This is interesting - what do people make of it?
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/la...2-route-tabled-for-the-north/10042256.article
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/la...2-route-tabled-for-the-north/10042256.article
-
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!
Alternative route for HS2 phase 2 proposed with Manchester as through station
- Thread starter tasky
- 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
gordonthemoron
Established Member
So, basically scrapping the Eastern branch, meaning that it can't be used to relieve ECML (much) or MML
Looks like HS2 western branch plus HS3
Looks like HS2 western branch plus HS3
First thoughts are
- It's all well and good to say 'Sheffield won't lose out because we'll upgrade the existing line to high speed' and quite another to upgrade the Derby-Chesterfield-Sheffield bit of the MML, where the existing linespeed only barely hits 100mph as it is in a few places
- The East Midlands very obviously does lose out no matter how you square it
- Through station at Manchester Pic is probably a good idea, but doesn't have to be an either-or with the eastern branch
- It's all well and good to say 'Sheffield won't lose out because we'll upgrade the existing line to high speed' and quite another to upgrade the Derby-Chesterfield-Sheffield bit of the MML, where the existing linespeed only barely hits 100mph as it is in a few places
- The East Midlands very obviously does lose out no matter how you square it
- Through station at Manchester Pic is probably a good idea, but doesn't have to be an either-or with the eastern branch
Bantamzen
Established Member
I shouldn't worry, if this proposal were to be accepted in principle it would give the government the perfect excuse to shelve the whole of Phase 2. Tunnelling the HS3 Pennine section would be vastly expensive on it's own, let alone without a through Manchester connection as proposed here. So my guess if this was taken forward that neither Yorkshire nor Greater Manchester would see a single kilometre of HS track this side of forever.
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
Some proposals for "HS3" included a tunnel under Manchester (Pic-Vic), emerging at Miles Platting for the Pennine section.
This plan just seems to extend that to Leeds.
It's not obvious that this route, with several tunnels, would be any cheaper than building the surface route for HS2b.
However, it does refocus the project as a northern one.
We are actually back to one of the earliest schemes before the "Y" network was preferred.
HS2a (Lichfield-Crewe) stays in any case.
I wouldn't say the diagrams are very helpful, the connections shown into the classic network don't look right.
This plan just seems to extend that to Leeds.
It's not obvious that this route, with several tunnels, would be any cheaper than building the surface route for HS2b.
However, it does refocus the project as a northern one.
We are actually back to one of the earliest schemes before the "Y" network was preferred.
HS2a (Lichfield-Crewe) stays in any case.
I wouldn't say the diagrams are very helpful, the connections shown into the classic network don't look right.
The Liverpool one is especially off I think
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,691
This kills a rather large part of the rationale for the scheme by deleting the Eastern branch entirely.....
Are trains to Derby via Birmingham really going to be competitive at all?
EDIT:
Oh wait, I see, there will be magical line upgrades that will turn it into a high speed line.... somehow.
Are trains to Derby via Birmingham really going to be competitive at all?
EDIT:
Oh wait, I see, there will be magical line upgrades that will turn it into a high speed line.... somehow.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
As is being discussed on another thread, HS2 journeys London to York and beyond are about 30min quicker than via the ECML. By either of these routes I can't see them being any quicker at all - and Leeds probably won't be much quicker either.
tbtc
Veteran Member
I guess that "any High Speed line would be better than no High Speed line", so I'd welcome this proposal if the only other option were the status quo. It's reminiscent of the Tory party plan (pre-2010, when they were in opposition) IIRC.
But I don't share the obsession some have with through stations on the HS network. If the trains are stopping at (e.g.) Manchester then it doesn't matter too much whether they'll approach from one side and leave from the other or not.
Plus, with the speeds that they reach, if the trains travel an extra couple of miles (due to reversing south out of Manchester and doubling back to get towards Leeds) then that's only a few seconds of additional time (compared to the huge cost of building a through station in a city centre - one thing to find a single route from the outskirts into a city centre but much much harder to find a route into a city centre that also matches up with a route in the other direction - High Speed lines not being designed for the kind of tight curves that conventional suburban stock currently manages).
I'd be annoyed if Sheffield lost out, but then I'm already annoyed that Sheffield isn't getting the level of service we could have had (by insisting on "Midland", meaning one London service per hour will snake through Chesterfield/ Erewash, rather than having several HS2 services stopping at Meadowhall each hour providing frequent links to Leeds/ Birmingham/ London). That's Sheffield's fault for preferring one train per hour (that will run on conventional lines north of Toton) over a Meadowhall stop on the main line because of the "civic pride" of having a city centre station.
(that said, running everything for Yorkshire/ North East through Manchester City Centre really spoils the idea that a High Speed line will free up lots of paths on the ECML/MML because it won't be any use for the East Midlands/ Sheffield and may be no faster than current ECML services to Leeds/ York/ Newcastle - so it looks like another one of those misguided Government proposals which think that spending huge sums of money on Manchester-alone will benefit "the north"... which is why I wouldn't be surprised if this is the final plan!)
But I don't share the obsession some have with through stations on the HS network. If the trains are stopping at (e.g.) Manchester then it doesn't matter too much whether they'll approach from one side and leave from the other or not.
Plus, with the speeds that they reach, if the trains travel an extra couple of miles (due to reversing south out of Manchester and doubling back to get towards Leeds) then that's only a few seconds of additional time (compared to the huge cost of building a through station in a city centre - one thing to find a single route from the outskirts into a city centre but much much harder to find a route into a city centre that also matches up with a route in the other direction - High Speed lines not being designed for the kind of tight curves that conventional suburban stock currently manages).
I'd be annoyed if Sheffield lost out, but then I'm already annoyed that Sheffield isn't getting the level of service we could have had (by insisting on "Midland", meaning one London service per hour will snake through Chesterfield/ Erewash, rather than having several HS2 services stopping at Meadowhall each hour providing frequent links to Leeds/ Birmingham/ London). That's Sheffield's fault for preferring one train per hour (that will run on conventional lines north of Toton) over a Meadowhall stop on the main line because of the "civic pride" of having a city centre station.
(that said, running everything for Yorkshire/ North East through Manchester City Centre really spoils the idea that a High Speed line will free up lots of paths on the ECML/MML because it won't be any use for the East Midlands/ Sheffield and may be no faster than current ECML services to Leeds/ York/ Newcastle - so it looks like another one of those misguided Government proposals which think that spending huge sums of money on Manchester-alone will benefit "the north"... which is why I wouldn't be surprised if this is the final plan!)
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,691
Pretty sure HS2 to LEeds via Manchester would still crush the current timings.... 66 minutes to Manchester and the current timing to Leeds is what? 140 minutes?
matacaster
On Moderation
- Joined
- 19 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 1,600
Would it not make more sense for the basic HS2 to be like a lightbulb. IE one route to Birmingham then splits to Leeds and Manchester and the top of the bulb becomes Manchester to Leeds. That would mean no reversal as Leeds and Manchester would be through stations.
Having said that, I have no faith in HS2 ever getting north of birmingham, let alone that far.
Having said that, I have no faith in HS2 ever getting north of birmingham, let alone that far.
TommyL4
Member
- Joined
- 3 Dec 2018
- Messages
- 21
Quite curious about what upgrading of the line through Sheffield will be like, emmm.
Glenn1969
Established Member
This would solve the issue about what to do with the new housing estate in Mexborough and where to site a station in South Yorkshire wouldn't it. It looks like HS3 has priority over 2b. Would that solve the Castlefield headache as well?
Sheffield shot itself in the foot by insisting on a city centre station when the geology of the area made it extremely expensive. London/Birmingham to Leeds via Manchester would still be significantly faster than today. NPR/HS3 is a popular idea but people are extremely skeptical that it will be built. It makes sense to drop the eastern branch where a new line is not popular and spend the money where a new line would be very popular.
If this plan or something similar was chosen I don't see why phase 2b western branch could not be presented as a bill in parliament later this year but named HS3 phase 1. The bill is being adjusted to make provision for likely NPR junctions anyway including at Piccadilly. Some services would still terminate at Piccadilly therefore the western branch design would just need adding to, not be ripped up. The station design could be kept at an outline and the details submitted as a TWAO at a later date. Leeds would benefit compared with HS2 because it won't provide a HS line into Sheffield and higher capacity and quicker journey times to Manchester (and Liverpool) are more important than London or Birmingham (which would still improve under these proposals compared with today).
If this plan or something similar was chosen I don't see why phase 2b western branch could not be presented as a bill in parliament later this year but named HS3 phase 1. The bill is being adjusted to make provision for likely NPR junctions anyway including at Piccadilly. Some services would still terminate at Piccadilly therefore the western branch design would just need adding to, not be ripped up. The station design could be kept at an outline and the details submitted as a TWAO at a later date. Leeds would benefit compared with HS2 because it won't provide a HS line into Sheffield and higher capacity and quicker journey times to Manchester (and Liverpool) are more important than London or Birmingham (which would still improve under these proposals compared with today).
Last edited:
NotATrainspott
Established Member
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 3,223
This model was investigated and rejected back in 2009-2010 as part of the initial HS2 Ltd setup work. Absolutely nothing which is fundamentally new has happened since then railways-wise. The idea of upgraded Manchester-Leeds links was there and mentioned back in 2010 as well, but set to be a separate project from the HS2 'Y' network. It really boggles the mind how some people are capable of drawing up plans without any regard for prior studies.
The politics has changed enormously. It would be much easier to get the political support for "HS2 North" than phase 2b.
A tunnelled NPR link under Manchester could take all the current and planned Trans-Pennine expresses, via the airport to Liverpool, so could definitely relieve the Castlefield corridor of at least some of its longer distance services. It might also take SOME HS2 traffic too, perhaps trains from Birmingham could be projected through to Rochdale - Halifax - Bradford Interchange (terminal platforms) for example, but definitely not the majority of North-East bound HS2 trains from London, as the route would be slower no doubt than the planned eastern branch, and there would be problems balancing loads on trains. If Leeds trains all stopped at Manchester en route, people would once again complain that Manchester was be getting too much benefit, and Leeds journey times would be extended unnecessarily too. Alternatively, Leeds trains could pass through Manchester non-stop, but the problem with that is any through station and connection to Trans-Pennine in the Miles Platting area would be bound to include quite a tight curve in the city tunnel. While that's no big deal for NPR as every train on that axis would certainly stop at Piccadilly, it would be a major speed-limiting factor for through non-stop Leeds HS2 trains. The other problem for NPR is that with a significant number of HS2 NE trains going that way there would be fewer paths available for 'genuine' NPR services going through to Liverpool.
Last edited:
In which case just re-emphasise the Ph.2 Eastern arm as a West Midlands - East Midlands - North East corridor, which just happens to have a London branch! That's also why I would like to see XC services using this line via reversal at Curzon Street and some additional links to the Coventry and Gloucester lines.
a_c_skinner
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 1,583
My observations are usually wrong, but wasn't one of the good things about French high speed rail that it integrated so well with their classic infrastructure?
edwin_m
Veteran Member
The French had the benefit of a classic network with a much larger loading gauge, and which mostly hadn't undergone the sort of pruning we had in the UK. Running new lines into the centres of the four main cities it serves relieves the capacity problems all of them have, and will eventually allow the busiest services to use larger gauge trains if necessary. But by building it more in stages, proposing a lot more connections to the rest of the network and (initially) using classic compatible trains HS2 has become rather more like the French TGV network.
Indeed all their new lines incorporate some classic infrastructure, usually at their extremities and to access large urban centres. They were all extended incrementally too with initial sections of new track being extended over years or even decades. Even the final approach to Gare de Lyon in Paris is over pre-existing tracks, although the line is sufficiently busy that a pair on the corridor and a set of terminal platforms was dedicated to exclusive TGV use.
tbtc
Veteran Member
Two other thoughts about this:
Firstly, running London - Manchester - Leeds might mean there's more of a case in a decade's time for an "eastern" line from London to Yorkshire (say London - Stansted - Cambridge - Nottingham - Sheffield - Leeds)? There's no case now but once HS2 is up and running the case for further lines will improve.
Secondly, if the "HS3"/"NPR" route from Manchester to Leeds becomes the main line from London to Leeds then that needs to be a fast route - the case for slowing that route down by diverting it through places like Bradford becomes a lot weaker - be careful what you wish for...
(there's also the issue of whether the intention - as per the map - is to run trains *through* Leeds - which is gouge to be even more disruptive, given 400m trains that need to run in relatively straight lines, the obvious problems serving a station built on a viaduct on top of the River Are!)
That's my memory too.
...but then why go to the trouble of running non-stop through Manchester then why go to the trouble of digging up more of central Manchester than you need to (i.e. running a straight line through the middle of Manchester and out the other side, rather than a "delta" junction outside the city)?
I don't think it would (sadly!) - now that we've built an expectation on everywhere having a direct Manchester Airport service, removing the direct link from places like Middlesbrough/ Dewsbury/ Huddersfield will still cause arguments.
And even if we did remove some trains from Castlefield, we'd just pile more ones through it (unless we have tough conversation about the messy map of services around Manchester).
Firstly, running London - Manchester - Leeds might mean there's more of a case in a decade's time for an "eastern" line from London to Yorkshire (say London - Stansted - Cambridge - Nottingham - Sheffield - Leeds)? There's no case now but once HS2 is up and running the case for further lines will improve.
Secondly, if the "HS3"/"NPR" route from Manchester to Leeds becomes the main line from London to Leeds then that needs to be a fast route - the case for slowing that route down by diverting it through places like Bradford becomes a lot weaker - be careful what you wish for...
(there's also the issue of whether the intention - as per the map - is to run trains *through* Leeds - which is gouge to be even more disruptive, given 400m trains that need to run in relatively straight lines, the obvious problems serving a station built on a viaduct on top of the River Are!)
That's my memory too.
...but then why go to the trouble of running non-stop through Manchester then why go to the trouble of digging up more of central Manchester than you need to (i.e. running a straight line through the middle of Manchester and out the other side, rather than a "delta" junction outside the city)?
I don't think it would (sadly!) - now that we've built an expectation on everywhere having a direct Manchester Airport service, removing the direct link from places like Middlesbrough/ Dewsbury/ Huddersfield will still cause arguments.
And even if we did remove some trains from Castlefield, we'd just pile more ones through it (unless we have tough conversation about the messy map of services around Manchester).
Sad Sprinter
Established Member
I like the plan, but I think Manchester’s through station should allow a northwards connection onto Scotland. I’d argue this should be done at Birmingham too, so you can have Heathrow-Birmingham-Manchester-Glasgow services.
Then again, I’m one of those few people left who still support HS2 going via Heathrow instead of OOC!
Then again, I’m one of those few people left who still support HS2 going via Heathrow instead of OOC!
Such a fast Manchester east bypass with another Delta and spur into Manchester would mean NPR trains would have to reverse at Piccadilly, unless the tightly curved tunnel to Miles Platting was built as well. Alternatively, a straight(er) tunnel route under Manchester might resurface to the north somewhere near Simister, following the M62 corridor east from there. Either way it would be expensive or suboptimal operationally.
One idea that might at first glance appear worth reconsidering from this proposal is direct HS service to Derby and Nottingham. Taking the kernel of that idea, it might allow Phase2B East to be built largely as planned apart from the Toton hub, the elimination of which could allow reconsideration of the alignment to avoid the built up areas of Long Eaton, perhaps by using the M1 Breaston alternative. The problem with that is while junctions in the area to cliassic lines are easy to envisage, serving both cities with the same train is not practical. Going into one (Derby or Nottingham) first and then reversing back to the other would be feasible, but would add significantly to journey time for the second city served, and that would be counterproductive and unpopular. One way to avoid that would be to split the train once it had left HS infrastructure, but that would introduce another stop in the Long Eaton area which would end up as a new station not unlike the Toton hub! I'm sure this has all been looked at repeatedly in the option selection process which is why Toton was chosen.
Last edited:
a_c_skinner
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 1,583
I like the plan, though I do wonder if the author would have better used his crayons on a map with contours. I cannot help but think the plan to use Curzon Street as a Birmingham terminus is very curious and ill judged. I suspect it is a plan born of economy not insight.
NotATrainspott
Established Member
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 3,223
I think this political support is largely a mirage. There are people who just want to make sure there's sufficient east-west improvements across the North, and then there are those using the promise of such improvements as a new 'trump card' to kill off the HS2 scheme they've never wanted. The first group can and will be happily satisifed with east-west improvements that build on top of what's planned for HS2 already. The latter group will never be happy, since what they really want to do is kill HS2 - they just do not care about the east-west links since they do not affect them.
sprinterguy
Established Member
I've predicted that this would be the eventual outcome since it was announced that construction of the Western arm as far as Crewe would be accelerated as "Phase 2a". That was always a ready made spur pointing at the horribly titled "Northern Powerhouse Rail".
Seems to involve far less new infrastructure (by mile) compared to the eastern leg of HS2 Phase 2B, and none that would be attributable to the account of HS2 itself, bringing the publicly perceived cost of HS2 down which would be a good news story all round.
It shouldn't have much of an impact on journey times to Leeds from London, or Newcastle from Birmingham, compared to the HS2 times originally put forward, and ensures higher utility of the Manchester - Leeds infrastructure.
Punch the new Transpennine tunnel through the hills at an appropriate point and you could, speculatively, even run a southerly facing branch towards Sheffield to give that city a token HS2 service to Euston, via Manchester, that's probably still better than the current journey times to St Pancras via the MML.
It'd still deliver journey time benefits and additional capacity to the London - Sheffield and Birmingham - North East corridors if it followed that format.
I say go for it. My only qualms are that the East Midlands misses out again, and any attempt to drive a route across inner city Manchester will surely meet with opposition. And I'm highly sceptical that they'll find an appropriate route to push the line through Bradford instead of a bit further south.
Seems to involve far less new infrastructure (by mile) compared to the eastern leg of HS2 Phase 2B, and none that would be attributable to the account of HS2 itself, bringing the publicly perceived cost of HS2 down which would be a good news story all round.
It shouldn't have much of an impact on journey times to Leeds from London, or Newcastle from Birmingham, compared to the HS2 times originally put forward, and ensures higher utility of the Manchester - Leeds infrastructure.
Punch the new Transpennine tunnel through the hills at an appropriate point and you could, speculatively, even run a southerly facing branch towards Sheffield to give that city a token HS2 service to Euston, via Manchester, that's probably still better than the current journey times to St Pancras via the MML.
It'd still deliver journey time benefits and additional capacity to the London - Sheffield and Birmingham - North East corridors if it followed that format.
I say go for it. My only qualms are that the East Midlands misses out again, and any attempt to drive a route across inner city Manchester will surely meet with opposition. And I'm highly sceptical that they'll find an appropriate route to push the line through Bradford instead of a bit further south.
Last edited:
I suspect more a plan born of where-else-do-you-put-a-station-in-Brum-without-demolishing-vast-chunks-of-it.
a_c_skinner
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 1,583
Exactly, economy! Of course if the paradigm were not a terminus in Brum but through trains then you'd not need that much space as platforms wouldn't be occupied for long, so it would be a more manageable task, but that comes back to my original point about integration with classic lines like the French managed. Alas it uses too much crayon to re-work the whole thing!
The other obvious option, which can't now be done because the UK never ever does joined up thinking, nor do central gov consult with anyone about anything before announcing it, would be to have turned New St into a double-deck station.
The works done to the existing station got massively scaled back, & it's still not finished (the bridge at the western end hasn't yet been clad)
If the budget originally proposed had been combined with some HS2 budget, it could have achieved real change & improvement.
HS platforms would go on a lower level, reached by tunnel from Vauxhall. There are already going to be tunnels on the Birmingham end, so one more instead of a viaduct wouldn't have made much difference to the budget.
As you wouldn't need as many platforms as upstairs, then there would have been space for structural supports.
Future tunnels could then take you out to Ladywood & the mainline to Wolverhampton etc, out to Landor St for Coventry & the Camp Hill line, out to Five Ways for south-west services. Long distance services could then have been moved to the new lower platforms.
You wouldn't have even needed to do everything in one go; a lower level box with platforms for HS2, & the tunnel from Vauxhall, first. Future tunnels & platforms could be done over time, just use the same teams to do them one after the other.
This would have given large parts of the West Midlands, & places like Worcester, Shrewsbury, Stafford, Derby etc in-station transfer to HS2. That would see a lot more people using it, which is what it will need from day 1. It needs to have trains sold out not just on day 1 or day 30, but on day 365 & day 730, otherwise it will be branded a horrendously expensive failure, & then future northern works will not happen.
Over time, with the additional tunnels, you would also start to fix the capacity issues at New St.
- Status