I assume that building an underground station at Crewe will cost megabucks, even compared to the existing tunnel plan. More still if you also add through lines to permit non-stop trains through Crewe (I don't know if the Scotland-bound HS2 services are meant to stop there.) However, if this set-up removed (let's say) all trains to Liverpool, Preston, Scotland and Manchester from.the high level platforms, would it justify itself by saving money on other improvement works at Crewe? Or would those still be necessary anyway?
-
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!
HS2 - good for the provinces?
- Thread starter TheManOnThe172
- Start date
- Status
I assume that building an underground station at Crewe will cost megabucks, even compared to the existing tunnel plan. More still if you also add through lines to permit non-stop trains through Crewe (I don't know if the Scotland-bound HS2 services are meant to stop there.) However, if this set-up removed (let's say) all trains to Liverpool, Preston, Scotland and Manchester from.the high level platforms, would it justify itself by saving money on other improvement works at Crewe? Or would those still be necessary anyway?
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I don't think Liverpool will have more than 2 trains an hour - which means one may run via Warrington and one via Runcorn. The one via Runcorn has to stop at Crewe.
Also in terms of path, in order to provide more services to the north - HS2 were looking at splitting and joining trains at Crewe and this will probably still need to be done so even the Warrington ones may still have to call at Crewe. I think there is more political weight to develop Manchester and having fast links to London from there instead of Liverpool. Only time will tell what happens though
stephen rp
Member
- Joined
- 25 Jun 2016
- Messages
- 190
The latest report from TfN has a line from Liverpool via Warrington to the HS2 line east to Manchester and south to London.
No hint of what route that might take. Straight through Warrington town hall? Bank Quay low level and through the soap factory?
No hint of what route that might take. Straight through Warrington town hall? Bank Quay low level and through the soap factory?
edwin_m
Veteran Member
I think the idea (or at one idea) is to have a northern connection so trains calling at Crewe can re-join HS2 towards Manchester or Golborne. There is also the possibility of splitting/joining at Crewe to give a wider range of destinations with the limited paths available further south. Most likely Liverpool trains will be among those that split/join, as it's unlikely that there would be a station in Liverpool large enough to take 400m trains. This means if they use a HS2-Liverpool link they will also need a Crewe northern connection.
Edit: Sean posted much the same while I was writing this!
Edit: Sean posted much the same while I was writing this!
There's discussion of this in other threads:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/hs3-timeline-and-ideas.130416/
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/transport-for-the-north-strategic-transport-plan.159494/
Would n't central Manchester, the primary city in the Northern region, be a more appropriate location for such a hub?
I am also wondering what is the value of major work on a HS2 stop at Crewe in view of the proposals for a HS2 spur to Liverpool as mentioned in the TfN draft proposals.
OK, thanks.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
This would involve another long tunnel to get the trains out of Manchester to the north, and this would mean putting the Piccadilly HS2 station underground or moving it to a less central site. It would also lengthen HS2 journeys to Liverpool if they had to go through Manchester on the way.
Effectively Piccadilly will be a hub already, with classic trains and trams to most parts of Greater Manchester. Crewe service a different role, linking North Wales and the northern Potteries and hopefully (subject to a northern link back onto HS2) providing northward connections too.
So why not spend the money on that rather than a small town out in the sticks?
If a genuine HS link was provided into Piccadilly from Liverpool rather than the 155 km/h max link proposed by TfN would the little extra journey time not be compensated for by the more beneficial connectivity and possibly additional services?
So why not give Liverpool a better link into that Hub?
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Tunnelling under Manchester with a large sub-surface station would cost several times more than tunnelling under Crewe, and the less direct route would lengthen north-south journey times.
I can't see how. You seem to be increasing journey times to Liverpool, already inferior to those to Manchester, for no very good reason. And Chester and North Wales lose out as their HS2 connection would be much further away than Crewe.
Recent pages on this thread do my argument against HS2 the world of good. Crewe missing out on services just *because*? Convoluted diversions and expensive tunneling? Brilliant.
You can, at Crewe, already reserve a seat on a train to Euston which takes about 2hr. Who knew that, according to these recent pages, the building of a high speed railway would result in a *worse* service than that!
You can, at Crewe, already reserve a seat on a train to Euston which takes about 2hr. Who knew that, according to these recent pages, the building of a high speed railway would result in a *worse* service than that!
edwin_m
Veteran Member
The expensive tunnel allows some but not all services to miss out Crewe, just as they do now but on the fast lines.
The convoluted diversion is the idea of one poster on here and not by any means official.
The convoluted diversion is the idea of one poster on here and not by any means official.
But for suggestions like this to be even made shows me that any old solution, even the most ludicrous, would be put forward as long as it works around HS2's failings. It's as though HS2 is the "constant" around which everything must fit even if that means cuts to services or lengthening of routes.
At Phase 2A everything going north will have to leave HS2 just south of Crewe and proceed through the station, stopping or not. Expect small alterations to accommodate this and retention of the fast lines through the station. In Phase 2B the tunnel is constructed and once the new routes are complete towards Scotland and Manchester, fast trains to these destinations will begin using HS2 under the station, allowing a more comprehensive modification to take place. The existing junctions will all have to be renewed in the next decade or so anyway, so this offers a way to do it economically and incorporate any changes at the same time. Removing the fast lines on the surface and rearrangement of the north end together with some additional platforms to allow Manchester - Shropshire trains to use the independent underpass could allow a simpler and more effective and reliable layout to be built, with more capacity and fewer conflicts. The recently announced north junction will allow HS2 trains from the south to pull off and call at Crewe then rejoin the high speed line for Manchester or Scotland. It's plausible Manchester/Scotland - Birmingham trains might do this but unlilkely many London trains will. Liverpool trains will continue to pull off at Crewe and run via Runcorn for the forseeable future until a coherent plan emerges and an additional dedicated access line is built into that city, likely shared with NPR services and routed via, or near, Warrington. I've personally had my doubts over the value of the latter, but at least, even though longer than the Runcorn route, it should be able to compensate on journey time by its speed for at least part of the way, and importantly it would avoid (at least some) HS trains running on the busy double track section between Crewe and Weaver Jn, track which, although very straight and direct, is shared with freights and local stopping passenger trains, which limits practical speed and scheduling freedom as well as importing operational risk. If new dedicated access to Liverpool is built, then it's likely at least some Liverpool trains will bypass Crewe via the tunnel although I suspect at least one an hour may continue to run via Crewe to retain a service from that important interchange hub. With its long platforms, Crewe could provide the opportunity for such a Liverpool train to combine with (say) a Preston/Blackpool 'stopping' portion south of there to save paths on the trunk.
Last edited:
It is that kind of work that would bring expenditure up to the same levels as those for London and the South East; Is it a case of not being ambitious enough in the right areas?
I am going by what is being propsed by TfN for 2030 and beyond - quite different from the current situation.
No, it's a case of spending money relative to the benefits that are likely to be accrued. NPR is coming in at something like £70bn already, or c. 4 x Crossrail 1s in cost. Is that not ambitious enough for you?
Ans nowhere in the North West do I see fully laden peak hour 12 car trains running around today.
Quick questions:
Of that 4x Crossrail cost how much of that will come from a new local levy like London had been providing?
Taking the 10 busiest stations that will benefit from this investment how does this compare in passenger numbers compare with London Bridge (Thameslink), Paddington (Crossrail) and Reading (new station, junction and electrification)?
To be fair to this package of works one of the lines benefiting had been running 3 coach DMU's and so it hasn't all been 12 coach trains.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
As far as anyone can tell, TfN want a spur from HS2 somewhere in Cheshire (probably) via Warrington to Liverpool, to carry NPR between Liverpool and Manchester or beyond, and probably also to carry London-HS2-Crewe-Liverpool trains. There's no question of running London-Liverpool trains via Manchester.
I was tempted to add, not even TfN would have included something that patently absurd in their plans. Then I gave in to temptation.
There's a lot of force to that. However, it's important to distinguish between the inherent merits of a new north-south capacity boosting railway, and the specific form HS2 is planned to take.
Talking about saving paths, if a captive line is built to Liverpool (it would seem daft not to build the line GC, though O appreciate the issue about 400 m platforms at the terminus), and Warrington is served by Liverpool terminators, wouldn't it make more sense to run 400m trains on.th9se services (albeit 1 could still call at Crewe), with the Preston classic compatible combining at Stafford or Stoke with the Macclesfield / wherever CC?
Where new construction is involved then I agree GC gauge should be considered seriously for a Liverpool line, but that decision in detail has to take into account what other traffic if any is also sharing the particular sections involved, as if any platforms are placed at UIC clearance from the rails then all such trains will require the extending gap filler steps planned for the HS2 fleet. I can also see that if the promised Warrington stop is accomplished by Liverpool trains, then the Preston 'stoppers' that serve Wigan don't need to call there as well and could continue on HS2 infrastructure to its extremity just south of Wigan. If these are half trains then really in order to maintain best speed these need to split with 'something' at Crewe, then regain HS2 via the proposed north junction. That 'something' could be a Manchester train with an (irregular) Crewe stop added (maybe instead of Airport to keep journey time approx. equal). If the Macclesfield service is a part train then I suspect it will split from a Birmingham or Eastern branch portion at Birmingham Interchange. There are no pros, only cons for splitting at Stoke: Platforms are not long enough currently although might be lengthened fairly easily but splitting there would be operationally risky due to the limited number of through platforms available (only two in total). The Preston portion would then have to proceed on the slow route via Alsager and through Crewe station. It is a similar story for splitting at Stafford: Theoretically less operationally risky than Stoke due to multiple platforms, but the platforms are not long enough again and this time are practically impossible to extend without complete remodelling of the station and the complex junctions to north and south. There is no junction back onto HS2 nearby to the north, so trains would have to mix with conventional traffic on classic WCML tracks for 25 miles on to Crewe, then rejoin HS2 for the sprint to Wigan at the proposed north junction.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
If you're referring to my comment on running London to Liverpool via Manchester, as far as I can see that is only the view of Olaf and nobody else. If you're referring to the earlier part of my quote than it is exactly what TfN seem to be planning.
Sorry, I should have made clear that i was referring to Olaf's interesting take on the quickest way to get to Liverpool.
Even if a 400m platformed-terminal will not be built at Liverpool in the immediate future, is it really the case that a brand new bypass line will not be built to UIC standards for the sake of not including an extendable step on the trains?
As for the rest, I appreciate that Stafford would require some work, but it does sound as if the tail is wagging the dog in certain respects because HS2 was designed solely as a way of reaching London from a small number of cities, and has had little flexibility built into it.
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 15,930
Splitting will only happen at Crewe and further north. Crewe needs doing before HS2 arrives there.
Be handy if that tunnel was there beforehand though, for diversions. Any second hand TBMs going cheap soon?
- Status