"HS2 Back on Track" - front page of Sunday Express - private sector plan to build Birmingham to Manchester

[The Planner]

Is there enough platform capacity to do that?

Considering the amount of permissive working at Picc, likely not.

 

[Krokodil]

Considering the amount of permissive working at Picc, likely not.

I didn't think so. More platforms needed then, such as the ones that would have been built for HS2/NPR.

 

[Snow1964]

Seems Labours shadow Transport Minister has told Telegraph HS2-2a is going to be revived

Louise Haigh, the shadow transport secretary, and her team are said to have suggested they want to get spades back into the ground on the route between Birmingham and Crewe.

That is despite the fact that Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, has publicly said it is “not possible” to revive the project because the Government has “blown the budget”.

The Telegraph has been told that Haigh wants to resurrect phase 2a of the project, between Birmingham and Crewe, which would cost around £7 billion.

Bill Esterson, the shadow roads minister, also hinted at the ambition in a social media post after addressing an industry reception this month.

“HS2 was due to reduce the number of lorry movements by 500,000 a year. It was a project that was designed to increase capacity, not least for freight,” he wrote

Labour 'will resurrect northern leg of HS2' - reports

Louise Haigh, the shadow transport secretary, and her team are said to have suggested they want to resurrect phase 2a of the project.

www.thelondoneconomic.com

All rather suggests the section from Hansacre to Crewe is seen as essential

 

[Bletchleyite]

Considering the amount of permissive working at Picc, likely not.

It wouldn't be hard to add platforms to the north side of Picc, it's a car park.

 

[Krokodil]

It wouldn't be hard to add platforms to the north side of Picc, it's a car park.

Might as well build them to 400m long while you're at it. And include provision for a connection to a new tunnel, just in case

 

[The Planner]

It wouldn't be hard to add platforms to the north side of Picc, it's a car park.

I like the optimism. Until someone finds out the car park isnt strong enough to put trains on, it triggers a resignaling and so on and so forth and it becomes unaffordable and we are back at 15 and 16 again and not a lot happens.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Seems Labours shadow Transport Minister has told Telegraph HS2-2a is going to be revived

Labour 'will resurrect northern leg of HS2' - reports

Louise Haigh, the shadow transport secretary, and her team are said to have suggested they want to resurrect phase 2a of the project.

www.thelondoneconomic.com

All rather suggests the section from Hansacre to Crewe is seen as essential

Its only Sunak and his right wing cabal that don't think that.

 

[Nottingham59]

All rather suggests the section from Hansacre to Crewe is seen as essential

My presumption is that it's just Handsacre to Whitmore which is essential.

With the ongoing constraints at Crewe station, Wilmslow and Weaver, there doesn't seem any capacity benefit in having 6 tracks from Whitmore to Crewe and it saves having to tunnel under Whitmore Heath.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

My presumption is that it's just Handsacre to Whitmore which is essential.

With the ongoing constraints at Crewe station, Wilmslow and Weaver, there doesn't seem any capacity benefit in having 6 tracks from Whitmore to Crewe and it saves having to tunnel under Whitmore Heath.

Ideally I'd have thought you'd want the six tracks at least as far as Basford Hall otherwise the capacity bottleneck is simply moving up to that position? All those freights...

 

[Nottingham59]

Ideally I'd have thought you'd want the six tracks at least as far as Basford Hall otherwise the capacity bottleneck is simply moving up to that position? All those freights...

What freights?

In the past hour (11h-12h 22/3/24), there have been a grand total of 5 freight trains, one tamper and one mail train through Basford Hall Junction, as far as I can see. And that's in both directions together.

Realtime Trains | Departures from Crewe Basford Hall Jn between 1100 and 1200 on 22/03/2024

Train information at Crewe Basford Hall Jn between 1100 and 1200 on 22/03/2024. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Maybe there's more freight traffic than that at other times of the day, but I've never seen it.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

What freights?

The ones that use the WCML between Crewe and the south.

 

[Peter Sarf]

In all my time of building railways, i have never, ever, known a project where a complete redesign saved money.

I bet it happens all the time - and I don't mean the saving money bit !.

It really is desperately urgent to get the "North Midlands link" started while all (most ?) of the contractors and land for Phase 2a are ready.

Sadly redesigning merely pushes the decision to spend further down the timeline and out of peoples memories....

 

[GJMarshy]

I'm assuming this commitment from labour to build HS2 to the north is referring to phase 2a to Crewe? There doesn't seem to be any explicit mention anywhere, and it also seems at-odds with the "privately funded" Burnham/Street model (you'd think Andy Turnham would have been informed if labour was committed to building it as is regardless?)

 

[HSTEd]

I'm assuming this commitment from labour to build HS2 to the north is referring to phase 2a to Crewe? There doesn't seem to be any explicit mention anywhere, and it also seems at-odds with the "privately funded" Burnham/Street model (you'd think Andy Turnham would have been informed if labour was committed to building it as is regardless?)

Also worth noting that the Shadow Transport minister is not the person in Labour whos opinion matters.

Until Starmer says something it means nothing, and even then (given his history) it is hardly ironclad.

 

[Krokodil]

I'm assuming this commitment from labour to build HS2 to the north is referring to phase 2a to Crewe? There doesn't seem to be any explicit mention anywhere, and it also seems at-odds with the "privately funded" Burnham/Street model (you'd think Andy Turnham would have been informed if labour was committed to building it as is regardless?)

"commitment" is probably putting it a bit strong. They certainly won't be blocking a privately-backed scheme, that's the difference.

 

[The Planner]

What freights?

In the past hour (11h-12h 22/3/24), there have been a grand total of 5 freight trains, one tamper and one mail train through Basford Hall Junction, as far as I can see. And that's in both directions together.

Realtime Trains | Departures from Crewe Basford Hall Jn between 1100 and 1200 on 22/03/2024

Train information at Crewe Basford Hall Jn between 1100 and 1200 on 22/03/2024. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Maybe there's more freight traffic than that at other times of the day, but I've never seen it.

So 5 per hour, which tallies up with the normal 90-100 over a 24 hour period.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Any new heavy rail route from Ringway/Hale Barns to Manchester city centre would be extremely expensive to construct. Unless it was tunnelled, it would be extremely disruptive to build. An elevated viaduct along the M56/A5103 as far as M60 junction 5 would cause increased noise to residents of Wythenshawe and destroy the ambience of Wythenshawe Park and what remains of Princess Parkway (which was quite pleasant to walk along before the M56 and M60 were built). It would be extremely challenging to construct because of the road flyovers at the Altrincham Road and Northenden Road/Sale Road junctions, and the need to tunnel deep under the River Mersey sited immediately north of M60 junction 5 without an excessive gradient from your suggested viaduct to the tunnelled section of the route.

This rail route isn't a sensible route for NPR if HS2 phase 2b isn't built. The likely demand for fast trains between Liverpool and Manchester can be provided by 2 non-stop tph of at least 8 carriages on the direct Chat Moss route, which wouldn't take any longer time than the proposed roundabout route via a station close to (but not at) Manchester Airport. At present, there is only 1 fast tph consisting of 5-6 carriages.

It would be expensive, but less expensive than tunnelling the whole way.
Let's address the points you've made.

Noisy? With modern HSR, it wouldn't make a noticeable difference, compared to the constant drone from the M56 or Princess Parkway.

While it would be challenging to construct, it wouldn't be impossible to tunnel under the Mersey with a sharp gradient, because modern HSR is capable of much steeper inclines than previous generation. If you wanted to make it suitable for electric freight too, you could compulsory purchase Northenden Golf Club and lengthen the tunnel approach to minimise the gradient, but that would encounter massive opposition so not feasible.

Why is it not a suitable route for NPR? The Styal Line is very overcrowded, mostly with travellers to the Airport, and the InterCity demand between Liverpool - Manchester - Leeds/Sheffield is massively suppressed or uses other transport modes, because of the poor quality of service.

This is a pressing issue to solve, because the M62 and M60 are both overcrowded and will need more lanes or even an additional motorway on the M60/M62 multiplex section if alternatives are not provided.

Same with Manchester Airport to the City Centre - you'd need a proper metro line to relieve the suburban lines of at the least the local airport traffic if you didn't build NPR, but again that wouldn't be cheap.

 

[HSTEd]

It would be expensive, but less expensive than tunnelling the whole way.
Let's address the points you've made.

I doubt it would be less expensive.
I know tunneling costs have been used as a scapegoat for the problems on HS2 has had with regards cost growth, but tunneling isn't really that expensive.

There is no alignment here which will not require major reconstruction of a lot of major roads, which are extremely heavily trafficked.
The comparison with Hangar Lane Gyratory is most apt in my view.

Same with Manchester Airport to the City Centre - you'd need a proper metro line to relieve the suburban lines of at the least the local airport traffic if you didn't build NPR, but again that wouldn't be cheap.

No, you can just make all trains to the airport stop all stations.
The airport passengers get their one seat ride to the airport and we get a metro line in South Manchester. Indeed the line would not be particularly full by metro standards.

 

[AlastairFraser]

I doubt it would be less expensive.
I know tunneling costs have been used as a scapegoat for the problems on HS2 has had with regards cost growth, but tunneling isn't really that expensive.

There is no alignment here which will not require major reconstruction of a lot of major roads, which are extremely heavily trafficked.
The comparison with Hangar Lane Gyratory is most apt in my view.

Tunneling costs are more expensive in urban areas though, especially if you need to demolish housing in some areas for ventilation towers.

No, you can just make all trains to the airport stop all stations.
The airport passengers get their one seat ride to the airport and we get a metro line in South Manchester. Indeed the line would not be particularly full by metro standards.

There's not the capacity in Piccadilly to handle the passengers, it would bugger every path over Castlefield for all the trains continuing on from Picc, and it would mean the effective end of services from Wilmslow and Crewe to the airport. I cannot express how bad an idea that would be, unless you did some serious work with Castlefield (the additional tracks and platforms, Ox Rd rebuild etc.) and then added 2 grade separated tracks for the Styal Line from P13-P16 to Slade Lane.
That would be very expensive and cause disruption for years.

 

[HSTEd]

Tunneling costs are more expensive in urban areas though, especially if you need to demolish housing in some areas for ventilation towers.

Ventilation and access points are not that large, as site plans and pictures of HS2 ventilation and access points show. Here's an example
Finding spaces for things that size in south manchester will be comparatively simple compared to tearing the M56 and various road junctions apart to get a viaduct in.

There's not the capacity in Piccadilly to handle the passengers, it would bugger every path over Castlefield for all the trains continuing on from Picc, and it would mean the effective end of services from Wilmslow and Crewe to the airport.

Why would it end trains from Wilmslow and Crewe to the Airport?
Meanwhile whilst most of the trains from Piccadilly and the Airport now go through castlefield, a significant portion of the passengers would arrive in the main trainshed at Piccadilly.

I doubt the line would be succesful enough, in any case, to materially change the number of passengers on platform 13 and 14. I would expect Oxford Road to be rather more affected, but still such a metro line would probably still struggle to compete with the high intensity bus services given its comparatively low service frequency.

EDIT:

Edit because the timetable has changed since last I looked into the topic a lot more trains using the Ordsall chord than there used to be!

 

[AlastairFraser]

Ventilation and access points are not that large, as site plans and pictures of HS2 ventilation and access points show. Here's an example
Finding spaces for things that size in south manchester will be comparatively simple compared to tearing the M56 and various road junctions apart to get a viaduct in.

Not necessarily - the M56/Princess Parkway corridor is quite wide through Wythenshawe and land values are much lower than in Didsbury/Fallowfield/Withington/Rusholme.

Why would it end trains from Wilmslow and Crewe to the Airport?
Meanwhile only part of the trains between Piccadilly and the Airport go through castlefield, a large portion of the passengers would arrive in the main trainshed at Piccadilly.

I doubt the line would be succesful enough, in any case, to materially change the number of passengers on platform 13 and 14.

Because capacity on the spur into the airport would be taken up by the Picc - Manchester Airport services (which you'd need to increase frequency of to cater for demand).

Nearly every service from Manchester Picc to Manchester Airport uses Castlefield (North Wales, Edinburgh/Glasgow, Saltburn, Blackpool, Windermere/Barrow, Liverpool-Wilmslow). The only example I can think of that uses the trainshed is Crewe.
Even adding a small amount of P13/P14 will end in disaster.

In all my time of building railways, i have never, ever, known a project where a complete redesign saved money.

Maybe because you've mostly worked on railway projects in London and the SE, where land costs are generally consistently high, unlike land costs here in the North West.
(Of course there were some areas where railways were built like the early DLR lines where the land was mostly derelict, but that seems to be rare these days.

 

[chris2]

That's my thinking too, might be planning 70 miles, but I too agree likely to be around 30 miles from Hansacre to south of Crewe, possibly built fairly quickly (even to be ready same date as phase 1)
Then a phase 2 towards Manchester later.

If there are no complicated viaducts, bored tunnels, and minimal green tunnels (more like wide bridges), and no stations, then later start should still allow same completion date in 6 or 7 years

Or at least to open concurrent with delta -> Handsacre, which will open a couple of years after captive service OOC -> Curzon St.

My presumption is that it's just Handsacre to Whitmore which is essential.

With the ongoing constraints at Crewe station, Wilmslow and Weaver, there doesn't seem any capacity benefit in having 6 tracks from Whitmore to Crewe and it saves having to tunnel under Whitmore Heath.

Also, I've certainly read - though not sure where - that the Crewe approaches were the most ££ part of 2a. So if you lose them, you must save some money on the £6-7billion. Burnham's comment about reducing the tunnelling might well refer to the Whitmore tunnel, which is just north of the point where a connection could be built...anyway, these signs so far seem to suggest this route is what the mayors' are looking at.

Here's the quote from the 2015 rail alternatives doc, I don't know how valid people would find this in today's context...

3.5.1. High Cost Option

Atkins’ recommended design for the high cost option involves running HS2 services on the WCML fast lines between Baldwin’s Gate and Crewe, and running all remaining services on the slow lines. Such an arrangement would provide a two track railway used exclusively by HS2 services all the way from Streethay Junction to Crewe, which would be operating at well below its maximum capacity.



As with Phase 2a, such a configuration would mean that under normal operation high speed services are entirely segregated from the classic line services, and there would therefore be no opportunity for delays on the classic network to impact HS2 services or vice versa.

The high cost option requires running on 18km of the existing WCML infrastructure. The historic nature of this infrastructure means the track, power supply and signalling could be less reliable than new infrastructure built to modern standards. However, the long term reliability of this section of infrastructure compared to new infrastructure over a 60 year appraisal period is difficult to assess and would be highly dependent on the long term renewals and maintenance polices, which themselves are related to issues around ownership and accountability outside of the remit of this work.


With appropriate maintenance, Atkins do not consider the impact of running for 18km on the WCML to provide significant performance disbenefits to Phase 2a. Nevertheless the appraisal of the high cost option presented in section 3.3 adjusts the performance benefits of Phase 2a in proportion to the distance travelled on the existing network.

Between 2027 and 2033, the high cost option could offer some performance benefits to Phase 2a in respect to the way it connects the high speed alignment directly into the fast lines of the WCML well south of Crewe, whereas Phase 2a connects to the slow lines at Crewe. Having a connection to the WCML fast lines could avoid the need for high speed trains towards Manchester to cross the whole of the WCML at Crewe. From 2033 with the opening of the Full Y, Crewe is removed as an operational constraint on high speed services, and the performance benefits of joining the fast lines south of Crewe no longer apply.

Although Atkins consider that under normal operation the performance of high speed services under the high cost option is likely to be very similar to Phase 2a, the performance for the remaining classic line residual services operating on the slow lines is likely to be worse than under Phase 2a. With a mix of different passenger and freight services, the slow lines would be operating at close to the route capacity. This is likely to result in the residual services suffering a lower operational performance than will be the case under Phase 2a, where the same number of services would be able to operate over both the fast and slow lines.

Compared to Phase 2a, the option also offers less overall network resilience during periods of major disruption or maintenance, as a result of there being fewer alternative routes to divert services onto.

My bold. So potentially a better arrangement at Crewe than 2a would have been, but worse for adding more local capacity in future.

Finally, this extract from a story on NCE with William Barter discussing the mayors proposal...

One significant alteration on the map of the proposed route as compared to the former HS2 Phase 2 route is that it shows the line bypassing Crewe on the east, rather than in a tunnel on the west.

“I have difficulty seeing where an eastern bypass would run,” Barter said. “But my view is that if we get Crewe right, there is no bypass needed anyway.”

In Barter’s view, “right” means “feeding HS2 into the fast lines through Crewe, with turnouts to access the platforms, with a connection back onto new infrastructure north of the station”.

Which again, sounds a lot like this plan and not the full 2a.

 

[The Planner]

Also, I've certainly read - though not sure where - that the Crewe approaches were the most ££ part of 2a. So if you lose them, you must save some money on the £6-7billion. Burnham's comment about reducing the tunnelling might well refer to the Whitmore tunnel, which is just north of the point where a connection could be built.

I'm not sure it would. Basford Hall was a pretty big build which you would have to replicate somewhere for HS2 to land on the fasts. Its certainly going to need some sort of realignment of the slows, probably in a very similar way as the original Handsacre design where the up lines were shifted.

 

[AndrewE]

I am very surprised at the assertion that there is no need to upgrade the southern approaches to Crewe. Even if most of the freight diverts through Basford Hall there are still times when trains wait at both the north and south ends of the station to get in.
Traksy shows the missing link in the layout adjacent to the access to "South Yard CS" which definitely has an effect, as does the single-lead access to platforms 1 to 4.
I would love to see the ststion adapted a la Antwerp, with deep-level platforms (and through lines?) for HS2 - keeping the nice light relatively open-air station we have now. We also need to get rid of the diesel traction which fills the overbridge with stink, which could be done a lot sooner...

 

[Nottingham59]

I'm not sure it would. Basford Hall was a pretty big build which you would have to replicate somewhere for HS2 to land on the fasts. Its certainly going to need some sort of realignment of the slows, probably in a very similar way as the original Handsacre design where the up lines were shifted.

Could you explain this in a bit more detail please?

 

[The Planner]

Could you explain this in a bit more detail please?

If you need HS2 to land on the fast lines on a grade separated junction south of Crewe, you end with this layout at the junction nominally. DS US DF HS2 HS2 UF. Depending on how you decide to build it, you are either leaving the UF where it is and need to shift the slows way off onto new alignments, or you slew the UF as well to reduce the realignment of the slows.
The Handsacre proposal was slightly different due to the line pairing being different. That was DS DF HS2 HS2 UF US. The up lines being significantly realigned.

I am very surprised at the assertion that there is no need to upgrade the southern approaches to Crewe. Even if most of the freight diverts through Basford Hall there are still times when trains wait at both the north and south ends of the station to get in.
Traksy shows the missing link in the layout adjacent to the access to "South Yard CS" which definitely has an effect, as does the single-lead access to platforms 1 to 4.
I would love to see the ststion adapted a la Antwerp, with deep-level platforms (and through lines?) for HS2 - keeping the nice light relatively open-air station we have now. We also need to get rid of the diesel traction which fills the overbridge with stink, which could be done a lot sooner...

As it stands now, nothing get done to Crewe.

 

[AndrewE]

As it stands now, nothing get done to Crewe.

I was afraid of that. I don't see how the additional trains coming off HS2 can be handled - unless they use the through lines, which doesn't do much for the connectivity of the N Midlands. We need an extra additional hourly Brum to Preston service as it is.

 

[Nottingham59]

If you need HS2 to land on the fast lines on a grade separated junction south of Crewe, you end with this layout at the junction nominally. DS US DF HS2 HS2 UF. Depending on how you decide to build it, you are either leaving the UF where it is and need to shift the slows way off onto new alignments, or you slew the UF as well to reduce the realignment of the slows.
The Handsacre proposal was slightly different due to the line pairing being different. That was DS DF HS2 HS2 UF US. The up lines being significantly realigned.

Thank you. I see what you mean now. Will there be so much traffic on the Stafford-Crewe fasts that it need a grade separated junction at Whitmore?

With HS2 phase 2a to Whitmore, I can see:

• 6-8 tph HS2, which will go onto the fasts
• 2-4tph from the West-Midlands towards Liverpool and Preston, and 2tph from WCML Trent valley , which could merge onto the fasts at Whitmore, or run on the slows for a bit to a new flat crossover in the vicinity of Madeley, or go all the way to Crewe on the slows
• 2-5tph freights, which would run on the slows (i.e. twice as many freights as now)

A flat junction would need care to timetable, but surely no worse than Ledburn or Hanslope today.

Am I missing something? Most of the passenger traffic north from Stafford would head towards Stoke, via the Norton Bridge underpass.

I was afraid of that. I don't see how the additional trains coming off HS2 can be handled - unless they use the through lines, which doesn't do much for the connectivity of the N Midlands. We need an extra additional hourly Brum to Preston service as it is.

Will the HS2 trains be additional, though? Most HS2 trains will replace services to Euston. The more detail I see, the more it seems that capacity at Crewe and Weaver are the constraints to HS2 phase 1, rather than Colwich. The northern mayors should be prioritising a Crewe bypass rather than Phase 2a

 

[Snow1964]

If only small fraction of the trains are expected to leave at a junction then it can be simplified, the simplest is to separate the tracks and have a reversible spur between the tracks. The line simply uses a flyover or flyunder and joins between the tracks, big cost savings in bridges as they tend to be long as track is crossing at very shallow angle. It also has advantage that don't cross a track on level so no conflicting moves of train going opposite direction.

If the main high speed line is extended to south of Crewe, could use one of these at Hansacre (for trains towards Stafford) and where it crosses the line towards Stoke on Trent. Neither is likely to see more than one train per hour each direction (and probably less).

There is also a fair chance don't actually need 2 extra tracks for the few miles south of Crewe to the new junction, might be able to add just one, and have a central third reversible fast. Even if this section was 10 miles long trains should clear it in under 4 minutes (assuming 140mph min running). Not going to be many times a day when trains are running at more than 15 per hour.

 

[AndrewE]

The northern mayors should be prioritising a Crewe bypass rather than Phase 2a

No they shouldn't. (Or the only bypass should be additional platforms on the HS2 lines.) This is about improving the UK connectivity outside London. It's not just about faster or more trains direct from a few places to London, shoudn't be at all, in my opinion. Salop and Stoke (and all the places served through them) need better connections and more services to the wider "north." We also need to free up capacity at Crewe for more NE-SW and NW-SE services - and not by taking out the trains which do call at Crewe! The "fast" Euston-Glasgows already skip the station, with a serious adverse effect for many journeys down the WCML where a connection at Crewe would make a big difference to the attractiveness of a rail journey.