• 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!

Possible combination of HS2 phase 2 with "rail north'

Status
Not open for further replies.

si404

Established Member
Joined
28 Dec 2012
Messages
1,267
Rail North would surely add in some sort of Leeds-ECML link accessible from the south (there was talk of having the Leeds High Speed station orientated E-W rather than N-S) as part of the Trans-Pennine route, even if it doesn't add in the Leeds bypass?

Probably would reduce the York-London journey reduction to 10 minutes (still could allow a divert), and York-Birmingham would still be much quickened.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

stephen rp

Member
Joined
25 Jun 2016
Messages
186
If the Golborne link is taken out, what's the difference in journey time to Wigan and points north thereof?
 

si404

Established Member
Joined
28 Dec 2012
Messages
1,267
If the Golborne link is taken out, what's the difference in journey time to Wigan and points north thereof?
Zero for Wigan as they never did the maths for a service that stopped at Wigan that didn't also stop at Warrington.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
For Preston it would be a journey time of 92 minutes rather than 78 minutes or nearly 20% longer so same time saving of 14 minutes probably applicable to Wigan, for Glasgow it would be an increase of 6 minutes and for Edinburgh it would mean HS2 journeys would be slower than existing WCML services (from being unable recover the time lost to being unable to tilt).
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
Actually, Edinburgh's doing rather well out of devolution; Glasgow less so. I think the presence of the government in the latter city has at least something to do with it.

I'm sure some Edinburgh people would argue that Glasgow has had a better deal - such is the rivalry between the two - but Holyrood has done a much better job of being seen to be fair (compared to the fairly "naked" approach that Westminster has taken, focussing riches on three favoured cities and leaving the others to scrap for tiny sums remaining

Given that the journey time between Liverpool and Hull (129 miles) is comparable to the journey time between London and Hull (205 miles) many would like that to be more comparable for the distance traveled.

To achieve that would require a cut of about 1/3. Otherwise if you wanted to do something in Liverpool and there was a comparable thing available in London (as if there wouldn't be something comparable in London!) then based on journey times people are now likely to hear to London than Liverpool.

Even getting Hull Liverpool to sub 2 hours would make it more doable for a day trip. It would also make it that bit faster than driving (circa 3 hours) so that the train became a more viable option for more people.

This is a problem with HS2 arguments, when people argue that HS2 is bad because it'll save businessmen ten minutes on a journey to Birmingham but then want other routes to have time savings of of ten minutes (i.e. people dismiss the idea of time savings on some routes as unimportant but demand them on other routes - I appreciate that Liverpool to Hull is a fairly slow journey as the crow flies and not as competitive as it might be be)

The problem with most attempts to cut chunks out of HS2 to save money is that the benefit of the scheme also drops by even more, so you end up with less bang for your buck. The Phase 2 concept is really very solid - the only tweak we've seen is the use of the classic line to serve South Yorkshire rather than a compromise parkway station at Meadowhall.

Cutting chunks off Phase 2 isn't going to make Phase 1 meaningfully cheaper, and Phase 2 is what you need to deliver most of the capacity benefits for anywhere other than the southern WCML. It's a tough situation. Bringing down the headline cost of the scheme can then cause more damage to NR's plans since they'd need to plough more money into the classic lines. For instance, saving that connection towards York means you would probably have to go back to that proposed new line between Alexandra Palace and Biggleswade. That would be a different project under a different brand and different name, but it would still be the Treasury paying for it.

I think the best possible cost-benefit ratio would be achieved by building even more lines with new cash, rather than trying to shuffle around the limited pot already allocated.

Agreed - if anything we should be focusing on how other schemes could piggyback onto HS2 - i.e. if HS2 is going to pay for a new station at Leeds adjacent to the current one for the sake of a few trains per hour, why not plan something that would utilise spare capacity over this new infrastructure - if the "hundred billion" is going to buy a certain amount then the business case for other projects looks a lot better - this is what we should be focussing on instead of trying to shave bits off HS2
 

Haydn1971

Established Member
Joined
11 Dec 2012
Messages
2,099
Location
Sheffield
For me, the important aspect of NPR is to overlay a separate intermediate track layout that ties the second tier places into the key first tier places that HS2 ph2b serves... there must be a clear segregation from the existing classic lines, so that 225kph (or better) services can service the M62 spine of Liverpool-Warrington-Airport-Manchester-East Manchester-Huddersfield-Leeds-Selby-Hull, with at least 225kph line spurs to at very least Sheffield/Meadowhall, York and Preston, but also ideally at least express speeds using in part the existing classic network to key regionals like Bradford, Wakefield, Barnsley, Doncaster, Stockport, Bolton etc... this layer of services between NPR and locals is akin to what TPE and XC provide now for regional commuting
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
I have an unpleasant feeling that the HS2 will (eventually) get built to its Birmingham station and... that's your lot.

It is committed now as going to Crewe. The only ‘subject to’ is the 2a bill clearing the Lords, which given where it is in the process is almost a formality.

The rest is also confirmed, but subject to a review to see how it could be made cheaper (specifically not whether it should happen) and it will be tied into Northern Powerhouse Rail to become High Speed North or similar. I wouldn’t say it’s a certainty, but would currently rate its chances well above 99%.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
And what are the timescales now?

My guess:
2028: line opens to passenger service (after at least a year’s testing), most likely on the Curzon St - OOC section only.
2029: limited service OOC - Manchester / NW
2030/1 Euston opens, full service ramp up.

The gap between the original date of 2026 and 2028 can be largely explained by the time it has taken to decide to build it.
 

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,752
Location
York
My guess:
2028: line opens to passenger service (after at least a year’s testing), most likely on the Curzon St - OOC section only.
2029: limited service OOC - Manchester / NW
2030/1 Euston opens, full service ramp up.

The gap between the original date of 2026 and 2028 can be largely explained by the time it has taken to decide to build it.
Thanks. Though when you say 2029 for Manchester and the north-west, that will just mean Crewe and then the classic line, won't it? And there are no plans that I've heard about for an upgrade to 125 of Crewe to Manchester (or rather, to Stockport) or — yet — for a fast junction at Crewe towards Manchester, so presumably for quite a few years the run down the high-speed line will be followed by the classic lengthy 20-mph crawl at Crewe (longer and slower than it was before the 1980s resignalling).
 

stephen rp

Member
Joined
25 Jun 2016
Messages
186
For Preston it would be a journey time of 92 minutes rather than 78 minutes or nearly 20% longer so same time saving of 14 minutes probably applicable to Wigan, for Glasgow it would be an increase of 6 minutes and for Edinburgh it would mean HS2 journeys would be slower than existing WCML services (from being unable recover the time lost to being unable to tilt).
Thanks.

So the Golborne HS2 link would save 14 mins compared to WCML via Warrington, and that saving applies to any Classic Compatible train going further north to Scotland. Then (from the whole journey time) deduct the loss from not tilting.

So fastest to Scotland would be HS2 to Crewe and change to a waiting Pendolino... or, if they kept Golborne, HS2 to Preston and change there to a waiting Pendolino (assuming it left first going north and didn't get behind the slower Classic Compatible)...
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
Then (from the whole journey time) deduct the loss from not tilting.
Which will not be much if anything at all. Assuming no tilt on new stock, there will be areas where such trains COULD travel faster today but can't because 100mph is the limit for any other train through this section as it was assumed only tilting units would ever be excede this. Pendolinos are also fairly low-powered for their weight, partly through the heavy bogies they have to use as part of the tilt system. New more powerful non-tilters will be able to go faster in places and accelerate out of curve restrictions more quickly, so could plausibly closely approach or even better current fastest times. TPE is interested, as their new 125mph capable electric trains could also take advantage. Requires detailed modelling and targetted interventions. TASS could be retained and developed to supervise appropriate speeds for all train types, as all modern trains will have the correct balise reader and computer to emulate TASS as part of being 'ERTMS-ready'.
 

Roger B

Member
Joined
16 Jun 2018
Messages
891
Location
Gatley
Which will not be much if anything at all. Assuming no tilt on new stock, there will be areas where such trains COULD travel faster today but can't because 100mph is the limit for any other train through this section as it was assumed only tilting units would ever be excede this. Pendolinos are also fairly low-powered for their weight, partly through the heavy bogies they have to use as part of the tilt system. New more powerful non-tilters will be able to go faster in places and accelerate out of curve restrictions more quickly, so could plausibly closely approach or even better current fastest times. TPE is interested, as their new 125mph capable electric trains could also take advantage. Requires detailed modelling and targetted interventions. TASS could be retained and developed to supervise appropriate speeds for all train types, as all modern trains will have the correct balise reader and computer to emulate TASS as part of being 'ERTMS-ready'.
Spot-on MarkyT. I was reading a few months ago that a combination of lighter bogies and better acceleration would enable faster transits around curved sections without tilt, and faster acceleration away from curved sections, delivering equivalent, or even shorter end-to-end journey times.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Quicker door operation would help too. Pendolinos are minimum 2min dwell time, partly because a step has to unfold before the door can open.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,232
Location
Torbay
Quicker door operation would help too. Pendolinos are minimum 2min dwell time, partly because a step has to unfold before the door can open.
HS2 classic compatibles will also have deployable step boards, which may or may not move at some classic platforms, but could plausibly operate more quickly in sync with the doors.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
HS2 classic compatibles will also have deployable step boards, which may or may not move at some classic platforms, but could plausibly operate more quickly in sync with the doors.
Deployable ramps...
 

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
3,972
If Liverpool is linked to HS2 (with a triangular junction to allow HS services to Manchester) then that could be combined with an altered route to Wigan. One of the proposed routes in the local authority backed "20 miles more" report was slightly north of Warrington with a parkway station. That could be combined with junction with the WCML. It wouldn't save as much time as the current route but would be adequate.
 

stephen rp

Member
Joined
25 Jun 2016
Messages
186
If Liverpool is linked to HS2 (with a triangular junction to allow HS services to Manchester) then that could be combined with an altered route to Wigan. One of the proposed routes in the local authority backed "20 miles more" report was slightly north of Warrington with a parkway station. That could be combined with junction with the WCML. It wouldn't save as much time as the current route but would be adequate.
I thought the "20 miles more" idea was to connect to the Golborne link, which now looks unlikely to be built.
 

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
3,972
I thought the "20 miles more" idea was to connect to the Golborne link, which now looks unlikely to be built.

Yes connecting with the Golborne HS line its mid point. I am suggesting connecting HS2 with WCML near Newton-Le-Willows rather than Bamfurlong, which would shorten the WCML link length about 20-25%. I would favour a link from Warrington to Liverpool but connecting to both the WCML and Chat Moss line might work too.
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
For me, the important aspect of NPR is to overlay a separate intermediate track layout that ties the second tier places into the key first tier places that HS2 ph2b serves... there must be a clear segregation from the existing classic lines, so that 225kph (or better) services can service the M62 spine of Liverpool-Warrington-Airport-Manchester-East Manchester-Huddersfield-Leeds-Selby-Hull, with at least 225kph line spurs to at very least Sheffield/Meadowhall, York and Preston, but also ideally at least express speeds using in part the existing classic network to key regionals like Bradford, Wakefield, Barnsley, Doncaster, Stockport, Bolton etc... this layer of services between NPR and locals is akin to what TPE and XC provide now for regional commuting

Does it really have to be 225kph, or more ??
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
The estimates were that on open track the higher speed target only added 10% to the cost. The cost issue is mainly around tunnels due to air pressure, for higher running in tunnels you need a larger diameter and at the exit of the tunnel you need the equivalent of a muzzle break to dissipate the shockwaves (usually done by having a slat ceilinged extension to the tunnel mouth, the higher the speed the longer the muzzle brake required).

Tunnel-Bleßberg-Südportal-2018-02-1024x683.jpg
 
Last edited:

mmh

Established Member
Joined
13 Aug 2016
Messages
3,744
Quicker door operation would help too. Pendolinos are minimum 2min dwell time, partly because a step has to unfold before the door can open.

Pendolinos are frequently timetabled for shorter stops than 2 minutes at less busy stations - 90 seconds is common. The step takes a couple of seconds, i think it feels slower than it is because of the unusual experience of pressing a button and having to wait before anything seems to happen.
 

Roose

Member
Joined
23 May 2014
Messages
250
Main rationale behind HS2 Phases 1/2a is capacity while 2bE is very much about improving journey times as well, eg Birmingham - Leeds 120 minutes down to 49, a really significant time saving.

South Yorkshire is a mess with Sheffield City Council having talked themselves up a branch line.
 

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,752
Location
York
2bE is very much about improving journey times as well, eg Birmingham - Leeds 120 minutes down to 49, a really significant time saving.
But not for another 20 years — four full parliaments, which gives plenty of opportunity for "revisions" — even if there are no further delays. And possibly significantly slower if the review Johnson spoke of does lead to lower maximum speeds. It's very much jam tomorrow for the north. Bring in the Chinese!
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,283
But not for another 20 years — four full parliaments, which gives plenty of opportunity for "revisions" — even if there are no further delays. And possibly significantly slower if the review Johnson spoke of does lead to lower maximum speeds. It's very much jam tomorrow for the north. Bring in the Chinese!

20 years for it all to be completed, however it could be that phase 2 is split so that some bits get some journey time improvements early.

For instance it could be that enough is built within the next (say) 14 years to cut 15-25 minutes of Leeds/Birmingham times.
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,909
If HS2 / NPR was built without Phase 2B between Birmingham and York via Sheffield and Crewe to Manchester surely there would be no journey time saving for London to Leeds / York / Newcastle over today's ECML timetable?
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,838
Pendolinos are frequently timetabled for shorter stops than 2 minutes at less busy stations - 90 seconds is common. The step takes a couple of seconds, i think it feels slower than it is because of the unusual experience of pressing a button and having to wait before anything seems to happen.
Less busy stations you can drop it to 1½, no lower. Everywhere else is 2.
 

Roast Veg

Established Member
Joined
28 Oct 2016
Messages
2,200
Not very good when slam door HSTs have plenty of 90 second dwells themselves. There seem to have been so many compromises on the WCML it's no wonder we need a parallel line.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top