HS2 starting in the North

[YorkshireBear]

An advantage of starting in the North is that due to "Southern Nimby" delays, an earlier start could be made while the Nimbys are still arguing.

I think you may be very wrong about that. We have plenty of NIMBYs up north.... trust me.

 

[JohnCarlson]

I think you may be very wrong about that. We have plenty of NIMBYs up north.... trust me.

Sometimes I wonder if we have a few amongst Rail enthusiasts.

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

No, but I don't think anyone is pretending that it will.

However, this one line will provide capacity on a number of routes (e.g. if the London - Leeds/ Edinburgh traffic is going via HS2 then that frees up spaces over Welwyn on the ECML).

A step in the right direction (but not a cure for all our problems)

There are worthwhile rail investments all over the UK. Buts its the ones in London that tend to get the approval and finance.

John

 

[brianthegiant]

Direct trains to the continent are made impractical by the security problems it woudl appear

I seem to recall a lot of naysaying about the impracticality of security provision on the 'International Transport\DB running on HS1' thread, how it was too expensive, there isn't enough space in the stations, UK Borders agency would be problematic. Then DB ordered some suitable rolling stock and announced their route which will require them to install passport booths, scanners, etc at Koln, Amsterdam, Frankfurt. Maybe security isn't such a showstopper after all, or is it only the Germans who are able to overcome such major impracticalities?

 

[cle]

All that's needed is one platform, cordoned off for about 2 hours. Glasgow has a suitable one - Leeds, Liverpool and Newcastle too. Manchester would be trickier as the best would be platform 1.

13 is probably the next most isolated in a way, but is too short.

I think that Transport Scotland, with NR/DfT, could start on the top bit of HS2 - which in my mind would be a line similar to what we have today, from Glasgow and Edinburgh respectively, meeting and then joining the WCML.

The problem this would have would be pushing Edinburgh trains down the WCML before the HS2 is ready, potentially. To keep it Easct Coast (eventually we should have both) - a Morpeth bypass as part of a future high speed line, would give a lot of benefits to a lot of trains.

 

[Holly]

I think you may be very wrong about that. We have plenty of NIMBYs up north.... trust me.

Ah, but one has the distinct impression that government is more able and willing to brush off, and trample over, those Northern NIMBYs.

Stopping underground at Manchester Airport and then rejoining the WCML somewhere near Warrington (neutral territory) is how to get Manchester and Liverpool to cooperate rather than infight.

 

[Oliver]

It would be the ideal way to confirm this Government's commitment to the North.

That's exactly why it's the wrong thing to do. To start at the wrong end for political reasons will result in a slower more expensive project and lower benefits in the long term. Any sober evaluation would say "start where the new line will be busiest and current lines are closest to capacity" - that's the London - Birmingham section.

 

[tbtc]

There are worthwhile rail investments all over the UK. Buts its the ones in London that tend to get the approval and finance.

John

I agree, John, but if we want to invest in rail in "the North" then there are lots of local things (Dore, Holmes Chord, Todmorden chord, a dozen electrification projects...) that would produce immediate benefits. Starting HS2 from the "wrong" end won't make any real difference in "the North" though.

 

[Chris125]

Route? well the old Great Central route would be perfect for HS2. It was straight with a lack of major curves and gradients. That would certainly resolve the bulk of the route as most of the old route is still there. Spur off south of Rugby for Birmingham, and north of Rugby for the North West and Yorkshire. Rugby itself could be a major interchange too.

The GCR is basically a second Chiltern mainline that goes in the wrong direction. Its alignment, embankments, bridges, tunnels and stations are all useless for a new HSL, while rebuilding it would affect vastly more people at a higher cost than the current plans.

Chris

 

[Holly]

... Starting HS2 from the "wrong" end won't make any real difference in "the North" though.

To build an HS section from Birmingham Airport to the NorthWest would provide the same benefits for travellers between London and the NorthWest or Glasgow as would building the Birmingham and London section first.

Now admittedly it won't benefit travellers from Birmingham going South as much, but it will benefit travellers from Birmingham going North more.

So to say "Won't make any real difference in the North" is quite wrong. Now admittedly, all other things being equal, it makes sense to do the South first.

However things are reported as not all equal, reportedly there is a large body of NIMBY troublemakers in the South determined to delay construction. Nothing like as much opposition exists in the North. Indeed it is just possible that building the North section first might not delay the South section at all.

 

[Chris125]

As it turns out, the TSC havent suggested HS2 should be started in the north - instead, more effort should be made to show that the Phase 2 will be built but i dont really think thats a major worry. I think they've come to the same conclusion as most - there are various issues, but overall HS2 is a good thing and makes sense.

Chris

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Would be pretty much following, line for line the alignment chosen for the original M60, two buildings are in the way and thats all...

I think that the confusion occurred when you stated "Share the alignment through Wythenshawe with Metrolink" and at that time made no mention of the original route of the M60. Incidentally, which are the two buildings to which you make reference to?

 

[Nym]

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF&msa=0&msid=208537899835423960920.0004b13461fc0f93300c2

Might have underestimated a bit, theres about 7 residential and 10 industrial/commercial buildings in the way.

 

[Chris125]

The relevant quote:

"For reasons of cost, financing and management, the HS2 network should be built in phases. Despite pleas from some in Scotland and the north of England to build southwards from the north, it seems clear that construction should start with the London-West Midlands phase as this is where capacity needs are greatest."

Common sense!

Chris

 

[dggar]

All that's needed is one platform, cordoned off for about 2 hours. Glasgow has a suitable one - Leeds, Liverpool and Newcastle too. Manchester would be trickier as the best would be platform 1.

13 is probably the next most isolated in a way, but is too short.

.

I wouldn't expect HS2 to fitted into Picaddilly as it now stands.
The most obvious solution is to use the area now occupied by the Mayfield platforms.

 

[cle]

I was referring to international services - which would need to access HS2 but not necessarily have the same terminus if the security area was easier elsewhere? Who knows.

 

[dggar]

I was referring to international services - which would need to access HS2 but not necessarily have the same terminus if the security area was easier elsewhere? Who knows.

The Mayfield area is ideal for segregating international trains.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/general/2011/11/08-transport-committee-backs-plans-for.html

I've just seen this on RailNews.

Interresting reading

 

[cle]

In terms of an intermediate station, I wonder if one could be built (in the usual 4 track with loops HS way) - where it crosses the E/W line around the Calvert area, north of Bicester.

And maybe developing E/W for the region might be a sweetener from the government for the HS project, as well as a big interchange where they meet, providing connections up to Bletchley/MK/Bedford and down to Oxford and beyond.

 

[HSTEd]

People in the North-West are paranoid that the components of HS2 above Birmingham will be cancelled and never built, and frankly I'd say that is justifiable especially with the balooning costs that tend to accompany almost any public infrastructure project.

 

[tbtc]

To build an HS section from Birmingham Airport to the NorthWest would provide the same benefits for travellers between London and the NorthWest or Glasgow as would building the Birmingham and London section first.

Now admittedly it won't benefit travellers from Birmingham going South as much, but it will benefit travellers from Birmingham going North more.

So to say "Won't make any real difference in the North" is quite wrong. Now admittedly, all other things being equal, it makes sense to do the South first.

However things are reported as not all equal, reportedly there is a large body of NIMBY troublemakers in the South determined to delay construction. Nothing like as much opposition exists in the North. Indeed it is just possible that building the North section first might not delay the South section at all.

The lines in the "North" aren't as congested as those in the "South" (when we are talking about the WCML. Compare the volume of London Euston - Milton Keynes services with the number of services on the WCML north of Crewe.

Building the Northern end first is a bit like building the Abbey Wood - Docklands part of Crossrail first. It needs doing, but its not much use without the main section being completed first.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The Mayfield area is ideal for segregating international trains.

It would provide a secure base for all customs and security checks at a high-level environment that is not at the same level as the surrounding area. I am unsure as to the basic stability of the building itself at the present time, since it must have been many years since a standard maintenance programme was in place.

 

[pemma]

The relevant quote:

"For reasons of cost, financing and management, the HS2 network should be built in phases. Despite pleas from some in Scotland and the north of England to build southwards from the north, it seems clear that construction should start with the London-West Midlands phase as this is where capacity needs are greatest."

Common sense!

Chris

I don't think pleas are coming from the north for HS2 to start there. Pleas are coming from the north for investment in rail and the government have decided it might look good for them to be seen as investing in the north and it will delay problems the government are facing with HS2 set to be routed via the Chilterns.

 

[WatcherZero]

They shouldnt start from the North, though starting tunneling as soon as tunneling on the southern section was finished may speed up construction. What they do need to do which they havent so far is as soon as possible plan for the impact of HS-Compatible services once phase one opens, for instance they would need to lengthen two platforms at Piccadilly and that work would have to be completed before HS1 could open, countless other gauging, signal placement and platform alterations would be required on the classic network.

 

[deltic]

I wouldn't expect HS2 to fitted into Picaddilly as it now stands.
The most obvious solution is to use the area now occupied by the Mayfield platforms.

The most obvious solution rarely turns out to be the chosen solution!

 

[Invincibles]

Manchester Airport - M60 - Woodhead - Leeds (South) - A1M1 - ECML around Northallerton - New alignment through Washington - Newcastle

Stations at Newcastle, Washington, Teeside Parkway, Leeds Parkway, Manchester East and Manchester Airport

If swung round to come in to the airport from the North West it would be ready aligned to continue to London.

Trains could run into Piccadilly by 4 tracking Guide Bridge to Piccadilly and using clever timetabling between Hadfield and Guide Bridge.

Trains could run into Leeds using any number of routes, probably most involving Wakefield Kirkgate.

Do a lot of regeneration, provide a lot of useful links and be relatively cheap to build.

Does not go into the city centres, but I am increasingly convinced that is not a bad thing provided some trains each hour can do relatively short classic compatable journeys into the centres.

 

[route:oxford]

And maybe developing E/W for the region might be a sweetener from the government for the HS project, as well as a big interchange where they meet, providing connections up to Bletchley/MK/Bedford and down to Oxford and beyond.

It already is if you look closely.

The route to "depot" happens to follow the E:W rail link Eastward from Calvert to Bletchley.

 

[Holly]

... Building the Northern end first is a bit like building the Abbey Wood - Docklands part of Crossrail first. It needs doing, but its not much use without the main section being completed first.

On the contrary, for people travelling between the NorthWest and London, building a section from WCML near Warrington to Manchester Airport to Birmingham Airport would have almost the same time saving as building Birmingham Airport to London. And it would almost certainly come online sooner and be cheaper to build.

Yes, the benefits are bigger further South, but the per-mile costs and years until opening of service (not to mention the political headaches) are bigger also.

 

[JohnCarlson]

I don't think pleas are coming from the north for HS2 to start there. Pleas are coming from the north for investment in rail and the government have decided it might look good for them to be seen as investing in the north and it will delay problems the government are facing with HS2 set to be routed via the Chilterns.

Hs2 isn’t just about capacity on the railways but economic growth and regeneration in the UK. The HS2 debate seemed to kick off about the time David Cameron announced that there wouldn’t’ be a third runway at Heathrow, arguably a decision he now regrets , and according to some was aimed at giving the construction industry a large box of sweets or some badly needed work as it is now.
I am never sure of the rational for the Birmingham – London HS2 section. It seems to be we are going to run much longer train between the two cities and they will be double deck. As we will presumably still have the existing WCML this will vastly incense amount of seats between the two and you’ll get there faster . All well and good. But for say a cut in the journey time of about a third they are going to have to pay about a third on the price. When the journey time is just over an hour and a half this may not be a proposition that really generates many more passenger. If as I presume we are we are talking about trains from the north on lines where the max seed is around 125 mph then diverting onto HS2 the presumably an awful lot of Pendolinos are going to have to be replaced by much faster trains but these will initially at least only be a able to travel at max speed for the Birmingham London leg of the journey. How cost effective is than and how will passenger from Glasgow feel about a price increase for just about half an hour off the journey given that rein fairs are already very high.

Some cuts in journey time are more significant than others. I can just about remember the Deltics being replaced by the HSTs and the journey time to London dropping. This made us more likely to have a day in London but the journey there and back in a day was still a lot of time. But when the service was electrified and the journey time dropped to about 3:15 this suddenly made days away to London much more of an attractive proposition.
People pointing out that the Birmingham -London section is much busier so that is where the money should be spent and that sounds like common sense at first but the cost of construction is vastly cheaper in the north than the south. Imagine you built a 220 mph high speed line from just south of Edinburgh to just north of Newcastle. Then another from just south Chester le Street, diverted east around Darlington then Shadowed the ECML to York. You could also electrify the current diesel line between Edinburgh to Glasgow. Imagine how much time this would take off the journey to London from Scotland and how many passengers would switch from WCML to ECML? Of course the ECML to the south would also need some upgrades but this would be much less expensive than building a new line.

And you would be spending money in poorer areas that need it rather than richer areas that don’t seem to want it. The economy in the north would grow and take the pressure off the south which is surely beneficial to the UK.

 

[WatcherZero]

The current economic model and passenger forecasts are based on prices of 10% above existing conventional rail equivalent, yes its more for a faster journey but its not a third.

 

[Philip Elliott]

In terms of an intermediate station, I wonder if one could be built (in the usual 4 track with loops HS way) - where it crosses the E/W line around the Calvert area, north of Bicester.

It's not possible with this ludicrous idea of running 18tph on a 2 track railway. You would have to stop everything or nothing.

The lines in the "North" aren't as congested as those in the "South" (when we are talking about the WCML. Compare the volume of London Euston - Milton Keynes services with the number of services on the WCML north of Crewe.

Incorrect, the most congested parts of the VT network are Stoke - Manchester, Stafford - Norton Bridge and Carlisle - Gretna. The "north" has lots of Class 4 & 6 freights to weave onto a 2-track railway with limited loops.

 

[tbtc]

Incorrect, the most congested parts of the VT network are Stoke - Manchester, Stafford - Norton Bridge and Carlisle - Gretna. The "north" has lots of Class 4 & 6 freights to weave onto a 2-track railway with limited loops.

Stoke - Stockport is 2x Virgin, 2x XC and 1x Northern (plus freight).

Plenty lines elsewhere cope with more than five trains an hour.

Similarly, Carlisle - Gretna never gets much more than three passenger trains an hour.