An alternative to HS3

[Chester1]

I was thinking about the cost of HS2 and HS3. I would be pleasently surprised if a new transpennine line gets built. A purpose built line would mean faster journey times than the current routes could support even after an upgrade. However, I don't think there is actually the political will to invest billions of pounds in the north. I think there is a straightforward to solution to improving Manchester-Sheffield and Manchester-Leeds journey times that also cuts the cost of HS2:

1) Instead of building a new transpennine line, try to increase the speed of Manchester to Sheffield and Manchester to Leeds as close as possible to 125mph and electrify both lines.

2) Extend platforms of Piccadilly station to 200m for Platform 1 (its outside of the main train shed and could be used for half sized HS2 trains if they are introduced) and Platforms 2-5 to 400m. This would leave 7 conventional platforms in the main shed plus 4 platforms (according to Northern Hub) for across Manchester trains. Extending the platforms and adding a roof to cover them would be signficantly cheaper than buying land next to Piccadilly, demolishing the current buildings and building a new shed for HS2.

3) The platforms can be freed for HS2 use by converting the lines to Glossop, Hyde, Marple and New Mills to Metrolink joining the Ashton line near Guide Bridge (Glossop, Hyde and Marple) and Ardwick (New Mills and Marple). The New Mills line could loop around from New Mills central into a new station on the main Hope Valley line as it passes close to New Mills Newtown, providing an interchange between the Metrolink, Hope Valley and Buxton lines. The Ashton line would also be extended to Stalybridge Station. Stopping services in the Hope Valley can be provided by building a curve near Dove Holes linking the Hope Valley line with the Buxton passenger line using a short section of the Buxton freight line. This would allow a Manchester-Buxton-Sheffield stopping services serving stations like Edale and rebuilding the main Chapel-Le-Firth station. Extending every other Buxton service to Sheffield would avoid diverting the Hope Valley stopping service directly to Stockport were there are no free train paths. Even with 100mph under the lines running on the mainline, it would add to Journey times but only for the limited number of people using the rural Hope Valley stations, and would give the much greater number of people living along the Buxton line a service to Sheffield. The new station at New Mills, and Chinley Station would be served by once an hour by TPE trains, this would compensate for no stopping Northern Rail services.

This plan would free up sigificant capacity around Manchester especially between Stalybridge and Piccadilly and allow much faster speeds. By building a metro station at Guide Bridge on a line from Glossop and a Ardwick Metro station on the line from New Mills would mean the NR stations could be closed and there would be no junctions as both metrolines would go over or under the mainline. This would sigificantly increase line speeds and punctuallity between Stalybridge and Ardwick junction. Once HS2 is completed to Manchester the train paths at Piccadilly would be relatively simple as HS2 trains are going to go into a tunnel at Ardwick anyway so would be seperate from conventional trains after 2032.

My understanding is that Glossop and Marple have been repeatedly considered for Metrolink conversion but the issue is Metrolink's 50mph speed limit would mean slightly longer journey times and tram trains haven't been tested yet. I think its worth the extra travel time as Metrolink conversion would mean higher frequency and quicker journey times to the rest of central Manchester as there would be no need to change at Picadilly or walk long distances. I think it would be a good way of using HS2 to improve local services and in the long run the trend for Manchester, if the one northern city idea is to be affordable is to convert as many commuter lines and services to Metrolink as possible. This would allow the train network in the Manchester area to be mainly used for providing a very fast high frequency services to Liverpool, Leeds and Sheffield. The existing lines could do this very well if it was their main (or sole) purpose. To act as 1 city I think you need journey times to be 20-30 mins for each and a walk on service i.e. several trains an hour. A new transpennine route would do this but at the cost of several billion while metrolink conversions, a chord and electification and speeding up of existing routes would probably be allot cheaper.

I am guessing there is a flaw to this plan somewere!

 

[NotATrainspott]

I was thinking about the cost of HS2 and HS3. I would be pleasently surprised if a new transpennine line gets built. A purpose built line would mean faster journey times than the current routes could support even after an upgrade. However, I don't think there is actually the political will to invest billions of pounds in the north. I think there is a straightforward to solution to improving Manchester-Sheffield and Manchester-Leeds journey times that also cuts the cost of HS2:

1) Instead of building a new transpennine line, try to increase the speed of Manchester to Sheffield and Manchester to Leeds as close as possible to 125mph and electrify both lines.

2) Extend platforms of Piccadilly station to 200m for Platform 1 (its outside of the main train shed and could be used for half sized HS2 trains if they are introduced) and Platforms 2-5 to 400m. This would leave 7 conventional platforms in the main shed plus 4 platforms (according to Northern Hub) for across Manchester trains. Extending the platforms and adding a roof to cover them would be signficantly cheaper than buying land next to Piccadilly, demolishing the current buildings and building a new shed for HS2.

3) The platforms can be freed for HS2 use by converting the lines to Glossop, Hyde, Marple and New Mills to Metrolink joining the Ashton line near Guide Bridge (Glossop, Hyde and Marple) and Ardwick (New Mills and Marple). The New Mills line could loop around from New Mills central into a new station on the main Hope Valley line as it passes close to New Mills Newtown, providing an interchange between the Metrolink, Hope Valley and Buxton lines. The Ashton line would also be extended to Stalybridge Station. Stopping services in the Hope Valley can be provided by building a curve near Dove Holes linking the Hope Valley line with the Buxton passenger line using a short section of the Buxton freight line. This would allow a Manchester-Buxton-Sheffield stopping services serving stations like Edale and rebuilding the main Chapel-Le-Firth station. Extending every other Buxton service to Sheffield would avoid diverting the Hope Valley stopping service directly to Stockport were there are no free train paths. Even with 100mph under the lines running on the mainline, it would add to Journey times but only for the limited number of people using the rural Hope Valley stations, and would give the much greater number of people living along the Buxton line a service to Sheffield. The new station at New Mills, and Chinley Station would be served by once an hour by TPE trains, this would compensate for no stopping Northern Rail services.

This plan would free up sigificant capacity around Manchester especially between Stalybridge and Piccadilly and allow much faster speeds. By building a metro station at Guide Bridge on a line from Glossop and a Ardwick Metro station on the line from New Mills would mean the NR stations could be closed and there would be no junctions as both metrolines would go over or under the mainline. This would sigificantly increase line speeds and punctuallity between Stalybridge and Ardwick junction. Once HS2 is completed to Manchester the train paths at Piccadilly would be relatively simple as HS2 trains are going to go into a tunnel at Ardwick anyway so would be seperate from conventional trains after 2032.

My understanding is that Glossop and Marple have been repeatedly considered for Metrolink conversion but the issue is Metrolink's 50mph speed limit would mean slightly longer journey times and tram trains haven't been tested yet. I think its worth the extra travel time as Metrolink conversion would mean higher frequency and quicker journey times to the rest of central Manchester as there would be no need to change at Picadilly or walk long distances. I think it would be a good way of using HS2 to improve local services and in the long run the trend for Manchester, if the one northern city idea is to be affordable is to convert as many commuter lines and services to Metrolink as possible. This would allow the train network in the Manchester area to be mainly used for providing a very fast high frequency services to Liverpool, Leeds and Sheffield. The existing lines could do this very well if it was their main (or sole) purpose. To act as 1 city I think you need journey times to be 20-30 mins for each and a walk on service i.e. several trains an hour. A new transpennine route would do this but at the cost of several billion while metrolink conversions, a chord and electification and speeding up of existing routes would probably be allot cheaper.

I am guessing there is a flaw to this plan somewere!

The lines over the Pennines are going to be electrified at 25kV AC through various projects. The main North TransPennine line via Huddersfield is going to be done in CP5 as part of the Northern Hub and the other lines will be done in the next ten years or so.

Upgrading lines to 200km/h is difficult, especially when the route was never built to be a proper InterCity main line in the first place. The WCML was challenging enough but that had the advantage of being four-tracked and there not being much need for stopping services in between Pendolinos and freight. The various extant and extinct lines across the hills are all too twisty, two-tracked and serve too many local stations. Electrification will improve acceleration along them, and it might allow minor speed increases as the trains will be less heavy, but it won't work to solve the physical constraints of the existing railway enough to make higher speeds possible. A programme of reconstructing the route might be technically feasible but from a cost and disruption perspective it is a superior investment simply to build a new route properly from scratch, away from the existing railway, so that you get the best of both worlds in the end. It's the same argument that goes for HS2; back when the first reports came out they did suggest that a Manchester-Leeds captive line was not superior to an upgraded existing one but the massive increase in passenger numbers, beyond their own expectations, may well shift the balance and make that new line the best option.

From a political perspective there is no knowing what is going to happen in the next 10 days, let alone the years needed for infrastructure investment. The indyref has started to awaken the politics of Wales and the North of England so the demand for proper investment is going to be extremely strong in the future.

 

[HSTEd]

Can't keep trying to cram a quart into a pint.

HS3 is going to have better returns than another disaster-waiting-to-happen like a WCRM-esque upgrade. Even the GW project appears to be turning into an overbudget mess. And imagine ~170mph all-axles-motored stopping trains running on HS-TP.
Would blow appear the journey times we have now.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Can't keep trying to cram a quart into a pint.

HS3 is going to have better returns than another disaster-waiting-to-happen like a WCRM-esque upgrade. Even the GW project appears to be turning into an overbudget mess. And imagine ~170mph all-axles-motored stopping trains running on HS-TP.
Would blow appear the journey times we have now.

Precisely. Build a new line and you know it's going to work. Very heavily upgrade an old one and you'll get a lot less but you'll risk paying almost as much.

 

[gordonthemoron]

or more

 

[Geezertronic]

And not get what was promised (like the WCML upgrade)

 

[Chester1]

I think the likely benefits of HS2 are slightly overstated (although I would like to see it happen if its done properly). Lets be generous and say that the government buys an eqivilant to the 140mph Class 395s used by Southeastern on HS1 (on the pressumption that because they are bi mode Voyagers and Meridians are needed for services that are partly non wired). Pendalino's can also do 140mph (but never have because maximum limit is 125mph on WCML). If a 140mph line was built (instead of the one North proposed 125mph limit) then according to 20mm at 140mph limit it would still take 30mins for Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester Aiport-Manchester Picaddilly, compared with 34 mins from next year under Northern Hub. Only with non stopping services would Liverpool-Manchester be reduced to 20 mins. Id estimate that at 140mph and only one stop (Manchester Aiport) it would also take 30 minutes from Leeds and Sheffield which would only be a 10 minute saving on electifying the current lines.

The quart in a pint pot metaphor assumes the line is anywere near close to capacity. I am well aware having lived in Leeds and traveled via Manchester reguarly that in terms of train frequency it is at capacity but in terms of passenger numbers its no were near. Most trains are 3 carriages and Lime Street, Piccaddilly and Leeds have capacty for 11. Platform extensions at Victoria, Huddersfield, Dewsbury and Stalybridge would be relatively cheap and could treble capacity if long enough rolling stock was bought. On the assumption that northern hub electification plus the eqvivliant for the Hope Valley Line is the last realistic speed upgrade that can be done, it wouldn't be too shabby outcome providing longer rolling stock was bought (I am thinking a new IEP but cheaper with a maximum speed of 100mph). My suggestons for converting lines to Metrolink would largely solve the stopping service problem in Manchester and creating through tracks at the small stations going into Leeds and some passing loops across the Pennines would remove most of the remaining problems.

Unless the government is prepared to go the whole way and create 20-25 minute journeys between Liverpool, Sheffield and Leeds to Manchester and put the cost on the general taxpayer and not ticket prices then intergrating the Northern Cities into effectively 1 city isn't going to happen. Upgrading the current lines is probably a better option than doing HS3 on the cheap. I don't think the WCML upgrade is comparable. WCML was running at a much higher capacity before the upgrade and the upgrade cost was a result of diminishing returns after previous upgrades. It was also also only delaying needing to build a new line. I am not sure Manchester to Leeds, Sheffield or Liverpool would ever need more than 4 fast services with 11 carriages and a couple of local stopping 3 or 6 carriage services. Manchester to leeds is already running at this frequency and Hope Valley and Manchester to Liverpool could support it once the current electification is complete.

 

[AM9]

.... On the assumption that northern hub electification plus the eqvivliant for the Hope Valley Line is the last realistic speed upgrade that can be done, it wouldn't be too shabby outcome providing longer rolling stock was bought (I am thinking a new IEP but cheaper with a maximum speed of 100mph). ....

If even with current electrification and Northern Hub implementation journeys between the main cities are no longer than average tube train trips, why is yet another new design of train needed. Sets of Desiros or Electrostars/Aventras with 2x2 seating and extra luggage space could be provided with minimum technical and financial risk. They are known quantities with proven reliability and operational characteristics and of course, support facilities would be readily available well before they were deployed.
That would reduce the project cost and/or risk of it failing to get approval.

 

[Chester1]

If even with current electrification and Northern Hub implementation journeys between the main cities are no longer than average tube train trips, why is yet another new design of train needed. Sets of Desiros or Electrostars/Aventras with 2x2 seating and extra luggage space could be provided with minimum technical and financial risk. They are known quantities with proven reliability and operational characteristics and of course, support facilities would be readily available well before they were deployed.
That would reduce the project cost and/or risk of it failing to get approval.

Its a fair point on rolling stock providing 3 can be put together (Id guess your right). In terms of making Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield and Manchester one city then it wont really work apart from the city centres with northern hub and hope valley electrification due to the time it takes to get to Lime Street, Sheffield and Leeds stations from the suburbs. To make it possible to commute across the region HS3 is necessary. In terms of just increasing capacity its only going to be needed when 6tph 11-12 carriage Transpennine trains are full, which is probably 20-30 years off if it happens at all.

 

[HSTEd]

If you had a ~300km/h route between Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, York and maybe even Newcastle then you can have epochal changing reductions in journey times.

Even if you throw in additional intermediate stations at Warrington, Huddersfield and the Tees Valley you could be looking at something like <100m journey times on the stopping trains. The fastest train/route between NCL and Liverpool is currently 185 minutes, most are over 200 minutes.
If you wanted to run semi-fast trains that would cut into capacity but we would have 18 paths per hour or more to work with so that might not be a problem.
6 all shacks and 6 major stops only trains or somesuch.

 

[Chester1]

If you had a ~300km/h route between Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, York and maybe even Newcastle then you can have epochal changing reductions in journey times.

Even if you throw in additional intermediate stations at Warrington, Huddersfield and the Tees Valley you could be looking at something like <100m journey times on the stopping trains. The fastest train/route between NCL and Liverpool is currently 185 minutes, most are over 200 minutes.
If you wanted to run semi-fast trains that would cut into capacity but we would have 18 paths per hour or more to work with so that might not be a problem.
6 all shacks and 6 major stops only trains or somesuch.

Assuming 350kph/220mph of HS2 you would only have commuting times between Newcastle and Manchester for people who live near Newcastle city centre and work in the centre of Manchester. Realistically HS3 will be 125mph or 140mph if we are lucky which puts Newcastle out of reach. The distances involved, the cost of such a long extension and the relatively small number of people it would benefit means id be surprised if HS2 or HS3 ever get past York given that the ECML is 125mph. Liverpool to Newcastle would be routed via Manchester Airport if HS3 is built.

I laughed a bit reading the 20mm report, Liverpool council are clearly anoyed that Chester has better services to London and I think that is reflected in the options. Their 3rd choice is routing HS2 spur to Liverpool / HS3 through the Warrington-Widness freightline reopening Bank Quay low level and it is a very good option for connecting other services and would only be slightly slower so should be first choice. I am slightly bias I suppose because Chester-Warrington goes under the WCML and then connectd with the goods terminal which has a track to the east that connects with the freight line. If Chester-Warrington is electrfied then it would be straight forward to create a 4 platform Bank Quay low level allowing high speed trains to run from Manchester to Chester and perhaps to North Wales (as well as providing a good back route for when when HS2 from Crewe to Manchester Airport is closed for repairs).

In terms of train paths I think there will be less capacity than you think. I think Osborne is leaning towards making HS3 more intergrated into HS2 than One North proposed. If the Northern Councils get what they want it will totally undermine the reasoning behind HS2. Id expect low high speed classic compatible trains but that are fast enough to run on HS2 between Manchester Airport and and between Leeds and Sheffield (hence why I think 140mph is likely). If HS3 goes into Piccadilly through the HS2 tunnel and the Pennine tunnel goes into HS2 between Leeds and Sheffield then there is less capacity than you would think. They might still choose to link in fully with existing stations and lines but I think HS3 will have to be more like HS2 than intially planned due political need to prevent its design undermining the design of HS2. Id be surprised if the Councils get freight on HS3, it undermines the choices for HS2 and could travel via the current routes anyway.

HS3 is great if it provides a very fast service but id rather they just upgraded existing lines if they arent going to make it 20-25 mins. Waste of money otherwise.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The east-west services would need to share track with HS2 on the approach to Liverpool (at 230km/h, which is easy to manage) and Newcastle (all the way from the east of Leeds on a 400km/h railway, which isn't going to work) and it would be best for them to be able to serve TSI-compliant platforms on both of these as well so that HS1-style combo stations aren't required. Thus it makes sense to have a consistent fleet of 8x25m EMUs (whether captive or classic-compatible, they'll be the same train as a Eurostar is a TGV), so any new lines you build may as well be capable of >230km/h speed as well since the trains will be capable.

 

[Chester1]

The east-west services would need to share track with HS2 on the approach to Liverpool (at 230km/h, which is easy to manage) and Newcastle (all the way from the east of Leeds on a 400km/h railway, which isn't going to work) and it would be best for them to be able to serve TSI-compliant platforms on both of these as well so that HS1-style combo stations aren't required. Thus it makes sense to have a consistent fleet of 8x25m EMUs (whether captive or classic-compatible, they'll be the same train as a Eurostar is a TGV), so any new lines you build may as well be capable of >230km/h speed as well since the trains will be capable.

I agree about 230Kph, I think there is a high chance of Sheffield-Leeds-York being slowed down from 350kph to 230kph to make easier to intergrate with HS3, which would save a bit on HS2 building costs and a signifcant amount on HS3.

Classic compatible vs captive will depend on how intergrated HS3 is with the current network, George Osbornes comments seem to indicate strongly that he wants it fairly well intergrated with the current network. I think the best solution would be to have classic platforms and modern Pendalinos and Javelins but have the the track and loading guage wide enough plus enough space for converting the platforms, to allow a upgrade to captive trains if the extra capacity is needed.

 

[AM9]

If you had a ~300km/h route between Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, York and maybe even Newcastle then you can have epochal changing reductions in journey times.

Even if you throw in additional intermediate stations at Warrington, Huddersfield and the Tees Valley you could be looking at something like <100m journey times on the stopping trains. The fastest train/route between NCL and Liverpool is currently 185 minutes, most are over 200 minutes.
If you wanted to run semi-fast trains that would cut into capacity but we would have 18 paths per hour or more to work with so that might not be a problem.
6 all shacks and 6 major stops only trains or somesuch.

If the line was 300km/h then only the fastest trains would ever reach that speed, the 'all shacks' would just slow things down. I assume your suggestion for including them was to increase the utilisation and hence the justification for a full 300km/h line. The option of a 200-225km/h line as suggested upthread would be a better business case and wouldn't need loops at every minor station.
As far as stock is concerned, even with 225km/h, the end-to-end time would be under 2 hours so nothing special would be needed so long as there were adequate seats to avoid standing. If a 300km/h line was built, stock with an interior like the 395s would be more than adequate for a journey under 90 minutes.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I agree about 230Kph, I think there is a high chance of Sheffield-Leeds-York being slowed down from 350kph to 230kph to make easier to intergrate with HS3, which would save a bit on HS2 building costs and a signifcant amount on HS3.

Classic compatible vs captive will depend on how intergrated HS3 is with the current network, George Osbornes comments seem to indicate strongly that he wants it fairly well intergrated with the current network. I think the best solution would be to have classic platforms and modern Pendalinos and Javelins but have the the track and loading guage wide enough plus enough space for converting the platforms, to allow a upgrade to captive trains if the extra capacity is needed.

Why would they reduce the HS2 speed to 230km/h? It wouldn't save money at all but it would damage the business case, especially when you're not going to get any more stations than are already mooted (York Interchange, Tees Valley Interchange and Newcastle).

 

[Chester1]

If the line was 300km/h then only the fastest trains would ever reach that speed, the 'all shacks' would just slow things down. I assume your suggestion for including them was to increase the utilisation and hence the justification for a full 300km/h line. The option of a 200-225km/h line as suggested upthread would be a better business case and wouldn't need loops at every minor station.
As far as stock is concerned, even with 225km/h, the end-to-end time would be under 2 hours so nothing special would be needed so long as there were adequate seats to avoid standing. If a 300km/h line was built, stock with an interior like the 395s would be more than adequate for a journey under 90 minutes.

At 230kph it would be about 45 minutes from Liverpool to Leeds with one stop at Manchester Airport. Atm is 90 mins from Leeds to Newcastle and I can't see that being sped up significantly as it isnt worth building a new line past York or upgrading the section of ECML to 140mph. The fastest I could imagine from Liverpool to Newcastle under HS3 is 115 minutes with just two stops (Manchester Airport and Leeds). Realistically most trains on HS3 will have to go via Piccadilly as thats were most travellers will be going.

Intermediate stops under one north would be around Warrington and at Manchester Airport, perhaps a Barnsley Parkway maybe. No other towns along its route. Places like Huddersfield will be well served after Northern Hub anyway.

Id still build for easily upgrading to captive stock to allow for extra capacity. If Classic compatible trains get full then we would be relying on the current lines, which as I have argued have enormous extra capacity through train lengthening and metrolink conversions but less speed so less economic benefits.

Why would they reduce the HS2 speed to 230km/h? It wouldn't save money at all but it would damage the business case, especially when you're not going to get any more stations than are already mooted (York Interchange, Tees Valley Interchange and Newcastle).

230kph lines are allot cheaper to build than 350kph, otherwise the government would happily make HS3 350kph as it would mean total intergration of the Northern cities (imagine Liverpool to Sheffield or Leeds in half an hour). Lowering the speed north of Sheffield would help with finding money for HS3 and would make it much easier to have a HS2 and HS3 junction between Leeds and Sheffield. Journey times from Leeds to Sheffield and London would still be very fast.

 

[NotATrainspott]

230kph lines are allot cheaper to build than 350kph, otherwise the government would happily make HS3 350kph as it would mean total intergration of the Northern cities (imagine Liverpool to Sheffield or Leeds in half an hour). Lowering the speed north of Sheffield would help with finding money for HS3 and would make it much easier to have a HS2 and HS3 junction between Leeds and Sheffield. Journey times from Leeds to Sheffield and London would still be very fast.

They're not. Any new fast line through the Pennines will involve so much construction that the reduced line length of a >300km/h alignment will outweigh the marginal extra cost of increasing speed. It is pretty much the same argument as that for HS2, since halving the speed produces very minimal cost savings on infrastructure. At the same time, longer journey times increases other costs as more trains, depot spaces and traincrews will be needed to run the same frequency of service. Even if the journey time saving between Liverpool and Leeds is negligible at >300km/h, that journey time saving will be much more important for further-flung locations like Teesside. Under the One North proposals it's basically just the very central locations that benefit; if you have a faster line, you can then benefit the entirety of the North of England from Carlisle to Newcastle to Hull to Chester and North Wales.

 

[Chester1]

If the line was 300km/h then only the fastest trains would ever reach that speed, the 'all shacks' would just slow things down. I assume your suggestion for including them was to increase the utilisation and hence the justification for a full 300km/h line. The option of a 200-225km/h line as suggested upthread would be a better business case and wouldn't need loops at every minor station.
As far as stock is concerned, even with 225km/h, the end-to-end time would be under 2 hours so nothing special would be needed so long as there were adequate seats to avoid standing. If a 300km/h line was built, stock with an interior like the 395s would be more than adequate for a journey under 90 minutes.

They're not. Any new fast line through the Pennines will involve so much construction that the reduced line length of a >300km/h alignment will outweigh the marginal extra cost of increasing speed. It is pretty much the same argument as that for HS2, since halving the speed produces very small cost savings on infrastructure. At the same time, longer journey times increases other costs as more trains, depot spaces and traincrews will be needed to run the same frequency of service. Even if the journey time saving between Liverpool and Leeds is negligible at >300km/h, that journey time saving will be much more important for further-flung locations like Teesside. Under the One North proposals it's basically just the very central locations that benefit; if you have a faster line, you can then benefit the entirety of the North of England from Carlisle to Newcastle to Hull to Chester and North Wales.

As someone living in Chester and who travels to both Manchester and North Wales very reguarly I think running classic compatible 220mph trains along the North Wales coast would be a massive waste of money. Warrington-Chester-Holyhead is 80mph or less. To get Llandudno into comumuting distance of Manchester then assuming 14 mins from Warrington to Manchester Piccadilly on HS3 at 220mph then you would need to cut the current Warrington-Llandudno time from 96 mins to 40 mins. The best id hope for thre route is 140mph 5 carriage Javelin style trains. Carlisle is so far away from the rest of the North that it would need a full high speed line to it, which isnt going to happen. If Scotland is ever added to HS2 (which I doubt), it will be via Newcastle as serves more people. The numbers quoted for HS3 are considerable cheaper per mile, although I hope your right because a captive 220mph HS3 would be brilliant. The HS2 spur from Wigan to Manchester Airport is 140mph, and 20mm suggests that the Liverpool spur should also be 140mph so Id assume that 140mph is significantly cheaper.

 

[NotATrainspott]

As someone living in Chester and who travels to both Manchester and North Wales very reguarly I think running classic compatible 220mph trains along the North Wales coast would be a massive waste of money. Warrington-Chester-Holyhead is 80mph or less. To get Llandudno into comumuting distance of Manchester then assuming 14 mins from Warrington to Manchester Piccadilly on HS3 at 220mph then you would need to cut the current Warrington-Llandudno time from 96 mins to 40 mins. The best id hope for thre route is 140mph 5 carriage Javelin style trains. Carlisle is so far away from the rest of the North that it would need a full high speed line to it, which isnt going to happen. If Scotland is ever added to HS2 (which I doubt), it will be via Newcastle as serves more people. The numbers quoted for HS3 are considerable cheaper per mile, although I hope your right because a captive 220mph HS3 would be brilliant. The HS2 spur from Wigan to Manchester Airport is 140mph, and 20mm suggests that the Liverpool spur should also be 140mph so Id assume that 140mph is significantly cheaper.

I'm not saying that a 400km/h line to Holyhead is a good idea. My point is that if you build the Liverpool/Chester to Leeds/York/Hull line for >300km/h, it is then easier to bring in the periphery of the North of England and connect them to multiple hubs rather than just the closest one. For example, a proper high speed line would mean that North Wales could have a fast classic-compatible link to Leeds and Hull, so that there would be agglomeration benefits there as well rather than them being limited solely to the biggest cities. It would do the 'HS3' ideas no harm if they were seen to more of the whole of the North of England directly rather than serving just the biggest areas directly and the others indirectly through capacity release.

HS2 will serve Scotland via Preston and Carlisle because the route via Newcastle is significantly worse. Edinburgh is due north of Carlisle and obviously Glasgow is west of that again, so going via the East Coast involves significantly further distances, especially when the Northumberland National Park is in the way and would force the route to be long enough that you may as well just take that length and make it follow the M74/M6 down to Preston and not worry about spoiling the landscape any more than it already is.

The spurs are all 230km/h max because the maximum diverging speed at a junction on HS2 is 230km/h. There's no point accelerating back up to anything higher once you've taken the junction when you're about to terminate in a city centre. These spurs must also follow feasible corridors into city centres and at 230km/h that is significantly easier than a faster route; when you're building a plain line route it's not as difficult just to go as fast as you like since you're going to have to tunnel anyway and you're in open countryside.

 

[HSTEd]

If the line was 300km/h then only the fastest trains would ever reach that speed,

Almost all of them would.
This is not the 1970s - high speed trains are not normally loco hauled formations.
In Japan the trains reach 300km/h in something approaching 3 minutes.

the 'all shacks' would just slow things down. I assume your suggestion for including them was to increase the utilisation and hence the justification for a full 300km/h line. The option of a 200-225km/h line as suggested upthread would be a better business case and wouldn't need loops at every minor station.

You will need loops at every minor station anyway - unless you are proposing to slow the trains down to 125mph to pass through every station and to stop them all on running lines, blocking the line up and totally wrecking the capacity of the route.
That is such a mess its easier just to have a pair of through lines.
Getting rid of them just removes the whole point of the route in the name of attempting to reduce the headline cost.

As far as stock is concerned, even with 225km/h, the end-to-end time would be under 2 hours so nothing special would be needed so long as there were adequate seats to avoid standing. If a 300km/h line was built, stock with an interior like the 395s would be more than adequate for a journey under 90 minutes.

The 225km/h option would still leave Newcastle the same distance from London as Liverpool which is probably undermining the whole point of the thing.
Its basically 300km/h or its not really worth bothering.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

230kph lines are allot cheaper to build than 350kph, otherwise the government would happily make HS3 350kph as it would mean total intergration of the Northern cities (imagine Liverpool to Sheffield or Leeds in half an hour). Lowering the speed north of Sheffield would help with finding money for HS3 and would make it much easier to have a HS2 and HS3 junction between Leeds and Sheffield. Journey times from Leeds to Sheffield and London would still be very fast.

Actually they aren't.
The Government tried to build HS1 at 125mph until someone pointed out that was stupid and they are at it again.
Its just an attempt to avoid the stigma of high speed rail being profligate by restricting the speed to 'normal' railway speeds.

 

[LateThanNever]

Almost all of them would.
This is not the 1970s - high speed trains are not normally loco hauled formations.
In Japan the trains reach 300km/h in something approaching 3 minutes.


You will need loops at every minor station anyway - unless you are proposing to slow the trains down to 125mph to pass through every station and to stop them all on running lines, blocking the line up and totally wrecking the capacity of the route.
That is such a mess its easier just to have a pair of through lines.
Getting rid of them just removes the whole point of the route in the name of attempting to reduce the headline cost.


The 225km/h option would still leave Newcastle the same distance from London as Liverpool which is probably undermining the whole point of the thing.
Its basically 300km/h or its not really worth bothering.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Actually they aren't.
The Government tried to build HS1 at 125mph until someone pointed out that was stupid and they are at it again.
Its just an attempt to avoid the stigma of high speed rail being profligate by restricting the speed to 'normal' railway speeds.

Think I should point out that Britain is a considerably smaller country than most 'big' countries in Europe and England at least, is much, much more densely populated ( think the most densely populated in Europe) so stops are required much more often!

 

[AM9]

Think I should point out that Britain is a considerably smaller country than most 'big' countries in Europe and England at least, is much, much more densely populated ( think the most densely populated in Europe) so stops are required much more often!

If the line was to have that many stops, the loops would need to be almost continuous so it would effectively become a 4 track railway with crossovers between most stations.

 

[The Ham]

Think I should point out that Britain is a considerably smaller country than most 'big' countries in Europe and England at least, is much, much more densely populated ( think the most densely populated in Europe) so stops are required much more often!

Although stations would be closer together it wouldn't mean that all stations would be served by all services. If HS3 has capacity for "only" 12 trains per hour even some of the busiest stations can cope with 6 trains an hour, leaving plenty of scope for other services.

Even a service every 20 minutes (3 trains per hour) is frequent enough that people start to not bother with timetables, they just turn up and get on the next train. Yet HS3 would be used a lot by longer distnace services where half hourly is genrally fine.

Also more densley populated countries do better with rail travel, as they often do not have the space to build their way out of road capacity problems. Also because the cities the trains serve are more compact, so more of the city's population can easily get to a city centre station without the need to drive.

 

[HSTEd]

Japan runs high speed lines with 30km station distances and 300km/h trains.

 

[edwin_m]

Almost all of them would.
In Japan the trains reach 300km/h in something approaching 3 minutes.

And travel 20+km while they are doing so. High speed is only worthwhile if the station stops are sufficiently far apart, or a reasonable number of trains don't stop at every station.

While a 400km/h route isn't much more difficult or expensive than a 200km/h route in flat open country the same isn't true in built-up or mountainous areas.

However there may be scope for a medium-speed line across the Pennines, using trains that are capable of running faster when they join HS2, especially if it is extended to the north-east.

 

[Chester1]

And travel 20+km while they are doing so. High speed is only worthwhile if the station stops are sufficiently far apart, or a reasonable number of trains don't stop at every station.

While a 400km/h route isn't much more difficult or expensive than a 200km/h route in flat open country the same isn't true in built-up or mountainous areas.

However there may be scope for a medium-speed line across the Pennines, using trains that are capable of running faster when they join HS2, especially if it is extended to the north-east.

Regardless of what the top speed of the line would be, signifcant sections will be limited to 140mph. The HS2 tunnel into Manchester will be 7 miles long and a pennines base tunnel probably brings tunnel 140mph sections to 20-25 miles. All of Liverpool to Manchester Airport would be limited to 140mph if it uses the HS2-WCML spur and signifcant tunnelling. I cant see were any of Liverpool-Piccadilly could go over 140mph. Manchester to Sheffield / Leeds would spend nearly half the journey in tunnels or land unsuitable for 220mph. Sections of it are possible though. Id be gobsmacked if it wasnt built to support the width and height of captive HS2 trains because even if they arent used on a regular basis it would be a good diversionary route for when parts of HS2 are closed.

 

[HSTEd]

And travel 20+km while they are doing so. High speed is only worthwhile if the station stops are sufficiently far apart, or a reasonable number of trains don't stop at every station.

Most of the trains would likely run Leeds-Manchester non-stop.
Which is 55km.

And even at 270kmh a train would only cover 13.5km in 3 minutes, so claiming that they must travel 20km in the time they take to accelerate (in roughly three minutes) seems rather impossible.
Indeed a Class 395 can reach 140mph in roughly 9km and an N700 has drastically superior performance. (Similar starting acceleration but something approaching twice the power:weight ratio)

Regardless of what the top speed of the line would be, signifcant sections will be limited to 140mph. The HS2 tunnel into Manchester will be 7 miles long and a pennines base tunnel probably brings tunnel 140mph sections to 20-25 miles.

The HS2 tunnels through the Chilterns are going to be rated for 360km/h.
There is no reason all the tunnels on a Transpennine route cannot do the same.

The cost of a large bore tunnel isn't actually that much greater than a small bore one - you need a more expensive TBM and need to dispose of more spoil - that is about it.