NPR as something distinct from the current TPE service is really quite odd.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

The HS2 classic-compatible sets will be quite expensive. Being able to run at 360km/h does mean a fairly significant increase in cost and complexity compared to a max speed of 230km/h or so. We are most of the way there with the Class 80x models anyway. I would just make sure that the platform-train interface is the same as on the classic-compatibles so that platform edge doors and 1150mm high platforms can be shared by both types of service.



I'm still really quite concerned with the HS2/NPR plans released so far. NPR has been on the horizon for more than long enough now for it to have got to a properly fleshed out design with a route corridor defined enough that discussions with landowners and other stakeholders can begin. At that level of development it should be possible to come up with a timetable showing representative timings from station to station, rather than these hand-wavy indicative ones we've still got. The problem with NPR especially is that a 5 minute delay will be much more impactful to the end business case than it will be on HS2. It's all fine and well suggesting junctions like one between the approach to the Leeds HS2 station and the classic line, but unless you can show your working that the capacity and timetabling will work or can be made to work, then it's not that useful.

There's also the fairly fundamental requirement for passenger modelling. Could you actually fill all the trains which are suggested for the NPR network? How important is a city centre to city centre service, vs one which calls at major intermediate stops?

HS2 was relatively easy to model because it was about taking a known quantity (ICWC/ICEC services) and improving it.Designing NPR as something distinct from the current TPE service is really quite odd.

NPR started life as a genuine trans-Pennine HS line and given the distance between Leeds and Manchester there is little sense in serving Huddersfield. Indeed the supposed need for it comes from the allegedly oft-expressed frustration at the time it takes for city-centre to city-centre journeys regardless of mode. At some point it was suggested that the cost involved needed to include some sort of regenerative return leading to including a route via Bradford, for far too long a transport backwater, as part of the options for discussion. But the Grayling years have led to a scaling back of ambition making a higher specification version of the Trans-Pennine Route Upgrade more attractive. It's clear this argument has not been settled yet.

 

[Purple Orange]

NPR started life as a genuine trans-Pennine HS line and given the distance between Leeds and Manchester there is little sense in serving Huddersfield. Indeed the supposed need for it comes from the allegedly oft-expressed frustration at the time it takes for city-centre to city-centre journeys regardless of mode. At some point it was suggested that the cost involved needed to include some sort of regenerative return leading to including a route via Bradford, for far too long a transport backwater, as part of the options for discussion. But the Grayling years have led to a scaling back of ambition making a higher specification version of the Trans-Pennine Route Upgrade more attractive. It's clear this argument has not been settled yet.

Given that the most advanced plans we have seen published is opting for the cheapest option at Piccadilly, it’s a sure indicator that such an approach will be taken to the whole NPR project. It strikes me that rather than an end-to-end designed project like HS2, it will be a continuation of TPRU in bitesized chunks. Essentially meaning no new route being plotted between Leeds & Manchester, but rather full electrification and line-speed improvements where possible. The only stretch of track will likely be between the HS2 Manchester junction and Warrington, with the rest of the line following existing routes in to Lime Street.

What does that mean for the eastern branch? Well it clearly means that Leeds-Manchester-London services are not viable and I think the eastern branch will proceed, but on a different timescale.

 

[quantinghome]

Speculating is fun, but I'd hold on until next month when the plans are due to be published.

 

[Purple Orange]

Speculating is fun, but I'd hold on until next month when the plans are due to be published.

Oh where’s the fun in that? Has there been any news as to when the deadline for publication might be? Or is just a vague end of year?

 

[quantinghome]

Oh where’s the fun in that? Has there been any news as to when the deadline for publication might be? Or is just a vague end of year?

The interim report published in July said the final report would be published in November (2020!); I don't know whether covid will have pushed that back at all.

https://nic.org.uk/app/uploads//RNA-Interim-Report-Final.pdf

 

[HSTEd]

Cheapest option at Manchester does not mean the cheapest option is necessarily selected.

There are plenty of arguments against the through platforms at the present time. (Personally I think we will regret 200m platforms)

 

[Purple Orange]

The interim report published in July said the final report would be published in November (2020!); I don't know whether covid will have pushed that back at all.

https://nic.org.uk/app/uploads//RNA-Interim-Report-Final.pdf

Thanks for sharing. Hopefully we hear something soon.

Cheapest option at Manchester does not mean the cheapest option is necessarily selected.

There are plenty of arguments against the through platforms at the present time. (Personally I think we will regret 200m platforms)

I think the front runner in Manchester is the best option, regardless of it being cheaper than a tunnelled station. Yes 200m platforms will be a mistake, which is one reason an underground station is less desirable. 6x400m terminating platforms on the surface is a far better option, and given that all the principal stations on NPR have platforms well in excess of 200m, constraining at Piccadilly seems to be a mistake.

 

[ABB125]

Cheapest option at Manchester does not mean the cheapest option is necessarily selected.

There are plenty of arguments against the through platforms at the present time. (Personally I think we will regret 200m platforms)

Indeed. I would love an underground through station, but a terminus makes more sense given that both lines will approach from the south/east.

The underground station should be for the new S-Bahn...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed. I would love an underground through station, but a terminus makes more sense given that both lines will approach from the south/east.

The underground station should be for the new S-Bahn...

Castlefield would make sense for the "S-Bahn" (which is what it was for much of its earlier life, in a way). Get everything else off it.

 

[ABB125]

Castlefield would make sense for the "S-Bahn" (which is what it was for much of its earlier life, in a way). Get everything else off it.

Or that!
New underground station for the "RegionalBahn" instead...

*Things like Blackpool to Airport, residual non-NPR Transpennine services etc

 

[7 Ingleborough]

Yorkshire Post front page lamenting the prospect of HS2 to Leeds and York being delayed and leading to 20 years of the region lagging behind other regions. Just been discussed on the BBC News Channel.

 

[class26]

• Just seen in the "New Civil Engineer" daily bulletin and quoted in full -

Transport minister ‘expects’ HS2 northern section to be built in full at the same time​

23 NOV, 2020 BY CLAIRE SMITH

Baroness Vere, who is minister for roads, buses and places, has told NCE that she expects construction of High Speed 2 (HS2) Phase 2b to go ahead in one go despite plans revealed earlier this month to split the route into multiple bills to be passed in Parliament.
Baroness Vere confirmed that the Department for Transport would take the approach, which was first suggested in the government-ordered Oakervee Review of the whole HS2 project, in a House of Lords debate on 9 November.
“The Oakervee Review said that the whole of HS2 should go ahead but that the bills for Phase 2b – and there will be bills, not a single bill – should not be introduced to Parliament before the publication of the Integrated Rail Plan,” she said.
However, she has since confirmed to NCE that the construction work should not be affected by this change to the legislative approach.
Vere told NCE: “The bill for Phase 2b is being split but it is my understanding that the intention is not to split the construction programme down. If it goes ahead, the construction will be done in one go.”
Vere emphasised that the breaking up Phase 2b into smaller bills would make it more "manageable" and said the government is committed to the full scheme.

Nonetheless, the Department for Transport has said that the decision on the bills and construction of HS2 Phase 2b will come after the integrated rail plan is announced later this year. A spokesperson for the DfT said: “The scope and delivery schedule of HS2 Phase 2b will be confirmed in our upcoming Integrated Rail Plan. Until this plan is published, no formal decisions on this have been taken.”
Phase 2b of HS2 involves construction of a western leg from Crewe to Manchester and an eastern leg from the West Midlands to Leeds.
Fears that the eastern leg could be axed were raised last month when the government launched its consultation on design changes to the western leg of the route.
Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) director Tim Wood has said that construction of the eastern leg of Phase 2b is critical to the success of NPR and has warned that delays or removing that part of the project would have significant implications on the northern rail project.
Wood said: “NPR and HS2 need to be delivered in full to truly ‘level up’ the country.”
Speaking on The Engineers Collective, Wood added that cancelling or delaying the eastern leg of Phase 2b would add £13bn on to the cost of Northern Powerhouse Rail.

 

[Jozhua]

Parkway is in fields, next to a power station and not even directly road connected to its nearest population.

East Midlands Hub is pretty much "Long Eaton & Sandiacre Interchange", and off the A52 and the Nottingham tram.

Well, remember most people don't live directly in the city centres anyway, as much as we may like that to be true. Long Eaton & Sandiacre is a fair sized area, positioned on the M1, A52 and the diverging branches of the MML going north. So if you needed to compromise, that's the place to do it.

Parkway is a mile or so from the M1 along a dual carriageway just as Toton will be. Very easy to reach by car but still not used much. If it was more used it would have better train times and perhaps even some public transport links. And incidentally the power station closes in a few years creating a brownfield development opportunity.

East Midlands Hub is sort of surrounded by suburban development but currently also has no bus service worth mentioning and also no passenger train service whatever that could provide connections to anywhere. So all that will have to be set up from scratch, probably at considerable public expense, if access to it isn't going to be restricted to those with a car or able to afford a taxi.

My alternative idea would truncate the eastern leg on the Birmingham-Derby line and build something resembling the northern part to improve speed and capacity between Sheffield and Leeds for NPR. Cross Country would still run via Derby and Sheffield but benefit from both new sections, and London-Sheffield via Derby would still be quicker than today. Improvements to the Stenson-Trent line would allow a London-Nottingham service using some of the paths no longer needed south of Birmingham.

Remember there will be a lot of extra space to run local services into the EMH once London services are gone off the MML. If the hub is designed well, it can really centre the region and provide a useful interchange for local journeys, be that by bus, tram, train, or *god forbid* car. The existing site is already used as a diversion for the Northern leg of the MML during works on the Derby-Sheffield leg, so is pretty well plugged in.

Currently, the Red Arrow passes right by the proposed site, using the A52. Unfortunately it doesn't stop in Long Eaton/Sandiacre, but when the EMH arrives, I'm sure this will change.

What seems like the best idea right now, is to have a BRT style system running along the A52 corridor, to provide semi-express service linking Derby, Chaddesden, Long Eaton, EMH, Beeston, QMC and Nottingham together, along with semi-express trains running from Derby to Nottingham via East Midlands Hub. Going northwards from the hub, local trains can run straight from there up towards Chesterfield, plugging in Ilkeston, Heanor and Alfreton with some much faster journey times for most routes. In fact, going Northwards, it might be most sensible to have the local trains go between the two HS2 stops (EMH and Sheffield), so depending on if people are going North or South, they don't have to go back on themselves.

While I support the full build-out of HS2, I do worry that the hub will draw in existing train paths, extending journey times for a lot of people taking local journeys.

All in all though, serving both Nottingham and Derby was always going to have to be a compromise single station in the middle, because any other solution would have been very, very expensive or forced high-speed trains onto the existing network - neither of which would be acceptable.

I don't think extended journey times for local trips will be too problematic. I think the overall result will be more frequency, more services and more options, whether that be by heavy rail or other modes. With the XC and London services removed from the Derby-Nottingham lines, and some wires thrown up for good measure, I can see effective journey times being reduced for a lot of people.

It's all a complete mess on the eastern side of the Pennines. The existing infrastructure follows the geography, but that geography really doesn't help the idea of economic integration between the regions. Going against geography is clearly possible, but it'll come at a fairly high cost. That cost will probably be too high for even the loosened BCR calculations the politicians seem keen on for the NPR project.

Part of the mistake seems to be this idea that NPR needs to be a new and separate rail service, like HS2. I don't think that is realistic for regional services in the north. NPR really just needs to be a massively enhanced TransPennine Express network. It can't be expected to be all things to all people, as any new infrastructure would be better targeted at doing one thing well rather than a lot of things poorly. The sort of infrastructure you want to run a fast service to London is not the same as the sort of infrastructure you want to run a cross-Pennine or inter-regional service within the North. With the spread of population and economic activity across the region (even if Leeds and Sheffield city centre might be the strongest, there will still be massive demand for park and ride railheads) I think the end solution will balance more towards the NPR idea than HS2.

Probably the most transformational thing NPR could concentrate on is fast entrances and exits from city centre stations. 200m classic-compatible units seem to be a fairly reasonable model to serve most urban regions for their London links. None of the individual places east of the Pennines is likely going to be able to fill a 400m unit, unlike Manchester (+Airport) or Birmingham (+Airport). Focussing on these capacity-constrained sections may well mean it's possible to make use of existing routes which serve existing railheads. It's entirely possible to build small sections of bypass track specced for 100-140mph, joining and leaving the existing lines where appropriate.

Looking at a map now, I'm thinking whether it's best to send Phase 2b to Doncaster and then use the fairly high quality (and for some, only recently built) section of the ECML between there and York. If more capacity is required on this section, that could be done by adding another pair of tracks alongside. The alignment could support higher speeds on new tracks with modern structures, OHLE and in-cab signalling, and is pretty close to the route as the crow flies. That could be built as a separate project if and when the time comes, without requiring a fundamental restructuring of the route network.

The money saved would be used instead to upgrade the route north of Chesterfield, through Sheffield and across to Doncaster. That would mean a good quality express route all the way from York through the core urban areas and interchanges of South Yorkshire. This would be available and useful for 100mph express regional services as well as specific NPR and HS2 classic-compatible services. A similar set of upgrades, probably involving reasonable sections of new line bypasses, would link this Sheffield-Doncaster axis to Leeds via the existing Wakefield railhead (HS2 services to Leeds would run straight onto this rather than going via Sheffield or Doncaster). Probably most important would be a new joint approach to Leeds for express trains from Wakefield and Huddersfield, allowing the existing route to be metro-ified.

I think it would be really quite hard to manage a programme like that as a single project like HS2. It would mean a series of individual but fairly major interventions. The project split point with HS2 would probably have to be the Chesterfield and Doncaster connections to the NR network plus a spur to be extended towards West Yorkshire. After that, it'd be up to whatever transport body is best placed to design a new network for the north of England. It'd be a mess compared to the original, simple plans for Phase 2 but it'd be much more reflective of the real complexity of the area's transport needs.

The thing is, the existing alignment from Manchester to Leeds is super slow...like really slow. It's also super overcrowded. So you kinda need to build something from new. Once you're already tunneling, buying land and building bridges, making it high speed is actually not that much more expensive. In regards to your ideas on adding track sections next to, or building bypasses of the existing line, doing that significant of work will probably be more expensive and far more disruptive than a new alignment. Adding OLE would help with speed/capacity/reliability, but the line still isn't the best.

i.e Sheffield to Leeds, doing weird diversions and the like isn't going to deliver the same benefits. Also remember the Leeds leg isn't just to serve Leeds - it's also to connect places North of it. The idea is to build the line fast so that it can fully replace the ECML, alongside the MML and WCML for express services to London. This means more southerly sections & stations of the ECML and MML can be used to run more local/regional services.

This is the thing with all of these projects. They aren't just about speeding up the intercity journey times, but are also for relieving capacity on the existing mixed traffic network, so it can work more effectively. Doing weird chopping/changing and having high speed trains dart on and off the existing lines just isn't going to cut it. It adds a lot of unnecessary conflicts and will become a headache 20 years after it's built.

Sure, I agree, building things in phases is good, but cutting it up into too small chunks can equally make the whole thing fall apart. Phase 1 & 2 for HS2 seems sensible for that reason. Each phase delivers on different goals, phase 1 relieving capacity on the WCML between London and Birmingham, as well as making more space for services into Birmingham New St. Phase 2a relieving capacity on the WCML between London and Manchester, making more space for services into Manchester Piccadilly AND adding capacity/reducing journey times for passengers between Manchester and Birmingham. Phase 2b does even more to relieve the Cross Country network and reduce journey times on it, as well as basically upgrading the MML and ECML too.

• Just seen in the "New Civil Engineer" daily bulletin and quoted in full -

Transport minister ‘expects’ HS2 northern section to be built in full at the same time​

23 NOV, 2020 BY CLAIRE SMITH

Baroness Vere, who is minister for roads, buses and places, has told NCE that she expects construction of High Speed 2 (HS2) Phase 2b to go ahead in one go despite plans revealed earlier this month to split the route into multiple bills to be passed in Parliament.
Baroness Vere confirmed that the Department for Transport would take the approach, which was first suggested in the government-ordered Oakervee Review of the whole HS2 project, in a House of Lords debate on 9 November.
“The Oakervee Review said that the whole of HS2 should go ahead but that the bills for Phase 2b – and there will be bills, not a single bill – should not be introduced to Parliament before the publication of the Integrated Rail Plan,” she said.
However, she has since confirmed to NCE that the construction work should not be affected by this change to the legislative approach.
Vere told NCE: “The bill for Phase 2b is being split but it is my understanding that the intention is not to split the construction programme down. If it goes ahead, the construction will be done in one go.”
Vere emphasised that the breaking up Phase 2b into smaller bills would make it more "manageable" and said the government is committed to the full scheme.

Nonetheless, the Department for Transport has said that the decision on the bills and construction of HS2 Phase 2b will come after the integrated rail plan is announced later this year. A spokesperson for the DfT said: “The scope and delivery schedule of HS2 Phase 2b will be confirmed in our upcoming Integrated Rail Plan. Until this plan is published, no formal decisions on this have been taken.”
Phase 2b of HS2 involves construction of a western leg from Crewe to Manchester and an eastern leg from the West Midlands to Leeds.
Fears that the eastern leg could be axed were raised last month when the government launched its consultation on design changes to the western leg of the route.
Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) director Tim Wood has said that construction of the eastern leg of Phase 2b is critical to the success of NPR and has warned that delays or removing that part of the project would have significant implications on the northern rail project.
Wood said: “NPR and HS2 need to be delivered in full to truly ‘level up’ the country.”
Speaking on The Engineers Collective, Wood added that cancelling or delaying the eastern leg of Phase 2b would add £13bn on to the cost of Northern Powerhouse Rail.

Good.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The thing is, the existing alignment from Manchester to Leeds is super slow...like really slow. It's also super overcrowded. So you kinda need to build something from new. Once you're already tunneling, buying land and building bridges, making it high speed is actually not that much more expensive. In regards to your ideas on adding track sections next to, or building bypasses of the existing line, doing that significant of work will probably be more expensive and far more disruptive than a new alignment. Adding OLE would help with speed/capacity/reliability, but the line still isn't the best.

i.e Sheffield to Leeds, doing weird diversions and the like isn't going to deliver the same benefits. Also remember the Leeds leg isn't just to serve Leeds - it's also to connect places North of it. The idea is to build the line fast so that it can fully replace the ECML, alongside the MML and WCML for express services to London. This means more southerly sections & stations of the ECML and MML can be used to run more local/regional services.

This is the thing with all of these projects. They aren't just about speeding up the intercity journey times, but are also for relieving capacity on the existing mixed traffic network, so it can work more effectively. Doing weird chopping/changing and having high speed trains dart on and off the existing lines just isn't going to cut it. It adds a lot of unnecessary conflicts and will become a headache 20 years after it's built.

Sure, I agree, building things in phases is good, but cutting it up into too small chunks can equally make the whole thing fall apart. Phase 1 & 2 for HS2 seems sensible for that reason. Each phase delivers on different goals, phase 1 relieving capacity on the WCML between London and Birmingham, as well as making more space for services into Birmingham New St. Phase 2a relieving capacity on the WCML between London and Manchester, making more space for services into Manchester Piccadilly AND adding capacity/reducing journey times for passengers between Manchester and Birmingham. Phase 2b does even more to relieve the Cross Country network and reduce journey times on it, as well as basically upgrading the MML and ECML too.

I do agree that building new lines can be more effective than upgrading existing ones. However, the extent to which that is true depends on what you're trying to achieve and what you've already got. If your intention is to run a super-fast high capacity service from the smallest number of principal locations in Yorkshire and the North East to London, then the HS2 model of entirely new tracks and stations makes a lot of sense. That's why it was a reasonable suggestion back in 2010 and then later on developed as the eastern branch.

The challenge comes when you want to start serving other journey types, and that's where NPR really muddies up the waters for HS2. South of the East Midlands Hub, the HS2 model of fast routes still works great for the Yorkshire & NE destinations. For NE-York to London expresses, it would still be ideal for them to have a new plain line route that largely bypasses all of the major population centres at higher speeds than are possible on the ECML. But, we've already seen the original clean HS2 model be broken for Sheffield. It basically isn't possible to reconcile the fast plain line route model with Sheffield getting a city centre service. Meadowhall was as good as it was going to get; even the Victoria-on-a-loop model wouldn't do much since it would still be an isolated city centre station without onward rail links. The solution found was to put the Sheffield services onto the MML as-is north of Clay Cross; the added passenger numbers from Chesterfield and using the existing Sheffield station were considered to outweigh the reduction in frequency and journey time vs the Meadowhall option.

In an ideal world each of the city centres would get a full HS2 captive spur as well as massively enhanced existing routes. In reality this is never going to happen, so we have to work out how to make the most of each pound spent. Adding extra tracks is inevitable if we want to increase capacity. However, adding them in a way which means they can only be used by a small set of HS2 and maybe NPR services seems to be a mistake. Within the NPR area the realistic maximum speeds for any express services will be in the range of 160-249km/h. Those sorts of speeds can often be accommodated within the basic alignment of the existing rail infrastructure. Where they cannot be, they can be built from scratch at lower cost than a faster route. Slower speeds provide more options, like maybe following the curve of a hill rather than needing to blast through it. Where's it's cheaper to provide an alignment which could sustain faster speeds, there are still cost savings vs a higher route specification (e.g. reduced tunnel size for aerodynamics).

The idea would be to make sure that each route kilometre of rebuilt or new track would support as many services as possible. Upgrading Clay Cross through Sheffield to Doncaster would mean faster HS2 services as well as faster CrossCountry and other regional routes. Basically any electric-capable train with a max speed of 160km/h or above would use these tracks, leaving stopping passenger services and freight on the older routes or pairs of tracks. The result would be a route of similar quality to the London ends of the major mainlines where you can path fast and slow services essentially independently. The southern WCML fast tracks are used by 180km/h LNWR express regional services as well as the 200km/h ICWC services.

The easiest thing might be to consider each of the principal route pairs individually. If you were to build a new fast pair of tracks from Manchester to Leeds, what would it look like? What about a new line from Sheffield to Leeds? Sheffield to York? Manchester to Sheffield? Once you have this grid, you can overlay the HS2 requirements on top, enhancing things where required and creating new plain line sections where necessary.

 

[Jozhua]

I do agree that building new lines can be more effective than upgrading existing ones. However, the extent to which that is true depends on what you're trying to achieve and what you've already got. If your intention is to run a super-fast high capacity service from the smallest number of principal locations in Yorkshire and the North East to London, then the HS2 model of entirely new tracks and stations makes a lot of sense. That's why it was a reasonable suggestion back in 2010 and then later on developed as the eastern branch.

The challenge comes when you want to start serving other journey types, and that's where NPR really muddies up the waters for HS2. South of the East Midlands Hub, the HS2 model of fast routes still works great for the Yorkshire & NE destinations. For NE-York to London expresses, it would still be ideal for them to have a new plain line route that largely bypasses all of the major population centres at higher speeds than are possible on the ECML. But, we've already seen the original clean HS2 model be broken for Sheffield. It basically isn't possible to reconcile the fast plain line route model with Sheffield getting a city centre service. Meadowhall was as good as it was going to get; even the Victoria-on-a-loop model wouldn't do much since it would still be an isolated city centre station without onward rail links. The solution found was to put the Sheffield services onto the MML as-is north of Clay Cross; the added passenger numbers from Chesterfield and using the existing Sheffield station were considered to outweigh the reduction in frequency and journey time vs the Meadowhall option.

In an ideal world each of the city centres would get a full HS2 captive spur as well as massively enhanced existing routes. In reality this is never going to happen, so we have to work out how to make the most of each pound spent. Adding extra tracks is inevitable if we want to increase capacity. However, adding them in a way which means they can only be used by a small set of HS2 and maybe NPR services seems to be a mistake. Within the NPR area the realistic maximum speeds for any express services will be in the range of 160-249km/h. Those sorts of speeds can often be accommodated within the basic alignment of the existing rail infrastructure. Where they cannot be, they can be built from scratch at lower cost than a faster route. Slower speeds provide more options, like maybe following the curve of a hill rather than needing to blast through it. Where's it's cheaper to provide an alignment which could sustain faster speeds, there are still cost savings vs a higher route specification (e.g. reduced tunnel size for aerodynamics).

The idea would be to make sure that each route kilometre of rebuilt or new track would support as many services as possible. Upgrading Clay Cross through Sheffield to Doncaster would mean faster HS2 services as well as faster CrossCountry and other regional routes. Basically any electric-capable train with a max speed of 160km/h or above would use these tracks, leaving stopping passenger services and freight on the older routes or pairs of tracks. The result would be a route of similar quality to the London ends of the major mainlines where you can path fast and slow services essentially independently. The southern WCML fast tracks are used by 180km/h LNWR express regional services as well as the 200km/h ICWC services.

The easiest thing might be to consider each of the principal route pairs individually. If you were to build a new fast pair of tracks from Manchester to Leeds, what would it look like? What about a new line from Sheffield to Leeds? Sheffield to York? Manchester to Sheffield? Once you have this grid, you can overlay the HS2 requirements on top, enhancing things where required and creating new plain line sections where necessary.

The problem is the added cost of linking in to the old infrastructure is going to make it far more expensive and complicated.

Remember HS2 is designed to run entirely on in cab signalling and be incredibly resilient. NPR should have these properties too.

Plus, building NPR isn't mutually exclusive with upgrading the old lines. In fact - we can look at using the old lines to boost service to places often neglected - such as Bradford. NPR aims to move those principle routes off the old network, then we can use the existing stuff to try and boost those missing links. I would disagree that the regions involved don't have the population to require it - just Manchester is bigger than many countries capital cities, as are Leeds and Liverpool for that fact!

Getting the best value means reducing conflicts and seperating out services with different requirements.

In regards to building NPR itself on the same alignments, this would be insanely expensive. The existing route goes through the middle of many built up areas, stations and between canals/rivers. Plus, there are a lot of curves with speed limits often ranging between 30-60mph, far off 160kph-249kph. Even if these speeds aren't 300kph, they're still quite demanding i.e minimum curve radius. Then you've got to factor in vertical geometry. Fortunately, dedicated high speed lines that can rely on distributed electric traction can handle steeper grades, but still nothing near what a road can.

Having it run near to/alongside the existing alignment would also involve lots of seperate tunnels. Given the TBM's are one of the largest costs of tunnelling, and usually a new one has to be built for each tunnel, alongside with preparing sites at either side - it is often more practical to dig longer tunnels and avoid the obsticle entirely. In fact, I'm expecting NPR to almost entirely be in tunnel. I'd be suprised if it surfaces in the peaks at all.

 

[edwin_m]

Remember there will be a lot of extra space to run local services into the EMH once London services are gone off the MML. If the hub is designed well, it can really centre the region and provide a useful interchange for local journeys, be that by bus, tram, train, or *god forbid* car. The existing site is already used as a diversion for the Northern leg of the MML during works on the Derby-Sheffield leg, so is pretty well plugged in.

I don't think extended journey times for local trips will be too problematic. I think the overall result will be more frequency, more services and more options, whether that be by heavy rail or other modes. With the XC and London services removed from the Derby-Nottingham lines, and some wires thrown up for good measure, I can see effective journey times being reduced for a lot of people.

There is spare capacity on the line through Toton. But there is very little spare capacity where it meets several other lines around Trent, or on the way into Nottingham. Derby is slightly better after remodelling, but still a bit limited. So to go anywhere useful it's still a question of squeezing in extra paths, or diverting existing services with disbenefit to existing journeys.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The problem is the added cost of linking in to the old infrastructure is going to make it far more expensive and complicated.

Remember HS2 is designed to run entirely on in cab signalling and be incredibly resilient. NPR should have these properties too.

Plus, building NPR isn't mutually exclusive with upgrading the old lines. In fact - we can look at using the old lines to boost service to places often neglected - such as Bradford. NPR aims to move those principle routes off the old network, then we can use the existing stuff to try and boost those missing links. I would disagree that the regions involved don't have the population to require it - just Manchester is bigger than many countries capital cities, as are Leeds and Liverpool for that fact!

Getting the best value means reducing conflicts and seperating out services with different requirements.

In regards to building NPR itself on the same alignments, this would be insanely expensive. The existing route goes through the middle of many built up areas, stations and between canals/rivers. Plus, there are a lot of curves with speed limits often ranging between 30-60mph, far off 160kph-249kph. Even if these speeds aren't 300kph, they're still quite demanding i.e minimum curve radius. Then you've got to factor in vertical geometry. Fortunately, dedicated high speed lines that can rely on distributed electric traction can handle steeper grades, but still nothing near what a road can.

Having it run near to/alongside the existing alignment would also involve lots of seperate tunnels. Given the TBM's are one of the largest costs of tunnelling, and usually a new one has to be built for each tunnel, alongside with preparing sites at either side - it is often more practical to dig longer tunnels and avoid the obsticle entirely. In fact, I'm expecting NPR to almost entirely be in tunnel. I'd be suprised if it surfaces in the peaks at all.

Your thoughts apply perfectly fine to the HS2 service pattern. The problem now is that we're looking at a very different set of services. The HS2 model of HSR means that certain optimisations are possible. For instance, the East Midlands Hub makes sense because journey time reductions and capacity increases will be so enormous that people will justify switching to a different railhead or using a metro-like service to get there. Access to the trunk road network is also critical to serve the wider area, as there is no possibility of service improvements elsewhere.

Applying that sort of pattern onto NPR doesn't work anywhere near as well. The distances involved are much shorter, and the service pattern will be much more complex. Having a few fast services an hour can be useful but if they then require you to go to a different station to use them, their usefulness really does diminish. If you need to use other non new line NPR services on the same journey, then the total benefit of NPR might be fairly marginal unless those other lines see the same sort of radical improvements. But, because of the complex grid of cities and towns in the north, you won't ever be able to justify spending the cash on new build alignments for all of them. You'd end up needing to do much more traditional upgrades.

The starting point for most InterCity rail links in the north is so poor (other than pure north-south on existing mainlines) that getting up to a consistent 160-249km/h fast line speed with independent pathing would be transformational. That wouldn't even count as the traditional definition of high speed rail but it would do wonders.

For example, on the Clay Cross to Doncaster axis we have pretty much just two tracks acting as the primary passenger link between the major urban areas of South Yorkshire. As far as I can tell (Covid timetables notwithstanding) Sheffield to Doncaster sees only 3 trains per hour with 2 fast and 1 slow. The lack of independent pathing means that you can't have fast and slow trains running at the same time. The timetable only works if a slow train can run sufficiently ahead that it's out of the way by the time the fast train behind it catches up. This means a poor service for the major regional flows as well as a poor service for the local stops.

It would be nice to get a TBM out and bypass the whole thing, but short of major reductions in tunnelling journey costs I don't expect this is at all likely. However, the majority of the route appears to be compatible with surface upgrades due to the railway alignment being wider in the past. Where it isn't wide enough, then you have the power of compulsory purchase. We are used to CPO being a power of last resort on the very busiest and most valuable routes (i.e. in London and surroundings, where CPO costs are also going to be as high as possible). CPOing some industrial estates or fairly crap industrial terrace housing (it's pretty easy to replace these houses with something manifestly better) near the railway will not be as difficult up in the north. So you take up, CPO and bulldoze your way to a proper modern four track alignment all the way from Dore and Totley through Sheffield Midland, Meadowhall and Rotherham on the existing track alignment. With that wider alignment you drop in local stations where they currently aren't possible for timetabling reasons. Yes, the curve into the former Masborough station in Rotherham isn't that good for express running. If it's worth it, you solve that problem by getting the TBM out and cutting a little bypass of that section only. North of Rotherham you might want to use the TBM again to cut the corner towards Doncaster, maybe even to leave the existing alignment altogether and head up to the M18 to follow what would be the end of the HS2 mainline as it enters Doncaster on a new alignment. The result is a complete fast pair of tracks suitable for HS2 classic compatible service as well as any other sort of expresses, including just electric Northern services using 160km/h EMUs like the CAF 331s which have no pretentions of being HSR.

That would be a really quite different style of project than what appears to be in the minds of the NPR folk. You apply the same basic thinking (provide a fast mainline route between each principal railway node) to all of the main routes in the north. Once you do this, you can almost certainly justify an expensive tunnel under the Pennines as that part would then be the primary bottleneck across the entire North.

 

[Bald Rick]

CPOing some industrial estates or fairly crap industrial terrace housing (it's pretty easy to replace these houses with something manifestly better) near the railway will not be as difficult up in the north.

A correction, it will be just as difficult. But it would be cheaper in the property cost (which is by no means the main cost in obtaining a CPO)

 

[Pit_buzzer]

"As far as I can tell (Covid timetables notwithstanding) Sheffield to Doncaster sees only 3 trains per hour with 2 fast and 1 slow. The lack of independent pathing means that you can't have fast and slow trains running at the same time"

It's 5 per hour throughout the day with peak extras (pre covid) : 2 stoppers (adwick to Sheffield and Doncaster to Sheffield) 2 semi fast (Scarborough to Sheffield and trans pennine) and 1 fast cross country. The stoppers are usually overtaken at Rotherham Central. Its a very crowded bit of railway.

 

[HSTEd]

CPO is an incredibly fraught procedure, to the point that people are often offered substantially above market value to leave voluntarily.

 

[stuu]

Having it run near to/alongside the existing alignment would also involve lots of seperate tunnels. Given the TBM's are one of the largest costs of tunnelling, and usually a new one has to be built for each tunnel, alongside with preparing sites at either side - it is often more practical to dig longer tunnels and avoid the obsticle entirely. In fact, I'm expecting NPR to almost entirely be in tunnel. I'd be suprised if it surfaces in the peaks at all.

They really aren't, they cost £10-20m each. Even on a £1bn project they aren't very much of the cost, let alone something of the suggested scale and expense of NPR

 

[Ianno87]

They really aren't, they cost £10-20m each. Even on a £1bn project they aren't very much of the cost, let alone something of the suggested scale and expense of NPR

Main consideration of tunneling is programme; long tunnels usually effectively set the entire construction duration; the longer the tunnel the longer the total construction phase.

Multiple short tunnels can be built simultaneously; provided that you can find places to put them, with all the portal infrastructure (And construction considerations) that goes with them. By the time you've joined lots of short tunnels together, you may as well then stick it in one long one.

A long one could be built from both ends to cut duration (a la the Channel Tunnel); but you need double the number of TBMs working (And people to staff them on a 24 hour basis) and an extra 'muck away' operation at the other end of the tunnel.

 

[Bald Rick]

And there’s going to be a lot of tunnelling for NPR. Around 30 miles of tunnelled route, some tunnels as long as 8-10 miles.

 

[Killingworth]

A year or two ago I saw a presentation extolling the benefits of HS2 and NPR. Great if you want to go where those routes go and also call. At the time I was making weekly trips between Sheffield and Newcastle - two major northern cities. On one of the slides was a list of journey times from Sheffield after HS2 an NPR, the intention presumably to show all the benefits coming our way.

Leaving aside that I'll not live long enough to use it, I couldn't help noticing that the journey time between Sheffield and Newcastle was actually shown as a few minutes longer than the quickest at that time. Thanks to varying routes, via Leeds, Doncaster or avoiding both, the fastest time hasn't really changed for 30 years! A half hourly direct service made up for that - until Covid!

 

[JamesT]

A year or two ago I saw a presentation extolling the benefits of HS2 and NPR. Great if you want to go where those routes go and also call. At the time I was making weekly trips between Sheffield and Newcastle - two major northern cities. On one of the slides was a list of journey times from Sheffield after HS2 an NPR, the intention presumably to show all the benefits coming our way.

Leaving aside that I'll not live long enough to use it, I couldn't help noticing that the journey time between Sheffield and Newcastle was actually shown as a few minutes longer than the quickest at that time. Thanks to varying routes, via Leeds, Doncaster or avoiding both, the fastest time hasn't really changed for 30 years! A half hourly direct service made up for that - until Covid!

https://transportforthenorth.com/wp-content/uploads/TFTN_-_NPR_At_a_Glance.pdf appears to claim that Sheffield - Leeds would be 10 minutes quicker than today and Leeds - Newcastle would be 30 minutes quicker. The first one requires use of the HS2 infrastructure, so would only apply for trains going via Leeds. But the second part is mostly infrastructure upgrades on the ECML so should speed all journeys, including a direct Sheffield - Newcastle.

 

[NotATrainspott]

CPO is an incredibly fraught procedure, to the point that people are often offered substantially above market value to leave voluntarily.

The difficulty seems to be somewhat proportional to the amount of money involved. London property prices are now such that even the houses built for railway workers can now end up occupied by well-heeled people who have the time, resources and connections to put up a fight and cause problems. If a more established area is affected then it'll be even worse. I'm thinking of those £1m+ houses on Park Village East who have been putting up one hell of a fight against HS2 on what the court seemed to think were fairly spurious grounds. Meanwhile HS2 Ltd can just knock on the door of the brand new homes on the Shimmer estate planned to be obliterated by the redirected M18 route and it's a fait accompli.

Local political opposition to major rail upgrades in the towns and cities of the North is very unlikely to exist, so any property owners who aren't as happy are probably going to be on their own. That's especially true if you can point to very specific benefits for the local area. On that Clay Cross to Doncaster route the existing local rail service is very poor. Knock down some homes and you can fairly easily drop in more stations along the route and give them something like a turn-up-and-go service.

I think a reasonable comparison here is the Airdrie-Bathgate reopening. It involved some demolition of homes but I don't recall any significant opposition. The unfortunate souls on Millstream Crescent in Caldercruix might have been a little upset that their homes were demolished to provide the parking spaces at the new station. However, in return the local area got a 2tph electric train service right into the heart of Glasgow and Edinburgh with all the employment, education and leisure opportunities that brings. HS2 doesn't really do much for people living in London as they aren't typically that interested in heading north!

 

[Killingworth]

HS2 doesn't really do much for people living in London as they aren't typically that interested in heading north!

Absolutely, and that is why they should start the NPR work in the north first.

Almost every example you can find of improved communications between a centre and more distant places will show younger people following the road/rail/seaway out of the more distant parts towards the centre, be it London, Edinburgh, Manchester or Leeds - or the capitals in Scandinavia. Dick Whittington was just one. At least NPR would build the Northern hub before HS2 opens the way for more wealth to be drawn down to the south. It's inevitable that will happen unless we can have the north better connected internally first.

I note that few commute out of London to even places within 25-50 miles, and business meetings gravitate to the centre. HS2 will merely add to that pressure.