-
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!
Transport bosses urge industry to ‘fight’ for HS2 northern section
- Thread starter Legolash2o
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Greybeard33
Established Member
There is already a through route from Crewe to Sheffield south of Stockport: Sandbach - Middlewich - Northwich - Altrincham - Northenden Jn - Cheadle Heath - Hazel Grove High Level Jn - Chinley - Hope Valley.
The freight-only single track sections would need some serious upgrading for HS2 Classic Compatibles though - not to mention electrification throughout!
matacaster
On Moderation
- Joined
- 19 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 1,603
Me too!
That route would really, really struggle to have a decent journey time.
The opportunity of using a pretend-railway to the north as a way of building more infastructure to assist the London area was clearly too good an opportunity to miss
About 70% of the benefits are from phase 2, but sure, keep talking the North down like it doesn't matter just because Grayling has asked for the opposite...
And some of that benefit of phase 2 is extra commuter capacity for the SE, including on the MML (which has more demand, and bigger capacity issues, than the WCML).
And some of that benefit of phase 2 is extra commuter capacity for the SE, including on the MML (which has more demand, and bigger capacity issues, than the WCML).
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,732
From the map it seems likely that a chord south of Stockport to allow use of the regular line would be a neccesity, although how you would piece that together remains to be seen.
23 minutes from Crewe to Stockport
41 minutes from Stockport to Sheffield
64 minutes over all. And you can probably save a couple with a chord being south of the station (there is some waste ground and open terrain immediately south of the diverging junctions that might serve)
Even with no improvements on the Hope Valley we are looking at a journey time of approximately two hours to Sheffield, which is comparable to existing alignments.
And the Hope Valley timings are not using particularly high performance rolling stock.
The Leeds times will absolutely crush the alternative.
Interesting post on Skyscraper City explaining how the telegraph misunderstood what was said.
https://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=153812102&postcount=21178
https://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=153812102&postcount=21178
Greybeard33
Established Member
If this is meant as a serious suggestion, I would point out the viaduct over the Ladybrook Valley, north of Cheadle Hulme, is only two track width. This currently carries 3tph of local stopping services from Manchester to Alderley Edge, Crewe and Stoke, and 6tph of long distance services, from Manchester to London via Stoke (2tph), to London via Crewe (1tph), to Birmingham and beyond via Stoke (2tph) and to S Wales via Crewe (1tph). These have to be threaded through each others' paths across the flat junction at Cheadle Hulme.
To add high speed services from Crewe to Sheffield and Leeds, as well as Manchester, into the mix, I would suggest you would need an additional viaduct and a new, grade separated, junction in this densely populated area, plus quad-tracking the line between Sandbach and Cheadle Hulme (which would require widening the alignment).
Lets face it, there are a plenty of people who will moan if is or is not built!
Phase 2a and 2b are now essentially separate schemes. 2a is half way through parliament and would remove most capacity constraints on services from the North West to London and Birmingham. I think it is extremely unlikely to be cancelled.
My preference would be to extend the Manchester branch to Leeds and York and electrify the Cross Country routes, maybe having a HS2 spur to East Midlands Parkway for classic compatible services to Sheffield, Derby and Nottingham. London service to Leeds would be 68 minutes to Manchester + 5 minute stop at Piccadilly + about 20 minutes = 93 minutes vs 83 minutes currently planned. Maybe 1tph for London could run non stop between Leeds and Birmingham Interchange. Birmingham-Manchester Leeds would be about 63 minutes (38 + 5 + 20).
Phase 2a and 2b are now essentially separate schemes. 2a is half way through parliament and would remove most capacity constraints on services from the North West to London and Birmingham. I think it is extremely unlikely to be cancelled.
My preference would be to extend the Manchester branch to Leeds and York and electrify the Cross Country routes, maybe having a HS2 spur to East Midlands Parkway for classic compatible services to Sheffield, Derby and Nottingham. London service to Leeds would be 68 minutes to Manchester + 5 minute stop at Piccadilly + about 20 minutes = 93 minutes vs 83 minutes currently planned. Maybe 1tph for London could run non stop between Leeds and Birmingham Interchange. Birmingham-Manchester Leeds would be about 63 minutes (38 + 5 + 20).
Kneedown
Established Member
It will in that the electric trains could be of a suffiecient length to increase capacity, rather than relying on slower accelerating HST's, or coupled 222's. Also, there is currently no bi mode that will perform like a 222 on diesel, only a design proposal from Bombardier. Full electrification is tried, tested, will provide a much more robust and economical service than the 222's and completing the MML fully is really a must do if HS2b gets the chop. To not do so AND cancel HS2b would be a political nightmare for the goverment in the East Midlands and North.
moggie
Member
The whole HS2 project is to address capacity on both WCML and ECML and to a lesser degree MML. Phase 2a on it's own will truly be an expensive half baked project which will surely fail on a financial front simply because as conceived it will only be half done. That said history if littered with half done projects cancelled after much public money spent by the very idiots claiming doubts on affordability.
NPR rail is of course a must and I have no issues if MP's in those constituencies which stand to benefit want greater urgency on their NPR project but clearly the journey time savings from building a brand new high speed designed railway also benefit fold wanting to travel between Yorkshire and the Midlands as well as London. IF this project gets cancelled or more likely kicked into the wilderness this will be entirely down to the failure of the governments economic policy which seemingly, just like our defence plans we finally work out the much hyped 'aspiration' is simply unaffordable despite the obvious benefits. But no one should kid themselves that there will be financially viable alternative projects able to achieve the same benefit let alone ready to go. By then of course we should also know precisely how much less than '40% extra capacity' ETCS has failed to deliver in reality.
NPR rail is of course a must and I have no issues if MP's in those constituencies which stand to benefit want greater urgency on their NPR project but clearly the journey time savings from building a brand new high speed designed railway also benefit fold wanting to travel between Yorkshire and the Midlands as well as London. IF this project gets cancelled or more likely kicked into the wilderness this will be entirely down to the failure of the governments economic policy which seemingly, just like our defence plans we finally work out the much hyped 'aspiration' is simply unaffordable despite the obvious benefits. But no one should kid themselves that there will be financially viable alternative projects able to achieve the same benefit let alone ready to go. By then of course we should also know precisely how much less than '40% extra capacity' ETCS has failed to deliver in reality.
In summary, HS2 2b hasn't made it through parliament and so transport bosses should continue to remind their local MP's as to why they should vote it through.
In other words, not that it's going to be axed.
Bantamzen
Established Member
This is true, however seeds of doubt will now have been planted in the minds of politicians. The bill to approve the Northern spurs won't go through the Houses until after the end of this current Parliament, meaning that the current government have effectively kicked the can down the street until after the next scheduled general election. This is exactly the kind of thing governments do when they are not fully committed to something, defer it for the next lot. As things stand I'd say HS2 Phases 2a/b are still at a 50/50 chance. A lot can happen in the next four or so years, especially if the rail franchises start to go into meltdown as some appear to be on the brink of.
Assuming Phase 1 is 'in the bag', Phase 2A (Lichfield to Crewe) is in theoery an easy sell - a relatively short extension without the costs of particualrly "major major" Civils works (e.g. long tunnels) to stomach.
If HS2 was 'paused' at phase 2a, leaving the western end dangling at Crewe, what would be the equivalent on the eastern arm ? Petering out around about Chesterfield ? This would deprive us of the decent Sheffield-Leeds li e which would probably be one of the most useful aspects of the whole HS2 project.
If.HS2 is to be scaled back, my preference would be to concentrate on building both north-of-Lichfield trunk lines as far north as possible, benefitting as many places as possible, rather than putting a ridiculous amount of weight on one branch just to ensure that a handful of cities continue to receive gold-ated service.
Your proposal, for example, cheerfully slashes any benefits HS2 might bring to 3 of the cities (Derby, Nottingham, Sheffield) served by it, and to 2 entire regions. Also, it would simultaneously.eliminate the crucial bypass function HS2 will.provide for the already creaking-at-the-seams Birmingham-Sheffield line, while adding more services to it. Is this your idea of how to maximise political support for it ?
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,732
Then the answer is pure DMUs, if Bi-mode can't do the job then use of the electrification at the south end can be sacrificed.
Electrification as currently envisaged by Network Rail is possibly the least economical method of running a railway.
The WCRM was a disaster that cost more than an LGV to Birmingham would have done, and the GWRM has turned into yet another basketcase, it would have been cheaper to build a High Speed line to Bristol than to complete that insane project.
Electrification of operating railways is dead, and given the complete inability of Network Rail to deliver, not without good reason.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,732
The timetable would be rather different if Phase 2A is built though, I can't imagine we would be only be routing one of the trains via Crewe!
Why would we have long distance trains to Birmingham via Stoke?
Surely trains to Birmingham would route via Crewe so they can make use of HS2 and slash their journey times.
A simplified timetable with a hybrid London/Local service would run via Stoke, and virtually everything else would route via Crewe which would simplify operation of the junction.
Combined with coupling of long distance formations and I think extreme modifications to the junction and trackwork around it can be avoided.
A section of two track viaduct is not necessarily a major issue, the Welwyn Viaduct only becomes a catastrophic issue because of the station that leaves trains blocking the running lines for significant periods of time.
Otherwise signalling can be installed to permit many many trains to run over the viaduct.
EDIT:
The viaduct in question is near the location the chord would have to break off from the existing line and head over towards the Hope valley, so a second parallel viaduct might be necessary anyway.
Greybeard33
Established Member
In which case there is no prospect of HS2 services to Sheffield via the Hope Valley as you have suggested above, or by the currently proposed HS2b route for that matter. HS2 Ltd has made abundantly clear that no diesels or bi-modes will be allowed on its infrastructure.
Because Stoke and Newcastle at 400k are by far the biggest centre of popultion between Manchester and Birmingham?
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,732
HS2 Ltd is in no position to make such statements.
Under the glorious EU directives, which we are almost certain to have to obey even after Brexit, they will be required to permit Bi-modes assuming they meet the normal technical standards.
This is just like HS2 trying to arbitrarily give itself the right to adopt a non standard and idiotic platform height.
So are peanuts compared to Manchester and Birmingham?
The long distance trains would route via the quickest route for long distance passengers, which is going to be via Crewe.
Greybeard33
Established Member
So what 360km/h bi-modes, capable of working to the HS2 train service spec between London and Crewe, exist or are planned anywhere in the world?
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,732
Talgo have already reached 275km/h design speed with a bi mode.
The fact is that such a train only does not exist because there is no real demand for it to exist.
It is highly unlikely to cost more to develop than the billions that Network Rail would charge for the electrification to allow classic compatibles to be used.
NR had its chance to electrify and it blew it. There will not be another.
And then there is doubts over whether 360km/h would be required, since the timetable is transparently designed for 320km/h operation.
Problem is, there's probably a tipping point where "building both trunk lines as far as possible", combined with 'last mile' upgrades for HS2 services on the conventional network in lieu of running on high speed infrastructure (e.g. wires, gauging etc), means that you're building so much stuff one might as well just build the whole of Phase 2B as planned anyway.
I really think that Phases 2a and 2b need a big rebrand to help build public support and increase awareness. Everyone seems to know that Phase 1 is London to Birmingham but calling the next stages "2a" and "2b" makes them look like afterthoughts. Call them something like the Lancashire Express and Yorkshire Express or even the Red Rose and White Rose lines. The "high speed" name has pretty much been devalued and it would shift the conversation away from reducing journey times to increasing capacity and connectivity.
You only need to spend money on re-gauging if you go for captive trains. They might have to be put on the long finger, but it'll be years before their sort of capacity is really necessary on HS2.
Last edited:
Kneedown
Established Member
Nope. Not going to happen. Pure DMU's for high speed trains (+100mph) are dead in the water. Diesel is seen as politically toxic, as well as actually toxic.
I'd say the West Coast mainline is a highly successful example of electrification!
As regards the Great Western, yes it has been a complete farce. But that is an isolated example. Before being paused the MML was going well, pretty much on target. Even now, although the scope has been curtailed, progress is steady and seems to be relatively trouble free. In the North West, Liverpool to Manchester doesn't seem to have suffered the woes of the Great Western, so it would seem that Network Rail can deliver. Maybe they relying on the HOOP train too much before realising the concept was flawed?
- Status