• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

HS2 preferred route to Leeds and Manchester announced

Status
Not open for further replies.

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
7,738
Location
Leeds
This is being discussed in other threads but I think it needs its own thread.

DfT press release

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...eeds-and-manchester-set-out-by-the-government

Transport Secretary Chris Grayling today (15 November 2016) confirmed the majority of the preferred HS2 route from Crewe to Manchester and the West Midlands to Leeds in a major boost for the UK’s future economic prosperity and a further clear signal the country is open for business.

...

The Transport Secretary has published a command paper High Speed Two: from Crewe to Manchester, the West Midlands to Leeds and beyond, setting out today’s announcement in more detail.

...

On the western leg, HS2 will:

continue north from Crewe to Manchester Airport
continue from Manchester Airport on to Manchester city centre, where a new HS2 station will be built next to Manchester Piccadilly

There will also be a connection to Liverpool and to the existing West Coast main line allowing HS2 services to continue north, serving stations to Glasgow and Edinburgh.

On the eastern leg, HS2 will:

continue from the West Midlands to Toton in the East Midlands, where a new HS2 station will be built to serve Nottingham, Derby and the wider region
continue north from the East Midlands to South Yorkshire
in line with Sir David Higgins’ recommendation, we propose HS2 should serve Sheffield with a connection to the existing station with the main route be moved further east and we will be consulting before a final decision is made next year
from South Yorkshire, HS2 will continue to Leeds where a new HS2 station will be built in Leeds city centre, adjacent to the existing station
HS2 will also have a connection onto the East Coast Main Line, allowing HS2 to serve York, Newcastle and other places in the north-east

There are 7 refinements on which Department for Transport is consulting.

These are, on the western leg:

to move the previously proposed rolling stock depot at Golborne to a site north of Crewe
to move the approach to Manchester Piccadilly up to 370 metres eastwards with the northern tunnel portal in Ardwick, to avoid direct impacts on residential properties and a school at West Gorton
to move the route in the Middlewich - Northwich area in Cheshire up to 800 metres westwards

On the eastern leg:

to move the route to the east of Measham in Leicestershire, avoiding the most significant impacts on local manufacturing businesses and development sites
to go around instead of tunnel under East Midlands Airport
to amend the alignment of the preferred route as it passes through Long Eaton to reduce severance in the local community and reduce impacts on the highway network and existing rail infrastructure
to move the alignment of the route from Derbyshire to West Yorkshire to reflect a change in the proposals for serving the Sheffield city region, as recommended by Sir David Higgins in his report Sheffield and South Yorkshire published in July 2016
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,426
I'm amazed there's so little discussion of the changes announced by DfT - there still seems to be more interest in alternatives to HS2, or why it is needed at all... :roll:

Meanwhile, drilling down into the DfT's pages, there is the "Phase 2b Command Paper", (referred to in the press release), which is quite a reasonable length summary of the changes, covering both the western and eastern legs:

2 Today the Secretary of State has confirmed the majority of the Government's preferred route for Phase 2b of HS2, which will complete the full Y network. Following the previous public consultation (from this point referred to as the 2013 consultation) HS2 Ltd has been developing the scheme and has recommended a number of refinements to the route in order to respond to concerns raised at consultation, as well as other factors. A summary report of the development of the Phase 2b scheme is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/colle...rom-the-west-midlands-to-leeds-and-manchester
3 In most cases these refinements are relatively minor and do not result in impacts on new communities, or substantially different impacts on communities than the route proposed in the 2013 consultation2. However, in seven areas where the proposed refinements are substantial the Secretary of State is launching a further consultation to seek the views of communities and other interested parties. The Secretary of State intends to confirm the full Phase 2b route after considering responses to this consultation in 2017

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...anchester-west-midlands-leeds-web-version.pdf


There's also a strategic alternatives paper, which perhaps ought to be read by anyone who's next post is intended to start with "why don't they just improve <insert something else> instead..."

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...lternatives-to-hs2-phase-2b-atkins-report.pdf
 
Last edited:

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
I'm happy with the route announced, I campaigned and had a few words with key people to avoid the WCML connection south of Wigan being dropped or the bypass of Wigan option being revived.

I now move on to campaigning for this to be a catalyst to upgrade North Western, for linespeed/capacity improvements between Wigan and Preston and for the best possible service level.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,918
Location
Nottingham
I'm happy with the route announced, I campaigned and had a few words with key people to avoid the WCML connection south of Wigan being dropped or the bypass of Wigan option being revived.

I now move on to campaigning for this to be a catalyst to upgrade North Western, for linespeed/capacity improvements between Wigan and Preston and for the best possible service level.

Would you prefer a swathe of Wigan to be demolished for quadrupling from North Western to Standish, or for it to remain a two-track bottleneck until either the bypass is revived or for ever?
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
Wouldn't actually take much demolition or land take if any, the alignment is pretty wide for a two track. Leaving North Western as far as Gidlow Cemetary used to be intermittently four track due to two branch lines breaking off to the west there to serve local farms and collieries at Standish Lower Ground and Shevington Moor and the second bridges foundations are still in situ over Frog Lane, Park Rd, Buckley Street. All it would require would be widening the top of the embankment through construction of half height retaining walls from North Western to Spencer Rd where the Embankment ends (about 700m). An alternative could be to bulldoze the embankment and replace it with a viaduct.

You can see the former branch lines on the map.

http://www.railmaponline.com/UKIEMap.php
 
Last edited:

Camden

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2014
Messages
1,949
I'm happy with the route announced, I campaigned and had a few words with key people to avoid the WCML connection south of Wigan being dropped or the bypass of Wigan option being revived.

I now move on to campaigning for this to be a catalyst to upgrade North Western, for linespeed/capacity improvements between Wigan and Preston and for the best possible service level.

Goodness you must have people's ears.

A city not far from you has been campaigning hard for some time to get a decent outcome out of this, and they haven't got any further on yet.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
My advice, its not about making a lot of noise and gaining the support of politicians but having a quiet word with the actual route planners to persuade them of your well reasoned arguments and the council officers whose feedback the planners really value.

Anderson et. al seem to have twigged this about NPR and are its chief advocates along with Hull in the background but were too late coming to this realisation with HS2. On the opposite side Sheffield Council also waged a effective campaign focusing on the arguments and without resorting to emotive and irrational language which devalues both the speaker and the case they are trying to make in a rational engineers eyes.
 
Last edited:

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,954
We need to remodel Preston first and there is no guarantee we will get the cash for that let alone things like Euxton etc...
 

Voglitz

Member
Joined
18 Feb 2015
Messages
249
I'm amazed there's so little discussion of the changes announced by DfT - there still seems to be more interest in alternatives to HS2, or why it is needed at all...

Perhaps because it's not clear why it is needed at all.

There's also a strategic alternatives paper, which perhaps ought to be read by anyone who's next post is intended to start with "why don't they just improve <insert something else> instead..."

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...lternatives-to-hs2-phase-2b-atkins-report.pdf

The "alternatives" presented, were concocted to support government policy.
 

158756

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2014
Messages
1,447
We need to remodel Preston first and there is no guarantee we will get the cash for that let alone things like Euxton etc...

Are they still proposing trains to Scotland splitting at Carlisle/Carstairs, having stopped at Preston? If so how do such trains fit into the layout at Preston?
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,954
Which is why it needs something doing to it for that as well as not being really fit for purpose anymore.
 
Last edited:

Shaw S Hunter

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2016
Messages
2,952
Location
Sunny South Lancs
The whole stretch from Bank Quay to Fylde Junction is a mess layout wise. Unfortunately grade separation of junctions is both expensive and unglamourous. If we're struggling to justify Woking Jn then what chance have the likes of Winwick or Euxton got?!
 

185

Established Member
Joined
29 Aug 2010
Messages
4,997
Can I say I am a major fan of HS2 and err... umm... this has whatsoever nothing to do with the £15000 now being offered for being a friendly neighbour of Manchester Piccadilly Station :)

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...ews/hs2-route-map-greater-manchester-12195696

MEN Article said:
he government has confirmed that 67 properties in Greater Manchester will need to be completely demolished - which will also include a number of residential properties in Hale Barns as well as a number of villages in Cheshire.

A 7.9 mile 45m deep tunnel will be dug from Wythenshawe to Ardwick as part of the £56bn project.

Our map shows in green where the track will be built above ground. While the red line indicates the underground section.

Those whose homes are beneath (*error-above) this part of the line will not be offered compensation unless damage is proven to have occurred after construction.

But another map shows buildings in the ‘safeguarding’ area - the 60m zone around the line where property owners are likely to have to sell to the Government - but only if they live near to an above-ground section, such as the one proposed at Manchester Airport.

The map below shows the areas where properties and residents may be affected by the route.

HS2 Ltd said this is a reduction from the 92 which had previously been in the earlier 2013 route design, although 35 homes are now affected which were not in the initial plan.

Here is the lowdown on whether or not you could claim.

The M.E.N is yet to contact homeowners and businesses affected. If you are affected please call the newsdesk on 0161 211 2471.

Here’s what you can do if you are affected by HS2

I live above a tunnel... will the government buy my home?

In short, no.

The route is mostly tunnelled between Manchester and Piccadilly and will be 45m deep.

HS2 Ltd insist that with modern building methods there will be ‘minimal impact’ during their excavation and not cause settlement or vibrations.

However is likely that residents will be given similar assurances to people living in London during the building of the Cross Rail tunnel, with owners being issued with legal documents to give them assurance.

The rail firm will also likely ‘buy’ your subsoil for £50 - and pay £250 towards professional advice.

It is also possible HS2 will survey your home if it is classed as at-risk before and after work to check it hasn’t had an impact.

If your home is damaged, HS2 Ltd has promised to cover the costs of repairing it.More than a quarter of my land is within 60m of the line - what does that mean?

You are in a safeguarded area. This is the area of land alongside the route protected from development that may impact on HS2. It generally extends to 60m either side of the centre line but can be thinner or wider in places.

Will the government buy my house?

Yes - for 110 per cent of its ‘non-HS2’ value through the fast-track Express Purchase Scheme

My land is within 60m of the track, but it's less than a quarter. What does that mean?

You may still apply to sell your property to the Government with a Statutory Blight Notice if land around it is needed for the construction of HS2.

What can I get?

If you qualify, the government will:

1. Buy your home at its open market value as if HS2 isn’t going to be built

2 Give you a ‘home loss’ payment equal to 10pc of the property’s open market value up to £58,000.

3. Pay expenses like stamp duty, surveyors’ and legal fees plus removal costs.

How do I apply?

You must complete this blight notice form with supporting documents.

You’ll get a decision on your application within two months.

You have up to three years to accept the offer if your application is accepted.

"The route is between 120m and 300m from my home and I don't want to move"

You may be eligible for cash. This is called the HOMEOWNER PAYMENT SCHEME. It starts when the powers to construct the railway are authorised by Parliament.

Do I qualify?

Yes, if your house or 25pc of the total area of your property is within 300m.

What will I get?

You can claim £7,500 to £22,500 depending on which homeowner payment band you’re in.

Distance from line of the route Amount

Between 120m and 180m £22,500

Between 180m and 240m £15,000

Between 240m and 300m £7,500

Get the form here

What if I am further away but HS2 is stopping me from selling - will the government buy my house?

Possibly - if you meet certain criteria.

This is the NEED TO SELL scheme. Basically you need to prove ‘compelling reason’ to sell as a direct result of the route.

In this case, the government will buy your property the ‘non-HS2’ open market value if you are successful - regardless of distance to the track.

The government will NOT cover additional costs, such as legal fees or removal costs.

What is a compelling reason?

Compelling reasons include unemployment, relocation for a new job or ill health - but each application is judged on its merits.

You’ll need to show:

1. That your property is close enough to the route that it’s likely to be substantially affected by HS2’s construction or operation. There is no fixed distance.

2. You’ve tried to sell property without success for at least 3 months.

3. You bought or signed a lease before publication of the HS2 route section closest to your property

4. You couldn’t have known about the initial proposed route

Here’s the form
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,297
Location
Fenny Stratford
Not popular with the boss - her house will be about 100 yards form the tunnel mouth at Woodlesford. The residents are more unhappy than before! DFT have moved the route to impact less on the environment around the river and canal and impacted on more people than ever before!
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
In today's Knutsford Guardian the front page says about the agricultural community being upset that the proposed HS2 site will cut through the ground used for the Cheshire Show, yet a few pages in it shows a picture of George Osborne with NFU members saying he supports the local farming community.

Mr Osborne doesn't appear to know what's going on given he said he fully supports HS2.
 

absolutelymilk

Established Member
Joined
18 Jul 2015
Messages
1,242
In today's Knutsford Guardian the front page says about the agricultural community being upset that the proposed HS2 site will cut through the ground used for the Cheshire Show, yet a few pages in it shows a picture of George Osborne with NFU members saying he supports the local farming community.

Mr Osborne doesn't appear to know what's going on given he said he fully supports HS2.

Does he say that he supports them in their campaign against the HS2 site or just that he supports the local farming community in general?
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,918
Location
Nottingham
In today's Knutsford Guardian the front page says about the agricultural community being upset that the proposed HS2 site will cut through the ground used for the Cheshire Show, yet a few pages in it shows a picture of George Osborne with NFU members saying he supports the local farming community.

Mr Osborne doesn't appear to know what's going on given he said he fully supports HS2.

The Cheshire Showground has over 250 acres available and includes an extensive infrastructure of access gates, trackways and utility points.

The Cheshire Showground is situated just 2 miles from M6 Junction 19.

http://www.royalcheshireshow.org/showground-hire/

So basically a large open space in a non-built-up area with convenient road access and some utilities laid in, but nothing in the way of permanent structures or even metalled roads (and pictures on the net appear to confirm this). I really don't see why this can't be moved to some equally convenient but unaffected site nearby, and I imagine the HS2 project estimates will include the costs of doing that.
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,942
http://www.royalcheshireshow.org/showground-hire/

So basically a large open space in a non-built-up area with convenient road access and some utilities laid in, but nothing in the way of permanent structures or even metalled roads (and pictures on the net appear to confirm this). I really don't see why this can't be moved to some equally convenient but unaffected site nearby, and I imagine the HS2 project estimates will include the costs of doing that.

That he will support the local farming community in the uncertain times ahead.

How about he will support the local farming coomunity by getting them a new and better site with HS2 'compensation'?
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
http://www.royalcheshireshow.org/showground-hire/

So basically a large open space in a non-built-up area with convenient road access and some utilities laid in, but nothing in the way of permanent structures or even metalled roads (and pictures on the net appear to confirm this). I really don't see why this can't be moved to some equally convenient but unaffected site nearby, and I imagine the HS2 project estimates will include the costs of doing that.

Such as?

The current site is just off a 4 lane A road which connects with both the M6 and M56. Other nearby fields have been lost due to the A556 scheme, while some a bit further away have been lost to other developments e.g. Davenham by-pass and the Morrisons regional distribution centre.

Yes there's lot of fields in Cheshire but they don't have good road access e.g. the ones in Mobberley are out of the question unless Knutsford gets a by-pass and the A537 wouldn't be able to cope with the extra traffic so that rules out the ones in Chelford.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,918
Location
Nottingham
Such as?

The current site is just off a 4 lane A road which connects with both the M6 and M56. Other nearby fields have been lost due to the A556 scheme, while some a bit further away have been lost to other developments e.g. Davenham by-pass and the Morrisons regional distribution centre.

Yes there's lot of fields in Cheshire but they don't have good road access e.g. the ones in Mobberley are out of the question unless Knutsford gets a by-pass and the A537 wouldn't be able to cope with the extra traffic so that rules out the ones in Chelford.

Not being familiar with the area as you are, I can't answer that. But I can't help thinking that re-locating an agricultural show will be one of the lesser challenges HS2 have to deal with.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,385
Location
Bolton
The congestion caused by the Cheshire Show is shocking anyway. Having such a huge number of people and exhibitors all driving to a field for the weekend is not showing the envicornmental credentials of the farming industry off.
 

MarkyT

Established Member
Joined
20 May 2012
Messages
6,249
Location
Torbay
From the official route maps, it appears the alignment cuts a comparatively small part from the west side of the Cheshire show ground rather than slicing right through the the middle of it, and as far as I can tell it will not interfere with the main road access routes.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
The congestion caused by the Cheshire Show is shocking anyway. Having such a huge number of people and exhibitors all driving to a field for the weekend is not showing the envicornmental credentials of the farming industry off.

It's a Tuesday and Wednesday event and they do organise complimentary buses from Knutsford, Northwich and Hartford stations.
 

Chester1

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
4,006
This thread seems the most relevant..

Has any planning for Piccadilly considered extending existing platforms rather than building new platforms to the east? It seems astounding to compulsory purchase some very desirable development land than use existing space. It would be possible to have 4 x 400m platforms roughly were platorms 1 to 4 are (with a St Pancras style roof extension), remodel the shed to keep 6 or 7 platorms for terminating NR services and lose 1 or 2 platforms to free up space to remodel the tracks outside the station. If the Greater Manchester Combined Authority do tram trains to Marple and 2 extra through platforms (15 and 16) are built it is questionable that it is neccessary to have 12 terminating platforms for NR services.
 

NotATrainspott

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2013
Messages
3,224
This thread seems the most relevant..

Has any planning for Piccadilly considered extending existing platforms rather than building new platforms to the east? It seems astounding to compulsory purchase some very desirable development land than use existing space. It would be possible to have 4 x 400m platforms roughly were platorms 1 to 4 are (with a St Pancras style roof extension), remodel the shed to keep 6 or 7 platorms for terminating NR services and lose 1 or 2 platforms to free up space to remodel the tracks outside the station. If the Greater Manchester Combined Authority do tram trains to Marple and 2 extra through platforms (15 and 16) are built it is questionable that it is neccessary to have 12 terminating platforms for NR services.

That means additional complexity for not a lot of gain. Allowing HS2 to build an entirely separate station that shares a concourse means that there's no risk of any NR or Metrolink project delays preventing the HS2 service from running. They're only doing a combined station rebuild at Euston and that's only because they have no choice, and even then they've now planned it so that the first stage is a totally separate station.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,727
This thread seems the most relevant..
It would be possible to have 4 x 400m platforms roughly were platorms 1 to 4 are (with a St Pancras style roof extension), remodel the shed to keep 6 or 7 platorms for terminating NR services and lose 1 or 2 platforms to free up space to remodel the tracks outside the station. If the Greater Manchester Combined Authority do tram trains to Marple and 2 extra through platforms (15 and 16) are built it is questionable that it is neccessary to have 12 terminating platforms for NR services.

We have no idea if the GMCA is actually going to build those tram-train projects, there is a huge range of reasons why it probably won't happen.
And losing platforms might become slightly problematic given planned service increases elsewhere in the suburban network.
Also a reconstruction of the existing platform means works on an active railway which means much money expended.

The new station adjacent solution might actually come out cheaper.
 
Last edited:

Shaw S Hunter

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2016
Messages
2,952
Location
Sunny South Lancs
We have no idea if the GMCA is actually going to build those tram-train projects, there is a huge range of reasons why it probably won't happen.
And losing platforms might become slightly problematic given planned service increases elsewhere in the suburban network.
Also a reconstruction of the existing platform means works on an active railway which means much money expended.

The new station adjacent solution might actually come out cheaper.

Also relevant is the fact that the current platforms are regularly double or even triple occupied just to make the timetable work. With every likelihood that many services will gradually see longer trains used on them any reduction in the number of platforms for the existing network is asking for serious trouble.

The decision to build a separate terminus at Leeds has been driven by similar considerations.
 

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
8,692
You would remove a lot of local benefits by freeing up platforms so no i doubt it has been considered beyond that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top