• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.

option

Member
Joined
1 Aug 2017
Messages
636
The proposal above, Manchester-Leeds, actually makes a lot of sense when you look at travel patterns in the area.
I've done Birmingham>Newcastle on the Megabus, & that goes via Manchester & Leeds. The National Express coaches do the same route. They are always busy on the east-west/west-east section, & the M62 is always busy.

There is a fatal assumption with HS2, which is that everyone always wants to go to London!
The current plans do nothing for Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, York, Sheffield, if they don't want to go to London.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
There is a fatal assumption with HS2, which is that everyone always wants to go to London!
The current plans do nothing for Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, York, Sheffield, if they don't want to go to London.
If you want to criticise then at least get your facts right!

HS2 phase 2b, for which this is effectively an alternative, is planned to provide high speed service between Birmingham and Manchester/Newcastle/Scotland (separately), so providing faster journeys and more capacity on some of the key parts of the Cross Country network.
 

NotATrainspott

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2013
Messages
3,223
The proposal above, Manchester-Leeds, actually makes a lot of sense when you look at travel patterns in the area.
I've done Birmingham>Newcastle on the Megabus, & that goes via Manchester & Leeds. The National Express coaches do the same route. They are always busy on the east-west/west-east section, & the M62 is always busy.

There is a fatal assumption with HS2, which is that everyone always wants to go to London!
The current plans do nothing for Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, York, Sheffield, if they don't want to go to London.

HS2 is a project largely aimed at travel to and from London, since that's where a brand new high-speed line is required and worthwhile. From the very beginning, HS2 Ltd have been aware of the value of faster links east to west across the Pennines, but the company was set up by the government to do a specific task and that specific task did not include Manchester to Leeds. The investigations they have done have suggested that the 'reverse S' network with Leeds served via Manchester, or the 'reverse E' with Manchester served via Yorkshire has a worse business case than the 'inverse A' network of which the current 'Y' network is the first two phases. The cost savings are largely illusory, and you massively reduce the benefit the line can do for the eastern side of the Pennines (despite that side having an equivalent or greater population).

The trick is to imagine what the greatest extent of the UK HSR network could ever be. Think about all of the lines that would exist, and how they would connect together. And then, imagine you were able to build the first few of them, but leave the rest for later. The network to build today is the one which will form a useful part of the network of the future. A fundamental flaw with the 'reverse S' and 'reverse E' topologies is that you would never run trains from Yorkshire and the North East to London and Birmingham via Manchester if you had the option of sending them directly via Yorkshire and the East Midlands. The future network will probably include a second line from London that will link into HS2 in the East Midlands, but that wouldn't then mean the line between Birmingham and the East Midlands was a waste. That's because the Birmingham to East Midlands section is the logical way to get trains from Yorkshire and the North East to Birmingham and any places beyond in the south west such as South Wales and the West Country.

The sort of network you need crossing the Pennines is very different to the network you need going north-south. East-west services would stop far more often and provide a linear route joining up various city centres, since each individual city-city pairing isn't busy enough to justify its own trains. That is, you wouldn't have Liverpool to Newcastle direct trains as well as Liverpool to Manchester and Liverpool to Leeds; you'd have one train going Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Newcastle. The short distances between the stations would mean a more commuter-like train, and frequency being more important than pure journey time. You're really just talking about a massively enhanced version of the current TransPennine line, just as HS2 will be an enhanced version of what you get on the ICWC and ICEC operators.
 

option

Member
Joined
1 Aug 2017
Messages
636
If you want to criticise then at least get your facts right!

HS2 phase 2b, for which this is effectively an alternative, is planned to provide high speed service between Birmingham and Manchester/Newcastle/Scotland (separately), so providing faster journeys and more capacity on some of the key parts of the Cross Country network.

Can currently do Birm>Manc in 1h27m. Will HS2b cut that to 1hour or less? That is the sort of 'faster' that normal people will consider as faster.
Also, this alternative wouldn't affect the Manchester or Scotland via WCML HS2 services.
 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
2,640
Can currently do Birm>Manc in 1h27m. Will HS2b cut that to 1hour or less? That is the sort of 'faster' that normal people will consider as faster.
Also, this alternative wouldn't affect the Manchester or Scotland via WCML HS2 services.

Birmingham to Manchester should be 41 minutes after Phase 2b is complete.
 

tasky

Member
Joined
30 Oct 2018
Messages
381
Birmingham to Manchester should be 41 minutes after Phase 2b is complete.

Not to mention Birmingham–Leeds cut from 1h58 to 57 mins, Birmingham-Newcastle from 3h14 to 2h07 etc. Birmingham to Nottingham is currently 1h mins, Birmingham to East Midlands hub will be 19 minutes!
 

quantinghome

Established Member
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Messages
2,262
Not to mention Birmingham–Leeds cut from 1h58 to 57 mins, Birmingham-Newcastle from 3h14 to 2h07 etc. Birmingham to Nottingham is currently 1h mins, Birmingham to East Midlands hub will be 19 minutes!

Exactly. HS2 phase 2b gives a massive improvement in connectivity between the North-east, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, East Midlands and West Midlands. Something the 'HS2 only benefits London' crowd are silent on.
 

themiller

Member
Joined
4 Dec 2011
Messages
1,055
Location
Cumbria, UK
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).
If one of these trains has to reverse to continue its journey, it will add more than a couple of minutes as the driver would have to change ends. Not a quick evolution given the proposed length of the trains and having to log of one cab and log onto the other.
 

js1000

Member
Joined
14 Jun 2014
Messages
1,011
The idea of a through High Speed station at Manchester is a sensible one considering the problems through the city centre.

Network Rail are looking to upgrade the TransPennine route and the government are examining Northern Powerhouse Rail/HS3 - both of which would cost billions anyway.

Combining a scheme into HS2 would make perfect sense but I feel that ship has sailed and it is now a missed opportunity.
 

ABB125

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2016
Messages
3,746
Location
University of Birmingham
I've done some thinking and drawn some lines on a map! :)
Here is my proposed overall scheme, with some annotation:
HS Map.png HS Inset Derby+Nottingham.png
HS2 Phase 1 and 2a are left pretty much as they are now. Phase 2b (East) is diverted to south of Derby, where services would join the existing network for the remainder of their journey (although those travelling beyond Sheffield would rejoin the high speed network there. The reason for this decision is the new line I have created, HS East, via Stansted Airport, Cambridge and Peterborough to Nottingham thence Sheffield, where it would join up with Northern Powerhouse Rail (details of which are further down the post). A link from HSE north of Nottingham to where HS2 is curtailed, via Derby, would then complete the Phase 2b network, but serving both Nottingham and Derby. It would also vastly improve east-west connectivity across the Midlands, such as journeys from Birmingham to Cambridge.
I will note, however, that I have done no detailed work whatsoever for these ideas, hence why the lines go through villages, nature reserves etc - they are there simply as an indicative guide. Also, HS2's eastern branch seems to be the only section which follows existing transport corridors (motorways and major roads) closely (or even at all), which negates many of the points anti-HS2 campaigns make about spoiling the countryside; my route makes this a bit more difficult.
Turning to the western side, a new alignment from Crewe to Preston meets the new NPR line from Liverpool to Manchester at a junction east of Warrington (see diagram below). Services from London could go to either Liverpool or Manchester and beyond.
The new NPR (and HS2) line from Liverpool would have a new underground through station in the middle of Manchester (personally I would site it about half way between Piccadilly and Victoria, with underground walkways/travelators to each (ground conditions permitting)) and continue through a new tunnel under the pennines to a location roughly half way between Leeds and Sheffield, whereupon the line would split in two to both cities. In Sheffield it would link up with HSE, and in Leeds a new through station would be built under/next to the existing one, continuing to York.
HS Inset L&M Junction.png
That is what, were I to be in charge, I would do (obviously the ideas would be refined and properly developed though!). It gives a new line across the North (scoring political points) and links HS2 nicely with other networks (scoring common-sense points). HSE could be built later when demand is such that more of HS2's paths into London are needed for western services.
I have also included some purely speculative lines to show what the long term future network may look like. The red Scotland branch would only be built if Scotland pain for it though. The Glasgow suburbs bypass should be built regardless of the dotted bit. The line to the north-east would be dependent on demand. Finally a new line from Birmingham to Bristol and the south-west, as recommended in the Greenguage21 report. Again this would be dependent of demand, but I personally think that it would have a stronger case than the Scotland branch (in no way whatsoever am I biased by the fact that I live near this line!).
 

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
3,970
I've done some thinking and drawn some lines on a map! :)
Here is my proposed overall scheme, with some annotation:
View attachment 62809 View attachment 62807
HS2 Phase 1 and 2a are left pretty much as they are now. Phase 2b (East) is diverted to south of Derby, where services would join the existing network for the remainder of their journey (although those travelling beyond Sheffield would rejoin the high speed network there. The reason for this decision is the new line I have created, HS East, via Stansted Airport, Cambridge and Peterborough to Nottingham thence Sheffield, where it would join up with Northern Powerhouse Rail (details of which are further down the post). A link from HSE north of Nottingham to where HS2 is curtailed, via Derby, would then complete the Phase 2b network, but serving both Nottingham and Derby. It would also vastly improve east-west connectivity across the Midlands, such as journeys from Birmingham to Cambridge.
I will note, however, that I have done no detailed work whatsoever for these ideas, hence why the lines go through villages, nature reserves etc - they are there simply as an indicative guide. Also, HS2's eastern branch seems to be the only section which follows existing transport corridors (motorways and major roads) closely (or even at all), which negates many of the points anti-HS2 campaigns make about spoiling the countryside; my route makes this a bit more difficult.
Turning to the western side, a new alignment from Crewe to Preston meets the new NPR line from Liverpool to Manchester at a junction east of Warrington (see diagram below). Services from London could go to either Liverpool or Manchester and beyond.
The new NPR (and HS2) line from Liverpool would have a new underground through station in the middle of Manchester (personally I would site it about half way between Piccadilly and Victoria, with underground walkways/travelators to each (ground conditions permitting)) and continue through a new tunnel under the pennines to a location roughly half way between Leeds and Sheffield, whereupon the line would split in two to both cities. In Sheffield it would link up with HSE, and in Leeds a new through station would be built under/next to the existing one, continuing to York.
View attachment 62808
That is what, were I to be in charge, I would do (obviously the ideas would be refined and properly developed though!). It gives a new line across the North (scoring political points) and links HS2 nicely with other networks (scoring common-sense points). HSE could be built later when demand is such that more of HS2's paths into London are needed for western services.
I have also included some purely speculative lines to show what the long term future network may look like. The red Scotland branch would only be built if Scotland pain for it though. The Glasgow suburbs bypass should be built regardless of the dotted bit. The line to the north-east would be dependent on demand. Finally a new line from Birmingham to Bristol and the south-west, as recommended in the Greenguage21 report. Again this would be dependent of demand, but I personally think that it would have a stronger case than the Scotland branch (in no way whatsoever am I biased by the fact that I live near this line!).

There is merit to keeping some of the eastern branch and creating an interchange and junction at East Midlands Parkway. That would allow units from Sheffield/Derby to split and join with units from Nottingham.

I strongly disagree with a new station in Manchester. One of the few positives of the mid century decline of railways was the closure of three stations in central Manchester. There are still 5 (if you include Salford Central). Any HS3/NPR station should be at Piccadilly and submerged (but not underground). That would keep costs down and mean that some people could change between long distance and local services without needing to walk for 10 minutes. Having a station that is neither at Piccadilly or Victoria means all heavy rail passengers would have to walk or take a tram.
 

ABB125

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2016
Messages
3,746
Location
University of Birmingham
There is merit to keeping some of the eastern branch and creating an interchange and junction at East Midlands Parkway. That would allow units from Sheffield/Derby to split and join with units from Nottingham.

I strongly disagree with a new station in Manchester. One of the few positives of the mid century decline of railways was the closure of three stations in central Manchester. There are still 5 (if you include Salford Central). Any HS3/NPR station should be at Piccadilly and submerged (but not underground). That would keep costs down and mean that some people could change between long distance and local services without needing to walk for 10 minutes. Having a station that is neither at Piccadilly or Victoria means all heavy rail passengers would have to walk or take a tram.
I agree that, if a new station in the middle of the city is impractical or too expensive (which wouldn't surprise me at all), Piccadilly is the place to go.
(And then a new tunnel under the city between the two for suburban services. :):)
 

tasky

Member
Joined
30 Oct 2018
Messages
381
I've done some thinking and drawn some lines on a map! :)
Here is my proposed overall scheme, with some annotation:
View attachment 62809 View attachment 62807
HS2 Phase 1 and 2a are left pretty much as they are now. Phase 2b (East) is diverted to south of Derby, where services would join the existing network for the remainder of their journey (although those travelling beyond Sheffield would rejoin the high speed network there. The reason for this decision is the new line I have created, HS East, via Stansted Airport, Cambridge and Peterborough to Nottingham thence Sheffield, where it would join up with Northern Powerhouse Rail (details of which are further down the post). A link from HSE north of Nottingham to where HS2 is curtailed, via Derby, would then complete the Phase 2b network, but serving both Nottingham and Derby. It would also vastly improve east-west connectivity across the Midlands, such as journeys from Birmingham to Cambridge.
I will note, however, that I have done no detailed work whatsoever for these ideas, hence why the lines go through villages, nature reserves etc - they are there simply as an indicative guide. Also, HS2's eastern branch seems to be the only section which follows existing transport corridors (motorways and major roads) closely (or even at all), which negates many of the points anti-HS2 campaigns make about spoiling the countryside; my route makes this a bit more difficult.
Turning to the western side, a new alignment from Crewe to Preston meets the new NPR line from Liverpool to Manchester at a junction east of Warrington (see diagram below). Services from London could go to either Liverpool or Manchester and beyond.
The new NPR (and HS2) line from Liverpool would have a new underground through station in the middle of Manchester (personally I would site it about half way between Piccadilly and Victoria, with underground walkways/travelators to each (ground conditions permitting)) and continue through a new tunnel under the pennines to a location roughly half way between Leeds and Sheffield, whereupon the line would split in two to both cities. In Sheffield it would link up with HSE, and in Leeds a new through station would be built under/next to the existing one, continuing to York.
View attachment 62808
That is what, were I to be in charge, I would do (obviously the ideas would be refined and properly developed though!). It gives a new line across the North (scoring political points) and links HS2 nicely with other networks (scoring common-sense points). HSE could be built later when demand is such that more of HS2's paths into London are needed for western services.
I have also included some purely speculative lines to show what the long term future network may look like. The red Scotland branch would only be built if Scotland pain for it though. The Glasgow suburbs bypass should be built regardless of the dotted bit. The line to the north-east would be dependent on demand. Finally a new line from Birmingham to Bristol and the south-west, as recommended in the Greenguage21 report. Again this would be dependent of demand, but I personally think that it would have a stronger case than the Scotland branch (in no way whatsoever am I biased by the fact that I live near this line!).

I think your proposal is in principle a lot more sensible than the one in the OP

One issue with HS2 (which I overall strongly support) is that it has never really been couched in the context of a future national network.

I think this has created both political and practical challenges – political in the sense that the public can't see the wider possibilities the scheme opens up (or could open up with a few small tweaks). So you end up with objections like the perennial 'what its 100 billion for shave 15 mins off London-Birmingham!')

Practical because e.g. when you're doing some expensive tunnelling under London, why not create a bit of excess capacity so if we want future lines into the capital we don't have to do it again, and they're a lot cheaper? Or why don't we have passive provision built in for future routes elsewhere etc such as for a route from Birmingham to the south west, or consider the fact there might be an eastern high speed line in the future
 

ABB125

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2016
Messages
3,746
Location
University of Birmingham
I think your proposal is in principle a lot more sensible than the one in the OP

One issue with HS2 (which I overall strongly support) is that it has never really been couched in the context of a future national network.

I think this has created both political and practical challenges – political in the sense that the public can't see the wider possibilities the scheme opens up (or could open up with a few small tweaks). So you end up with objections like the perennial 'what its 100 billion for shave 15 mins off London-Birmingham!')

Practical because e.g. when you're doing some expensive tunnelling under London, why not create a bit of excess capacity so if we want future lines into the capital we don't have to do it again, and they're a lot cheaper? Or why don't we have passive provision built in for future routes elsewhere etc such as for a route from Birmingham to the south west, or consider the fact there might be an eastern high speed line in the future
Thanks.
I agree that HS2 has its issues, mainly (apparent) lack of joined-up thinking and appalling PR, especially earlier in the project's life.
 

Sad Sprinter

Established Member
Joined
5 Jun 2017
Messages
1,800
Location
Way on down South London town
A lot of things were missed out but shouldn’t have been:

1. Heathrow could have been the terminus for cross country trains instead of Birmingham. Too much focus was given to it just being an airport, and not as a Railway Junction for onward connections to the South West Coast, Reading, West London and Surrey etc.

2. Manchester and Birmingham being through stations could have made Heathrow-Birmingham-Manchester-Glasgow services which would have gone down well with the public.

3. Captive services are more trouble than they’re worth. Having normal GB sized trains on the eastern branch could have created services straight into Nottingham/Derby/Sheffield and Leeds saving money from having to build New Lane and Meadowhall.
 

NotATrainspott

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2013
Messages
3,223
A lot of things were missed out but shouldn’t have been:

1. Heathrow could have been the terminus for cross country trains instead of Birmingham. Too much focus was given to it just being an airport, and not as a Railway Junction for onward connections to the South West Coast, Reading, West London and Surrey etc.

2. Manchester and Birmingham being through stations could have made Heathrow-Birmingham-Manchester-Glasgow services which would have gone down well with the public.

3. Captive services are more trouble than they’re worth. Having normal GB sized trains on the eastern branch could have created services straight into Nottingham/Derby/Sheffield and Leeds saving money from having to build New Lane and Meadowhall.

A Heathrow spur was designed and costed. It was rejected because it just doesn't make financial sense when Old Oak Common exists. All of the interconnectivity you demand is available by rail at OOC. Heathrow is large enough that inter-terminal transfers would be required anyway. The HS2 station would have been west of T5 and it wouldn't be much more useful for passengers than a change at OOC onto the Elizabeth line or HEx direct to your terminal. That's especially true when all HS2 services to London will call there, while there would only be a couple of trains an hour to Heathrow.

There's no need for through services if you have direct ones anyway! The plan is for there to be trains from Birmingham to Scotland, to Manchester and to Leeds running separately. There's no need for the complexity and slowness of through stations in city centres for HS2 trains.

The limit on what can be done with train services is the number of paths available on the line from London to Birmingham, and then capacity into the existing stations. You might not have noticed this but a few years ago the plans for HS2 Phase 2 east were changed so that Meadowhall and the HS2 viaduct at Tinsley won't be built. Instead, the HS2 mainline will roughly follow the M18 (it is still unknown whether an M18 parkway station in South Yorkshire will be built) and Sheffield Midland will be served by a classic-compatible spur via Chesterfield. That will require the timetable to be tweaked slightly, and it may well be the case that a train from London will now split at Toton into separate portions for Sheffield and Leeds/York/Newcastle, but it is happening. Extra branches beyond then are harder to make possible since you don't have the ability to run as many trains as you'd like. The East Midlands isn't a particularly large destination so any trains terminating there wouldn't end up carrying many people. It's better overall for the region to be served as an intermediate stop on trains heading further north. Trains terminating in the East Midlands would only be able to call there and Birmingham Interchange, so it's doubtful they'd be full.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
A lot of things were missed out but shouldn’t have been:

1. Heathrow could have been the terminus for cross country trains instead of Birmingham. Too much focus was given to it just being an airport, and not as a Railway Junction for onward connections to the South West Coast, Reading, West London and Surrey etc.

2. Manchester and Birmingham being through stations could have made Heathrow-Birmingham-Manchester-Glasgow services which would have gone down well with the public.

3. Captive services are more trouble than they’re worth. Having normal GB sized trains on the eastern branch could have created services straight into Nottingham/Derby/Sheffield and Leeds saving money from having to build New Lane and Meadowhall.

1. The problem is, any Heathrow service take an HS2 main line path in place of a service that could run to Euston.

Heathrow users benefit from a Euston service by changing at Old Oak to access all terminals, but Euston bound passengers will have no use boarding a Heathrow service...and not all Heathrow passers either, as many will still have to change anyway to access their ultimate terminal.
 

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
3,970
It would take forever to get to newcastle or Leeds if the train went through Manchester first but it's already going through Birmingham and old oak common anyway. At least NPR would be built.

"Forever" probably means 1 hour 40 minutes or less for London-Leeds i.e. a half hour saving on today and 12 minutes slower than under HS2. Newcastle would have to stay running via ECML. Another 12 minutes on Leeds-Birmingham would not matter much but extra capacity and faster journey times between Manchester and Leeds would.
 

Along the bay

Member
Joined
2 Sep 2018
Messages
86
"Forever" probably means 1 hour 40 minutes or less for London-Leeds i.e. a half hour saving on today and 12 minutes slower than under HS2. Newcastle would have to stay running via ECML. Another 12 minutes on Leeds-Birmingham would not matter much but extra capacity and faster journey times between Manchester and Leeds would.
I suppose I was being rather over the top. It doesn't sound so bad on reflection.
 

Bucephalus

Member
Joined
5 Feb 2018
Messages
419
Location
London
Amongst all the talk of changing what will happen at the northern end does anyone have any thoughts on extending HS2 further into London (in terms of value for money)?

I was thinking maybe Clapham junction as second southern terminus with another Y-shape split old oak common
 
Last edited:

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,231
Location
Torbay
Another hybrid option might be to build the Phase 2 Eastern arm as planned with East Midlands hub and Sheffield classic branch but instead of completing all the way to Leeds, reroute into the south end of Doncaster station (significant remodelling required clearly), then use existing routes from there, serving Wakefield en route to Leeds, and using the Selby diversion to York, which would apparently be capable of 160mph running if resignalled. Additional long terminal platforms at Leeds might be created on top of the car park to the north of the current station (The old Wellington station site) with a new flyover route across to the Wakefield line. How much slower to Leeds and York would that be compared to the current proposal?
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,628
Well if nothing else, you could abandon the York branch in favour of a link from the new eastern Sheffield bypass to the ECML at Doncaster
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
The existing Doncaster-Leeds route is slow and congested so this part of HS2 is arguably more necessary than others.
 

Halifaxlad

Established Member
Joined
5 Apr 2018
Messages
1,367
Location
The White Rose County
I do support it in principle, although I would keep the phase 2b section from Birmingham to Long Eaton just outside Nottingham, although maybe not high speed just 125mph, then connect it directly into the existing network to allow faster direct services from Nottingham to Birmingham, but also put a new chord in at Newark so that the midlands has better connections North via the ECML.

With regards to Sheffield, with spare capacity on the ECML you could simply send more trains through Worksop and Retford, if need be a new chord could be created to ease the line into the station that is incredibly sharp. Although it would bypass the station I don’t think it would be such a big deal.

Without 2B a new line between Leeds & Sheffield will be needed, since Transport for the North were expecting to use HS2. Perhaps it could be routed and integrated directly with Doncaster Sheffield Airport, imagine getting off your train and proceeding straight to baggage check in. Obviously this should be delivered under NPHR not HS2.

I got my crayons out again as I do prefer pictures and drawings than words!

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?...&ll=52.03435635563802,-1.2466044722707466&z=8

Overall I would rather two separate high speed routes as I don't see the logic of spending so much money then expecting both East & West legs to share the same lines, but the way HS2 is going I do think we should adopt the Victorian approach to Gang Green and chop it off before its too late!
 

si404

Established Member
Joined
28 Dec 2012
Messages
1,267
A Heathrow spur was designed and costed. It was rejected because it just doesn't make financial sense when Old Oak Common exists.
While that was the case, it was much more problematic than that. Even if Heathrow pay for a spur (highly unlikely!) so there was no capital costs, there isn't a case for running trains on it. Every single train to Heathrow is a train less to Central London - either reducing HS2 service to Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, etc, or removing it entirely from Wigan, Stoke, etc. And, on top of that, most of the Heathrow passengers were found to be served better/as well by OOC (especially if Southern Rail Access was built - and if it wasn't they were driving to Heathrow).

And, no, diverting Leeds trains via Manchester doesn't really create room for more services through the Chiltern tunnel - You just end up having to move the Leeds-London/Birmingham passengers via Manchester, so would end up having to supply the same number of seats, just focused on one route (and the drop from every 20-30 minutes to every ~12 would only serve to increase demand and require more seats). I guess removing some of the other Eastern services by just not serving places would (though we're looking at 1-3tph), but that's the same problem - to give a problematic and pretty pointless service to Heathrow, some places must lose their High Speed rail services.

---

Back to the main proposal - it's not a terrible idea, but the unintended consequences are bad. The idea that Liverpool-Leeds NPR is somewhat mutually exclusive to Birmingham-Leeds HS2 is really asking for trouble.

HS2 phase 2b east is the biggest bang-for-your-buck section of HS2. Relatively cheap and simple to build for a step-change in benefits. It's the future success story needed to drive further expansion of the 21st century new-build network. A trans-Manchester, trans-Pennine, trans-Bradford tunnelled new railway is a good thing, but adding that cost onto HS2 (minus eastern leg)'s and reducing Leeds journey time reductions (as well as not serving Sheffield or East Midlands at all) will give the anti-HS2 movement "told you so" moments, killing add ons and expansions.
 

Glen-Ped

Member
Joined
1 Jul 2019
Messages
39
The only part of HS2 that is approved is phase 1, London to Birmingham, and that has been put on semi-hold, with no lines or tunnelling progressing. Euston station is being rebuilt, but that needs rebuilding anyhow, so it is going ahead even if HS2 is fully cancelled.

Grayling has just said that NPR and HS2 phase 2 will be most likely be integrated, so a re-plan there. The Lords Economic Select Committee recently also recommend integration of the two. All this is common sense. When HS2 was planned NPR was not on the agenda. Se the latest new civil engineer mag.

The eastern leg of HS2 phase 2b is long, expensive and quite unnecessary. Even Greengauge 21 stated in one of their documents that an uprated ECML will give similar London-Newcastle times as HS2 (the link is on the ECML wiki). The proposal to have NPR as the prime rail alignment with HS2 branching into it in the NW makes sense. Having parts of NPR 4-track where HS2 services are also running also makes sense.

Tunnelling under the Pennines and Manchester for a high-speed NPR/HS2 will be economical as the expensive eastern leg of HS2 phase 2b is dropped. Making Manchester Victoria or Piccadilly a through station also is common sense. Running NPR track right into Liverpool is also common sense as the large port needs more rail capacity to serve the north of England's industry.

The uprating of the Birmingham to Derby/Nottingham line also makes economic sense as these two cities can be served from HS2 via London to Birmingham and also the WCML/HS2 from the NW and Scotland. If the MML is uprated that can cope just as well relieving HS2.

So, what does that give us?
  • HS2 track from London to a branch into a high-speed NPR rail line between Liverpool and Manchester.
  • Scottish trains from London and Birmingham use HS2 and WCML.
  • Leeds trains, HS2 and NPR.
  • Newcastle the same but also running onto the ECML, or only ECML when uprated relieving HS2 and NPR.
  • Liverpool & Manchester from London and Birmingham using HS2 and NPR.
  • Derby/Notts trains via HS2 and Birmingham-Derby line.
All the above sound sensible and workable.
What will save HS2 is NPR. All top politicians are focusing on NPR as a must.

All this falls in nicely with HS4Air if Heathrow is expanded in favour of the Thames estuary airport.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HS4Air
 
Last edited:

gordonthemoron

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2006
Messages
6,589
Location
Milton Keynes
MML electification was cancelled due to HS2, Leeds-London via Manchester is ridiculous, HS2 eastern leg is to relieve MML & ECML, upgrading ECML to 200mph is impossible due to usage by traffic that cannot reach those speeds, e.g. freight, GN, EMT, Northern, XC.

Where did you crawl out from under?
 

ForTheLoveOf

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2017
Messages
6,416
The only part of HS2 that is approved is phase 1, London to Birmingham, and that has been put on semi-hold, with no lines or tunnelling progressing. Euston station is being rebuilt, but that needs rebuilding anyhow, so it is going ahead even if HS2 is fully cancelled.

Grayling has just said that NPR and HS2 phase 2 will be most likely be integrated, so a re-plan there. The Lords Economic Select Committee recently also recommend integration of the two. All this is common sense. When HS2 was planned NPR was not on the agenda.

The eastern leg of HS2 phase 2b is long, expensive and quite unnecessary. Even Greengauge 21 stated in one of their documents that an uprated ECML will give similar London-Newcastle times as HS2 (the link is on the HS2 wiki). The proposal to have NPR as the prime rail alignment with HS2 branching into it in the NW makes sense. Having parts of NPR 4-track where HS2 services are also running also makes sense.

Tunnelling under the Pennines and Manchester for a high-speed NPR/HS2 will be economical as the expensive eastern leg of HS2 phase 2b is dropped. Making Manchester Victoria or Piccadilly a through station also is common sense. Running NPR track right into Liverpool is also common sense as the large port needs more rail capacity to serve the north of England's industry.

The uprating of the Birmingham to Derby/Nottingham line also makes economic sense as these two cities can be served from HS2 via London to Birmingham and also the WCML/HS2 from the NW and Scotland. If the MML is uprated that can cope just as well relieving HS2.

So, what does that give us?
  • HS2 track from London to a branch into a high-speed NPR rail line between Liverpool and Manchester.
  • Scottish trains from London and Birmingham use HS2 and WCML.
  • Leeds trains, HS2 and NPR.
  • Newcastle the same but also running onto the ECML, or only ECML when uprated relieving HS2 and NPR.
  • Liverpool & Manchester from London and Birmingham using HS2 and NPR.
  • Derby/Notts trains via HS2 and Birmingham-Derby line.
All the above sound sensible and workable.
What will save HS2 is NPR. All top politicians are focusing on NPR as a must.

All this falls in nicely with HS4Air if Heathrow is expanded in favour of the Thames estuary airport.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HS4Air
The thing that so many people seem to miss with the change to integrate HS2 and NPR is that abolishing Phase 2b is going to mean that cross-Midlands travel remains as slow as it is at the moment. Admittedly, HS2's 'solution' to the Derby/Nottingham/Leicester conundrum is far from perfect, and I really think they should take another long, hard look at what they are doing if they don't make plans to link Toton station with anywhere else at least by light rail, but if nothing at all happens and the only upgrades is diverting trains into Moor Street via a new flyover at Bordesley then that is, frankly, a waste of time.

Also, if Phase 2b is "expensive" when it is mostly plain-ground running, just how ruinously expensive do you think NPR is going to be if it involves loads of tunnelling and buying up land in the centre of the North's biggest cities?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top