HS2 rail extension to Leeds set to be scrapped

[LNW-GW Joint]

Good point. I had always assumed that the capacity wasn't particularly constrained at the south end, only further north where the speed differential between 125mph intercity trains and 100mph Thameslink/GN EMUs kicked in. Where does 125mph running on the ECML fasts start?

From the SA, 125mph starts at Woolmer Green, just north of Welwyn North Tunnel, MP23.15.
Line speed is 115mph from the north end of Barnet Tunnel, MP7.73 on the Down (more restricted 100mph on the Up from Potters Bar Tunnel).

 

[tbtc]

Big case of be careful what you wish for!

Funny how "upgrade the existing network" turns out to just be a bit of a disaster in reality...

Yup - this u-turn belongs to the "just upgrade the existing network" people - this is what they wanted - this its the smaller scale "local" projects starting in the north of England that they said would be much better than HS2 - if you argued for that on HS2 threads over the past decade then, congratulations, you've got what you wanted, your arguments have given the government a fig-leaf to hide behind to justify their massive scaling back of ambitions - we'll now have a fast(ish) bit of line from Leeds to Sheffield, where trains can then run on the congested Midland Main Line towards East Midlands Parkway where they can then rejoin the fast line again

I look forward to seeing how hypocritical some people are going to be about what needs to be demolished to get through Cudworth etc - given how up in arms people were about a handful of modern flats being demolished if the HS2 route through Mexborough had happened, and how they count every single tree that'd have been cut down if HS2 had gone ahead - will the kind of Green Party people who were instinctively against HS2 because it was going to London turn a blind eye to chopping down any trees as long as the new bit of line is wholly within Yorkshire? The Reverse Ferrets should be interesting!

(Speculative warning)
Tbh, the only solution to Sheffield if you want city centre trains in my opinion is to bore right under it!
Dig a big pit out in front of the Midland station and have some underground HSR platforms. ~£3-5bn with about 5/10 miles of tunnelling on either end

Just the small matter of the River Sheaf to worry about

 

[Roast Veg]

Yup - this u-turn belongs to the "just upgrade the existing network" people - this is what they wanted - this its the smaller scale "local" projects starting in the north of England that they said would be much better than HS2 - if you argued for that on HS2 threads over the past decade then, congratulations, you've got what you wanted, your arguments have given the government a fig-leaf to hide behind to justify their massive scaling back of ambitions

The response in West Yorkshire has not been favourable. I'm hoping that eh "East West Divide" can catch on as something to bear in mind, now that Manchester has what it wants.

we'll now have a fast(ish) bit of line from Leeds to Sheffield, where trains can then run on the congested Midland Main Line towards East Midlands Parkway where they can then rejoin the fast line again

Careful phrasing will keep either the Erewash Valley or the remainder of HS2 as a "deferred option". When the treasury issues its next round of boom after this bust, it should be obvious as a gap to be filled.

 

[MontyP]

Yup - this u-turn belongs to the "just upgrade the existing network" people - this is what they wanted - this its the smaller scale "local" projects starting in the north of England that they said would be much better than HS2 - if you argued for that on HS2 threads over the past decade then, congratulations, you've got what you wanted, your arguments have given the government a fig-leaf to hide behind to justify their massive scaling back of ambitions - we'll now have a fast(ish) bit of line from Leeds to Sheffield, where trains can then run on the congested Midland Main Line towards East Midlands Parkway where they can then rejoin the fast line again

I look forward to seeing how hypocritical some people are going to be about what needs to be demolished to get through Cudworth etc - given how up in arms people were about a handful of modern flats being demolished if the HS2 route through Mexborough had happened, and how they count every single tree that'd have been cut down if HS2 had gone ahead - will the kind of Green Party people who were instinctively against HS2 because it was going to London turn a blind eye to chopping down any trees as long as the new bit of line is wholly within Yorkshire? The Reverse Ferrets should be interesting!



Just the small matter of the River Sheaf to worry about

Not sure where Cudworth comes into it? The new line from Leeds towards Sheffield (if built) would presumably follow the planned full route southwards as far as the spur south of South Kirkby, joining the Pontefract to Rotherham line at Thurnscoe.

True that the line from there to Rotherham is congested but presumably it could be 4-tracked to the junction with the Old Road/Barrow Hill line. Then the congested part from north of Chesterfield to Clay Cross but that is all 4 tracks. I don't think the Erewash Valley route is particularly congested and again presumably would be at least partially 4-tracked and electrified.

 

[Killingworth]

Just the small matter of the River Sheaf to worry about

That may be over played. True it does complicate matters running under Sheffield Midland station and then joining the River Don where that valley is also an obstacle. 150 years ago they found ways to deal with that down the Sheaf valley. The Sheaf isn't a very big river even when in flood, as long as the storm capacity is kept clear.

We seem to run plenty of trains quite long distances under ground beneath a large city in the south of England where many run below a much larger river. But it does cost a lot!

While boring keep on for 30 miles dead straight and level west to Piccadilly. Journey then 15-20 minutes maximum. Transformational. Twin cities Sheffield/Manchester. A British engineering project to be proud of. Start here. Oops, dreaming again. Should be tunnelling north for Leeds.

 

[Roast Veg]

Not sure where Cudworth comes into it? The new line from Leeds towards Sheffield (if built) would presumably follow the planned full route southwards as far as the spur south of South Kirkby, joining the Pontefract to Rotherham line at Thurnscoe.

Yes, I've been referring to this junction as the "Clayton" junction. It's been within the scope of NPR for ages as far as I know.

True that the line from there to Rotherham is congested but presumably it could be 4-tracked to the junction with the Old Road/Barrow Hill line. Then the congested part from north of Chesterfield to Clay Cross but that is all 4 tracks. I don't think the Erewash Valley route is particularly congested and again presumably would be at least partially 4-tracked and electrified.

Whether the Erewash Valley (avoiding Derby) and/or the Old Road (avoiding Sheffield) is in scope depends on funding. Referring to the NIC report (as it is the best resource we have right now, and maybe will continue to be even after the IRP this week), these two are only featured in the regional+50% option. All suggestions point to neither of the two being chosen, rather some sort of +37.5% pick-and-choose collage.

 

[21C101]

Not by very much.

Remember, very little capacity actually gets lost by Welwyn because the timetable design minimises it - only the 2tph that weave from Slow lines onto the viaduct and back to the Slow Lines again could be "released". Everything else on the viaduct is Fast Line to/from at least Finsbury Park.

If it ran on time perhaps. But these are Thamesiinks we are talking about where a leaf falling in Horsham sees a late presentation at Welwyn North.

There is also the outer suburban trains Thameslink/GN that use the fast lines south of Welwyn; with continuous four track some could switch to the slow lines well south of Welwyn freeing up further capacity.

 

[Ianno87]

If it ran on time perhaps. But these are Thamesiinks we are talking about where a leaf falling in Horsham sees a late presentation at Welwyn North.

No it doesn't. I've debunked this myth that Thameslink performs poorly several times before. Thameslink performs very well indeed on the majority of days. Taking Thameslink off Welwyn adds zero net capacity.

There is also the outer suburban trains Thameslink/GN that use the fast lines south of Welwyn; with continuous four track some could switch to the slow lines well south of Welwyn freeing up further capacity.

No they couldn't; they'd fall over the stoppers calling at Brookmans Park et al.

 

[david1212]

I never understood why HS2 headed to the east when a upgraded ECML would be shorter (roughly speaking)

The road planners 70 ish years ago had the right idea with M1 and M6 - nominally head north out of London then split off west to Birmingham then north again to Manchester, Liverpool and the Scottish boarder.

IMO HS2 started on the wrong foot with the plan of London - Heathrow - West Midlands instead of a shared station with HS1. It should have been routed between the ECML and MML with a split off maybe just to the existing WCML between Northampton and Rugby, after all the direct route from Rugby to Manchester is not exactly slow and is only all 125mph not some stretches of 140mph because of the lack of investment in signalling. Toton could have been the first station on HS2.

With non-stop services removed from the WCML Euston - Rugby, the MML south Derby / Nottingham and the ECML south of say Doncaster there would have been fewer conflicts between semi-fast and local services plus paths for freight.

 

[Watershed]

No it doesn't. I've debunked this myth that Thameslink performs poorly several times before. Thameslink performs very well indeed on the majority of days. Taking Thameslink off Welwyn adds zero net capacity.

Only if you assume the current timetable - which is written around constraints including Welwyn - continues forever.
A lot of the current service patterns are explicitly designed around that. For example, surely it would make sense to extend some of the Welwyn terminators to Stevenage? With the current infrastructure, that's not possible.

I know you're just being obtuse here, but for the benefit of anyone else: Welwyn is undoubtedly a bottleneck - just as Stevenage terminators were until platform 5 opened, and trains crossing on the flat to Cambridge were until the flyover was opened. Removing that bottleneck doesn't inherently increase capacity, but in combination with other works that have happened and are happening, it would give greater flexibility as to the paths that can be accommodated.

None of that is to suggest that four tracking Welwyn must go ahead because HS2 East has been severely cut back, but it is equally nonsensical to suggest there is no benefit whatsoever.

 

[option]

Have to disagree, there was and is support because HS2 is being built and there was the commitment to fund it, what has sunk it is the failure to manage the costs. If HS2 was capable of delivering what it originally promised and a price somewhere close to originally agreed, it would be going ahead in full. Rail projects seem to expect the tax payer to give them a blank cheque, but like any project if the costs escalate then the project design has to be adjusted to control costs. But HS2 had the additional problem of being not only hugely expensive but also providing either no or limited benefits to the communities along the route which doesn't help build public support.

A big chunk of the cost is the tunnels to get through 'sensitive' areas. Those areas are so sensitive that we're currently taking out all the roads & buildings, aren't we...


You do have to wonder if it would have been better to have built the north-western or north-eastern parts first, as it's then unlikely that the London leg would get dropped.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You do have to wonder if it would have been better to have built the north-western or north-eastern parts first, as it's then unlikely that the London leg would get dropped.

Not in terms of benefits, because the biggest benefit comes from relieving the south WCML, whereas the further north you go, the smaller the benefits are.

The south WCML bit even benefits people from further north with improved punctuality/reliability as the WCML wouldn't fall apart every time someone looked at it.

 

[Ianno87]

I know you're just being obtuse here, but for the benefit of anyone else: Welwyn is undoubtedly a bottleneck - just as Stevenage terminators were until platform 5 opened, and trains crossing on the flat to Cambridge were until the flyover was opened. Removing that bottleneck doesn't inherently increase capacity, but in combination with other works that have happened and are happening, it would give greater flexibility as to the paths that can be accommodated.

None of that is to suggest that four tracking Welwyn must go ahead because HS2 East has been severely cut back, but it is equally nonsensical to suggest there is no benefit whatsoever.

I didn't say there was no benefit to directly solving Welwyn, merely that the benefits are low (basically 2tph on the Fast Line, plus maybe some local extension from Welwyn Garden City) compared to the scale of infrastructure required.

 

[adrock1976]

Yup - this u-turn belongs to the "just upgrade the existing network" people - this is what they wanted - this its the smaller scale "local" projects starting in the north of England that they said would be much better than HS2 - if you argued for that on HS2 threads over the past decade then, congratulations, you've got what you wanted, your arguments have given the government a fig-leaf to hide behind to justify their massive scaling back of ambitions - we'll now have a fast(ish) bit of line from Leeds to Sheffield, where trains can then run on the congested Midland Main Line towards East Midlands Parkway where they can then rejoin the fast line again

I look forward to seeing how hypocritical some people are going to be about what needs to be demolished to get through Cudworth etc - given how up in arms people were about a handful of modern flats being demolished if the HS2 route through Mexborough had happened, and how they count every single tree that'd have been cut down if HS2 had gone ahead - will the kind of Green Party people who were instinctively against HS2 because it was going to London turn a blind eye to chopping down any trees as long as the new bit of line is wholly within Yorkshire? The Reverse Ferrets should be interesting!



Just the small matter of the River Sheaf to worry about

That may be over played. True it does complicate matters running under Sheffield Midland station and then joining the River Don where that valley is also an obstacle. 150 years ago they found ways to deal with that down the Sheaf valley. The Sheaf isn't a very big river even when in flood, as long as the storm capacity is kept clear.

We seem to run plenty of trains quite long distances under ground beneath a large city in the south of England where many run below a much larger river. But it does cost a lot!

While boring keep on for 30 miles dead straight and level west to Piccadilly. Journey then 15-20 minutes maximum. Transformational. Twin cities Sheffield/Manchester. A British engineering project to be proud of. Start here. Oops, dreaming again. Should be tunnelling north for Leeds.

Regarding the constraints at Sheffield Midland (I thought I would ask both of you being as you both know the area far better than me) and as there were once quad tracks the whole way north of the tunnel to Wincobank Junction/Meadowhall Interchange, combined with 4 though platforms at Midland, would it be easy to build a tunnel north of Platforms 1 and 2 with it emerging on the left hand side north of Nunnery Main Line Junction?

Platforms 1 and 2 could then be dedicated for trains via Barnsley using the left hand pair of tracks, with the existing tracks through Nunnery and the existing tunnel dedicated for trains via the ex Manchester, Sheffield, & Lincolnshire/Great Central Railway towards Gainsborough Trent Junctions and trains towards Swinton using the right hand pair of tracks.

 

[Mogster]

The response in West Yorkshire has not been favourable. I'm hoping that eh "East West Divide" can catch on as something to bear in mind, now that Manchester has what it wants.

It appears Manchester isn’t getting the underground expansion at Piccadilly the Bechtel Review favored. So it’s not all completely rosy West of Pennines.

 

[HSTEd]

Well my thoughts on HS2 have been long recorded in the annals of this forum.

Although my own view has mutated from anti through to my Shinkansen for all phase through to my current Shinkansen as Metro for all position.

Ultimately the HS2 project as originally envisaged was not the one I would have built, and I have a soft spot for ultra high speed Maglevs, but I'd still prefer HS2 to another "upgrade" bodge job that renders the railway too expensive to operate in a politically sustainable fashion long term.

 

[Starmill]

Only if you assume the current timetable - which is written around constraints including Welwyn - continues forever.

Indeed. There would be a strong financial case to close Welwyn North and Welham Green and Brookmans Park, to much of the of the problem at a stroke. That's obviously not politically possible but it goes to show what the opportunity cost of short journeys needing to be made on the ECML is.

 

[Senex]

Regarding the constraints at Sheffield Midland (I thought I would ask both of you being as you both know the area far better than me) and as there were once quad tracks the whole way north of the tunnel to Wincobank Junction/Meadowhall Interchange, combined with 4 though platforms at Midland, would it be easy to build a tunnel north of Platforms 1 and 2 with it emerging on the left hand side north of Nunnery Main Line Junction?

Platforms 1 and 2 could then be dedicated for trains via Barnsley using the left hand pair of tracks, with the existing tracks through Nunnery and the existing tunnel dedicated for trains via the ex Manchester, Sheffield, & Lincolnshire/Great Central Railway towards Gainsborough Trent Junctions and trains towards Swinton using the right hand pair of tracks.

The line was quadruple from Mill Race Jn (north of Attercliffe Road) to Harrison & Camm's Sidings (south of Holmes). The Midland obtained powers in 1901 to widen from the station to Mill Race Jn and extended the powers a few years later, but that work wasn't done.

 

[Roast Veg]

It appears Manchester isn’t getting the underground expansion at Piccadilly the Bechtel Review favored. So it’s not all completely rosy West of Pennines.

Although this also appears in the NIC report as well, it's been discussed at length why a terminating platform at Manchester is no problem.

 

[Shrop]

A major factor in promoting HS2 has always been the increase in rail capacity, freeing up space on existing lines etc., as well as of course the journey time reductions. Can anyone summarise what this proposed upgrade on the existing lines to replace HS2 Eastern arm will actually provide? What will the revised Birmingham to Sheffield and Leeds journey times be, and will the existing lines all be made into 4 track throughout?

 

[unlevel42]

... would it be easy to build a tunnel north of Platforms 1 and 2 with it emerging on the left hand side north of Nunnery Main Line Junction?

A simple tunnel would not be a solution as the situation is much more complex.
The current formation is a cutting with overbridges and cut and cover/shallow tunnels.
The river would not be a problem.

However there are long abandoned tunnels and mines.
The Parkway bridge with the western support above the tunnel you propose.
Tram embankment and modified bridge.
After the current tunnel the formation is double track on viaducts and bridges for over a kilometre beyond.

Between Nunnery and the station a 0.33km widening of the cutting would enable a three track wide formation.
The area near/above is no longer densely built on and at least two overbridges not needed.
Some work would anyway be necessary for electrification

A complete rebuild in some kind of concrete box would probably be cheaper and less complicated.

 

[geoffk]

NPR will be a new line from Manchester to Huddersfield

https://twitter.com/pickardje/status/1460334195746746372?s=21

A revived Micklehurst loop? Main problem is a big viaduct missing.

 

[HowardGWR]

Applying Machevellian* thought to the supposed Thursday statement on the HS2 issue, would it not be a cunning move to ensure years of debate about it, which would kick the financial consequences down the road? Additionally, as there are members of the same political peruasions who disagree about the issue, does it not achieve an aim of divide and rule?

*or 'Yes Minister'

 

[quantinghome]

A major factor in promoting HS2 has always been the increase in rail capacity, freeing up space on existing lines etc., as well as of course the journey time reductions. Can anyone summarise what this proposed upgrade on the existing lines to replace HS2 Eastern arm will actually provide? What will the revised Birmingham to Sheffield and Leeds journey times be, and will the existing lines all be made into 4 track throughout?

The proposals are yet to be released, so no one really knows. But certainly the upgrade needs to have complete segregation of fast and slow trains for it to be effective. But that would be a BIG upgrade.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

----, but I'd still prefer HS2 to another "upgrade" bodge job that renders the railway too expensive to operate in a politically sustainable fashion long term.

AKA West Coast Route Modernisation?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

A major factor in promoting HS2 has always been the increase in rail capacity, freeing up space on existing lines etc., as well as of course the journey time reductions. Can anyone summarise what this proposed upgrade on the existing lines to replace HS2 Eastern arm will actually provide? What will the revised Birmingham to Sheffield and Leeds journey times be, and will the existing lines all be made into 4 track throughout?

Maybe, wait 2 days until Thursday when we'll (hopefully) find out what the proposals actually are? Once we know that, then it may be possible to answer those questions.

 

[HSTEd]

AKA West Coast Route Modernisation?

Or the Great Western Route Modernisation - or god knows how many other botched schemes in recent decades.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Or the Great Western Route Modernisation - or god knows how many other botched schemes in recent decades.

It's a bit different from the WCRM, because even if you do nothing else to the existing TP route, it absolutely needs to be electrified. So if you're going to do that and have the related disruption, other stuff is smaller.

 

[quantinghome]

The only line modernisation I can think of that went smoothly over the past 25 years was Chiltern. Ignoring the collapsed tunnel, of course (technically that wasn't part of the upgrade).

 

[21C101]

The road planners 70 ish years ago had the right idea with M1 and M6 - nominally head north out of London then split off west to Birmingham then north again to Manchester, Liverpool and the Scottish boarder.

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