HS2 - phase2 route announcement?

[Waverley125]

1) Yes, you could. You then have to resignal the entirety of City's station throat to 24tph. Given the slow acceleration of large numbers of trains leaving, and their need to cross, this is going to be incredibly expensive. Also incredibly inefficient as the only lines wired in the west (Wakefield & A&W) have their own bays and so would actually take up MORE capacity at City, not less.

2) Yeah, you couldn't run trains through Crown Point at 200 mph. Given Leeds is a city of a million people, all trains should be stopping there. Really don't see that as a problem. Building Crown Point as a through station would likely be a lot cheaper (given it requires one tunnel) than your alternative. You wouldn't need to rebuild City in any way (at least, not because of HS2) as the lines would run parallel for a bit in East Leedsm City would be unaffected

3) No, they wouldn't. The Eastern viaduct is already full at two lines, and is up for widening/eastern bays at Marsh Lane. There's no way you could double deck it and widen it, way too expensive and destructive. If HS trains do go into City, they definitely terminate there.

4) The Southeastern approach is easy-you join near Methley (in open country) you then run through the existing approach, where there's space for separate lines, you then leave that approach for Crown Point. No tunnelling, bridging of any kind is required.

5) Undercroft Concourse?? WHERE???? City opens out onto City Square, and you'd probably have to demolish the Queens Hotel to build your throughs (QH is listed, and a very important bit of the streetscape, so will never happen). The only place I can see would be Dark Neville Street (never going to happen) or Sovereign St. If the latter, this would at best reduce the size of the concourse, hugely increasing congestion on the station.

Let's just remember people, City station is full with the trains it already has. A lot of work is going to have to be done to cope with the existing demands on it from Conventional rail. There's just no way it can cope with becoming a HS hub as well.

 

[paul1609]

1) Yes, you could. You then have to resignal the entirety of City's station throat to 24tph. Given the slow acceleration of large numbers of trains leaving, and their need to cross, this is going to be incredibly expensive. Also incredibly inefficient as the only lines wired in the west (Wakefield & A&W) have their own bays and so would actually take up MORE capacity at City, not less.

2) Yeah, you couldn't run trains through Crown Point at 200 mph. Given Leeds is a city of a million people, all trains should be stopping there. Really don't see that as a problem. Building Crown Point as a through station would likely be a lot cheaper (given it requires one tunnel) than your alternative. You wouldn't need to rebuild City in any way (at least, not because of HS2) as the lines would run parallel for a bit in East Leedsm City would be unaffected

3) No, they wouldn't. The Eastern viaduct is already full at two lines, and is up for widening/eastern bays at Marsh Lane. There's no way you could double deck it and widen it, way too expensive and destructive. If HS trains do go into City, they definitely terminate there.

4) The Southeastern approach is easy-you join near Methley (in open country) you then run through the existing approach, where there's space for separate lines, you then leave that approach for Crown Point. No tunnelling, bridging of any kind is required.

5) Undercroft Concourse?? WHERE???? City opens out onto City Square, and you'd probably have to demolish the Queens Hotel to build your throughs (QH is listed, and a very important bit of the streetscape, so will never happen). The only place I can see would be Dark Neville Street (never going to happen) or Sovereign St. If the latter, this would at best reduce the size of the concourse, hugely increasing congestion on the station.

Let's just remember people, City station is full with the trains it already has. A lot of work is going to have to be done to cope with the existing demands on it from Conventional rail. There's just no way it can cope with becoming a HS hub as well.

Really?I dont often visit Leeds but i get the impression that it deals with a hell of a lot less trains than many smaller stations in the South, how many tph does it handle, how does this compare with the likes of East Croydon. Guildford etc?

 

[Waverley125]

I don't know exact figures, but I'd guess at least 30tph through the station.

Also, Leeds is a problematic station as it's an amalgamation of two stations-one terminus, and one through station. The terminating platforms (1-6, 7, 10, 13, 14 & 17) handle the 'metro' services, are all separated out, and often have to cross the 'fasts' to get to their junctions. The throughs (8, 9, 11, 12, 15 & 16) deal with expresses, long-distance throughs and TPE services. Again, these all have to cross to reach their destinations.

Put it this way, if you thought Piccadilly's station throat was problematic, Leeds is a clusterf**k. This is only going to get more problematic as all areas around Leeds want more trains into it. Current demands are for 4 trains on the Pontefract line, 4 trains on the Hallam line, 9 trains on the Wakefield line, 9 trains on the Huddersfield line, 6 on the Caldervale line, 7 on the Airedale, 2 on the Wharfedale, 4 on the Harrogate, 11 on the York & Selby, bringing us a grand total of 56 tph through the station.

Add to this the station site itself is incredibly constricted by buildings to the south and city square to the north. The one place you could add extra platforms is what is currently the MSCP, which has been reserved for new terminating platforms to serve the Harrogate line.

At the point you start asking for double-decking stations and driving lines through an already crowded concourse, you should be able to recognise it's not doable.

Also, a further response to HSTed of 'we can use the undercroft'-not only is there nowhere to put an entrance, there isn't an 'undercroft' in the way there is at St Pancras, the viaduct is literally that-a series of arches, that don't match up, there is no cohesive space under the station.

A new station at Crown Point is the only viable option for a HS station in Leeds.

 

[Padav]

Many thanks for the comments posted in this thread. Discussion of lines after phase 2 might be a little premature given the timescales involved for the first two sections, currently displaying a completion date of 2033!

Since my initial post, there has been a public announcement on phase 2, which clarifies the official timetable but merely adds to the intrigue surrounding this vexed topic. It seems the findings of HS2 Ltd and various route option proposals are due to drop on the Minster's desk just about now.

What fascinates me is how the government expect the supposedly confidential discussion between stakeholders (a variety of interested parties along the proposed route of phase 2) to remain out of the public domain until the preferred option is revealed in a blaze of glory sometime during the Autumn.

I happen to think the rumour mill is likely to go into overload very quickly with all sorts of theories, leaks and stories surfacing periodically between now and the Autumn official announcement. MPs representing numerous constituencies along the proposed (secret) route will be queuing up to reassure respective electorates - journalists and campaign groups (populating the route of phase 1) will be indulging in a game of deduction based on forensic analysis of the public utterances emanating from those "in the know"

The map attached to my original post illustrated my best guestimate for the Western Arm of the phase 2 Y network, between Lichfield and Manchester. This is a topic of particulare interest to me. I'm intrigued by @nerd's repeated assertion that a Manchester South station is planned for Davenport Green and already boasts the support of HS2 Ltd.

Where exactly is Davenport Green because I can't find it on any map of the area around Manchester Airport and if we take the wording of official statement at face value "Understanding local desires and plans for development will be crucial in helping me reach initial preferences for station locations. I am particularly keen to ensure that the network best supports the economic potential of the cities and regions it serves, through well-integrated station locations that build on local and regional plans", this would indicate that any Manchester South Station must integrate directly with the existing classic rail and other transport networks.

I remain convinced that Manchester Airport will be the location of any Manchester South (outskirts) Station. The only way in which HS2 phase 2 can form part of a direct interchange with the current Manchester Airport Station is if the new line is tunnelled directly under the runways, probably from a South South West direction as it skirts past the Western edge of Wilmslow. A subterranean (at right angles alignment to the existing station) pathway would then continue directly north under Wythenshawe before surfacing in the Baguely area, thence running paralell with Princess Parkway to approach city centre Manchester?

 

[HSTEd]

Well as I've had another thought I agree that Crown Point does indeed look like a relatively viable station, it would appear that an avoiding line would be relatively cheap and should be added as it would be quite short and the maximum speed through the tunnels to the north of the station is likely to be only 75mph due to its restricted curvature.

 

[Waverley125]

Yeah, if you wanted to build an avoiding line you could do so from a Delta junction at Rothwell to another Delta junction around Church Fenton-all of 6 miles. However, given the distance extra is then probably only another 6 miles or so, ergo I'd imagine a time penalty for calling at Leeds of about 10 minutes. Maybe if you're wanting to run an express London-Edinburgh service calling only at Newcastle that's a problem, but otherwise I'd imagine it'd not.

 

[HSTEd]

Yeah, if you wanted to build an avoiding line you could do so from a Delta junction at Rothwell to another Delta junction around Church Fenton-all of 6 miles. However, given the distance extra is then probably only another 6 miles or so, ergo I'd imagine a time penalty for calling at Leeds of about 10 minutes. Maybe if you're wanting to run an express London-Edinburgh service calling only at Newcastle that's a problem, but otherwise I'd imagine it'd not.

There is also the question of gaining access to the lines out of Leeds to the west so as to be able to run CC trains to the Secondary destinations associated with Leeds trains (Bradford, Skipton and possibly Harrogate if it gets wired).

 

[Nym]

Am I right in thinking that there could bve a move toward a general consensus of a delta junction near Rothwell / Mickletown, personally I don't see an issue with the Leeds section of HS2 being a branch, since it would avoid the need for any tunneling at all....

I could live with Crown Point, but I would rather be looking at Leeds City.

If we where looking at Crown Point I'd want some kind of fast transit system between Crown Point and Leeds City, and also looking at the possiblity of diverting other services from "Leeds East Parkway (Micklefeild)", Castleford and Normanton taking services away from the parts of Leeds City that simply can't cope with a lot of terminating services.

Proberbly looking at 6 platforms for each, 6 for Classic and 6 for HS services.

If we're looking at Leeds City, it would need to be going for double deck over the current 1 - 5 with more classics underneath and the HS platforms atop (6 of them) all linking in much better than it currently does with the main concourse.

 

[Waverley125]

if there were no HS2 extension north of Leeds, then that'd be fine. But I think it's pretty obvious there'd be a fairly good case for extension on to Newcastle and Edinburgh, and so Leeds would want through services on HS2.

As for a 'rapid transit', there'd be no point, the sites are a stones throw away. Build a bridge over the River Aire and an entrance to City on Sovereign St, it'd be 60 seconds walk.

 

[LE Greys]

I'm beginning to think that the problem with Leeds City goes back to when they shoe-horned trains from Central into it. Unfortunately, that's gone for good, otherwise I would suggest using Central to clear out City. No room anywhere near Whitehill either. Some form of grade-separation at the western throat might be possible, but unlikely. I'll put my money on Crown Point.

 

[HSTEd]

I'm beginning to think that the problem with Leeds City goes back to when they shoe-horned trains from Central into it. Unfortunately, that's gone for good, otherwise I would suggest using Central to clear out City. No room anywhere near Whitehill either. Some form of grade-separation at the western throat might be possible, but unlikely. I'll put my money on Crown Point.

You could fit a couple of bays on that Viaduct south of the main station and put East Coast trains into it, I believe it would be fairly easy to connect with the Wakefield line and thus get them out of the station throat.
Hell the car park adjacent to it could be removed and spread it into a four track seperate "Leeds South" station where all the ECML services could go, assuming you could get a moving walkway out to it somehow.

 

[nerd]

The map attached to my original post illustrated my best guestimate for the Western Arm of the phase 2 Y network, between Lichfield and Manchester. This is a topic of particulare interest to me. I'm intrigued by @nerd's repeated assertion that a Manchester South station is planned for Davenport Green and already boasts the support of HS2 Ltd.

Where exactly is Davenport Green because I can't find it on any map of the area around Manchester Airport and if we take the wording of official statement at face value "Understanding local desires and plans for development will be crucial in helping me reach initial preferences for station locations. I am particularly keen to ensure that the network best supports the economic potential of the cities and regions it serves, through well-integrated station locations that build on local and regional plans", this would indicate that any Manchester South Station must integrate directly with the existing classic rail and other transport networks.

I remain convinced that Manchester Airport will be the location of any Manchester South (outskirts) Station. The only way in which HS2 phase 2 can form part of a direct interchange with the current Manchester Airport Station is if the new line is tunnelled directly under the runways, probably from a South South West direction as it skirts past the Western edge of Wilmslow. A subterranean (at right angles alignment to the existing station) pathway would then continue directly north under Wythenshawe before surfacing in the Baguely area, thence running paralell with Princess Parkway to approach city centre Manchester?

Davenport Green is a very big site (335 acres, half a square mile) directly across the M56 motorway from Manchester Airport. It was originally Green Belt, but got redesignated in the 1980s, when the M60 Motorway was originally intended to follow an alignment along the northern side of the airport (the current airport motorway spur being the only section actually built). But for a long time the former motorway alignment was protected, until in the last few years the northern section became used for the Metrolink airport line. However, the final approved alighment into the airport (as being constructed at the moment) veers off through Wythenshawe centre before reaching Davenport Green.

Not being Green Belt, a planning application was made and approved for 1m sq feet of high status offices at Davenport Green, with strict conditions as to environmental quality, landscaping and public transport access - which effectively prevented the development actually proceeding. Trafford Council were trying to have the Green Belt status restored, but a few months ago, mysteriously withdrew their objections, and the owners would now be able to proceed with their development, if only they could arrange for the Metrolink to complete its airport loop circuit through their site. Which would necessarily happen if there was a High Speed rail station there.

Hence, if the Manchester outskirts station were on Davenport Green, it would be alongside the M56, on the most likely path that a High Speed line could take into the city centre. It would be about a mile and a half from the Airport Terminal 2 and the Airport mainline rail station, and linked both to them, and to the wider Manchester conurbation by Metrolink. And it is not unlikely that the site owners would foot the bill for the station construction (since that in itself would guarantee the success of their development).

The latest service specification suggests that the Manchester outskirts station will be south of the spur junction - so all Manc bound captive HS trains can stop there, but so too can classic compatible services from Scotland and Central Lancs. That would imply that the main high speed line would tunnel under Altrincham and meet up with the WCML somewhere north or south of Wigan; while the Manc spur would continue along the line of the M56 motorway towards the city centre.

Whether Davenport Green has the support of HS2 ltd, I don't know; but it fulfills all their specifications for a station site - most notably interchange with motorway, airport, heavy rail and light rail; and they could get the station built on the cheap. It does also seem that Trafford Borough would now be in favour. It would not be necessary to tunnel under the runways to get to the station. The approach would most likely be from the direction of Mobberley to the south of runway 2. Or possibly the line could go east of Wilmslow and follow the former M60 alignment - which will now also be used by the SEMMMS relief road. Whichever, there will have to be a lot of tunnelling to get into Manc city centre itself; HS2 ltd estimate at least 6 miles of tunnel in all.

But keep up the good work; its worth exploring at possible alignments in order to evaluate whatever HS2 ltd and ministers actually propose. But remember (contrary to the preferences of others on this forum) HS2 will not be building city centre through stations in Manc, Sheffield, Leeds or anywhere else. They firmly prefer spurs into each passing city centre, with interchange stations only on the mainline. That reduces the extent to which HS services might need to slow down as they pass around major cities.

 

[Waverley125]

You could fit a couple of bays on that Viaduct south of the main station and put East Coast trains into it, I believe it would be fairly easy to connect with the Wakefield line and thus get them out of the station throat.
Hell the car park adjacent to it could be removed and spread it into a four track seperate "Leeds South" station where all the ECML services could go, assuming you could get a moving walkway out to it somehow.

That 'car park' is being built on as we speak, another Luxury hotel moving into Holbeck Urban Village. The old LNWR viaduct has also been condemned as unfit for transport use, which is why it was taken out of service in the first place.

 

[nerd]

map on page 19 of the policy ammendment document.

http://www.trafford.gov.uk/environm...nt-ProposedAmendmenttoPolicyR4andPolicyW1.pdf

The office approval is for the 90 acres ajacent to the motorway junction, which is not green belt. The remaining 245 acres of the site remains as green belt, and is proposed to be conserved as a rural park.

If an HS2 station were to be built here, it would probably be on the land south of the area owned by RLAM, inbetween the golf course and the motorway. This is green belt, but that doesn't signify for HS2 purposes

 

[Nym]

Just to re-itterate where I would have the "Airport" station...

"Airport" station paves over Thorley Lane and can access the rest of it by moving walkway, it also makes track layouts very convenient.

"West Parkway, Warrington" is just North of Birchwood for access to the M6 via the M62 Junction 11

Access from South to West under Alty in a combination of tunnel and using the old line towards Partington.

Access into Manchester from South via the origonal M60 alignment, sharing this with Metrolink over the actual M60 through Sale. This corridor is wide enough for Metrolink and HS2 provided that Metrolink is built over to one side now. Then dive into a curvey tunnel to reach Longsight for a station at Baring St Industrial Estate linked into the Piccadilly Station Complex where Costa Coffee (Both of them) currently are, and it's own entrance on Fairfeild St with Vehicle Access off of the A635/A635M & London Road (A6)

Access out of Manchester to the West takes the same tunnels to a junction near Chorlton, then a curvey track above ground round, following the Carrington Expressway out to the mainline crossing at Irlam over the ship canal on the old embankments, remaining four track and a double decked bridge (Rail & Road) to feed onto Manchester West Parkway at Culceath / Warrington. 4 track bridge to allow 'javelin' services to run for commuter trains, using both stations as P&R sites for Manchester and Manchester W Parkway for Liverpool and Wigan.

http://g.co/maps/fyyje

 

[nerd]

Just to re-itterate where I would have the "Airport" station...

"Airport" station paves over Thorley Lane and can access the rest of it by moving walkway, it also makes track layouts very convenient.

"West Parkway, Warrington" is just North of Birchwood for access to the M6 via the M62 Junction 11

Access from South to West under Alty in a combination of tunnel and using the old line towards Partington.

Access into Manchester from South via the origonal M60 alignment, sharing this with Metrolink over the actual M60 through Sale. This corridor is wide enough for Metrolink and HS2 provided that Metrolink is built over to one side now. Then dive into a curvey tunnel to reach Longsight for a station at Baring St Industrial Estate linked into the Piccadilly Station Complex where Costa Coffee (Both of them) currently are, and it's own entrance on Fairfeild St with Vehicle Access off of the A635/A635M & London Road (A6)

Access out of Manchester to the West takes the same tunnels to a junction near Chorlton, then a curvey track above ground round, following the Carrington Expressway out to the mainline crossing at Irlam over the ship canal on the old embankments, remaining four track and a double decked bridge (Rail & Road) to feed onto Manchester West Parkway at Culceath / Warrington. 4 track bridge to allow 'javelin' services to run for commuter trains, using both stations as P&R sites for Manchester and Manchester W Parkway for Liverpool and Wigan.

http://g.co/maps/fyyje

Interesting suggestions Nym

- It is possible that the station could be north of the current Airport spur motorway (which I think is what you are suggesting) - but this is land that is being proposed for the Airport City Enterprise Zone. The published plans show no space for an HS station.

- there is not enough room to run an HS line along the former M60 alignment, now that Metrolink is going down the middle of it, and housing is being built right up both sides.

- The former Mayfield station on Baring Street is certainly a possible Manc station location; but isn't really long enough (it needs at least 500m of dead straight track). It would have to extend over the Mancunian Way, which I think unlikely. More possible - if the station is that side, for it to be located north of the current Piccadilly platform 1. Otherwise, it might be south of Salford Central. Or indeed somewhere nobody had thought of yet.

- There will be no need at all to build HS lines west and north out of Manc; far the easiest solution would be to run classic-compatible trainsets out of Victoria along the newly electrified trans-Pennine line to link up with HS2 at Chat Moss. Assuming that the Scots decide to build their HS lines along the old WCML south from Carstairs, that would allow classic-compatible sets to run from Glasgow directly to Manc Victoria - and then on to Leeds.

 

[Nym]

Interesting suggestions Nym

- It is possible that the station could be north of the current Airport spur motorway (which I think is what you are suggesting) - but this is land that is being proposed for the Airport City Enterprise Zone. The published plans show no space for an HS station.

Publish the recomendations fast enough and the Airport Development Zone can be moved, it isn't that much of a major thing to move it further down the A555 or round to past some of the other repote car parks

- there is not enough room to run an HS line along the former M60 alignment, now that Metrolink is going down the middle of it, and housing is being built right up both sides.

Well this is why Metrolink should go down one side, and if the width of the alighment is not able to be preserved for use by HS2, it will just need to go in a tunnel, there simply isn't a better way into Manchester with the station in this alignement without a figure of 8 approach and using the styal branch

- The former Mayfield station on Baring Street is certainly a possible Manc station location; but isn't really long enough (it needs at least 500m of dead straight track). It would have to extend over the Mancunian Way, which I think unlikely. More possible - if the station is that side, for it to be located north of the current Piccadilly platform 1. Otherwise, it might be south of Salford Central. Or indeed somewhere nobody had thought of yet.

I would be taking up the entire Baring St Industrial Estate with the station, all the land bound by the new student flat developments behind the MacDonald Hotel, the current viaduct and the A635 and A635(M), there is enough space in there for some 430m long platform and station throught, the viaducts would be wide over the A635 but much easyer than trying to find any other land in Manchester, it wouldn't simply be re-opening Mayfeild, in fact, beyond the fecade there wouldn't be much of Mayfeild left under these plans.

- There will be no need at all to build HS lines west and north out of Manc; far the easiest solution would be to run classic-compatible trainsets out of Victoria along the newly electrified trans-Pennine line to link up with HS2 at Chat Moss. Assuming that the Scots decide to build their HS lines along the old WCML south from Carstairs, that would allow classic-compatible sets to run from Glasgow directly to Manc Victoria - and then on to Leeds.

Main reason for adding in this additional route was that it wouldn't incur that much more in the way of contruction costs as it is all above ground, and it would releive strain on the Western approaches for LDPE services into Manchester over the Chat Moss that is soon to be saturated, so ALL services running into Manchester that do not stop at stations between the WCML and Manchester would use the new approach via Manchester West Parkway as there is not enough terminating bay platform space for the three lines coming in that direction into manchester so they would instead be sent into the Baring St area to terminate instead, example services include:
Llandudno - Chester - Manchester, Scotland - Manchester, Liverpool - Manchester shuttle services etc.

For the amount this additional peice of track, and providing some hybrid platforms in Manchester (or access to the other lines at the Longsight Tunnel Portals, for the Piccadilly Main Shed) would cost, it would be comparable to that of putting in new platforms at Exchange, Victoria or Central. As such, 4tph 'Javelin' style services can run on the line, 2tph for Wigan, Preston and Blackpool and 2tph for St Helens Jcn and Liverpool Lime Street, taking the strain off classic services.

It would also be possible to send Transpennine services via Piccadilly again for Liverpool with a reversal and grade speration if so desired, but the longer distance won't really give much of a time saving over using Victoria's through platforms.

So I would have the 2tph from Blackpool via Preston and Wigan, 2tph from Liverpool Lime St running via Manchester W Parkway into this new station, connections at Manchester W Parkway for Manchester S Parkway (Airport). This would result in services running via the extremely busy Bolton Corridor being used primeraly (North of Chorley) as a link to the towns on the line and by the Bolton and Chorley commuters for Manchester, freeing up further space for this line to actually be for the use of commuters.

Diverting the piccadilly bound Chat Moss services this way also saves space on the Castlefield Viaduct for additional CLC services to run, as a result the services using Oxford Road would primeraly be Windsor Bridge Junction and CLC traffic, with 6tph from the CLC (3 slow 3 semi fast), 6tph from Windsor Bridge (4tph Bolton, 1tph Atherton, 1tph Leigh) and possibly one or two of the slow services via the Chat Moss (although these could also run into Victoria, giving priority to CLC services) would mean that without the Chat Moss fast services running through Oxford Road, one has plenty of space for the other two major lines into there, one of these having no choice but to use Oxford Road (or Central).

So, hopefully closing the Delta of this junction now makes reasonable sense, and as the linespeed isn't going to be THAT fast anyway, fitting in the javelin services at 140mph and 100mph diesels (Llandudno & Chester) isn't going to be too much hassle. Since we'd be expecting, with all of these, about 14tph into Manchester

3tph London
2tph Birmingham
2tph Blackpool via Wigan and MWP
2tph Liverpool via MWP
2tph Chester via MWP 1tph from Llandudno
1tph Scotland via MWP
2tph spare commuter path trains for additionals.

There's plenty of space for that and having something a little bit slower (Chester services) isn't going to hurt that much if things are flighted in a sensible order, and of course fitted with ERTMS.

I use javelin as a loose term, I'm thinking a 6 to 8 carriage 140mph commuter layout HS train, similar to the Class 395s but much better.

Note this takes the Chat Moss down to only needing to handle:

2tph Chat Moss Slow (Victoria - Liverpool)
2tph Chat Moss Fast (TPE)
Possibly some Wigan NW Slows.

If a link to the CLC is included and it is electrified, you can also run 'javelin' style commuter sets down that way via Warrington Central too, use up the two spares or push it to 16tph into Manchester Baring St / Mayfeild.

I don't just see this as the inconveinence of fitting HS2 into Manchester but also an oppertunity to improve local services significantly by being sensible.

One could also send the TPE Fast services on to Manchester South Parkway rather than Manchester Airport station, as there would be links between the HS2 lines and the slow / fast lines for classic services at Lingsight, I would also be including grade speration of Slade Lane Junction so that the HS2 Baring St station could be built earlier for the 400m long classic compatable sets to call / terminate at, before the HS2 line tunnels into Longsight, but having everything ready.

 

[iloverail]

I'm beginning to think that the problem with Leeds City goes back to when they shoe-horned trains from Central into it. Unfortunately, that's gone for good, otherwise I would suggest using Central to clear out City. No room anywhere near Whitehill either. Some form of grade-separation at the western throat might be possible, but unlikely. I'll put my money on Crown Point.

There's been plenty of talk about the location of a Leeds HS2 station on another forum, and it's generally accepted that the most likely site is Crown Point. Leeds City is already running overcapacity and it can't handle anymore.

 

[nerd]

Main reason for adding in this additional route was that it wouldn't incur that much more in the way of contruction costs as it is all above ground, and it would releive strain on the Western approaches for LDPE services into Manchester over the Chat Moss that is soon to be saturated, so ALL services running into Manchester that do not stop at stations between the WCML and Manchester would use the new approach via Manchester West Parkway as there is not enough terminating bay platform space for the three lines coming in that direction into manchester so they would instead be sent into the Baring St area to terminate instead, example services include:
Llandudno - Chester - Manchester, Scotland - Manchester, Liverpool - Manchester shuttle services etc.

For the amount this additional peice of track, and providing some hybrid platforms in Manchester (or access to the other lines at the Longsight Tunnel Portals, for the Piccadilly Main Shed) would cost, it would be comparable to that of putting in new platforms at Exchange, Victoria or Central. As such, 4tph 'Javelin' style services can run on the line, 2tph for Wigan, Preston and Blackpool and 2tph for St Helens Jcn and Liverpool Lime Street, taking the strain off classic services.

ah, I see.

that of course would require a much bigger HS station in central Manc. The most recent service specifications show 6 trains per hour southwards (4 Euston, 2 Brum). This could be served by a 4 platform terminus. Adding a whole lot of regional serrvices would imply at least twice the size of station. I would have thought the services you suggest could be provided as well from the Northern Hub proposals for westward facing platforms at Victoria, and platforms 15/16 at Piccadilly.

Not sure what you mean by 'Javelin' style services. The North Kent Javelins run over the main HS1 line, but none of the destinations you mention will have a captive HS2 station, and the only links into the WCML from HS2 will be at Lichfield and Wigan. There would be very little high speed line for them to run along, and most of that - certainly your twisty tunnels, could only be run at classic speed anyway. There is no advantage in running regional services over high speed lines for the sake of it.

As a general rule, it will be much better and cheaper to take the strain off classic services (train paths, platform capacity) by 'trading down' into tram-train conversion, than by 'trading up' onto more expensive (and less direct) high speed lines.

 

[Padav]

@nerd

Is the mapping website used to create your route map and post a link available to anyone?

If so please post a link so I can create an alternative visualisation of my best guestimate?

 

[Nym]

ah, I see.

that of course would require a much bigger HS station in central Manc. The most recent service specifications show 6 trains per hour southwards (4 Euston, 2 Brum). This could be served by a 4 platform terminus. Adding a whole lot of regional serrvices would imply at least twice the size of station. I would have thought the services you suggest could be provided as well from the Northern Hub proposals for westward facing platforms at Victoria, and platforms 15/16 at Piccadilly.

Not sure what you mean by 'Javelin' style services. The North Kent Javelins run over the main HS1 line, but none of the destinations you mention will have a captive HS2 station, and the only links into the WCML from HS2 will be at Lichfield and Wigan. There would be very little high speed line for them to run along, and most of that - certainly your twisty tunnels, could only be run at classic speed anyway. There is no advantage in running regional services over high speed lines for the sake of it.

As a general rule, it will be much better and cheaper to take the strain off classic services (train paths, platform capacity) by 'trading down' into tram-train conversion, than by 'trading up' onto more expensive (and less direct) high speed lines.

The point of refering to them like that is the type of rolling stock that will run such services, and running them on that HS section of line is to be able to access the bay platforms on the Piccadilly Campus, that are not available from any other directions. And to take the strain off of the Chat Moss line that is shortly to become saturated.

And no, the Northern Hub is not enough to provide highly enhanced services on the Windsor Bridge Jcn, Chat Moss and CLC lines, it simply does not have enough track or platform capacity, even with full enhancements to cope, even with the services put in by the Northern Hub.

16tph through Deansgate and Oxford Road simply isn't possible without MAJOR changes to layout, and there won't be enough space at Victoria, even with the bays from Exchange.

The only way (other than diverting services into the HS2 station over that HS2 Westward access) would be to Re-Open Manchester Central to provide the bay platforms required, and even then, we'd still need HS2 platforms, so why not intergrate them into one areas and free up track capacity while we're at it, the only thing this doesn't provide that Central would is terminating space for CLC stoppers, that can be aceived by minor alterations at Oxford Road or Piccadilly anyway, especially with LDPE services from Wigan / Newton no longer coming in over the Chat Moss if terminating in Manchester.

Liek I said, with the LDPE Manchester Terminators coming in via the HS2 route, one has enough space through Oxford Road for...

2tph Bolton & Preston Semi Fast
1tph Atherton (Southport)
4tph Ordsall Cord
3tph CLC Slow
3tph CLC Semi Fast.
2tph Freight

With this lot going via the HS2 route...

1tph Scotland
2tph Liverpool via Chat Moss Semi Fast
2tph Blackpool North via Wigan and Preston Semi Fast
1tph Llandudno, 1tph Chester (Possibly serving chester from Victoria)

And if one links into the CLC as well, the CLC Semi Fast (or some of them) services can be routed this way, saving more space at Oxford Road, that would be very difficult and expensive to re-build to the required level for 18tph operation.

 

[nerd]

The point of refering to them like that is the type of rolling stock that will run such services, and running them on that HS section of line is to be able to access the bay platforms on the Piccadilly Campus, that are not available from any other directions. And to take the strain off of the Chat Moss line that is shortly to become saturated.

And no, the Northern Hub is not enough to provide highly enhanced services on the Windsor Bridge Jcn, Chat Moss and CLC lines, it simply does not have enough track or platform capacity, even with full enhancements to cope, even with the services put in by the Northern Hub.

16tph through Deansgate and Oxford Road simply isn't possible without MAJOR changes to layout, and there won't be enough space at Victoria, even with the bays from Exchange.

The only way (other than diverting services into the HS2 station over that HS2 Westward access) would be to Re-Open Manchester Central to provide the bay platforms required, and even then, we'd still need HS2 platforms, so why not intergrate them into one areas and free up track capacity while we're at it, the only thing this doesn't provide that Central would is terminating space for CLC stoppers, that can be aceived by minor alterations at Oxford Road or Piccadilly anyway, especially with LDPE services from Wigan / Newton no longer coming in over the Chat Moss if terminating in Manchester.

Liek I said, with the LDPE Manchester Terminators coming in via the HS2 route, one has enough space through Oxford Road for...

2tph Bolton & Preston Semi Fast
1tph Atherton (Southport)
4tph Ordsall Cord
3tph CLC Slow
3tph CLC Semi Fast.
2tph Freight

With this lot going via the HS2 route...

1tph Scotland
2tph Liverpool via Chat Moss Semi Fast
2tph Blackpool North via Wigan and Preston Semi Fast
1tph Llandudno, 1tph Chester (Possibly serving chester from Victoria)

And if one links into the CLC as well, the CLC Semi Fast (or some of them) services can be routed this way, saving more space at Oxford Road, that would be very difficult and expensive to re-build to the required level for 18tph operation.

Makes a lot of sense;

- but suppose that the CLC line to Urmston and Warrington is tram-trained? Would that not remove the 3tph CLC slow, and possibly more, from the Oxford Road list?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

@nerd

Is the mapping website used to create your route map and post a link available to anyone?

If so please post a link so I can create an alternative visualisation of my best guestimate?

sorry padav; not me but Nym.

I think he has simply captured an image in google map, and drawn over it.

Most impressive I agree though - and very helpful for the rest of us.

Maybe he will offer a few tips?

 

[Nym]

Makes a lot of sense;

- but suppose that the CLC line to Urmston and Warrington is tram-trained? Would that not remove the 3tph CLC slow, and possibly more, from the Oxford Road list?

No, just no...

The longest tram-train that could run into the already insanely overcrowded Metrolink network is 60m long, with the amount of growth on the CLC at the moment the chances are that even off peak diagrams will need to be 46m long (Single 156, and peak diagrams, looking at the crush loading and restricted demand thanks to this) will need to be pushing 80m minimum, or anything up to the current Semi Fasts' 92m and potentially 120m for the slows.

Tram-Trains would be a backwards step for the CLC, if you desprately want a lot more capacity on the CLC beyond 3+3tph then the only realistic options are re-opening Manchester Central and pushing it potentially to 4+4tph with passing loops, and incorporate the conversion of the Alty line back to Heavy and Electrify both routes to 25kV OHL. Or since pushing it past 3+3tph would be very difficult without four tracking, electrfication at 25kV OHL would be the next logical step, but then since we'd proberbly hit problems with capacity at Lime St it might be time to start sending these things through the Merseyrail Network.

Either way, CLC + TramTrain = NO!

TramTrains should only be used for short extensions of current Tram systems onto heavy rail lines, eg. Rotherham. Or where there is no alternative for City penitration from isolated lines such as Rawthenstall via Bury Bolton St. Or in the last case, extension of commuter diagrams to where the commuters actually come from where conversion back to heavy rail would be political suicide. eg. Alty - Knutsford & Northwich.

 

[HSTEd]

If we assume driver supervised ATO is used from Day 1 (which with cab signalling is certainly reasonable), then HS2 Ltd believes that 22 paths can be accomodated through the core each hour.

If we stick to an 18tph service patern this means we have four spare, which means we can have four flighted stopping sets of trains.

I believe it would be reasonable to have 1 flighted group stopping at OOC only, one flighted group stopping at OOC and Birmingham Int. and then one stopping at Birmingham Int. only.

The flighted group would presumably consist of three trains in each case (one to each destination), leaving us with nine trains per hour nonstop (3 each to three termini?) and 6 trains per hour at each intermediate station.

Each intermediate station would have one train per hour to each termini without a stop at the other intermediate and one with a stop at the other intermediate.

This obviously includes an even split between the three termini (6tph to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds when a 4/7/7 split is more likely for Phase 2 or a 4/6/8 under Phase 3)

This is without clever posistioning of the flights to enable the stopping paths being reused outside of flights (as we would want the intermediate station's flights to be posistioned independantly).

EDIT:

As each stop will loose the train only six minutes on the journey time, this would lead to even the slowest Birmingham train still coming in just under the hour travel time, and to avoid reducing the capacity of the non-stop trains I would think it best that the Birmingham two-stop train be a classic compatible set to wherever anyone can think of and that the stopping trains should continue to serve any intermediate stations on the route to Manchester/Leeds.
(Adding 12 minutes at most to the Nottingham journey time is not going to make it slower than the normal service)/

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

More possible - if the station is that side, for it to be located north of the current Piccadilly platform 1.

I had given that particular area some thought, should a terminal railway station be constructed there, which would be in the area of Sheffield Street and Broad Street and like the existing Piccadilly railway station, would bridge over Store Street.

 

[Nym]

I had given that particular area some thought, should a terminal railway station be constructed there, which would be in the area of Sheffield Street and Broad Street and like the existing Piccadilly railway station, would bridge over Store Street.

The problem with using that side of Piccadilly is what needs to be displaced to get something into there, you'd need to remove the Square One offices, and several other things, then you have the problem of accessing said station, unless you approach via the Fallowfeild Loop that would need a lot of bridges over current lines (that is more likely to have local oppostion) it would be difficult to approach.

The place I see as the most sensible to imerge from tunnels at Longsight would mean that you would need to build a viaduct over the East Manchester Lines that would be prohibitively expensive as the lines are already on a viaduct at that point.

In comparison to this, immerging at Manchester International Depot, Longsight, and building additional viaducting from here into Manchester Baring St area would only require the loss of some very low value land and buildings, namely;

Significant changes to Manchester International Depot, possible removal of the depot to facilitiate line interchanges for Stage 1 and 2 with grade seperated access between the Slow lines and HS2 lines, possibly including the fast lines, or if also including 6 tracking to Slade Lane Junction, full grade seperation of all lines and junctions at Longsight, either way, junctions and tunnel portals galore at Longsight.

After that you'd need to loose the Viva Centre, and some scrap land, bridge over the A57 with some re-arranging to have lines (NE - SW) UF, DF, US, DS, UA, DA, UHS, DHS, possibly additional depot access sidingsm depending on how wide we can go with the viaduct.

Eurobox storage and a bit of the Stagecoach Depot, and some shared offices car park would be lost to viaduct, we would then be building an open viaduct over Temperance Street and begin widening out by stealing some feilds at Powerleague, now crossing the A635 we're widening out now to the station throught to pave over Baring St Industrial Estate, the buffers coming up to Baring Street and the Star and Garter pub, with moving walkways onto the Piccadilly complex for foot access and vehicle access via Baring Street and a re-moddeled A6/A57M/A635M juntion at Mancunian Way, access in via the junction and Fairfeild St and out via Travis Street and Failfeild St, possibly onto the A635 slip as well.

This also leaves space in the current Long Stay surface car park for additional standard platforms on Piccadilly and reversing sidings for 13 - 16 to be placed over Temprance Street for terminating services, between the US and DS to replace the G line.

On the other side you'd need to loose Square One and Piccadilly Gate to have enough space.

 

[bailey65]

The government i have heard are planning a big new town along the hs2 route between coventry and birmingham which would in effect make one massive conurbation between coventry and wolverhampton concreting over green belt land.
If this sort of thing happens to green belt land along the rest of the hs2 route then it will be a bad thing for the country.

 

[nerd]

No, just no...

The longest tram-train that could run into the already insanely overcrowded Metrolink network is 60m long, with the amount of growth on the CLC at the moment the chances are that even off peak diagrams will need to be 46m long (Single 156, and peak diagrams, looking at the crush loading and restricted demand thanks to this) will need to be pushing 80m minimum, or anything up to the current Semi Fasts' 92m and potentially 120m for the slows.

Tram-Trains would be a backwards step for the CLC, if you desprately want a lot more capacity on the CLC beyond 3+3tph then the only realistic options are re-opening Manchester Central and pushing it potentially to 4+4tph with passing loops, and incorporate the conversion of the Alty line back to Heavy and Electrify both routes to 25kV OHL. Or since pushing it past 3+3tph would be very difficult without four tracking, electrfication at 25kV OHL would be the next logical step, but then since we'd proberbly hit problems with capacity at Lime St it might be time to start sending these things through the Merseyrail Network.

Either way, CLC + TramTrain = NO!

TramTrains should only be used for short extensions of current Tram systems onto heavy rail lines, eg. Rotherham. Or where there is no alternative for City penitration from isolated lines such as Rawthenstall via Bury Bolton St. Or in the last case, extension of commuter diagrams to where the commuters actually come from where conversion back to heavy rail would be political suicide. eg. Alty - Knutsford & Northwich.

Current peak period inbound borders on the stopping services on the CLC line are around 550. That compares with 760 on the Marple line. and 1100 on the Hadfield line; both of which are considered prime candidates for tram-training; once the Trans-Pennine services move away from Guide Bridge.

We can assume that tram-trains in Manc would have a similar configuration of passenger capacity to the current M5000 trams (and London Tube trains); i.e. 25% seating, 75% standing. On a doubled tram train (2 *30m) that would give peak passenger capacity of around 400. The likely frequency for a tram train would be 5 tph (more frequent and it becomes a tram and cannot share track with anything else; less frequent and it cannot compete with buses for short distance travel). That suggests a maximum capacity along a tram-train line of 2,000 boarders per hour, or 4,000 over the two-hour peak period. Passengers on a tram for less than half an hour, don't need seats or lavs to travel in comfort; which is why a tram or tram-train has a far higher standard capacity than a heavy rail vehicle of the same length.

That does put a ceiling on the passenger volumes of services proposed for tram-training, of roughly 2,000 current peak period borders - which clearly rules out, for example, Bolton-Manc and Wiran/Atherton-Manc as candidates. But not, on the face of it, CLC. In order to convert a subsidised regional rail service to a non-subsidised tram-train passenger numbers need to be doubled overall, and peak numbers need to increase by around 60%. So, if the service is carrying more than 2,000 boarders currently, there is will not be sufficient scope for growing numbers so as to run the line in the future without subsidy as a tram train.

Personally, I would suggest linking a 5 tph doubled tram-train service westwards along the CLC line with an eastwards tram-train to Hadfield and Glossop. That frees platforms 1 & 2 at Piccadilly (taken together with the tram-training of the Marple line, and the rerouting of the airport-Leeds services through Victoria, and airport-Liverpool services via Chat Moss). And it takes a whole lot of current train paths off the viaduct at Oxford Road.

So there is certainly a continuing role for heavy rail commuting along exceptionally heavily used corridors (like Bolton and Wigan); and also where commuter trains perforce must share space with regional rail (like Hazel Grove, Bramhall or Heald Green). But otherwise there are a considerable number of lines into cities with current light rail systems - Sheffield, Blackpool, Manc, Brum, Newcastle, where conversion to tram train may well prove the best way of guaranteeing a future service in a railway world where operating subsidies are being reduced or done away with altogether.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The problem with using that side of Piccadilly is what needs to be displaced to get something into there, you'd need to remove the Square One offices, and several other things, then you have the problem of accessing said station, unless you approach via the Fallowfield Loop that would need a lot of bridges over current lines (that is more likely to have local opposition) it would be difficult to approach.

I was not suggesting a parallel running line that would shadow the lines into platforms 1 and 2. I was suggesting that the running lines run from the area after Ardwick station (heading towards Manchester city centre) would pass on the other side of the Square One offices. This would pose no difficulty with a station site with regard to customs clearances (which is no bad thing) nor would there be any problems providing a "dead-straight" run in of the length that will be required. There should not be any transport problems on that particular side of Piccadilly railway station.

However, this is just my own view of matters, for what it is worth.

 

[WatcherZero]

The government i have heard are planning a big new town along the hs2 route between coventry and birmingham which would in effect make one massive conurbation between coventry and wolverhampton concreting over green belt land.
If this sort of thing happens to green belt land along the rest of the hs2 route then it will be a bad thing for the country.

No, just the chief architect of HS2 saying that if the Government wanted to build a load of new homes how about a city on HS2.