HS2 rail extension to Leeds set to be scrapped

[kylemore]

Isn't that because the bit that the 'anti' campaigners against HS2 didn't / don't want is still being built? They couldn't care less either way about Birmingham to Leeds because it doesn't go through the Chilterns.

Exactly. The East Midlands trees don't seem to be as important as the Chiltern trees!

 

[73128]

With regards to the northern throat at Sheffield. I believe tram-trains might well turn out to be part of the answer. There are already suggestions the existing Supertram track may be re-routed from the east side of Sheffield station to the west enabling a new road to be built on east side. This re-route could be enhanced to carry on to Sheffield Victoria - reopening of which I’m told is necessary if Beeching Reversals for Don Valley and Barrow Hill lines come to anything. Tram-trains could turn left on a triangle to head up Don Valley to Stocksbridge or right for Barrow Hill line. Also after a right turn at SheffVic are opportunities for trams or tram-trains to rejoin mainline to Meadowhall and beyond via a new chord or to rejoin tram or rail network in vicinity of Supertram’s Nunnery depot. Thus, the already proposed rerouting of Supertram could take local train services converted to tram-train just a short distance from Sheffield’s existing platforms via a tram route which could also serve as a large passing loop by taking slower services out of the path of faster trains.

This is only my idea but I believe has merits.

I thought that Sheffield has scrapped further consideration of ideas to reroute the trams to the front (west) of the station (and not that close to it) several months ago??

 

[Grumpy Git]

Exactly. The East Midlands trees don't seem to be as important as the Chiltern trees!

They've all got ash die back disease.

 

[david1212]

With the result that by the 1980s they had to extend the M40 to Birmingham to relieve the M1.

....

Not south of Birmingham which will be basically full up with 17 per hour each way on day 1.

While 17 TPH might be the plan I do not believe there genuinely will be that level of demand from day 1 or at any time after. Politics may well dictate at least close to this run but doing so will create plenty of spare paths on the classic routes.

Very different to 1980's traffic levels vastly exceeding the predictions of 1950's and early 1960's. Remember the M5 was built as 2 lanes from Jn3 to the M50 and similarly the northern section of the M40.

 

[Bald Rick]

You assume firstly that the maximum speed wont go above 140mph and secondly that nothing will be done to remove any of the restrictons (such as the flat crossing at Newark)

I was giving an example.
Other than Newark, which restrictions would you remove, how, and at what cost?

Going above 140mph on existing lines brings further complications, and has not been studied seriously in this country.

I didn't say that replacing to a higher standard during renewals was zero cost but it is far more cost effective than doing it out of course

You are assuming that. What is the cost difference?

To us amateurs it doesn't seem to make any sense - the ECML is constrained to 18 tph in each direction,

It isn’t.

It is constrained to 18tph between Digswell and Woolmer Green Junctions, and then only if two of those trains call at Welwyn North. It is constrained to various other numbers of tph at various other locations through the interaction between infrastructure, stopping patterns and line speeds. The ECML can (and does) comfortably accommodate 42tph between Finsbury Park and Alexandra Palace, and 24tph from Alexandra Palace to WGC. Between Grantham and Newark it can manage about 8tph. In the latter case it could take more, but stopping patterns would have to change.
It’s a complex thing, Timetabling.

 

[ABB125]

similarly the northern section of the M40.

I believe the northern section of the M40 (from Oxford to the M42) was built as 3 lanes. The southern section (to London), which is a good 20-30 years older than the northern section, was built as 2 lanes though. It was widened to 3 (and in places 4) lanes when the northern extension was built.

Anyway, back to HS2...

 

[Bald Rick]

I believe the northern section of the M40 (from Oxford to the M42) was built as 3 lanes. The southern section (to London), which is a good 20-30 years older than the northern section, was built as 2 lanes though. It was widened to 3 (and in places 4) lanes when the northern extension was built.

Anyway, back to HS2...

all of the M40 was built as 3 lanes, except J4 High Wycombe to J5 Stokenchurch which was originally 2 lanes, widened to 3 in 1990/1

 

[ABB125]

all of the M40 was built as 3 lanes, except J4 High Wycombe to J5 Stokenchurch which was originally 2 lanes, widened to 3 in 1990/1

I bow down to your superior knowledge!

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The i seems to be suggesting Leeds to Hull will be electrified and with MML mentioned maybe electrification will at least be a beneficiary of this.

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/n...game-as-more-scaled-back-plans-emerge-1304337

i has since learnt that northern leaders’ plan for a new NPR line from Liverpool to Manchester will instead be scaled back and delivered through upgrades, although Leeds to Hull electrification will go ahead.

 

[Purple Orange]

It is interesting that Leeds-Hull is to be electrified, as that gives an indication of the key NPR-TRU services. We won’t see bi-modes running on any new build NPR & HS2 track, therefore we should expect the trunk routes to be Liverpool/Manchester to Newcastle/Hull across the Pennines, unless some Birmingham services also play in to this too. Middlesbrough & Scarborough may remain as bi-modes, but not a part of the NPR-TRU mainline services perhaps?

 

[JonathanH]

It is interesting that Leeds-Hull is to be electrified, as that gives an indication of the key NPR-TRU services.

Isn't it just the route which most easily could be converted to full electric working? York to Hull would be electric, as would Hull Trains and LNER services - eg it is the piece of electrification with the greatest return (frequency) out of the TPE network.

 

[Purple Orange]

Isn't it just the route which most easily could be converted to full electric working? York to Hull would be electric, as would Hull Trains and LNER services - eg it is the piece of electrification with the greatest return (frequency) out of the TPE network.

Yes, but we can infer from the planned investment that certain routes will not be a part of the core NPR network. There won’t be a Manchester-Scarborough service running to the Piccadilly HS2 station if the line from York to Scarborough is not electrified, but there could be a Manchester-Hull service running in/out of the Piccadilly HS2 station.

 

[A0]

With the result that by the 1980s they had to extend the M40 to Birmingham to relieve the M1.

Not quite that simple - M1 capacity was a factor, but you also have to look at the other things which that extension enabled - it improved south-coast to West Midlands connections along with, in due course the A34. The M40 had always been envisaged as a London - Oxford - Birmingham motorway, it's just that the first section got built alot earlier than the later sections.

It's easy to forget before the advent of the M40, between Oxford and Birmingham meant using what was the A423 and A41 - nowadays the A4260 and B4100 which took you through Banbury and Warwick.

However, HS2 provides such a huge capacity uplift that it will be decades before we'll need to be thinking about providing more capacity. And then, the simple solution is to build a new east coast route.

The problem with an "East Coast" route is you have nowhere of any significance between London and Leeds. The best capacity increase on the East Coast could probably be achieve by eliminating 2/3 track sections like Welwyn and Connington - Peterborough.

 

[21C101]

The problem with an "East Coast" route is you have nowhere of any significance between London and Leeds. The best capacity increase on the East Coast could probably be achieve by eliminating 2/3 track sections like Welwyn and Connington - Peterborough.

I would think that that the interventions other than Welwyn which would be most useful would be

1) Rebuilding Newark Station with through roads in association with grade separating the flat crossing would be the most useful intervention. As well as removing the flat crossing you provide a station layout that allows fast trains to overtake those calling at Newark.

2) Second priority (perhaps it should be first as much cheaper than (1). Providing "goods line" platforms at Hornsey and Haringey so that Hertford Loop services stay off the down slows which in term means some GN/TL traffic has less fast line occupation (as well as being able to provide a far more frequent Moorgate to Hertford service).

3) I would make third priority on an additional down platform at Retford so the existing down fast platform could be closed off and Retford had two through roads for fast trains to be able to overtake semifasts calling at Retford.

Ideal but probably wouldn't stack up in a business case:

4) Fourth, complete Huntingdon to Peterborough re? Quadrupling.

5) Extend the 4 track to Grantham with a new bore for Stoke Tunnel suitable for high speed passage. I would also rebuild grantham to have tbrough road.

Kings Cross is a fixed constrain, however it has nine intercity platforms for less intercity trains per hour than St Pancras has with four platforms on the Midland Main line next door. Therefore replanning of how trains are handled as was done at St Pancras when they lost several platforms to Eurostar is needed with long layovers despatched to Hornsey in the same way that they are to Cricklewood on the Midland Main Line.

A good start would be to end the "temporary" situation of the two Thameslink stoppers to Cambridge terminating at KX platform 3 instead of going down the Thameslink core.

 

[Ianno87]

I would think that that the interventions other than Welwyn which would be most useful would be

1) Rebuilding Newark Station with through roads in association with grade separating the flat crossing would be the most useful intervention. As well as removing the flat crossing you provide a station layout that allows fast trains to overtake those calling at Newark.

2) Second priority (perhaps it should be first as much cheaper than (1). Providing "goods line" platforms at Hornsey and Haringey so that Hertford Loop services stay off the down slows which in term means some GN/TL traffic has less fast line occupation (as well as being able to provide a far more frequent Moorgate to Hertford service).

3) I would make third priority on an additional down platform at Retford so the existing down fast platform could be closed off and Retford had two through roads for fast trains to be able to overtake semifasts calling at Retford.

Ideal but probably wouldn't stack up in a business case:

4) Fourth, complete Huntingdon to Peterborough re? Quadrupling.

5) Extend the 4 track to Grantham with a new bore for Stoke Tunnel suitable for high speed passage. I would also rebuild grantham to have tbrough road.

Kings Cross is a fixed constrain, however it has nine intercity platforms for less intercity trains per hour than St Pancras has with four platforms on the Midland Main line next door. Therefore replanning of how trains are handled as was done at St Pancras when they lost several platforms to Eurostar is needed with long layovers despatched to Hornsey in the same way that they are to Cricklewood on the Midland Main Line.

A good start would be to end the "temporary" situation of the two Thameslink stoppers to Cambridge terminating at KX platform 3 instead of going down the Thameslink core.

*However*, even if you 4-tracked Welwyn that would still limit you to +2tph long distance south of Woolmer Green because of how well the current TT is optimised around the constraint (as I previously explained), regardless of what you did on the rest of the route.

It's alot of expense and disruption, for a very small service benefit.

 

[30907]

I would think that that the interventions other than Welwyn which would be most useful would be

1) Rebuilding Newark Station with through roads in association with grade separating the flat crossing would be the most useful intervention. As well as removing the flat crossing you provide a station layout that allows fast trains to overtake those calling at Newark.

3) I would make third priority on an additional down platform at Retford so the existing down fast platform could be closed off and Retford had two through roads for fast trains to be able to overtake semifasts calling at Retford.

The time penalty for an Up train looped at Retford is around 4min (6min stop compared with 2min). It would be similar at Newark.
Looping trains may give you increased flexibility (and therefore be useful), but on its own little or no increased capacity. You need extended sections of quadruple track for that.

 

[Bald Rick]

There's trackbed of two lines totally unused bar the station at Gorton(?) - bring those back as far as Guide Bridge. The conflicting moves and stopping services play havoc from Guide Bridge all the way to Ardwick. 7 minutes for 4 miles Guide Bridge - Ardwick.. could do better!

a rather long way round.

It is interesting that Leeds-Hull is to be electrified, as that gives an indication of the key NPR-TRU services. We won’t see bi-modes running on any new build NPR & HS2 track,

why do you say that?

Kings Cross is a fixed constrain, however it has nine intercity platforms for less intercity trains per hour than St Pancras has with four platforms on the Midland Main line next door.

you might want to check that Statement.

 

[snowball]

Yes, but we can infer from the planned investment that certain routes will not be a part of the core NPR network. There won’t be a Manchester-Scarborough service running to the Piccadilly HS2 station if the line from York to Scarborough is not electrified, but there could be a Manchester-Hull service running in/out of the Piccadilly HS2 station.

I wouldn't have thought Scarborough services from Piccadilly HS2 were ever on the cards. All the talk has been of cities.

 

[JKF]

Isn't it just the route which most easily could be converted to full electric working? York to Hull would be electric, as would Hull Trains and LNER services - eg it is the piece of electrification with the greatest return (frequency) out of the TPE network.

It’s also a route with no tunnels and few overbridges, so likely to be fairly easy to achieve compared to other routes. I think it was also four tracked at the eastern end (from the junction at Gilberdyke?) which will provide a decent working space during installation.

 

[HSTEd]

The problem with an "East Coast" route is you have nowhere of any significance between London and Leeds.

We actually had a thread on this a loong loong time ago.

I think options that were floated were Going via Cambridge to join what was then the eastern branch at Nottingham - effectively decoupling HS2-East from the rest - or going via Oxford to Birmingham.

The former seems like an odd 'dog leg' but allows relatively minor upgrades from Cambridge to Norwich to make it attractive vs the GEML for London-Norfolk traffic - which relaxes capacity on that route somewhat.

 

[fishwomp]

a rather long way round.

Maybe another route would be shorter, but I would settle for 5 minutes quicker within 5 years, than nothing for 10 years, and then 10 minutes improvement, and £10b to pay for it.

Further.. Huddersfield to Manchester is 22 miles as the crow flies, or 25.5 miles via Guide Bridge. It is not the distance, just the curves (Marsden and Stalybridge) that are problematic.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Starmer opens PMQs over whether Northern Crossrail High Speed line between Manchester to Leeds or HS2 Eastern legs are going to be built as promised by Boris. Wait till tomorrow he says its going to be a fantastic IRP Northern cities will get a commuter services as good as L&SE.

Nothing given away of course but good to see rail taking the front stage at PMQs.

 

[jon0844]

A good start would be to end the "temporary" situation of the two Thameslink stoppers to Cambridge terminating at KX platform 3 instead of going down the Thameslink core.

Sadly it doesn't seem like the 2C/2R services to KGX will ever go into the core (at least not for the foreseeable). The most we'll get is the Sevenoaks services that might begin next May, depending on how the route learning goes, and those are trains (2Y) that currently aren't running at all.

 

[21C101]

you might want to check that Statement.

I'm including the Corbys in the MML so six an hour at St Pancras. I guess you could reasonably state they are no longer intercities but the point I am trying to make is that platform utilisation is far more intense at St Pancras 1-4 than at KX 0-8.

 

[miami]

all of the M40 was built as 3 lanes, except J4 High Wycombe to J5 Stokenchurch which was originally 2 lanes, widened to 3 in 1990/1

Roads.org.uk disagrees

"In the 1960s, work started building a motorway from London to Oxford, bypassing the congested A40, and this part was complete by 1974. It was mainly dual two-lane and it returned traffic to the A40 Wheatley Bypass at the Oxford end for the final approach to the dreaming spires."

It was only in 1991 when the North-of-Oxford stretch opened that

"The existing motorway was also refurbished to match it, with a substantial length widened to four lanes at the London end, to help provide capacity for Birmingham traffic on the existing road to Oxford. However, the length of road under the roundabout at junction 4, Handy Cross, was never widened, and remains a two-lane bottleneck on an otherwise three and four lane road."

M40

The second motorway from London to Birmingham, calling in at Oxford on the way, is calmer and prettier than the alternative - but caused far more problems to build.

www.roads.org.uk

 

[Domeyhead]

Bearing in mind that HS2 trains are "classic compatible" and that people rightly have an aversion to changing trains with luggage, families etc we might still see HS2 trains from Euston running directly to Leeds via the HS2 Phase 1 and then this "quite high" speed link (200kph?) rump to E Midlands and then decelerating once again to 150kph all the way from E Midlands to SHeffield and speeding up again north of Sheffield to "Quite high" speed again onward to Leeds. And all in a train built to run at 360kph+ all the way. It makes no sense as even the missing bit in the middle still needs to be upgraded for ETCS etc. and all the new trains still have to be regression tested on the classic lines anyway. I feel sorry for Sheffield - short changed for years and now short changed yet again.

 

[HSTEd]

Bearing in mind that HS2 trains are "classic compatible" and that people rightly have an aversion to changing trains with luggage, families etc we might still see HS2 trains from Euston running directly to Leeds via the HS2 Phase 1 and then this "quite high" speed link (200kph?) rump to E Midlands and then decelerating once again to 150kph all the way from E Midlands to SHeffield and speeding up again north of Sheffield to "Quite high" speed again onward to Leeds. And all in a train built to run at 360kph+ all the way. It makes no sense as even the missing bit in the middle still needs to be upgraded for ETCS etc. and all the new trains still have to be regression tested on the classic lines anyway. I feel sorry for Sheffield - short changed for years and now short changed yet again.

Well if the people averse to changing are willing to pay full commercial fares for this convenience, it's not the railway's problem.

And don't feel sorry for Sheffield, they've got exactly what they wanted - city centre HS2 services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Bearing in mind that HS2 trains are "classic compatible" and that people rightly have an aversion to changing trains with luggage, families etc we might still see HS2 trains from Euston running directly to Leeds via the HS2 Phase 1 and then this "quite high" speed link (200kph?) rump to E Midlands and then decelerating once again to 150kph all the way from E Midlands to SHeffield and speeding up again north of Sheffield to "Quite high" speed again onward to Leeds. And all in a train built to run at 360kph+ all the way. It makes no sense as even the missing bit in the middle still needs to be upgraded for ETCS etc. and all the new trains still have to be regression tested on the classic lines anyway. I feel sorry for Sheffield - short changed for years and now short changed yet again.

Why does it make no sense? It's exactly the "Neubaustrecke" approach used by SBB and DB.

 

[Ianno87]

Why does it make no sense? It's exactly the "Neubaustrecke" approach used by SBB and DB.

Also, why is it that "the missing bit in the middle still needs to be upgraded to ETCS?". Classic Compatibles will be running on Conventional signalling on most of the Network Rail parts of their journey, wherever they run.

 

[Purple Orange]

I wouldn't have thought Scarborough services from Piccadilly HS2 were ever on the cards. All the talk has been of cities.

I agree, but I could have said Middlesbrough or anywhere that is not expected to get wires. The point is that only EMUs will be on HS2 track, therefore that leaves only two routes (Newcastle & Hull) as viable for NPR.