HS2 Sheffield

[edwin_m]

However I am baffled why the original HS2 route couldn't have had a link in the Meadowhall area to the existing classic line and enter Sheffield Midland from the north.

Because it would have needed a huge curving viaduct across the Don Valley, going right through the shopping centre?

As soon as you start looking at classic compatible services into Sheffield Midland, the Meadowhall stop becomes unnecessary. Serving Meadowhall seems to have been the main reason why the route headed into the hilly and fairly populous area to the north-west of there. The route up the M18 is both flatter and less populated, hence the net saving of a few minutes on the journey time to Leeds and £1bn off the cost.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Been out for a day and the change has got universal approval with the exception of the new housing estate it will now go through and the mayor of Doncaster.

That is where the suggested parkway comes in. Ideally it should be built as an interchange with the Mexborough-Doncaster route where HS2 crosses it, so that connecting trains can run to Doncaster and Humberside in less time than by changing at Sheffield. However I suspect the new route will fly over the Don valley on a viaduct and putting an interchange there will be nearly as difficult as Meadowhall.

 

[Grumpy]

So as I asked previously why are we building captive stock? Surely costs could be reduced using classic compatible only & we have similar fleet throughout the whole network.

Why are we needing different stock for London - Leeds & London - Newcastle!

You are right. We don't need different stock. Leeds needs classic compatible stock so through services can be maintained to the likes of Bradford, Skipton and a hopefully eventually electrified Harrogate. Similarly Newcastle for trains running north of HS2.
Since the original proposals were published, which the HS enthusiasts on here couldn't stand being criticised, reality/common sense is resulting in some sensible changes. Eventually the penny will drop that the captive stock is an unnecessary waste of money.

 

[snowball]

Just discovered that there are detailed maps of the new route online!

https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/hs2-high-speed-rail

Also on the same page, details of information events along the route in late July and early August.

On the late Look North it seemed to be taken for granted that there would be a station in the Thurnscoe/Goldthorpe/Bolton upon Dearne area, though I haven't seen that in the documents.

 

[WatcherZero]

Theres an image that looks like a station in the route map in the document where it rejoins at Thurnscoe in the consultation document. I would have thought a site further south would have better road access though that site would have the advantage of being able to serve Sheffield bound services too.

 

[quantinghome]

You are right. We don't need different stock. Leeds needs classic compatible stock so through services can be maintained to the likes of Bradford, Skipton and a hopefully eventually electrified Harrogate. Similarly Newcastle for trains running north of HS2.

How would this work, given the HS2 station in Leeds is currently planned to be a terminus?

Since the original proposals were published, which the HS enthusiasts on here couldn't stand being criticised, reality/common sense is resulting in some sensible changes. Eventually the penny will drop that the captive stock is an unnecessary waste of money.

If captive stock is selected from manufacturers' standard designs rather than bespoke, I don't see there being a problem, particularly if it allows double decker trains to be used to increase capacity. A uniform fleet would be simpler for operations and maintenance, but that fact that so many train operators around the world have mixed fleets indicates it's not such a big issue.

 

[edwin_m]

How would this work, given the HS2 station in Leeds is currently planned to be a terminus?

A connection to the classic route in the Woodlesford area would allow classic compatible services to join the classic network and run into the existing part of the station. However I doubt you could get a 400m set into Leeds, and for Harrogate, Skipton or Bradford Forster Square the train would have to cross most or all the other tracks of the western throat at Leeds.

I agree London trains are unlikely to run onto the classic network at Leeds. If such a connection was provided it would probably be part of Northern Powerhouse not HS2. Instead, the modifications to the HS2 proposal at Leeds should mean that high speed and classic platforms share the same concourse so interchange between them is pretty good.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If captive stock is selected from manufacturers' standard designs rather than bespoke, I don't see there being a problem, particularly if it allows double decker trains to be used to increase capacity. A uniform fleet would be simpler for operations and maintenance, but that fact that so many train operators around the world have mixed fleets indicates it's not such a big issue.

Captive stock can be ordered in small quantities without a huge price premium, but classic compatible stock can't. So as the various changes to HS2 increase the amount of CC stock that might be needed, there comes a point where it's best to order all the CC stock that might ever be needed as a single batch. There is also the benefit, particularly in Phase 1, that a single fleet can be diagrammed across all services. So I think it's quite likely that the Phase 1 fleet will be all CCs and the extras ordered for Phase 2 will be captives - with the possibility of double deck if the actual demand suggests it is needed.

 

[The Ham]

Captive stock can be ordered in small quantities without a huge price premium, but classic compatible stock can't. So as the various changes to HS2 increase the amount of CC stock that might be needed, there comes a point where it's best to order all the CC stock that might ever be needed as a single batch. There is also the benefit, particularly in Phase 1, that a single fleet can be diagrammed across all services. So I think it's quite likely that the Phase 1 fleet will be all CCs and the extras ordered for Phase 2 will be captives - with the possibility of double deck if the actual demand suggests it is needed.

I would agree that all the CC's are likely to be ordered as part of Phase 1, however by the time the CC's need replacing it could well be that the design has been used (with a reduction in the top speed) for other long distance services. Much in the same way that modifications have been made to the 801's to make them 802's or other classes of trains have sub classes, or how the 395's form a lot of the heritage to the 80x's.

 

[Blamethrower]

Just discovered that there are detailed maps of the new route online!

https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/hs2-high-speed-rail

Also on the same page, details of information events along the route in late July and early August.

On the late Look North it seemed to be taken for granted that there would be a station in the Thurnscoe/Goldthorpe/Bolton upon Dearne area, though I haven't seen that in the documents.

Looking at these maps, does this mean that a decision has been taken not to go through meadowhall and create classic compatible spurs to the city centres?

If no, why not do the same for Nottingham and Derby, Stoke, Stafford etc?

Surely this will raise the rolling stock cost and give us tiny little trains working massively over-engineered infrastructure.

Has this change been confirmed or is it a "potential" change?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I would agree that all the CC's are likely to be ordered as part of Phase 1, however by the time the CC's need replacing it could well be that the design has been used (with a reduction in the top speed) for other long distance services. Much in the same way that modifications have been made to the 801's to make them 802's or other classes of trains have sub classes, or how the 395's form a lot of the heritage to the 80x's.

Would they also have to tilt?

 

[HSTEd]

Looking at these maps, does this mean that a decision has been taken not to go through meadowhall and create classic compatible spurs to the city centres?

If no, why not do the same for Nottingham and Derby, Stoke, Stafford etc?

Because Sheffield can scream the loudest and its whining has been driving us all crazy. Even louder than that of Liverpool

Surely this will raise the rolling stock cost and give us tiny little trains working massively over-engineered infrastructure.

Yes, but it gets out of building the challenging station at Meadowhall, in exchange we have a parkway station literally in a beet field and a station in the middle of Sheffield where no trains will actually go to it.

Has this change been confirmed or is it a "potential" change?

It's confirmed - they are sending out land acquisition notices to the housing estate they need to obliterate for this route to work.

 

[snowball]

On the late Look North it seemed to be taken for granted that there would be a station in the Thurnscoe/Goldthorpe/Bolton upon Dearne area, though I haven't seen that in the documents.

Theres an image that looks like a station in the route map in the document where it rejoins at Thurnscoe in the consultation document. I would have thought a site further south would have better road access though that site would have the advantage of being able to serve Sheffield bound services too.

Thanks. If we're both looking at the grey rectangular blob on page 20 of this document, it appears to be on the existing line that would become part of the Sheffield loop, immediately south of the crossing of the new HS2 route. The detailed plans show neither the station nor any connection between the two lines, so I agree with whoever it was who said HS2 Ltd are signalling that if station and connection are to happen, somebody else will have to pay for them.

It looks as though the station, if any, would be near Clayton, with road access from Church Field Road.


--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Looking at these maps, does this mean that a decision has been taken not to go through meadowhall and create classic compatible spurs to the city centres?

...

Has this change been confirmed or is it a "potential" change?

It's confirmed - they are sending out land acquisition notices to the housing estate they need to obliterate for this route to work.

It's still only an announcement by HS2 Ltd. The government is supposed to be making its announcement in the autumn on the route that will go into the Bill. The notices only say "we may, or may not, compulsorily purchase some or all of your land".

 

[bangor-toad]

Wow.
I've had the chance to download all the maps (thanks for the links).

In my opinion, what an utter disaster for Sheffield.
Instead of a station where at least it would be possible for all trains to call, they're going to get a southwards only facing spur. That means only Classic-Compatible services having to use the MML down through Chesterfield Clay Cross.

Given that the services are likely to terminate at Sheffield it'll almost certainly have relatively low usage and I'd be amazed if there's more than 1tph. As for anyone heading north there's no way to get any journey speed improvement for Leeds, York or Newcastle.

Given that the HS2 section from Toton to Clay Cross is only about 23 miles it means that using HS2 to Sheffield via the spur is likely to be less than 8 to 10 minutes quicker than a normal service running up the Erewash Valley line through Alfreton to Clay Cross and then Chesterfield & Sheffield.
I'd guess that this suddenly becomes a un-needed extra and the spur link is dropped - after all the Sheffield & Chesterfield passengers can use Toton to change can't they?

Of course, the engineering costs of the rest of the line may mean this variation was absolutely needed but as I see it, Sheffield just got knocked off the HS lines forever.
Pity.

Mr Toad

 

[Grumpy]

A connection to the classic route in the Woodlesford area would allow classic compatible services to join the classic network and run into the existing part of the station. However I doubt you could get a 400m set into Leeds, and for Harrogate, Skipton or Bradford Forster Square the train would have to cross most or all the other tracks of the western throat at Leeds.

.

The David Higgins proposals for an integrated station are a significant improvement on the originals. Several of us on here who pointed out the shortcomings were criticised on here but Higgins has moved us along nicely.

The problem with the Higgins report is that he missed the obvious option. Thus option 1 has HS2 using the existing southerly platforms at Leeds with access from the east. This option was discarded because it rather obviously reduced the number of platforms required for existing services and growth so they plumped for option 2-the integrated concourse option. However the point to note is that option 1 showed that the southern platforms at Leeds could function as HS2 platforms.

The option that was missed would have HS2 trains approaching Leeds and continuing on the old Midland alignment into the station from the west and then using the existing southernmost platforms as in Higgins option 1. No need for any expensive new eastern access or new southern access and station involving site acquisitions and demolitions/disruption of existing businesses. The Midland route was 4 track and now carries relatively little traffic. Additional platforms for displaced non-HS2 services would be provided to the north side of the existing station by using the existing railway owned ground-level parking area and possibly spanning the river (just as part of the station currently does). Car parking to be re-provided by a multi-storey building. Additional river/canal bridges would be needed for the throat.
This option should be considerably cheaper than current proposals, and would allow reversal and running to the likes of Bradford. I accept the comment re crossing tracks and conflicts with other services but given the separate proposals to bring in services from the Huddersfield line via the viaduct line, the conflicts would be much reduced (in this case of course the Huddersfield direction trains would use the southernmost platforms and HS2 more central ones).

 

[The Ham]

Would they also have to tilt?

I would guess that they wouldn't have to, as being limited to 100mph on the Northern reaches of the Classic network wouldn't make much of a difference to journey times.

However if someone was to propose tilting trains with benefits that offset the downsides, then I doubt that anyone would have a problem with that. (Of course tilting trains would have down sides, such as the reduced profile at the top of the coaches and the heavy nature of the trains which would increase track wear and charges).

 

[edwin_m]

A tilting classic compatible would be beneficial for Edinburgh and Glasgow in particular, but it would have to have the same maximum speed as the other HS2 sets because of the need to fit between particularly on the London-Birmingham section. No such train exists and developing one would be a much bigger ask than a UK-gauge non-tilting CC set.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I would agree that all the CC's are likely to be ordered as part of Phase 1, however by the time the CC's need replacing it could well be that the design has been used (with a reduction in the top speed) for other long distance services. Much in the same way that modifications have been made to the 801's to make them 802's or other classes of trains have sub classes, or how the 395's form a lot of the heritage to the 80x's.

Maybe so, in which case it wouldn't be as critical to order all the CCs in one batch and a mixed fleet becomes more likely again. But if it doesn't and HS2 finds it needs a few more CC trains a few years later then it will pay through the nose for them.

There is also the question of competitive procurement of later batches, "later" being too late to be options on the original order. If their competitors have to develop a new design, then will the one supplier with an existing design (a) reduce their price out of pure public-spiritedness, or (b) price a little below the competition and make more profit?

 

[Blamethrower]

A tilting classic compatible would be beneficial for Edinburgh and Glasgow in particular, but it would have to have the same maximum speed as the other HS2 sets because of the need to fit between particularly on the London-Birmingham section. No such train exists and developing one would be a much bigger ask than a UK-gauge non-tilting CC set.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/N700_Series_Shinkansen

There is one, but it tilts on the Shinkansen lines and not by very much. Plus top speed is "only" 300kmh

 

[edwin_m]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/N700_Series_Shinkansen

There is one, but it tilts on the Shinkansen lines and not by very much. Plus top speed is "only" 300kmh

Looks a bit big for the UK loading gauge too.

 

[Haydn1971]

I'm away in the highlands at the mo, so had limited connectivity.... However, having perused the plans, reports and comments on here, I'm hopeful of this being another key part of a big future for an integrated HS2 network with "HS3/NPR" and other existing infrastructure - we now have big ideas for integration at Crewe and Piccadilly, a better located station in Leeds, and better connectivity for Sheffield. A parkway station near the M18 has been hinted at, I'd see this funded by SCRIF, and the only location where the line is flat enough is between Thurcroft (M1 J32) and Maltby (M18 J1) junctions, but I'd see that as pretty damn useless for anything really. My preferred solution would be to provide a HS2CC station facility at Swinton and rebuild the heavy rail line between Barnsley and Swinton (something considered in the SCRIF back in 2014), providing also the connection at South Kirby onto the HS2 mainline. This would also enable through HS2 services, but perhaps some work would be needed on the Masbrough curve (tunnel perhaps), to remove this slow curve.

 

[Blamethrower]

Looks a bit big for the UK loading gauge too.

Aye, even if it was adapted for the UK market, it'd be rather expensive. Maybe those bogies on a 395/800 body shell with shorter carriages would work?

 

[HSTEd]

Lets assume the 79 minutes for London-Sheffield without the stop at Chesterfield.
Currently it takes 52 minutes for Sheffield-York.
That leaves us on 131 minutes to York from London via HS2 and Sheffield.

Which manages to be slower than the current classic train - let alone the HS2 route on high speed track all the way.
Which means a spur into the centre of Sheffield is entirely useless for going anywhere outside the immediate area of Sheffield.
Its just far too slow -all this for the beenfit of only sheffield is a huge waste, you loose too much time on the crawl through Chesterfield et al.

EDIT:

It seems you could build a high speed alignment between the Sheffield and Doncaster approaches without enormous difficulty that could potentially cut the journey time down to 15 minutes instead of the 29 currently. Which would leave us on 117 minutes.
Which is at least close to competitive with the classic time but still worse than the current HS2 journey time - which means Sheffield paths might at least be useful for Hull.

 

[DelayRepay]

Well my mum phoned me today, very worried as she's had a letter saying her property may need to be demolished to make way for the new route. She lives just to the west of the M1 between Sheffield and Rotherham.

I have had a look at the maps and it looks like the route will pass through my mum's village but won't go through the part where she lives.

My question is how accurate are the maps online and how "wide" is the HS2 corridor likely to be? When are we likely to know for sure whose properties will be affected?

I think my mum's house will be safe but am worried as it would break her heart to see the home where she spent her entire married life and brought up me and my sister demolished. And I do not think she would find it easy to settle somewhere else at her age.

Anything that can help me reassure her would be appreciated as the letter has really upset her.

 

[edwin_m]

Well my mum phoned me today, very worried as she's had a letter saying her property may need to be demolished to make way for the new route. She lives just to the west of the M1 between Sheffield and Rotherham.

I have had a look at the maps and it looks like the route will pass through my mum's village but won't go through the part where she lives.

My question is how accurate are the maps online and how "wide" is the HS2 corridor likely to be? When are we likely to know for sure whose properties will be affected?

I think my mum's house will be safe but am worried as it would break her heart to see the home where she spent her entire married life and brought up me and my sister demolished. And I do not think she would find it easy to settle somewhere else at her age.

Anything that can help me reassure her would be appreciated as the letter has really upset her.

I've just by accident found some better maps, on the link below. Scroll down to the maps dated 7 July 2016 or search within the page for M18. The first one is a general map followed by detailed plans and profiles.

Your description "west of the M1 between Sheffield and Rotherham" could equally well apply to the Meadowhall route, which may not go ahead if what is being discussed here happens instead - but nothing is certain.

 

[nerd]

Lets assume the 79 minutes for London-Sheffield without the stop at Chesterfield.
Currently it takes 52 minutes for Sheffield-York.
That leaves us on 131 minutes to York from London via HS2 and Sheffield.

Which manages to be slower than the current classic train - let alone the HS2 route on high speed track all the way.
Which means a spur into the centre of Sheffield is entirely useless for going anywhere outside the immediate area of Sheffield.
Its just far too slow -all this for the beenfit of only sheffield is a huge waste, you loose too much time on the crawl through Chesterfield et al.

EDIT:

It seems you could build a high speed alignment between the Sheffield and Doncaster approaches without enormous difficulty that could potentially cut the journey time down to 15 minutes instead of the 29 currently. Which would leave us on 117 minutes.
Which is at least close to competitive with the classic time but still worse than the current HS2 journey time - which means Sheffield paths might at least be useful for Hull.

There is no suggestion that any York-Euston services would go via Sheffield. The new document appears to envisage up to four HS2 services per hour through Midland. 2 per hour from Birmingham to Leeds via Sheffield, and 2 per hour from Euston, terminating at Barnsley and Rotherham respectively.

There would indeed be a substantial time penalty for Leeds-Brum travellers. compared to the former proposed Meadowhall route, but then the existing service takes 2 hours.

As I understand the parkway proposal, it seems to be there to provide northwards-facing access to HS2 from Sheffield. Hence Sheffield-York could involve taking the Sheffield_leeds servies (either the northern section of Brum-Leeds, or NPR); and then changing onto a through-running HS2 service at the parkway stop.

 

[HSTEd]

There is no suggestion that any York-Euston services would go via Sheffield. The new document appears to envisage up to four HS2 services per hour through Midland. 2 per hour from Birmingham to Leeds via Sheffield, and 2 per hour from Euston, terminating at Barnsley and Rotherham respectively.

So two London paths expended for the benefit of Sheffield and its immediate environs?
This is not very efficient - unless these paths will be stopping at Birmingham International and Toton as well and are performing some sort of "stopping service" function - even then its rather problematic from a capacity standpoint.
It also constrains those paths to short CCs till the end of time - with half the capacity of a 400m DD Captive set.

So many very expensive paths expended to little gain.

There would indeed be a substantial time penalty for Leeds-Brum travellers. compared to the former proposed Meadowhall route, but then the existing service takes 2 hours.

If we want to get the kind of complete traffic transfer we need to make all this economic without huge fares- we can't just slightly beat the existing service times, we have to smash them.

As I understand the parkway proposal, it seems to be there to provide northwards-facing access to HS2 from Sheffield. Hence Sheffield-York could involve taking the Sheffield_leeds servies (either the northern section of Brum-Leeds, or NPR); and then changing onto a through-running HS2 service at the parkway stop.

Is the parkway going to be far enough north for a train to run out of Midland to the North to reach it?
Thats going to put it in a rather odd position based on the maps.
Either way its not really a great solution.

I suppose there is no chance of threading a route closer to Chesterfield station than the one proposed to reduce the journey time a bit?
EDIT:

Wouldn't it be better at this point to axe the York connection and instead have a spur off HS2 in the vicinity of Doncaster considering how close it is - then spend the money from the saved trackwork for a northern high speed exit of Midland and some sort of attempt to get at least two 400m platform faces.

 

[snowball]

I've just by accident found some better maps, on the link below. Scroll down to the maps dated 7 July 2016 or search within the page for M18. The first one is a general map followed by detailed plans and profiles.

I see no link in your post but are you referring to the maps I linked in #93?

 

[edwin_m]

I see no link in your post but are you referring to the maps I linked in #93?

Yes same maps, though I think they were in a different order on the link I found, which I obviously forgot to paste into the post!

 

[snowball]

Yes same maps, though I think they were in a different order on the link I found, which I obviously forgot to paste into the post!

If it's the same maps in a different order then it might also have other useful information on it, so if you find it again, post the link.

 

[edwin_m]

If it's the same maps in a different order then it might also have other useful information on it, so if you find it again, post the link.

I think it was this one. The items dated July 2016 appear to be the same as on your other link.

https://www.gov.uk/government/colle...rom-the-west-midlands-to-leeds-and-manchester

 

[nerd]

So two London paths expended for the benefit of Sheffield and its immediate environs?
This is not very efficient - unless these paths will be stopping at Birmingham International and Toton as well and are performing some sort of "stopping service" function - even then its rather problematic from a capacity standpoint.
It also constrains those paths to short CCs till the end of time - with half the capacity of a 400m DD Captive set.

So many very expensive paths expended to little gain.

all of which may be why the announcement is for 'up to two' HS2 services per hour to Midland; hence could be just one. My reading is that terminating at Sheffield city centre could not justify a 2ph business case; but that HS2 Ltd are exploring options for the services to carry through to Barnsley and Rotherham (hence also Meadowhall) in order to boost modelled demand. In any case, they are likely to be stopping at Toton and Brum interchange; as was the case for Meadowhall stoppers in the former service pattern.

If we want to get the kind of complete traffic transfer we need to make all this economic without huge fares- we can't just slightly beat the existing service times, we have to smash them.

agreed, but it won't be difficult for a Leeds-Sheffield-Brum HS2 service to smash the current times. If the alternative would be a single hourly Leeds-Brum direct service, there might not be the same level of demand.

Is the parkway going to be far enough north for a train to run out of Midland to the North to reach it?
Thats going to put it in a rather odd position based on the maps.
Either way its not really a great solution.

I have been struggling to think why the parkway option might otherwise be justified, if not to provide a route from Sheffield onto the Newcastle and York HS2 services. Why otherwise would trains from these cities stop in the middle of nowhere?

I suppose there is no chance of threading a route closer to Chesterfield station than the one proposed to reduce the journey time a bit?

clearly not

EDIT:

Wouldn't it be better at this point to axe the York connection and instead have a spur off HS2 in the vicinity of Doncaster considering how close it is - then spend the money from the saved trackwork for a northern high speed exit of Midland and some sort of attempt to get at least two 400m platform faces.

not clear what you are meaning here; what is the 'York connection'?

 

[Haydn1971]

I suspect the parkway idea is more of a "if you want it, you pay for it" kinda thing - just south of M18 J1 is flat enough on the rails to accommodate a station - take a look at the long sections.

 

[nerd]

I suspect the parkway idea is more of a "if you want it, you pay for it" kinda thing - just south of M18 J1 is flat enough on the rails to accommodate a station - take a look at the long sections.

but who would pay?

If Rotherham and Meadowhall are to have direct HS2 CC services; that might be expected to resolve the political issue within South Yorkshire. But that then would be contingent on someone other than HS2 paying for the upgrade to the Barnsley and Rotherham lines. Which in turn makes it most unlikely that funding will be forthcoming for a parkway. I think that experience is consistent that parkways in themselves (without an associated major trip generator) dont work on HSR lines.