• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

What route may the HS2 Marsden spur take?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sonik

Member
Joined
7 Jun 2022
Messages
326
Location
WCML South
Given the state the tunnels are reputed to be in, I wouldn't be surprised if boring a new, fresh hole is cheaper than trying to fix them up. Even the wide bore is unlikely to meet the requirements for the air displacement envelope at c.225km/h, and getting a waiver on a safe evacuation route (diving into the canal doesn't count) would also be tricky.
The other issue is electrification, the two spare tunnels are single track bores so unlikely to have the needed clearances.

However a rebore as done at Farnworth may be economic vs the cost of a new TBM bore.

Standedge is mostly rock, which could make the much cheaper sequential excavation method viable, because the strata is largely self supporting. The potential cost savings in terms of TBM setup and removal of spoil would be very significant.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
68,436
Location
Yorkshire
Just a gentle reminder that any posts of a speculative nature must be posted exclusively in the speculative discussion section please; I have therefore moved this thread accordingly.

For future reference, if anyone sees a thread in the wrong section, please report the opening post. Alternatively if anyone sees any speculative posts in any non-speculative thread for us to consider splitting the thread, please report the first speculative post in any given thread, using the report button. Please let us know in your report if there are any further such posts and feel free to suggest a new title. Thanks :)
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,963
Doing anything at all to an existing tunnel is going to cost an absolute fortune.

It would be better to just take the opportunity for a properly aligned, properly engineered clean sheet designed for the modern era.

This project will already need a huge spoil transport and disposal infrastructure, adding a few kilometres of extra tunnel won't change much on that score.

And the existing tunnels are all highly unsuitable for modern rail operations.
Tiny cross section is really a killer and the interlinked tunnel complex makes it even worse.
 
Last edited:

tomuk

Established Member
Joined
15 May 2010
Messages
1,953
And the existing tunnels are all highly unsuitable for modern rail operations.
Tiny cross section is really a killer and the interlinked tunnel complex makes it even worse.
I've seen numerous videos of the trip through the canal tunnel, it being the longest and highest in the Uk?, and it is a mishmash of bare rock, brick and concrete lining of various lengths and patches with numerous adits linking to and draining water from the interlinked rail tunnels. To tamper with any of that would be at best be very expensive. At worst? Foolhardy? Disastrous?
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,963
I certainly wouldn't want to be the engineer who got that job.

It's worth noting that if the terrain allows a level access adit to be driven to a rail tunnel, building an underground firefighting station will be relatively easy as firefighter access and passenger evacuation will be comparatively simple.

So there is no issue with long tunnels, since that counts as a tunnel end for the TSI limits.
 

tomuk

Established Member
Joined
15 May 2010
Messages
1,953
So there is no issue with long tunnels, since that counts as a tunnel end for the TSI limits.
On the canal side of things due to the length you need to book in advance and are escorted by a pilot and also followed by another 'officer' in a pick up truck driven down one of the disused train tunnels who keeps watch at various adits.
 

Sonik

Member
Joined
7 Jun 2022
Messages
326
Location
WCML South
Doing anything at all to an existing tunnel is going to cost an absolute fortune.
The Swiss have enlarged and relined similar tunnels, including some that have been kept open to traffic during the works. Given the difficulty of that, I'm sure they would have built a new tunnel if was indeed cheaper.

But I guess it will also depend if the existing bores are usefully placed for the chosen new route.
 

Nottingham59

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2019
Messages
1,719
Location
Nottingham
I'm going to have to modify the East portal
Because the slow lines can have tighter curves, I've realised that a better solution for the Eastern portal is to divert the slow lines sideways, at the existing gradient profile, and keep the fast lines dead straight, diving under the diverted slows. This should be cheaper and easier than my previous version.
1656413672660.png
 

fishwomp

Member
Joined
5 Jan 2020
Messages
562
Location
milton keynes
This project will already need a huge spoil transport and disposal infrastructure, adding a few kilometres of extra tunnel won't change much on that score.

Something like a railway or canal could be used to remove spoil? If only there were cross-adits between all the tunnels - been done before so will never catch on. :)

To be honest I don't see this project happening at all, in any form, the government has crayons bigger than this forum and drawing pictures of projects that don't need funding for another decade or two is good for deceiving the masses. That's why I prefer incremental progress..
 

nr758123

Member
Joined
3 Jun 2014
Messages
490
Location
West Yorkshire
Looking at the maps available in the public domain it appears they plan to cut straight through Oldham in some capacity, which is what peaked my interest.

Only problem I can foresee with a tunnel is that we’re famous for mines as well as cotton mills. There’s still a lot of old capped off mines under residential areas in Oldham.
The same problems with disused mine workings will also apply if, as suggested by others, the tunnel portal is at Guide Bridge. The difference is that the area north and east of Guide Bridge not only has disused mine workings but also peat bogs. I admit to not knowing enough about tunnelling to be able to say whether peat bogs create a problem.
I would suggest that the field to the east of Marsden Station containing the Marsden Skate Park would be the best location for the portal it would avoid any complications of the tunnel site.
The railway is on the north side of the valley, well above the level of the centre of the village. A new tunnel from the vicinity of the skate park (actually the old goods yard) would need a very steep gradient to get underneath firstly the canal and then the River Colne from there. I can't see that being realistic.

To be honest I don't see this project happening at all, in any form, the government has crayons bigger than this forum and drawing pictures of projects that don't need funding for another decade or two is good for deceiving the masses. That's why I prefer incremental progress..
When the IRP was published there were those who suggested that the proposed new line to Marsden was included for no other reason than to allow Grant Shapps to say in media interviews that high speed rail was coming to Yorkshire. I thought this was too cynical, until Mr Shapps said precisely that.

I have come round to the conclusion that there is not and was not any intention to build a new high speed line to Marsden. For so much of what this current government does, the media coverage is an end in itself. It got the short term media coverage that the government wanted.

Announcing things that will never happen is just as effective for (as you put it) deceiving the masses, and a whole lot cheaper than actually building stuff.

It's worth pointing out that there has been almost no speculation locally about where this high speed line will emerge and its environmental impact on the upper Colne Valley. That's because almost no-one around here expects it to happen.
 

WAO

Member
Joined
10 Mar 2019
Messages
679
I do not understand why a tunnel to Marsden is being contemplated. Marsden is at the summit of the LNWR route; after which the it drops off to Heaton Lodge. From then it is fairly level to Dewsbury's approaches, after which there is a 9 mile hump before we're back down at Leeds.

In my naivety, I imagined that a tunnel from Manchester to Heaton Lodge (29 miles and level) plus a tunnel under Morley (9 miles and also level) would solve both the TP and HS2 problems. For once there would be an easy, energy saving, all weather route across the Pennines, Leeds and York would be reached from HS2 without the Eastern leg, and onwards via the Northallerton racetrack to....?

Costwise, 38 miles of tunnel at £33M/km is c£2Bn, let's call it £5Bn at NR prices but with far less needing spending elsewhere in upgrades etc.

What have I missed?

WAO
 

matacaster

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2013
Messages
1,606
I do not understand why a tunnel to Marsden is being contemplated. Marsden is at the summit of the LNWR route; after which the it drops off to Heaton Lodge. From then it is fairly level to Dewsbury's approaches, after which there is a 9 mile hump before we're back down at Leeds.

In my naivety, I imagined that a tunnel from Manchester to Heaton Lodge (29 miles and level) plus a tunnel under Morley (9 miles and also level) would solve both the TP and HS2 problems. For once there would be an easy, energy saving, all weather route across the Pennines, Leeds and York would be reached from HS2 without the Eastern leg, and onwards via the Northallerton racetrack to....?

Costwise, 38 miles of tunnel at £33M/km is c£2Bn, let's call it £5Bn at NR prices but with far less needing spending elsewhere in upgrades etc.

What have I missed?

WAO
Huddersfield?
 

Nottingham59

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2019
Messages
1,719
Location
Nottingham
I do not understand why a tunnel to Marsden is being contemplated.
You're right, of course. But that's what the Integrated Rail Plan says the government had decided to do. And we all know the IRP is a bodge, cooked up to camouflage their decision to cut back on HS2.

A twin-bore low-level Pennine tunnel would solve a lot of problems. I'd make it dead straight so that it could be used by 142mph trains during the day, and 75mph freights after 8pm. But that's just my preference. Maybe I'll start a fantasy tunnelling thread to explore what really should/could be done to build a rail network fit for the twenty-first century.

(Also the single-bore costs of £33m/km quoted by HS2 only cover the civil engineering of the tunnel. Fit out, including track, signalling, rolling stock etc., adds a lot to those figures. But they would be incurred whatever route was chosen. And very long tunnels also come with special requirements for evacuation etc.)
 

SuperNova

Member
Joined
12 Dec 2019
Messages
961
Location
The North
I do not understand why a tunnel to Marsden is being contemplated. Marsden is at the summit of the LNWR route; after which the it drops off to Heaton Lodge. From then it is fairly level to Dewsbury's approaches, after which there is a 9 mile hump before we're back down at Leeds.

In my naivety, I imagined that a tunnel from Manchester to Heaton Lodge (29 miles and level) plus a tunnel under Morley (9 miles and also level) would solve both the TP and HS2 problems. For once there would be an easy, energy saving, all weather route across the Pennines, Leeds and York would be reached from HS2 without the Eastern leg, and onwards via the Northallerton racetrack to....?

Costwise, 38 miles of tunnel at £33M/km is c£2Bn, let's call it £5Bn at NR prices but with far less needing spending elsewhere in upgrades etc.

What have I missed?

WAO
Because having NPR avoid both Huddersfield and Bradford would be absolutely bonkers and politically a nightmare.

To achieve the 30 min for NPR and capacity to an extent, you only have to speed up the Huddersfield to Manchester section of track.
You're right, of course. But that's what the Integrated Rail Plan says the government had decided to do. And we all know the IRP is a bodge, cooked up to camouflage their decision to cut back on HS2.
Not really. Even if HS2 eastern leg was being built, NPR would need building and a short section of track west of Huddersfield enabled the aims of NPR.
 

matacaster

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2013
Messages
1,606
You're right, of course. But that's what the Integrated Rail Plan says the government had decided to do. And we all know the IRP is a bodge, cooked up to camouflage their decision to cut back on HS2.

A twin-bore low-level Pennine tunnel would solve a lot of problems. I'd make it dead straight so that it could be used by 142mph trains during the day, and 75mph freights after 8pm. But that's just my preference. Maybe I'll start a fantasy tunnelling thread to explore what really should/could be done to build a rail network fit for the twenty-first century.

(Also the single-bore costs of £33m/km quoted by HS2 only cover the civil engineering of the tunnel. Fit out, including track, signalling, rolling stock etc., adds a lot to those figures. But they would be incurred whatever route was chosen. And very long tunnels also come with special requirements for evacuation etc.)
Is hs2s £33/km applicable to very hard pennine rock? Hard rock won't need much in the way of lining, but will surely be slower and require more robust drilling equipment. Expert opinion please.
 

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
7,824
Location
Leeds
Is hs2s £33/km applicable to very hard pennine rock? Hard rock won't need much in the way of lining, but will surely be slower and require more robust drilling equipment. Expert opinion please.
It's the softest ground, not the hardest, that causes most worries for tunnellers.
 

WAO

Member
Joined
10 Mar 2019
Messages
679
Huddersfield?

Because having NPR avoid both Huddersfield and Bradford would be absolutely bonkers and politically a nightmare.

Are we talking about an LGV, high speed line, or a metro?

The 42 miles between Manchester and Leeds is already quite a short hop by LGV standards.

Both Huddersfield (and Bradford, not a rail loving city) will have better rail links in the future, anyway. Geography, physics and economics do not permit every wayside halt to have a TGV service, although Huddersfield could have a P&R loop at Heaton Lodge.

Agree that IRP is a bodge!

WAO
 

Nottingham59

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2019
Messages
1,719
Location
Nottingham
I've posted this link in the thread on underground alternatives for Piccadilly. It's a report published by HS2 Ltd and includes discussion of NPR routes in Manchester, so I'm posting it here as well.
Thank you for that.

So to answer the original question for this thread as posted by @Worm , the HS2 Marsden spur is described in section 4.1 Baseline option + NPR Remit 6 Option 0

As I understand it, from the Ardwick Box, the NPR route will stay at height, to pass over the Phillips Park and Ashbury line, which is presumably the "double-height viaduct" bisecting East Manchester that Andy Burnham was getting so worked up about. Then:
The NPR corridor then crosses over the NR Philips Park line, before passing immediately to the south of the NR Manchester Rail Operating Centre and parallel to the Manchester-Glossop NR line, to the south. Following this, the Manchester sidings for stabling rolling stock is in the Openshaw area to the north of the NPR corridor, comprising 4 sidings. ... Beyond the end of the sidings, the 2 tracks on the NPR corridor descend into the tunnel portal for the NPR route to Leeds. The Leeds route then continues in tunnel in a north easterly direction all the way to the NPR node L to the southeast of Oldham. This section of the tunnel has 3 vent shafts, being located at Openshaw, Ashton Moss and Waterloo.

If the sidings are for 400m trains, then the area for them will be at least 600m long, i.e. from Ashbury station towards Bessemer St. Which puts the tunnel portal to the north of the Guide Bridge line either in the Tarmac aggregates yard or between Bessemer St and Cornwall St, near to Gorton Station.

After that, the NPR route will be in tunnel, more or less following the valley of the River Medlock. Beyond Oldham is anybody's guess.
 

SuperNova

Member
Joined
12 Dec 2019
Messages
961
Location
The North
Are we talking about an LGV, high speed line, or a metro?

The 42 miles between Manchester and Leeds is already quite a short hop by LGV standards.

Both Huddersfield (and Bradford, not a rail loving city) will have better rail links in the future, anyway. Geography, physics and economics do not permit every wayside halt to have a TGV service, although Huddersfield could have a P&R loop at Heaton Lodge.
A pointless loop. A reminder that NPR isn't a high speed line and was never going to be. NPR's design in Leeds - Manchester in 30 mins. You don't need massive speeds to achieve that and there's literally no point over engineering something when a 100 mph railway will give you what is necessary. The speed constraints are west of Huddersfield and a new line west of Huddersfield to Manchester would help the goal of 30 mins be easily achieved.

Plus what you've put forward wouldn't benefit Bradford nor Huddersfield, as for example, TRU wouldn't happen if what you propose was built as the cost/benefit wouldn't be there.

Is the IPR a bodge? Most certainly. Especially the criminal decisions to get rid of the Eastern leg of HS2 and the Golborne link. However, the questions for NPR that now need answering are the capacity constraints in and out of Leeds especially east of Dewsbury and up to Micklefield. Not about skipping large towns and cities reducing connectivity.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,963
A pointless loop. A reminder that NPR isn't a high speed line and was never going to be. NPR's design in Leeds - Manchester in 30 mins. You don't need massive speeds to achieve that and there's literally no point over engineering something when a 100 mph railway will give you what is necessary. The speed constraints are west of Huddersfield and a new line west of Huddersfield to Manchester would help the goal of 30 mins be easily achieved.

Manchester to Leeds in 30 minutes on a 100mph railway is going to be rather challenging unless you have no intermediate stops at all. Unless you are building a continuous new line, in which case you might as well push to 230-250kph anyway.
[That would averaging 75mph even with a dead straight line!]

It appears highly likely the line to Marsden would be built for 230-250km/h to make up for the horribly slow journey east of there.
 
Last edited:

WAO

Member
Joined
10 Mar 2019
Messages
679
Paddington to Reading along Brunel's billiard table can only average about 85mph, going flat out at 125mph tops. To get to Leeds in 30 minutes on a max 100mph line (c84mph average) with a sprinkling of remaining restrictions (we're trying to cross the Pennines) and two stops on the way, is certainly ambitious.

I'm eager to learn!

WAO
 

stuu

Established Member
Joined
2 Sep 2011
Messages
2,832
Paddington to Reading along Brunel's billiard table can only average about 85mph, going flat out at 125mph tops. To get to Leeds in 30 minutes on a max 100mph line (c84mph average) with a sprinkling of remaining restrictions (we're trying to cross the Pennines) and two stops on the way, is certainly ambitious.

I'm eager to learn!

WAO
36 miles in 22 minutes is a 98mph average... but I agree with your point, it's going to need something spectacular to get the timing down to 30 minutes
 

Nottingham59

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2019
Messages
1,719
Location
Nottingham
To get to Leeds in 30 minutes on a max 100mph line (c84mph average)
Piccadilly to Leeds is 35 miles as the crow flies. Assuming a straight tunnel from Gorton to Marsden, and a straight tunnel from Morley tunnel mouth to Leeds, the total distance via the railway comes to 38 miles. At an average speed of 84mph, that's 27 minutes. Add 6 minutes lost for slowing/stop/restart at Huddersfield comes to 33 minutes.

And it won't be 100mph max throughout. I would expect the new tunnels to be built with a design speed to match that of the HS2 spur - 230km/h = 143mph

Did you mean it when you said the average speed was 84mph? Where did that figure come from?
 

WAO

Member
Joined
10 Mar 2019
Messages
679
IIRC, the present mileage is c42, (Table 39) hence average 84mph for 30 minutes.

Crows can fly over the (Pennine) hills, surface transport can't, especially if it has to serve Huddersfield and Bradford on the way.

22 minutes to Reading is on a (very) good day.

There was a rumour in the GW '125 buffet cars that the beer fridge was interlocked with approach controlled signal RA28, which would not clear for the Reading down platform until at least half the cans were sold.

WAO
 

tomuk

Established Member
Joined
15 May 2010
Messages
1,953
Crows can fly over the (Pennine) hills, surface transport can't, especially if it has to serve Huddersfield and Bradford on the way.
But NPR isn't serving Bradford under the current IRP proposals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top