Northern Powerhouse Rail / HS3 Timeline and Ideas

[Olaf]

HS3 was killed-off long ago, and was replaced by the NPR.

The source of the The Times article is not official, comes from a leak, and is based on old material, so the story is a bit questionable until an official announcement is made.

 

[YorkshireBear]

This is the full text of the article (taken from Skyscraper City: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1790298&page=7)



As optimistic as this article is, I just honestly cannot see there being funds available to upgrade the TP North & South routes as well as build a new line towards, and more problematic through Bradford & onto Leeds. My instinct says that it will just be some additional work on the Calder Valley to squeeze out a few more minutes saving along the way.

While optimistic it does already state sources saying that it won't get funding.

It is a lot of new line they are wanting is probably the main thing holding it back. I can see this added to the pile of not worth it schemes over the years. Such as the M1 M62 link Brighouse - Horbury which never got funding etc.

 

[Bantamzen]

While optimistic it does already state sources saying that it won't get funding.

It is a lot of new line they are wanting is probably the main thing holding it back. I can see this added to the pile of not worth it schemes over the years. Such as the M1 M62 link Brighouse - Horbury which never got funding etc.

Pushing a new line through the Pennines is always going to be a difficult job, the geology is challenging through the hills with little room in the valleys for any significant new alignment. And if they wanted to go through Bradford the above-ground option would be a very costly job given the two different elevations and the structures in the way, and if they planned to tunnel under Bradford there is a lot of sub-structures and deep foundations, not to mention a not insignificant water course particularly during heavy rain to go under or around (the Victorian solution underneath Bradford City Hall is ingenious if very expensive!). It would need a serious amount of funding, at a time when funding for rail projects is under severe pressure. I just can't see it even getting towards a business case let alone financing.

 

[B&I]

Given the parlous state of the business case for this scheme I would agree with you. We seem to be trapped in a world where official bodies produce pie in the sky ideas that are then endlessly watered down or scrapped although leading to further and further disillusionment.

Just imagine if we could take some of the money spent on producing pla s which never go anywhere, and actually spend it on building something.

Incidentally, how is there money to build 1 new line from Manchester to Leeds and upgrade the existing one, and yet the transpennine line to Sheffield seems to be getting little or nothing? While Liverpool is getting only some vague promise of an 'upgrade' (despite people constantly telling me on here that services can't be improved because the existing lines are clogged with a mixture of fast and slow services? And Newcastle is being promised something similar, despite the problems with the ECML around Durham?

I hope this leak is inaccurate, and that this twaddle is not official policy.

 

[WatcherZero]

Possibly because of the proposed road tunnel, the increased transport capacity of one weakens the business case for the other.

 

[B&I]

Possibly because of the proposed road tunnel, the increased transport capacity of one weakens the business case for the other.

Yes, I forgot we had a government worshipping at the altar of 'the great car economy' once more. Though I'd have to accept that, even within an overall context of trying to encourage modal shift to rail, Sheffield-Manchester road links are appalling. Has no more thought been given to the combined road-rail tunnel, or was that always science fiction stuff?

 

[WatcherZero]

Yeah they did some and decided it didn't bring any particularly notable cost savings to do an integrated design, they even mooted installing tracks on the road so light rail vehicles could run through the road tunnels.

 

[Olaf]

Yes, I forgot we had a government worshipping at the altar of 'the great car economy' once more.

that, as you put it, is because of the changes in technology capabilities that have happened over the last two years, and the reassessment that arose due to the inability of NR to deliver what it promised within the allocated budget.

At the moment it is still a piecemeal reassessment, but there needs to be a review of the benefits of road vs rail given the new opportunities that have arisen with a shift of focus to urban rail and a de-emphasis of medium distance services.

 

[B&I]

that, as you put it, is because of the changes in technology capabilities that have happened over the last two years, and the reassessment that arose due to the inability of NR to deliver what it promised within the allocated budget.

At the moment it is still a piecemeal reassessment, but there needs to be a review of the benefits of road vs rail given the new opportunities that have arisen with a shift of focus to urban rail and a de-emphasis of medium distance services.

As there is currently no sign of urban public transport investment outside London, apart from a few miles of tram and busway around Manchester, and replacement of Merseyrail and Tyne and Wear Metro trains before they fall apart on the rails, 'shift of focus to urban rail' is, I assume, a euphemism for re-directing all available funding to Crossrail 2. Similarly, 'review of the benefits of road vs rail' is presumably code for cranking up the road building programme at the expense of rail investment, using as-yet unproven assumptions re electric and driverless cars as an excuse, while 'de-enphasis of medium distance services' would seem to translate to 'starving railways in the English provinces and Wales of any investment'.

You do know that, just because everyone else says Grayling is an utterly awful transport sec, you don't have to defend his policies? It could be that everyone else is right on this occasion.

 

[snowball]

Press release by Transport for the North:

http://www.transportforthenorth.com/leaders-unite-behind-draft-transport-plan/

Northern leaders unite behind 30-year draft Strategic Transport Plan
Friday 15th December 2017

Civic and business leaders from across the North of England have agreed a draft Strategic Transport Plan, to be published for public consultation early in the new year, which outlines the transport infrastructure needed to transform the region’s economy.

Calling for sustained prioritised investment in the region’s railways and roads over a 30-year period, it will transform the economy by improving the way both people and goods travel around the North of England.

The draft Plan will be subject to a thirteen-week public consultation early in 2018 and will be submitted to the Government in due course for Ministerial consideration. It will identify seven ‘corridors’ where transport improvements are needed to allow businesses to grow and job prospects to be increased. It also highlights two pan-Northern priorities for investment: Northern Powerhouse Rail and Integrated and Smart Travel.

The corridors, which are currently in need of improved connectivity, link important assets and major economic centres. For example, the ‘Connecting the Energy Coasts’ corridor will explore ways to improve connectivity between some of the UK’s important non-carbon energy and research assets in Cumbria, Lancashire, North Yorkshire, the North East and Tees Valley.

Building on the current high levels of road and rail investment in the North, the plan identifies shorter and medium-term priorities. In the shorter term, contactless smart ticketing across the North will make paying for travel and sourcing information on public transport easier for passengers. In the medium-term, Northern Powerhouse Rail will provide rapid, regular and reliable East-West rail connections to complement the improved North–South connections which will be offered by HS2.

The cost of the 30-year plan is estimated to equate to less than £150 per northern citizen per year, or £2-2.3 billion per year. This figure also includes spending which would already be expected as part of ongoing strategic transport investment in the North, with only £50 per person per year (£700-900 million per year) additional spending.

John Cridland, Chairman, said, “Transport for the North’s vision is of a thriving North of England, where modern transport connections drive economic growth and support an excellent quality of life. Our plans would revolutionise travel around the North, particularly East–West links which have previously not received enough attention, and, by extension, will improve how the region does business.”

“For decades, the North has underperformed compared to the rest of England. Robust evidence shows that investing in quality infrastructure, as well as in other important areas such as education, skills development and research, could lead to more than 850,000 additional jobs in the North by 2050 and £100 billion additional Gross Value Added.

“Although what we’re looking at is investment in our roads and railways, this isn’t just about transport. It’s about ensuring that the North of England is a thriving region where people can learn, build a career and enjoy an excellent quality of life.”

A vision for Northern Powerhouse Rail

The Northern Powerhouse Rail network will provide rapid and reliable rail links between the North’s major cities, revolutionising the way in which people can move around the region.
A Strategic Outline Business Case for the Northern Powerhouse Rail network will be submitted to the Secretary of State for Transport by the end of 2018, but Transport for the North will outline its emerging vision for the network within the draft Strategic Transport Plan. This includes the ways in which Northern Powerhouse Rail will interact with HS2 and the best options for each part of the network based on work undertaken to date.
The government recently confirmed funding to ensure that planned HS2 infrastructure can accommodate the future needs of the Northern Powerhouse Rail network. Transport for the North will be working with HS2 to ensure that the following requirements are recognised in the HS2 Phase 2b plans:

Junctions in the Leeds area, enabling trains from Manchester, Sheffield and the Midlands to travel via Leeds and on to York, Teesside and the North East. This could also release capacity for more local and commuter services east of Leeds
Junctions in Cheshire to serve Liverpool via a new line, enabling services between Liverpool and Manchester via the HS2 Manchester spur, and offering the potential for faster Liverpool – London HS2 services
Junctions at Manchester Piccadilly which, combined with a range of other interventions, would enable services from Manchester Airport and Liverpool to use either an underground Northern Powerhouse Rail through station or a surface turn-back station to continue east towards Leeds and the North East
A junction north of Sheffield at Clayton, enabling trains to run through Sheffield and re-join the HS2 mainline to Leeds.

Transforming journey planning and payment

Transport for the North is working to introduce new initiatives that will make travelling on public transport easier and quicker for passengers across the North. This will enhance choice and ensure passengers pay prices that are fair for the journeys they have made. It is hoped that this will increase the number of people travelling by public transport and broaden people’s access to jobs. Last month the Government approved £18.5 million of funding for the first phase of this programme, to introduce smart ticketing for rail season ticket holders in the North next year.

Calls for strategic road investment

Northern leaders are setting out the North’s priorities for strategic road investment in Highways England’s long-term plans and, in particular, for further work to be done to investigate a long-term solution to the poor road links across the southern Pennines between South Yorkshire and Greater Manchester.
Transport for the North has begun work with Highways England and the Department for Transport to explore how a revised proposal for the Trans-Pennine Tunnel could provide better value for money and deliver enhanced benefits; offering more rapid and reliable road links across the Southern Pennines from Liverpool to Hull. This proposal would see a shorter tunnel than originally proposed under the Pennines, combined with major upgrades to the Woodhead Pass route and new road links east of Sheffield. Environmental considerations are of the utmost concern with this project.

Long Term Rail Strategy for the North

The Plan also includes an update of the Long Term Rail Strategy outlining priorities for investment in lines, stations, services and franchise operations across the whole of the North’s railways to deliver greater connectivity, capacity and cost-effectiveness. This reflects the planned integration of Rail North into Transport for the North when it becomes a statutory body next year.

Statutory status

Transport for the North is set to become England’s first Sub-national Transport Body in the next few months, with the legislation giving the body statutory status expected in Parliament shortly.

Transport for the North will be publishing the draft plan on Tuesday 16 January 2018, with a public consultation on the Plan running from mid-January to early April 2018.

 

[lejog]

Just imagine if we could take some of the money spent on producing pla s which never go anywhere, and actually spend it on building something.

Incidentally, how is there money to build 1 new line from Manchester to Leeds and upgrade the existing one, and yet the transpennine line to Sheffield seems to be getting little or nothing? While Liverpool is getting only some vague promise of an 'upgrade' (despite people constantly telling me on here that services can't be improved because the existing lines are clogged with a mixture of fast and slow services? And Newcastle is being promised something similar, despite the problems with the ECML around Durham?

I hope this leak is inaccurate, and that this twaddle is not official policy.

This is sheer nonsense. I suggest you read post #140 (source West Yorkshire combined authority) and post #160 (TfN press release). Liverpool is planned to get a new line via Warrington branching to connect to HS2 both south to London and north to Manchester Airport, Piccadilly, Leeds etc.

As for the budget, the total spend on rail and roads is estimated at £60-70bn - just over the cost of HS2 or what its costing us to leave the EU, but spread over 30 years. Given the government's annual transport budget is £32bn, £2-£2.5bn per year investment in the North seems achievable.

 

[MarkyT]

that, as you put it, is because of the changes in technology capabilities that have happened over the last two years, and the reassessment that arose due to the inability of NR to deliver what it promised within the allocated budget.

At the moment it is still a piecemeal reassessment, but there needs to be a review of the benefits of road vs rail given the new opportunities that have arisen with a shift of focus to urban rail and a de-emphasis of medium distance services.

The 'medium distance services' you refer to are surely the ones that will offer most development opportunity to fill released capacity on conventional main lines after the long distance non stops have moved to HS2. Medium distance might also characterise typical distances between major stops on the trans-pennine / NPR network. The term might also describe East-West Rail which the government still appears to be rather keen on. Electric road vehicles are not going to make any difference to traffic congestion on major urban approaches although might help the lungs and ears of those who live along the corridors. The traffic is made up of local urban elements as well as the medium distance and long distance components from further afield. Large scale road automation is decades away and the congestion benefits won't be felt until almost all vehicles are so equipped. Medium and long distance is where conventional heavy rail probably has most to offer I would contend, but I suppose it depends on how you define the terms. The NR inability to deliver on a selection of high profile projects, even while elsewhere being successful, is not a demonstration of rail's underlying weakness. A crisis in the short term certainly, but beware the petrol (electric?) heads saying its all over for rail.

 

[B&I]

This is sheer nonsense. I suggest you read post #140 (source West Yorkshire combined authority) and post #160 (TfN press release). Liverpool is planned to get a new line via Warrington branching to connect to HS2 both south to London and north to Manchester Airport, Piccadilly, Leeds etc.

As for the budget, the total spend on rail and roads is estimated at £60-70bn - just over the cost of HS2 or what its costing us to leave the EU, but spread over 30 years. Given the government's annual transport budget is £32bn, £2-£2.5bn per year investment in the North seems achievable.

Congratulations on 20/20 hindsight. The report published came as a pleasant surprise following previous press articles, which were what prompted my comments.

 

[HSTEd]

So wait - we are getting a new line between Liverpool and Manchester which will utilise the HS2 spur via Manchester Airport?

I am actually surprised that one of my speculations is correct.

Did not see a city centre underground station coming though - that sounds very expensive.

It appears we are getting rather more new track than I expected to be approved - if this goes anywhere ofcourse.

 

[Chester1]

So wait - we are getting a new line between Liverpool and Manchester which will utilise the HS2 spur via Manchester Airport?

I am actually surprised that one of my speculations is correct.

Did not see a city centre underground station coming though - that sounds very expensive.

It appears we are getting rather more new track than I expected to be approved - if this goes anywhere ofcourse.

TfN will ask for it but the government may say no. I suspect it wouldn't be a full high speed line due to cost of both the line and terminal capacity. The rest of NPR will not be HS speed either therefore 125-140 mph would make the most sense.

The station would be submerged not fully underground i.e much of it would be in the open but part underneath Piccadilly. The other alternative would be to reverse at Piccadilly and rebuild the old fast tracks or a completely segregated line alongside the existing line to Guide Bridge. The latter option would mean the rejection of TfNs wish for NPR to serve Bradford.

 

[lejog]

Congratulations on 20/20 hindsight. The report published came as a pleasant surprise following previous press articles, which were what prompted my comments.

No hindsight required , Snowball first posted news of a new Liverpool line 6 weeks ago if you page back one page to post #139,

According to the November Modern Railways, page 19, Transport for the North is looking at a Manchester-Leeds route via Bradford rather than Huddersfield for NPR (the current name for HS3), plus improvements to Hope Valley and a new Liverpool-Manchester route via Warrington.

and the next day posted an extract from the report to the WYCA executive which outlined all the new/upgraded lines in the plan and then all the HS2 "touchpoints", including the following:

 A new line between Liverpool and the HS2 Manchester spur via Warrington;
...
 Provision for a junction between HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail on the HS2 Manchester Airport spur south-west of the airport, allowing construction of a new line to serve Liverpool-Manchester Airport-Manchester.
 Provision for a junction on the HS2 mainline north of Crewe, allowing for HS2 services to Liverpool.

Can I please suggest that posters read (and expand the quotes) in post #140 before commenting here as it is likely to be the most accurate outline of the route available until TfN's report is issued?

But yes the plans should allow the removal of the fastest Manchester-Liverpool trains from both Chat Moss and CLC lines and allow more local services to run, as you desire. I know that in the long term West Yorkshire would like the combination of NPR/Trans Pennine Upgrade to allow far more frequent stopping services (and open more stations) on the Leeds-Bradford-Huddersfield-Dewsbury-Leeds routes.

 

[Class 170101]

It should be pointed out that upgrading exisitng lines is bound to be expensive and possibly more so than creating a new line across the Pennines. One only has to look at how expensive and disruptive WCRM was to see that lessons from that need to be learnt.

 

[B&I]

No hindsight required , Snowball first posted news of a new Liverpool line 6 weeks ago if you page back one page to post #139,



and the next day posted an extract from the report to the WYCA executive which outlined all the new/upgraded lines in the plan and then all the HS2 "touchpoints", including the following:



Can I please suggest that posters read (and expand the quotes) in post #140 before commenting here as it is likely to be the most accurate outline of the route available until TfN's report is issued?

But yes the plans should allow the removal of the fastest Manchester-Liverpool trains from both Chat Moss and CLC lines and allow more local services to run, as you desire. I know that in the long term West Yorkshire would like the combination of NPR/Trans Pennine Upgrade to allow far more frequent stopping services (and open more stations) on the Leeds-Bradford-Huddersfield-Dewsbury-Leeds routes.

I am pleased to see that TfN seems to be looking not just at a single high speed line. They seem to be looking at an overall network which will fulfill the important, but often-overlooked, role of enabling people to travel by rail the whole way to where they actually live.

Of course, the new high speed line will relieve capacity to enable.more local services. Could it also enable the existing lines to be electrified and otherwise upgraded more easily, by reducing the number of services using them in the short-term?

 

[HSTEd]

TfN will ask for it but the government may say no. I suspect it wouldn't be a full high speed line due to cost of both the line and terminal capacity. The rest of NPR will not be HS speed either therefore 125-140 mph would make the most sense.

High speed lines don't cost that much more to build than 140mph type lines - you already have to engineer for sweeping curves as it is.
As to terminal capacity, does a 180mph line really need more capacity than a 140mph one?

A Shinkansen demonstrates what a 'stopping train' is capable of in this day and age.... stopping every 20 miles or so and still maintaining an average speed of well over 100mph.

With the emergence of ~100-120m full high speed sets, I do have to question whether there is much use for intermediate speed routes or existing lines (which are parallel to High Speed ones) being operated by anything other than all-shacks services in the future.

 

[lejog]

TfN will ask for it but the government may say no. I suspect it wouldn't be a full high speed line due to cost of both the line and terminal capacity. The rest of NPR will not be HS speed either therefore 125-140 mph would make the most sense..

Interestingly, the design work to date for the Liverpool to Manchester line was carried out by HS2, although David Higgins emphasised the decIsions were to be made by TfN not HS2.

Sir David Higgins: We have been commissioned to do work by Transport for the North and the Department on the options for more capacity and a higher speed connection between Liverpool and Manchester. We have done all that work for them.
Chair: But who will take the decision?
Sir David Higgins: Transport for the North.

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenev...sport-committee/high-speed-two/oral/44516.pdf

Also it will be interesting to see how the project will be funded, if as suggested it is by bonds issued by the devolved Northern councils, the dynamic for decision making does swing a little towards TfN and away from the DfT/Treasury (although they have the final say). However, I agree that TfN has never had any high speed requirement for NPR, have not been working on that basis and are highly unlikely to switch now, especially given the apparently reasonable budget they are looking for. Even Sir David was careful to use the words "higher speed".

 

[B&I]

Interestingly, the design work to date for the Liverpool to Manchester line was carried out by HS2, although David Higgins emphasised the decIsions were to be made by TfN not HS2.

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenev...sport-committee/high-speed-two/oral/44516.pdf

Also it will be interesting to see how the project will be funded, if as suggested it is by bonds issued by the devolved Northern councils, the dynamic for decision making does swing a little towards TfN and away from the DfT/Treasury (although they have the final say). However, I agree that TfN has never had any high speed requirement for NPR, have not been working on that basis and are highly unlikely to switch now, especially given the apparently reasonable budget they are looking for. Even Sir David was careful to use the words "higher speed".

Assuming a calling pattern on the HS3 'main line' of something like Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester Airport-Bradford-Leeds-York, and assuming there would only ve a certain speed it would be feasible for a train to reach before beginning to slow down again, what would be the highest speed there would be any point running at?

 

[HSTEd]

Assuming a calling pattern on the HS3 'main line' of something like Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester Airport-Bradford-Leeds-York, and assuming there would only ve a certain speed it would be feasible for a train to reach before beginning to slow down again, what would be the highest speed there would be any point running at?

Well Shinkansen sets can go from 0-170mph in something under 4 minutes.
So 270kph would be obtained on journeys of something on order of 20km or so.
Sustaining 170kph average or so with 25-30km stop intervals is certainly doable.

It really depends what directions the routes are to favour at pointwork.

Given the generous loading guage available it might even be feasible to have trains that tilt on the 'higher speed' line but operate with the tilt entirely disabled on the conventional portions of the route.
That would enable a tilting train like a Pendolino that uses the entire regular loading gauge for interiors and thus feels much roomier inside.

Even if the route is initially only laid out for 140mph that would enable speeds approaching 170mph.

 

[B&I]

Well Shinkansen sets can go from 0-170mph in something under 4 minutes.
So 270kph would be obtained on journeys of something on order of 20km or so.
Sustaining 170kph average or so with 25-30km stop intervals is certainly doable.

It really depends what directions the routes are to favour at pointwork.

Given the generous loading guage available it might even be feasible to have trains that tilt on the 'higher speed' line but operate with the tilt entirely disabled on the conventional portions of the route.
That would enable a tilting train like a Pendolino that uses the entire regular loading gauge for interiors and thus feels much roomier inside.

Even if the route is initially only laid out for 140mph that would enable speeds approaching 170mph.

Interesting. What sort of journey times would be possible with a maximum speed of 140 mph, assuming the sort of stopping pattern I suggested above?

 

[Chester1]

Its worth highlighting that the plan does not specify a link from HS2 to Lime Street just to Liverpool. Its entirely possible that existing infrastucture will be used to avoid tunnelling under Liverpool. The freight line and site of the former Warrington Bank Quay lower level platforms would be the only sensible way to serve Warrington town centre rather than a parkway station. Both cost cuts would impose severe restrictions on the distance that trains could run at 140-250mph. NPR seems to be planned to be a genuine intercity mainline not a high speed line.

 

[HSTEd]

Its worth highlighting that the plan does not specify a link from HS2 to Lime Street just to Liverpool. Its entirely possible that existing infrastucture will be used to avoid tunnelling under Liverpool. The freight line and site of the former Warrington Bank Quay lower level platforms would be the only sensible way to serve Warrington town centre rather than a parkway station. Both cost cuts would impose severe restrictions on the distance that trains could run at 140-250mph. NPR seems to be planned to be a genuine intercity mainline not a high speed line.

Reaching their stated desired Manchester-Liverpool journey time wiwth a stop at Warrington is going to be nearly impossible if they start spending time trundling through Warrington and Liverpool's outer suburbs.

More likely they will build a continuous 'higher' speed route and just spur itinto Warrington - if it is being used for Liverpool-London services as well there will be enough end to end trafffic to justify a Warrington bypass.

Remember that we know that modern railways can support 18 identical stopping patterns per hour or something like 10-12 trains per hour even with varied stopping patterns.

4tph trains bypassing Warrington and 4tph Stopping would not overly stress the line, but still give you buckets of capacity.

Interesting. What sort of journey times would be possible with a maximum speed of 140 mph, assuming the sort of stopping pattern I suggested above?

Judging by HS1 (Ashford to Ebbsfleet) at 140mph you are looking at about 22 minutes nonestop from Liverpool to Manchester via the Airport, assuming you don't stop at the airport.

I think we need more than 140mph to get the hoped for Liverpool-Manchester time of 20 minutes.
170mph would probably do it with time to spare with a quick 30-40 second stop at the Airport.

 

[HSTEd]

I've taken another look at Warrington and I think Central is the better option if our alignment has to go through it - you can put four tracks through it with zero house demolitions by widening the viaduct west of the station out over the A57.
Its a far less bendy alignment thank the BQ Low Level approach and is mostly wide enough for four tracks already. You can easily get an extra platform face (or two through lines with a central scissor) by building out over the existing car park to the north of the station. As the A57 is up on a viaduct as well at the station site and blocks the south side.

And it synergises with the existing Central traffic by allowing people from small stations to change trains easily for much faster journeys into the cities.
It sounds expensive but I doubt rebuilding BQ LL would be cheap, and its a worse alignment

 

[B&I]

Its worth highlighting that the plan does not specify a link from HS2 to Lime Street just to Liverpool. Its entirely possible that existing infrastucture will be used to avoid tunnelling under Liverpool. The freight line and site of the former Warrington Bank Quay lower level platforms would be the only sensible way to serve Warrington town centre rather than a parkway station. Both cost cuts would impose severe restrictions on the distance that trains could run at 140-250mph. NPR seems to be planned to be a genuine intercity mainline not a high speed line.

So to paraphrase Herbert Morrison (I think), 'nothing's too cheap for the people of Liverpool'?

 

[B&I]

Reaching their stated desired Manchester-Liverpool journey time wiwth a stop at Warrington is going to be nearly impossible if they start spending time trundling through Warrington and Liverpool's outer suburbs.

More likely they will build a continuous 'higher' speed route and just spur itinto Warrington - if it is being used for Liverpool-London services as well there will be enough end to end trafffic to justify a Warrington bypass.

Remember that we know that modern railways can support 18 identical stopping patterns per hour or something like 10-12 trains per hour even with varied stopping patterns.

4tph trains bypassing Warrington and 4tph Stopping would not overly stress the line, but still give you buckets of capacity.



Judging by HS1 (Ashford to Ebbsfleet) at 140mph you are looking at about 22 minutes nonestop from Liverpool to Manchester via the Airport, assuming you don't stop at the airport.

I think we need more than 140mph to get the hoped for Liverpool-Manchester time of 20 minutes.
170mph would probably do it with time to spare with a quick 30-40 second stop at the Airport.

Another way to achieve that headline journey time would be to avoid dog-legging via a station in a field on the wrong side of Manchester Airport, but that option doesn't seem to be on the table. Looks like they had better get ready to sell HS3 on capacity grounds (which is probably a much better reason to build it anyway), rather than speed.

 

[HSTEd]

Another way to achieve that headline journey time would be to avoid dog-legging via a station in a field on the wrong side of Manchester Airport, but that option doesn't seem to be on the table. Looks like they had better get ready to sell HS3 on capacity grounds (which is probably a much better reason to build it anyway), rather than speed.

But there is literally no business case for HS3 on capacity grounds.
None of the existing routes is anywhere near maximum passenger capacity.

And the headline journey time without going to Manchester Airport would still be impossible to achieve without an impossibly expensive high speed approach.
Dog legging at 140-150mph beats crawling at <90 into Manchester on the existing line.

 

[B&I]

But there is literally no business case for HS3 on capacity grounds.
None of the existing routes is anywhere near maximum passenger capacity.

And the headline journey time without going to Manchester Airport would still be impossible to achieve without an impossibly expensive high speed approach.
Dog legging at 140-150mph beats crawling at <90 into Manchester on the existing line.

I am continually told on here that the reason why Manchester, Liverpool and other northern cities can't have more frequent suburban services (of the sort which will actually encourage people to leave their cars at home) is because all or most of the lines are filled with a mixture of stopping and fast trains. Hence HS3 to remove fast services. Can HS3 justify itself on the basis of shortening current Liverpool-Manchester times by about 10 minutes, or Manchester-Leeds times by about 20 minutes?