HS2 Northern Branches Discussion

[PR1Berske]

Warrington (as now is) was considered as the final piece of the SELNEC puzzle, of course

 

[LE Greys]

London mega-terminus ideas were considered, but the traffic arriving at one station would be far far too much. More Parisian solutions (after all they have Nord, l'Est, St Laziere, Montpasse, Lyon - and that's with some merging - is Bercy still a terminus?) of through-the-middle routes for suburban branches to relieve terminals happened with the Underground in the 1860s onwards to WW2 and then Crossrails were proposed to do that and didn't get built (Ada, Phyllis etc finally putting a stop to that - Thameslink being a reopening and upgrade of a 19th century scheme).Other than it being near-impossible to disperse that massive volume of traffic - even if you get the middle distance stuff (if not the long-distance stuff as well) stopping at a couple of stops (say 3 or 4 E-W, and 2 or 3 N-S) as it heads through Central London. Oh, and most of our terminals are listed historical sites. Even dealing with the approach tracks (Marylebone 2, Fenchurch Street 2, Paddington 2 (Crossrail takes the slows), St Pancras 4, Kings Cross 2, Liverpool Street 6, Waterloo 8, London Bridge 11, Victoria 8, Euston 4) and pairing them up, you still get a whopping 24 tracks needing to call at this Hauptbahnhopf.

AIUI, there was also a rule that no railway may extend south of the Euston Road. Some got round it by going under the Euston Road, but the idea was to stick the termini out in the country (as it was then) rather than have noisy, smoky railways coming right into London. The possibility of through traffic did not really occur, and London was the goal for most railways at the time anyway. Watkyn, who built the Great Central later on, thought differently. He bought the South Eastern as well as the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire, the idea being a Channel Tunnel to link up with the Chemin de Fer du Nord, but it simply never happened (a combination of cost and WWI probably being why). The South Eastern was sold, and then merged with the London, Chatham and Dover. Thing is, this happened very late, long after the Railway Mania, which saw most of the main lines built.

 

[steamdrivenand]

I believe that Mr Portillo reckoned the problem was that in the UK railways were built piecemeal as and when funding could be raised for any particular project, whereas the likes of Germany etc had their railways strictly planned by their government with strategic and military objectives in mind.
Yet another example of democracy losing out to more autocratic forms of governance, just as in China these days.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Warrington (as now is) was considered as the final piece of the SELNEC puzzle, of course

Where did you obtain this piece of information..hock:

If Warrington was ever provisionally considered for SELNEC, it was kept very quiet. It would have gravitated more to the Merseyside area, had a hard and fast decision ever been a requirement of choice between these two areas, whereas Wigan became part of what is currently loosely described as the Greater Manchester confederation of ten local authorities.

 

[PR1Berske]

Where did you obtain this piece of information..hock:

If Warrington was ever provisionally considered for SELNEC, it was kept very quiet. It would have gravitated more to the Merseyside area, had a hard and fast decision ever been a requirement of choice between these two areas, whereas Wigan became part of what is currently loosely described as the Greater Manchester confederation of ten local authorities.

I bought the Radcliffe-Maud report from Amazon some time ago And it's mentioned in a fair few reports of the time, as I recall.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I bought the Radcliffe-Maud report from Amazon some time ago And it's mentioned in a fair few reports of the time, as I recall.

Ah, I now see that you have gone back even further in time than the 1974 events as regards to SELNEC. The Radcliffe-Maud report to which you refer covers the time period of 1966-1969 and covered the matter of the Royal Commission of Local Government in England, which I think had an area referred to as SELNEC as area 23 in its summations.

However, matters subsequently made progressions and in 1974, the re-organisation of such matters saw the establishment of a two-tier system of Local Government which lasted until its abolition in 1986 which made the metropolitan boroughs into unitary authorities, which itself was made subject to further refinement in 1990.

Most people see SELNEC as the 1969/1970 entity that developed transport strategic planning in what is now termed Greater Manchester.

 

[Rational Plan]

There is such a thing as growing the market. The number of passengers traveling between these cities will not stay fixed. There will also be political pressure for the line to be shown to taking traffic away from the airlines etc.

There will be European services launched from North of London. The data I showed does tend to suggest that the main city pairs will Birmingham/Manchester to Paris and Brussels/Amsterdam. While current channel tunnel traffic regs say the trains must be 400m long that is not set in stone, or the restriction could bypassed by splitting services either side of the tunnel.

5 services a day to Amsterdam and Paris will be more than enough to satisfy business travel demands. Extra leisure destinations could be added to run in off peak periods. Even this level of service will not add up to one train an hour on the main line.

 

[pablo]

I think the short formed E* sets that were intended for NoL service, that later went to the GNER, ended up with SNCF who removed the shoes and rebranded them as TGVs. One half set was retained for spares and the other used for testing on HS1 before opening. Where are they now when you need them.....?

 

[nerd]

I put this together in November following an informal briefing given in Manchester by Oakervee (HS2 Ltd Chaiman). It was then my best guess for the forthcoming NW route announcement. I think it still stands.

The key point is that any extension of the Phase 2 western arm north of Manchester, will be conditional on Phase 3 link to Scotland being onto the west. If the Scots decide to link east, then there will be no justification for a high speed route into Lancashire. Since the Scots have not yet made their minds up, there can be no definite announcement of either the west or east Phase 2 terminating configurations.

This has the added advantage of lopping quite a lot of cost off the western arm of Phase 2 (by effectively deferring it to Phase 3). The downside is that the Phase 2 Scots classic-compatible services (linking onto HS2 at Manchester or at Crewe, won't be much faster that the Phase 1 services. But that is due to the Scots not yet being able to make their minds up - which is another story.

In my view, Oakervee's station location statement, hints at Mayfield (or at any case the south side of Piccadilly) for the Phase 2 terminus. I don't think Oakervee is describing a through HSR station, but rather that there will be a link from the HS line south of Manchester onto the classic lines at Platforms 15 and 16 at Piccadilly. So - at Phase 2 - one classic compatible service per hour will be able to run from Scotland along the WCML into Manc (probably through Bolton, possibly Eccles), stop at platform 15/16, and join the HSR route southeast of Piccadilly, to continue south to Euston. Another classic compatible service from Scotland will do the same; but terminate at Brum

While one Scots classic compatible service per hour will continue along the main WCML, and join up with HS2 Phase 2 south of Crewe.

There will be no tunnel under Altrincham at Phase 2, and no captive link northwards from Manchester - at least not while the Scots have yet to decide which side their Phase 3 route will go.

So:

- the western HS2 arm to go west of Stoke,
- a spur onto the WCML north of Keele and south of Crewe,
- no separate HS station at Crewe, (or Stoke),
- two, hourly classic-compatibles from Lime Street onto the HS lline, and stopping at Runcorn and Crewe,
- western HS2 arm to go northwards to Davenport Green, and on to central Manc,
- no Phase 2 tunnel from Davenport Green under Altrincham,
- Manchester terminal at Mayfield,
- link from Phase 2 into Piccadilly platforms 15 & 16, to allow classic compatible services from Scotland to pass through Manchester at Phase 2.
- joint study with Transport Scotland to report back to both agencies on Scotland-England preferred route before mid-summer next year.
- in the event of Scotland deciding that Phase 3 will go west, there will be a Phase 3 link from the line between Crewe and Manc towards the northwest (which I still expect to be under Altrincham),
- plans for 'fast' Lime Street services via Culcheth to be conditional on Phase 3 to Scotland going west.
- if Phase 3 goes west, there will no longer be captive Scots services through Manchester to London or Brum (though possibly through Davenport Green),
- post Phase 3, there may be classic compatible services from Scotland through Victoria to Leeds.
- if Phase 3 goes east, ther may be classic compatible services from Scotland to Victoria via Leeds Central

 

[Haydn1971]

Hmmm... Interesting hypothesis and certainly a sound argument - with one flaw, getting captive trains up the WCML from Keele into Manchester. A task that would require extensive route clearance on the busiest line in the country and a task that is sidestepped by having a new line all the way into Manchester.

 

[steamdrivenand]

It's nice to get back where we started.

BTW the ID should read 'Steamdrivenand'y' but the Forum has a limit on the length of IDs.

I guess you're suggesting a line following my suggested alignment although I wonder whether it makes sense to build a new link 'north of Keele/south of Crewe' when the HS line would have to cross the existing Crewe/Stoke line west of Alsager and that could be upgraded. That is provided they don't mind nudging the side of a gurt great ammunition factory!
Of course they could engineer their way through/around the 'kinks' on the WCML and run closely parallel with the WCML Stafford/Crewe alignment and then no link line would be needed. However once you reach Crewe on that basis you're in trouble because you're into town destruction to give HS elbow room to go north or north east from there.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Hmmm... Interesting hypothesis and certainly a sound argument - with one flaw, getting captive trains up the WCML from Keele into Manchester. A task that would require extensive route clearance on the busiest line in the country and a task that is sidestepped by having a new line all the way into Manchester.

I didn't read it that way H. The link would not be for 'captives' but for 'compatibles' heading off to Merseyside, North Wales, Scotland etc via Crewe. 'Captives' to Manc would carry on north on the new HS track paralleling the M6 to some extent. Any link would have to be put in north of Madeley where the WCML runs in a deepish cutting and when it reaches open land it's downhill all the way into Crewe. However there are some very recent, very expensive large housing developments with golf courses attached south of Crewe which would limit the options.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I've been thinking about the HS/Crewe link whilst walking the dog.

At present south of Crewe on the WCML it's 4 track. If you run compatibles down that track and they bear east on the HS link then effectively the 4 tracks south of there are empty and unused, unless you can squeeze a train across from the slow track. However whatever you do it's limiting capacity on the old WCML.

The solution would be to put in 2 extra tracks south of Crewe up to the HS Link junction which would keep compatibles out of the WCML environment until Crewe station. That would keep WCML capacity at optimum and give operational flexibilty in case of track issues just south of Crewe.

 

[Haydn1971]

Like building motorways in the past, when building a new railway, you don't have to follow existing routes. Roads were originally built to link villages, these were gradually upgraded until the motorways came along. This provided an opportunity to bypass places that were once important and concentrate on the places that are important now.

Why on earth would anyone wish to travel through and/or stop at Crewe, Doncaster or similar today, they wish to travel directly between the core business centres of today, not 150 years ago, thus building a new railway now offers the opportunity to bypass places that are no longer of any modern significance to modern or indeed future travellers.

 

[steamdrivenand]

Exactly Haydn, That's why HS2 will grind on north to Manchester whilst the 'Compatibles' come off around Crewe and link to their different routes. Presumably from Crewe you'd be able to catch a 'Classic' down the WCML at current speeds or pick up a 'Compatible' to head darn sarf at HS speeds. What you won't be able to get is a 'Captive'. Certainly using that layout gives an excuse for not building a new HS station between Birmingham and Manc. However if Crewe is to be used that way then it does need the whole surrounding street and building infrastructure sorted for the future.

 

[si404]

If the main link to the WCML is at Crewe, you really need the link in the Manchester area, otherwise phase-2 is nearly pointless for anywhere north of Manchester. A similar connection in central Leeds might also be built, depending on approach to the city, etc, though I struggle to see how useful for Newcastle services that would be (unlike Manchester for Scotland services) - simply a cost-saving measure to avoid building a few miles of track to save a few minutes and some capacity on the eastern-approach to Leeds.

If the link is at Crewe, and will serve Crewe, we'll see the link at Lichfield becoming disused - Stafford isn't worth it! Also, we'll continue to see big complaints from Liverpool about phase-2 as it takes about 5 minutes off of Liverpool times but 20 off of Manchester times. The link needs to be Weaver Junction or (best for Scotland via WCML and Manchester) Culcheth, with Crewe getting either the back end of a 2x200m classic compatible train, or one of the 2 Liverpool services.

The link being at Crewe will also drag the route much further west than it needs to go - Crewe is the most-western point of the WCML south of the ship canal, and while Manchester is west of Lichfield, the direct route between the airport and the end of phase-1 would be east of Stoke.

 

[tbtc]

Like building motorways in the past, when building a new railway, you don't have to follow existing routes. Roads were originally built to link villages, these were gradually upgraded until the motorways came along. This provided an opportunity to bypass places that were once important and concentrate on the places that are important now.

Why on earth would anyone wish to travel through and/or stop at Crewe, Doncaster or similar today, they wish to travel directly between the core business centres of today, not 150 years ago, thus building a new railway now offers the opportunity to bypass places that are no longer of any modern significance to modern or indeed future travellers.

This is the point that I've tried to make about York - which is a long way east of a straight line between Leeds and Newcastle. Same goes for Stafford.

 

[steamdrivenand]

I think you guys might be missing the point for both Manc & Leeds.
Surely the HS lines should be spines that run up the country with links off to the stations? If Birmingham works like that then there's absolutely no reason why Leeds/Manc should have the HS lines running right through. Far cheaper and less disruptive to build an in/out with triangle.
As for Crewe and maybe York it's by far the easiest way to run 'Compatibles' up the HS and then turn them off for a wide range of destinations - North Wales, Liverpool, a local stopper into Manc or straight north to Preston and Scotland. If you position the junction further north there's no station, unless you build one at great expense and the possibility that some services might have to run south back on themselves which makes no sense. Maybe an HS spur into Manchester Airport would be the answer there, without troubling the good citizens of Alderley etc and no need for disruption and cost of taking the line onward into Manchester from due south.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This is the point that I've tried to make about York - which is a long way east of a straight line between Leeds and Newcastle. Same goes for Stafford.

But the HS would bypass Crewe, Stoke etc, passing about 6 or 7 miles east of Crewe and maybe slightly further west of Stoke through relatively easy engineering-wise country. It would skim the eastern edge of Stafford because of where it starts at Lichfield, paralleling the M6 (but not necessarily on top of it), thereby not adding a further transport corridor with additional noise pollution etc issues.

I'm not really sure where York comes in this discussion as it's well north east of Leeds where the HS2 plans will terminate for the present.

 

[Moses2000]

I'm afraid the position isn't even that bright! The figures you quote from the CAA are "to and from" so for Paris rather than 1,211 from Manchester it is only 605. (The other 605 are coming in from Paris). This provides for less than one train per day. As stated elsewhere the challenge will probably not be capacity but whether its worth having Border Agency Staff for just one train per day. More you look at it the more likely it seems that International trains will only be available from OAC.

 

[Haydn1971]

I think you guys might be missing the point for both Manc & Leeds.

Who ? Me. ?

Surely the HS lines should be spines that run up the country with links off to the stations? If Birmingham works like that then there's absolutely no reason why Leeds/Manc should have the HS lines running right through. Far cheaper and less disruptive to build an in/out with triangle.

That's exactly how I envisage the lines will work - Manc & Leeds being similar to Bitmingham, with South Yorks, East Mids, Brum Inter & Old Oak being online.

I'm not really sure where York comes in this discussion as it's well north east of Leeds where the HS2 plans will terminate for the present.

Doesn't this statement conflict with the above ? HS2 Phase 2 has to link to classic rail somewhere, that somewhere is likely to be the ECML. North of York for a straighter line, south of York for better connections to East Yorkshire

 

[steamdrivenand]

Who ? Me. ?

Not so much you Haydn.

That's exactly how I envisage the lines will work - Manc & Leeds being similar to Birmingham, with South Yorks, East Mids, Brum Inter & Old Oak being online.


Doesn't this statement conflict with the above ? HS2 Phase 2 has to link to classic rail somewhere, that somewhere is likely to be the ECML. North of York for a straighter line, south of York for better connections to East Yorkshire

That's as I see it too although I've not given much thought to the eastern arm. I guess they'd want to keep fairly east away from the hills and valleys of the edge of the Peaks and run it into the ECML a little north of a spur into Leeds. Presumably this would be well south of York and capable of being extended northwards over the Vale in due course without running east into York itself. That keeps the 'spine' principle intact with some links being HS standard and others being Classic.

It depends where they envisage placing the parkway station for South Yorks/East Mids really. On my suggested scheme you could almost say that Crewe would mirror the parkway eastern station, albeit not operating online.

 

[Haydn1971]

I'd like to think the eastern line from Brum to Leeds would take a line as direct as possible whilst avoiding major urban areas and hilly areas between East Midlands Airport (area) to a point somewhere near Thirsk, with a spur to Leeds and a slip onto the Leeds-Selby line to provide classic compatable services in York and an ongoing route to the ECML on as fast a route possible for future improvements north.

However, what i expect is some half baked hash of an alignment that neither serves Leeds perfectly, nor suits the most direct route ultimately north to Tyneside and the Central Belt. It's what we normally get

 

[bangor-toad]

Hi there,
I had too much free time on my hands a few months back and sketched out my ideas for the eastern arm of HS2b. These are on page 66 of the main HS2 Discussion thread http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1076710 or you can look at them on the freebie website I did:

http://www.hs2routeideas.freehosting.com
The site seems to have an almost random quality as to when it's actually visible - if it's missing when you look, try again later as it invariably opos back up!

Cheers,
Jason

 

[steamdrivenand]

I bet they'll slot it in around Church Fenton/Sherburn dans le Helmet way before the line goes too far east, with a triangle link off to the west for Leeds a tad south of there. That'll mean Compatibles for York and further north 'til it's extended further, if ever, and Captives for Leeds

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

That's exactly how I envisage the lines will work - Manc & Leeds being similar to Bitmingham.

Is that the Anglo-Saxon spelling of that settlement ?

 

[Haydn1971]

Of course, right next to the village of Wolvingtonhampton and down the road from the hamlet of Sorryhill.

 

[steamdrivenand]

Is that the Anglo-Saxon spelling of that settlement ?

It's main station is Newt Street

 

[si404]

I think you guys might be missing the point for both Manc & Leeds.
Surely the HS lines should be spines that run up the country with links off to the stations? If Birmingham works like that then there's absolutely no reason why Leeds/Manc should have the HS lines running right through. Far cheaper and less disruptive to build an in/out with triangle.

In an ideal world, it would. However bare in mind that the lines will basically end on the mainlines not that far from these cities.

As the WCML link is likely to be really far south at Crewe and the Manchester station is (a bit less likely, but still what the rumor mill is churning out) at Mayfield, then some sort of cheap connection to the lines approaching Piccadilly, just before the Mayfield terminus starts would be far superior for Scotland services to use. Leeds is a question of where the approach is - if the west, then a cheap link in the vicinity of the station is going to be a lot cheaper than a long skirting line that simply ends just the other side of the urban area.

Obviously any phase-3 would bypass these urban areas, but we're a long way off that even coming to the drawing board. The High Speed Routes would avoid running through the cities - you'd have the line in from Birmingham, and a link near the station for captive trains that allows classic compatible trains to head north on the existing network. I'm certainly not proposing that Manchester or Leeds be on the main route northwards for the actual line - just that to avoid building bypass lines for these large urban areas as part of phase-2 you build a short link. The Crewe proposal for a WCML tie in is 20, if not 30, miles too far south from the optimum location for serving Liverpool - let alone Scotland. Scotland services would gain lots from going via Manchester rather than joining the WCML at Crewe (not least two birds, one stone, less passenger trains needed on the WCML n of Preston).

As for Crewe and maybe York it's by far the easiest way to run 'Compatibles' up the HS and then turn them off for a wide range of destinations - North Wales

No room. Electrification required. Little demand.

Liverpool

Better via a connection further north, so some actual benefit could be had from phase-2. Crewe can be served via the chord at Lichfield either by one of the two Liverpool services, or by the London-end of a 2x200m classic-compatible split-join at Birmingham Int (bonus of also being able to keep serving Stoke, Stafford and Stockport post-phase 2).

a local stopper into Manc

Why? What does that serve other than some small villages between Crewe and the edge of the urban area (which would be served with two main-route stations).

straight north to Preston and Scotland.

also better with a connection further north - ideally Culceth, but central Manchester wouldn't be too bad - certainly better than Crewe.

If you position the junction further north there's no station, unless you build one at great expense and the possibility that some services might have to run south back on themselves which makes no sense.

You don't need a station there. You are forcing services to either run a lot further on classic lines, or head west north west only to head back north east (ie Manchester services would gain at least 15% over a more optimal routing)

Maybe an HS spur into Manchester Airport would be the answer there, without troubling the good citizens of Alderley etc and no need for disruption and cost of taking the line onward into Manchester from due south.

Err what are you smoking - the chuffing main route is going to have to go that way - especially if coming from the Crewe area. The Airport area is the only candidate still standing for the Outskirts station.

paralleling the M6 (but not necessarily on top of it), thereby not adding a further transport corridor with additional noise pollution etc issues.

That would be repeating the one mistake of HS1's routing. HS2 is far more clever than creating a wide path of destruction (thanks to islands sandwiched between the two routes) to avoid creating another, but far narrower in total area destroyed, corridor. OK, the M6 in Staffs is far from being as bad for that as the M40 in Bucks and Oxon, however HS2 Ltd strongly believe that creating such islands is a very bad move (though they might not get their way - they look as if the foot is going to come down and they have to build the we-wouldn't-even-want-it-magicked-there-for-free Heathrow branch that does nothing but sap capacity and give the average user a longer journey on Crossrail than changing at Old Oak).

 

[stockport1]

what is the possibility of WCML from crewe becoming HS2?

140mph with ETMS
Four track winsford\weaver jn and quadtrack crewe to manchester via new airport station?

or msome derivative of this

 

[rebmcr]

what is the possibility of WCML from crewe becoming HS2?

140mph with ETMS
Four track winsford\weaver jn and quadtrack crewe to manchester via new airport station?

or msome derivative of this

HS2 is at least 400km/h (≈250mph).

 

[HSTEd]

HS2 is at least 400km/h (≈250mph).

The alignment will be good for 400km/hr.

It will operate at 320kph (and maybe 360kph if the politicians beat the engineers)

 

[rebmcr]

The alignment will be good for 400km/hr.

It will operate at 320kph (and maybe 360kph if the politicians beat the engineers)

Yes, that's why it says route in the thread title.