HS2 Northern Branches Discussion

[steamdrivenand]

Hi,

I live in Goostrey, and am worried. In fact, I don't think I've ever looked forward to a Monday so much!

Looking at the news articles and speculation online to try and piece together possible routes, I don't understand how on the one hand HS lines need to be as straight as possible for speed purposes, yet there is a report that it will run at some point alongside the M56. Coming from Crewe, I can see how - as Cheshire East Council want - it could run along the M6, but then it would have to curve around to the right as it came to the M56. I am a novice about his kind of thing, so sorry if I've come across as stupid.

Any peace of mind you could give to a worried resident would be much appreciated.

I don't think you should be too worried in Goostrey as I suspect they'll slip the line between Holmes Chapel and M6. Maybe they'll then have to take a v wide arc around Tatton and bring the line in under the Airport. That would be really pandering to Mr Osborne and his voters.

 

[Philip Elliott]

The four paths per hour that we save by doing this could be used for numerous things that might bring benefits to the "damaged" stations.
I think it is far better overall.

Millions of passengers would disagree with you. Slower, less frequent services would kill off these stations. Put all the existing Wolves, Coventry and Rugby passengers onto the one train and it will be hideously overcrowded.

Stop looking at it as some academic solution and start to think about the people that would use it.

 

[HSTEd]

Millions of passengers would disagree with you. Slower, less frequent services would kill off these stations. Put all the existing Wolves, Coventry and Rugby passengers onto the one train and it will be hideously overcrowded.

Since Birmingham International will be reached 30 minutes quicker by a High Speed service than the conventional one we can expect significant transfer of passengers there onto the Wolverhampton service for stations to Wolverhampton.
That would significantly reduce loadings over the southern part of the route serving places like Coventry and Rugby.

Additionally the Manchester service could probably be induced to stop at Rugby, actually giving an improvement in the overall frequency there, which would take some of the load off the West Midlands service.

Stop looking at it as some academic solution and start to think about the people that would use it.

You seem to be arguing that we should preserve the existing service pattern in aspic for the sake of some relatively minor locations. Coventry is increasingly just another suburb of Birmingham for instance.

And you can do a lot with four paths an hour being freed up.

 

[tbtc]

Millions of passengers would disagree with you. Slower, less frequent services would kill off these stations. Put all the existing Wolves, Coventry and Rugby passengers onto the one train and it will be hideously overcrowded

The 390s aren't the only trains on the line.

There's still going to be plenty of "semi fast" services on the line, presumably some of the current LM services would continue to run via Northampton and some would run "fast" between Milton Keynes and Rugby.

 

[Padav]

Understandably today, speculation on the precise route of phase 2 is rampant with the announcement of the preferred route confirmed for tomorrow.

I must admit to a degree of confusion right now

The Telegraph article includes a map purporting to show the approximate route for phase 2 added to phase 1 for comparison purposes - I've attached the image here.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ced-for-backlash-over-HS2-northern-route.html

What has confused me is the apparent inclusion of a full spec High Speed link to Liverpool. Now, to the best of my knowledge this never formed part of the brief for phase 2 - the plan was to link Liverpool into HS2 via a spur from phase 2 to the WCML and utilising Classic Compatible Rolling Stock.

What's intriguing here is that the original brief for the Western Arm of phase 2, to link Manchester directly and provide a spur to the WCML for onward routed trainservices to other city locations (inclucing Liverpool) would, logically, have seen a much more direct route than that now "revealed" by the Telegraph - a spur line to Crewe yes but a hub station at Crewe with separate branches to Liverpool and Manchester - NOT in the original brief?

I smell political interference here and the trail leads directly to the door of George Osborne. Under the original plan, a more direct route (which saves loads of money!) would be much further to the east. Now with Crewe directly on the route, the line can conveniently skirt much of Mr. Osborne's constituency instead of cutting straight through its heartlands.

Is a full spec High Speed Line from Crewe to Liverpool really now part of phase 2 - I have my doubts - but it may be provided as an optional future extra, offering a useful sop to the Merseyside lobby, which has been in overdrive for the last couple of years trying to seek parity with its arch rivals down the East Lancs road?

It seems that this relatively late change in design brief might also have provided Mr. Osborne with a fig leaf to hide his politically motivated interference in the final phase 2 route?

Now I'm left figuring out how the phase 2 line is going to avoid Tatton Park, whilst still providing a through running station at Manchester Airport and onward into Manchester City Centre (Mayfield as the site of terminus station?)

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Understandably today, speculation on the precise route of phase 2 is rampant with the announcement of the preferred route confirmed for tomorrow.

I must admit to a degree of confusion right now

The Telegraph article includes a map purporting to show the approximate route for phase 2 added to phase 1 for comparison purposes - I've attached the image here.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ced-for-backlash-over-HS2-northern-route.html

What has confused me is the apparent inclusion of a full spec High Speed link to Liverpool. Now, to the best of my knowledge this never formed part of the brief for phase 2 - the plan was to link Liverpool into HS2 via a spur from phase 2 to the WCML and utilising Classic Compatible Rolling Stock.

What's intriguing here is that the original brief for the Western Arm of phase 2, to link Manchester directly and provide a spur to the WCML for onward routed trainservices to other city locations (inclucing Liverpool) would, logically, have seen a much more direct route than that now "revealed" by the Telegraph - a spur line to Crewe yes but a hub station at Crewe with separate branches to Liverpool and Manchester - NOT in the original brief?

I smell political interference here and the trail leads directly to the door of George Osborne. Under the original plan, a more direct route (which saves loads of money!) would be much further to the east. Now with Crewe directly on the route, the line can conveniently skirt much of Mr. Osborne's constituency instead of cutting straight through its heartlands.

Is a full spec High Speed Line from Crewe to Liverpool really now part of phase 2 - I have my doubts - but it may be provided as an optional future extra, offering a useful sop to the Merseyside lobby, which has been in overdrive for the last couple of years trying to seek parity with its arch rivals down the East Lancs road?

It seems that this relatively late change in design brief might also have provided Mr. Osborne with a fig leaf to hide his politically motivated interference in the final phase 2 route?

Now I'm left figuring out how the phase 2 line is going to avoid Tatton Park, whilst still providing a through running station at Manchester Airport and onward into Manchester City Centre (Mayfield as the site of terminus station?)

I think it is just artistic licence, it doesn't show the delta junction east of Birmingham either.

 

[Haydn1971]

The Telegraph article includes a map purporting to show the approximate route for phase 2 added to phase 1 for comparison purposes - I've attached the image here.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ced-for-backlash-over-HS2-northern-route.html

I suspect that plan was developed by some ill informed graduate reporter who hasn't a clue about major projects and will be proven completely wrong tomorrow.

For that reason, I'm not going to entertain route and path threads today, as everything will change by lunchtime tomorrow.

I'll show my backside in Harrods front window if that plan is accurate.

A further point is that politics doesn't come into the route - the route has to offer a good return on investment to ensure the private investment that will fund the project feels comfortable with making a profit as early as possible. Talk of routes being moved to suit ministers has always tickled me as a civil engineer, the politicians have limited power in isolation and in my 25 years of engineering and architecture, beyond the concept of do we or don't we, the only thing an MP or councillor has pursuaded me to do in billions of pounds worth of work is to get me to appease a voter by moving a sign, shifting a crossing a few 10's of metres or erect a noise barrier. The power of veto is firmly with the officers who run the country on a daily basis.

 

[PR1Berske]

Where will the statement be made? Because, somewhat against good practice, it's not being made in the House

http://services.parliament.uk/calendar/#!/calendar/Commons/MainChamber/2013/1/28/events.html

 

[Chris125]

Understandably today, speculation on the precise route of phase 2 is rampant with the announcement of the preferred route confirmed for tomorrow.

I must admit to a degree of confusion right now

The Telegraph article includes a map purporting to show the approximate route for phase 2 added to phase 1 for comparison purposes - I've attached the image here.

There's really no point trying to read anything into that Map, it's clearly wrong and if a dedicated line was being built to Liverpool we'd be well aware of it by now.

As for George Osborne, there are perfectly valid reasons for going west of Stoke - i'm sure the documentation will explain HS2 Ltd's thinking on Monday.

Where will the statement be made? Because, somewhat against good practice, it's not being made in the House

Leeds apparently, probably at the site of the new station... somewhere in the Holbeck area would be my guess.

Chris

 

[Holly]

I'm wondering whether a separate station is needed at all. After all the mention of 'southbound only' suggests a spur with the HS line running somewhere nearby. Effectively that means Compatible trains only through Crewe Station and that might be accommodated within the existing station area. ...

It would be perfectly feasible to build some turnback bays for Captive HS trains adjoining the existing station immediately to the south. And perhaps extending one or two of the longest existing platforms to provide a cross platform transfer.
You also have to build an HS Traction Maintenance Depot somewhere, Crewe is an ideal location.

 

[steamdrivenand]

Whilst I agree there's plenty of space for a Depot Holly I can't see why you'd position it at Crewe. Ideally it would be near the end of each 'arm' or somewhere near the centre of the HS network, Crewe doesn't fulfil any of those criteria.

Why would you want to start and end Captive running from Crewe when you need Compatibles to run through Crewe to Chester/Liverpool/Scotland etc and Captives need to run to/from Man. Central and Man Airport?

The simpler way is for all north west Captives to start/end at Manchester and for Crewe to be the access/egress point for Compatibles to the other Classic destinations. Don't forget that Compatibles are highly flexible and can run at line speed on both HS and Classic lines, whilst Captives have to stick to HS only. Building an HS Spur into Crewe is of no practical use, but building a Classic spur into Crewe would be useful, if you have to use Crewe at all.

 

[Rational Plan]

I think there many valid reasons for not going East of Stoke. Chiefly that it is closer to the Peak District and with the terrain being more rugged. So politically it may be more difficult to go East and it may be more expensive if lots of viaducts and tunnels are needed.

 

[steamdrivenand]

A further point is that politics doesn't come into the route - the route has to offer a good return on investment to ensure the private investment that will fund the project feels comfortable with making a profit as early as possible. Talk of routes being moved to suit ministers has always tickled me as a civil engineer, the politicians have limited power in isolation and in my 25 years of engineering and architecture, beyond the concept of do we or don't we, the only thing an MP or councillor has persuaded me to do in billions of pounds worth of work is to get me to appease a voter by moving a sign, shifting a crossing a few 10's of metres or erect a noise barrier. The power of veto is firmly with the officers who run the country on a daily basis.

Except the preferred HS2 line plan was handed over to the DfT last March and it's taken them nearly a year to get it published. When it was given to them they said it would take 5 or 6 months to publish. So what have they been doing to it in the extra 5 months?

The Ministers pronouncements clearly show that they expect some horse trading over the route they're publishing tomorrow, so they're expecting to change stuff but tomorrow will be the best compromise they can reach, hoping to have drawn any number of stings beforehand.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think there many valid reasons for not going East of Stoke. Chiefly that it is closer to the Peak District and with the terrain being more rugged. So politically it may be more difficult to go East and it may be more expensive if lots of viaducts and tunnels are needed.

As well as being more rugged terrain to the east you'd also exit the Peak foothills slap bang through Alderley/Wilmslow with all the aggro that would generate. Running west allows the line to be on better terrain and in a major transport corridor, with a much lower density of potential NIMBYs. So politically the western route is probably better.

 

[rebmcr]

Except the preferred HS2 line plan was handed over to the DfT last March and it's taken them nearly a year to get it published. When it was given to them they said it would take 5 or 6 months to publish. So what have they been doing to it in the extra 5 months?

Shifting personnel into dealing with the WCML fallout, I would imagine.

 

[HSTEd]

Why would you want to start and end Captive running from Crewe when you need Compatibles to run through Crewe to Chester/Liverpool/Scotland etc and Captives need to run to/from Man. Central and Man Airport?

Bays could prove useful in times of disruption and the like and it would seem foolish to not provide them if they could be provided at relatively low cost.

The simpler way is for all north west Captives to start/end at Manchester and for Crewe to be the access/egress point for Compatibles to the other Classic destinations. Don't forget that Compatibles are highly flexible and can run at line speed on both HS and Classic lines, whilst Captives have to stick to HS only. Building an HS Spur into Crewe is of no practical use, but building a Classic spur into Crewe would be useful, if you have to use Crewe at all.

Remember a "HS Spur" is just a "Classic Spur" with an extra metre of vertical clearance and a few inches more horizontal clearance.
Providing the additional top clearance at Crewe along with full length 400m platforms is not going to break the bank, since the approach tracks will be newbuild anyway.

 

[Padav]

As well as being more rugged terrain to the east you'd also exit the Peak foothills slap bang through Alderley/Wilmslow with all the aggro that would generate. Running west allows the line to be on better terrain and in a major transport corridor, with a much lower density of potential NIMBYs. So politically the western route is probably better.

I'm sorry how have you worked that one out @steamdrivenand?

You can quite easily navigate a route effectively north east of the Stoke conurbation, run beneath Brown Edge and Mow Cop (the only really up and down topography involved) and still arrive just south west of Congleton, providing more than enough room to arc round to a more northerly direction, passing equidistant between Alderley/ Wilmslow and Knutsford, ie. not slap bang in the middle of and no real grief from either community - this means you are more or less south or south-south west of the runways at Manchester Airport.

This is the location where it seems the more probable original plan and the newer version now emerging in news stories (which I think has been interfered with by George Osborne) converge - from there you head under the runways (through running subterranean station linked to the existing classic station above by escalators/lifts), continue underneath Wythenshawe and emerge closer to the city centre (Baguley?), then run paralell to the Princess Parkway into the city centre itself (where the engineering gets really tricky whichever approach you take)

The point here is the more direct (and cheaper) route takes you straight through the middle of Tatton constituency - this new route referred to in press stories seems to skirt round the edges (of Tatton Constituency) and takes a mysteriously circuitous pathway - I am simply pondering about why this might be (or am I just being ultra cynical)?

As for the comment about infrastructure plans being immune to interference for politically expedient motives - well I just had to laugh at the naivety of it!

 

[Phlebas]

You can quite easily navigate a route effectively north east of the Stoke conurbation, run beneath Brown Edge and Mow Cop (the only really up and down topography involved)

I'm not sure about Brown Edge but it would be very expensive to tunnel through Mow Cop, we're talking about really hard gritstone.

I'm pretty sure the original specification only indicated a mile or so of tunnel between Lichfield and SW Manchester. That wouldn't be remotely possible if it went under both Brown Edge & Mow Cop. Either they were thinking of a more easterly route (east of Congleton) or west of Stoke all along.

 

[steamdrivenand]

Around Lichfield the lines running at 100m above sea level or less. Around Brown Edge the valleys are at 200m ASL or thereabouts with Brown Edge and the Mow Cop ridge reaching up towards 300m.

The WCML runs at around 100m all the way to Crewe which was why the route was chosen in the first place. The old North Staffs line that used to run below Brown Edge wasn't exactly a main line and whilst modern civil engineering could cope with the height changes and ridges in the alignments path it would be at high cost and why bother when there's an easier alternative?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

This is the location where it seems the more probable original plan and the newer version now emerging in news stories (which I think has been interfered with by George Osborne) converge - from there you head under the runways (through running subterranean station linked to the existing classic station above by escalators/lifts), continue underneath Wythenshawe and emerge closer to the city centre (Baguley?), then run parallel to the Princess Parkway into the city centre itself [/B ](where the engineering gets really tricky whichever approach you take.

Does this see much demolition of properties of the former Manchester Corporation housing estates at Mersey Bank, Withington and Alexandra Park and will it affect the very large Southern Cemetery ?

 

[Padav]

Does this see much demolition of properties of the former Manchester Corporation housing estates at Mersey Bank, Withington and Alexandra Park and will it affect the very large Southern Cemetery ?

There is no clear route into the city centre from the south - even if you come in from the east along the ship canal there are still big problems - of course any city centre approach is going to make use of deep bore tunnelling - that's a given

 

[steamdrivenand]

How much does it cost per mile to build in the open on relatively benign landscape and how much does it cost per mile to tunnel through gritstone?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There is no clear route into the city centre from the south - even if you come in from the east along the ship canal there are still big problems - of course any city centre approach is going to make use of deep bore tunneling - that's a given

May I be so bold as to enquire if you are aware that Manchester lies on top of no less than four geological fault lines, which any deep bore tunneling will need to take account of, as detailed below:-
The Ardwick fault
The East Manchester fault
The West Manchester fault
The Pendleton fault

 

[Padav]

Around Lichfield the lines running at 100m above sea level or less. Around Brown Edge the valleys are at 200m ASL or thereabouts with Brown Edge and the Mow Cop ridge reaching up towards 300m.

Which is why you tunnel under them?

You have more detailed knowledge of the rail alignments in these areas - I'm simply making the point that a direct route based on the original brief, ie a line to Manchester and spur to the WCML to facilitate other onward connections, takes the pathway I've described and saves a decent number of km on the overall point to point distance involved - it costs on average some tens of millions £ per km of high speed track so taking the direct route saves money?

I think there will be some questions posed about why the route effectively takes two sides of a triangle when one would have sufficed, particularly if that more direct route would result in increased local difficulties for George Osborne?

 

[Philip Elliott]

Since Birmingham International will be reached 30 minutes quicker by a High Speed service than the conventional one we can expect significant transfer of passengers there onto the Wolverhampton service for stations to Wolverhampton.
That would significantly reduce loadings over the southern part of the route serving places like Coventry and Rugby.

You do know that the two stations at the airport are a mile apart? Getting between is not going to be quick so I doubt people would ever bother.

You seem to be arguing that we should preserve the existing service pattern in aspic for the sake of some relatively minor locations. Coventry is increasingly just another suburb of Birmingham for instance.

And you can do a lot with four paths an hour being freed up.

Coventry is the 10th/11th largest city in the UK (300,000) and "becoming a suburb of Birmingham" is something that must be avoided.

What would you do with the "freed" paths?

 

[tbtc]

Coventry is the 10th/11th largest city in the UK (300,000) and "becoming a suburb of Birmingham" is something that must be avoided

Is it really the railway's role to preserve the independence of Coventry?

A lot of places are becoming virtually suburbs of neighbouring places, connurbations are merging. Bradford's relationship to Leeds is similar to Coventry's relationship with Birmingham. I think that the railway should concentrate on dealing with the reality of where people want to go, rather than worrying about political/ historic boundaries

 

[bangor-toad]

How much does it cost per mile to build in the open on relatively benign landscape and how much does it cost per mile to tunnel through gritstone?

Buried (pun not intended!) in the current Crossrail paperwork are some estimates for costs:

Building a new straight double allignment on flat simple terrain: Between £5 million and £20 million per mile.

New double track bored tunnel: Up to about £100 million per mile (geology dependant of course...)


This extra cost is significant.
What the Crossrail papers don't contain is any reference to the "Green Tunnels" which I suppose are the current equivalent of cut 'n' cover. Personally I'd hazard a guess for those at around £15 million to £30 million per mile but this is at best an educated guess.

Cheers,
Jason

 

[Padav]

May I be so bold as to enquire if you are aware that Manchester lies on top of no less than four geological fault lines, which any deep bore tunneling will need to take account of, as detailed below:-
The Ardwick fault
The East Manchester fault
The West Manchester fault
The Pendleton fault

No I don't know about those fault lines

Are you saying these fault lines preclude any attempt to tunnel under Manchester - I don't remember any mention of big problems caused by geological faults back in the 70s when an underground was planned - if you are saying this that means any attempt to tunnel under the city centred is doomed, which means there is a word to describe any plan for a HS2 city centre station in Manchester - that word begins with F and ends with D!

You don't really mean this do you - there will be a city centre station (it's looking more and more like Mayfield) and some of the approaches will be tunnelled?

 

[steamdrivenand]

New double track bored tunnel: Up to about £100 million per mile (geology dependant of course...)

I wonder if the figures are for gooey London clay as was shown on the TV last week oozing through a Crossrail boring machine or for real Northern gritstone?

Even drilling in the Chilterns will only be through relatively soft chalk.

 

[JohnB57]

Is it really the railway's role to preserve the independence of Coventry?

A lot of places are becoming virtually suburbs of neighbouring places, connurbations are merging. Bradford's relationship to Leeds is similar to Coventry's relationship with Birmingham. I think that the railway should concentrate on dealing with the reality of where people want to go, rather than worrying about political/ historic boundaries

Very true. And so refreshing that you're not at all concerned that Sheffield is rapidly becoming a suburb of Meadowhall.

 

[Haydn1971]

Times front page tomorrow (Monday)

http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/70808/the_times_monday_28th_january_2013.html

- East Midlands hub "between Derby and Nottingham" - isn't Toton in Nottingham rather between - I'm still thinking EMA
- Parkway Station at Manchester Airport and "branch" into Manchester - no suprise