Northern Powerhouse Rail / HS3 Timeline and Ideas

[najaB]

Might his likely departure from government and the shrinking of the economy bring forward the shelving of 'HS3'?

The former would only result in the retirement of the name, our probable self-inflicted recession would render it both unaffordable and unnecessary.

 

[HSTEd]

It will probably go ahead regardless of economics or whatnot.

One of the takeaways from this referendum is poorer people in the North decided that the only way people would pay attention was to essentially burn the entire system down.
Things must be done to placate them it seems.

 

[PR1Berske]

It will probably go ahead regardless of economics or whatnot.

One of the takeaways from this referendum is poorer people in the North decided that the only way people would pay attention was to essentially burn the entire system down.
Things must be done to placate them it seems.

If northerners (and I am one) think that one of the problems is the North being ignored over London, placating them with a multi billion railway which appears to serve London might not be the best idea.

It's all about perception. Northerners perceived many issues facing them which turned the referendum the way it turned. If the perception is "oh, London again", HS2 won't help one bit.

 

[dggar]

If northerners (and I am one) think that one of the problems is the North being ignored over London, placating them with a multi billion railway which appears to serve London might not be the best idea.

It's all about perception. Northerners perceived many issues facing them which turned the referendum the way it turned. If the perception is "oh, London again", HS2 won't help one bit.

This thread is about HS3

 

[PR1Berske]

This thread is about HS3

Apologies.

Main points still valid, mind.

 

[WatcherZero]

The so called 'Northern Powerhouse' is mostly associated with hot air emanating from George Osborne isn't it?

Might his likely departure from government and the shrinking of the economy bring forward the shelving of 'HS3'?

Do you expect with the referendum widely being seen as rest of the UK getting tired of London Centric policies that both parties wouldn't double down on it?

 

[Bantamzen]

A thought occurs to me. One of my objections to the proposed new Leeds HS2 station is it's position and alignment to Leeds City. At present, someone arriving off HS2 at the rear of a 400m unit faces close to a kilometre walk just to reach the majority of classic services and the main entrance to Leeds City and start of the main retail area. Even with a travellator along the connecting section between the two stations, this means that connection times that are currently at a minimum of 10 mins at Leeds could easily be doubled or even tripled. Basically we are now talking airport length connection distances as the southern end of the new Leeds HS station is practically on top of the M621, a very long way from where most passengers want to be (think Gate 55 at Manchester if you've ever disembarked there as my wife and I did last year returning coming in on the Red Eye from New York!).

Now this is bad enough for journeys from the capital, but if HS3 where to be built and services from Manchester use this you could easily wipe out the 20 minute saving with the connection time. And given that a large amount of flow is commuter / business between the two cities, it seems almost pointless having a quicker connection that just dumps you some distance from your connection, especially as quite a lot of flow comes from the Aire / Wharfe / Harrogate lines which generally operate from the low numbered platforms at Leeds, which are the furthest away of all from the new station.

So if HS3 is to be a genuine high speed connection, it absolutely must serve Leeds City itself. And frankly HS2 ought to as well, even if it means just moving it North 400M, although the general consensus is that it too ought to be integrated. Now at about this point the "but the cost, won't somebody think about the cost" plea is made. And yes, re-sculpting Leeds to accommodate HS3 and possibly 2 would involve eye-wateringly large amounts of money. But Leeds needs massive investment anyway. It's Eastern End is severely clogged up, and is limiting future capacity increases as well as preventing a much sough after eastern city stop, and at the Western end it doesn't take a huge amount of delayed services to have serious knock-on effects. So in other words, Leeds needs future expansion as well as a serious increase in capacity heading east.

It cannot surely be beyond the realms of imagination for those responsible for planning various projects to see the connection and the obvious, if expensive solution. Rebuild the station with increased capacity, including HS compatibility. Sometimes joined-up thinking is what's needed, not numerous separate project that try to bolt each other together and fit square pegs in round holes. I'm sure Birmingham would agree too!

 

[Altnabreac]

A thought occurs to me. One of my objections to the proposed new Leeds HS2 station is it's position and alignment to Leeds City. At present, someone arriving off HS2 at the rear of a 400m unit faces close to a kilometre walk just to reach the majority of classic services and the main entrance to Leeds City and start of the main retail area. Even with a travellator along the connecting section between the two stations, this means that connection times that are currently at a minimum of 10 mins at Leeds could easily be doubled or even tripled. Basically we are now talking airport length connection distances as the southern end of the new Leeds HS station is practically on top of the M621, a very long way from where most passengers want to be (think Gate 55 at Manchester if you've ever disembarked there as my wife and I did last year returning coming in on the Red Eye from New York!).

Now this is bad enough for journeys from the capital, but if HS3 where to be built and services from Manchester use this you could easily wipe out the 20 minute saving with the connection time. And given that a large amount of flow is commuter / business between the two cities, it seems almost pointless having a quicker connection that just dumps you some distance from your connection, especially as quite a lot of flow comes from the Aire / Wharfe / Harrogate lines which generally operate from the low numbered platforms at Leeds, which are the furthest away of all from the new station.

So if HS3 is to be a genuine high speed connection, it absolutely must serve Leeds City itself. And frankly HS2 ought to as well, even if it means just moving it North 400M, although the general consensus is that it too ought to be integrated. Now at about this point the "but the cost, won't somebody think about the cost" plea is made. And yes, re-sculpting Leeds to accommodate HS3 and possibly 2 would involve eye-wateringly large amounts of money. But Leeds needs massive investment anyway. It's Eastern End is severely clogged up, and is limiting future capacity increases as well as preventing a much sough after eastern city stop, and at the Western end it doesn't take a huge amount of delayed services to have serious knock-on effects. So in other words, Leeds needs future expansion as well as a serious increase in capacity heading east.

It cannot surely be beyond the realms of imagination for those responsible for planning various projects to see the connection and the obvious, if expensive solution. Rebuild the station with increased capacity, including HS compatibility. Sometimes joined-up thinking is what's needed, not numerous separate project that try to bolt each other together and fit square pegs in round holes. I'm sure Birmingham would agree too!

Now of course no final decisions have been made but it is worth reading the Interim Leeds Station report here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...a/file/480396/Higgins_-_The_Yorkshire_Hub.pdf

The preferred option is Option 2 which has the HS2 station at right angles to the station existing station but immediately alongside it and with a common concourse.

This means there is still a 400m walk from the rear of a full length unit to the classic station and maybe 500-600m to the further reaches of the station but certainly nowhere near 1km.

 

[Trog]

It strikes me that the money to be spent on tunnelling for HS2/3 might be better used going under a couple of northern cities, so the new HS station could be under the classic station. So you get off your HS intercity train and it is just an escalator ride up to the classic station and your Pacer home. Rather than digging halfway under the Chilterns to keep a few rich NIMBYs happy.

 

[quantinghome]

It strikes me that the money to be spent on tunnelling for HS2/3 might be better used going under a couple of northern cities, so the new HS station could be under the classic station. So you get off your HS intercity train and it is just an escalator ride up to the classic station and your Pacer home. Rather than digging halfway under the Chilterns to keep a few rich NIMBYs happy.

Are you familiar with what's under leeds station?

 

[Trog]

Is it a river by any chance?

I would have thought a new station would have to be deep enough to be well under that so as not to disturb the buildings above anyway.

 

[Harbornite]

Apologies.

Main points still valid, mind.

Well not necessarily because HS3 is one of the key parts of NP and it isn't London-centric.

 

[The Ham]

It strikes me that the money to be spent on tunnelling for HS2/3 might be better used going under a couple of northern cities, so the new HS station could be under the classic station. So you get off your HS intercity train and it is just an escalator ride up to the classic station and your Pacer home. Rather than digging halfway under the Chilterns to keep a few rich NIMBYs happy.

IIRC the tunneling in the Chilterns is mostly cut and cover, so the cost is a lot less than what it would be if you are boring under a city.

Also, on Crossrail the boring is cheaper than the station boxes and those station boxes aren't built for 400m long trains.

 

[Trog]

In that case I wonder what they are going to use the TBM's for?

As for the station boxes I should imagine that there are economies of scale and one 400m station costs less than two 200m ones, and you would need only one per city. It might be worth some expense to get a really good interconnection and central HS station, without disrupting the northern cities too much.

http://tunneltalk.com/UK-high-speed-rail-28Oct2014-HS2-procurement-and-TBM-drive-strategy.php

 

[najaB]

IIRC the tunneling in the Chilterns is mostly cut and cover, so the cost is a lot less than what it would be if you are boring under a city.

In that case I wonder what they are going to use the TBM's for?

'Mostly' ≠ 'completely'.

 

[Voglitz]

IIRC the tunneling in the Chilterns is mostly cut and cover, so the cost is a lot less than what it would be if you are boring under a city.

Have you got evidence of the difference in cost, or is it just your opinion?

Also, on Crossrail the boring is cheaper than the station boxes and those station boxes aren't built for 400m long trains.

Whether the station box is 400m or 250m, there is still a need for ventilation and escalator shafts, mezzanines, and so forth.

 

[najaB]

Have you got evidence of the difference in cost, or is it just your opinion?

What, that cut and cover in open countryside is cheaper than bored tunnels under cities? Wouldn't have thought that required much in the way of refereed sources.

 

[Voglitz]

What, that cut and cover in open countryside is cheaper than bored tunnels under cities? Wouldn't have thought that required much in the way of refereed sources.

I prefer evidence.

And since HS2 phase one had a 13.3 km bored tunnel called "Chiltern Tunnel", I'd also be inclined to disagree with the statement that "the tunneling in the Chilterns is mostly cut and cover".

 

[najaB]

I prefer evidence.

You'll be waiting a long time to find direct comparisons since the two methods are used in completely different circumstances. But you really shouldn't need evidence to be safe in concluding that cut and cover (dig a trench, build a box and then cover it over) is going to require significantly less specialist equipment and skills, be faster and therefore cheaper then it is to bore/blast through solid rock (a more dangerous environment, with limited access and specialist equipment).
:
Cut and cover is pretty basic civil engineering when all is said and done. In cities, however, using a bored tunnel where cut and cover would be possible is cheaper: due to the high value of the land/structures/roads that cut and cover would require demolishing..

 

[HSTEd]

In cities cut and cover is also hurt because you have to interrupt use of heavily used thoroughfares and such, with the associated compensation claims and problems.

Not many Euston road equivalents in open countryside.
Also remember that the minimum cost solution for crossing the Chilterns would likely have no tunnels whatsoever.
Massive cuttings, embankments and 2.5-4.0% climb capability render them a purely political decision to reduce the visual impact of the route.

 

[snowball]

The West Yorkshire Combined Authority wants HS3/NPR to call at Bradford and York.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36916825

Serving Bradford fits with my idea of a route whose exit from Manchester is intially along the Victoria-Rochdale line.

 

[WatcherZero]

A stop in Bradford wouldn't do any good for Sheffield and theres no possible way a single route could serve Leeds, Bradford and Sheffield.

 

[snowball]

Perhaps the eastward realignment of HS2's NE arm has already diminished the prospects of that anyway.

 

[J-2739]

Sorry I've lost track, but what is the proposed route of HS3?

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Sorry I've lost track, but what is the proposed route of HS3?

Nobody knows yet what the exact route proposed for HS3 is yet, just a broad outline that it should run between Manchester and Leeds. We should find out later this year (I think) the more detailed route options.

 

[Haydn1971]

It's rapidly shaping up that HS3 will be a "higher speed" northern network of routes, part of which are likely to improve the existing TransPennine route between Leeds and Manchester, part will take advantage of the HS2 network and part will see existing sections of the ECML, Hope Valley, Calder Valley and probably several other existing routes with new bits added.

 

[J-2739]

Listening to what information is being posted here, HS3 sounds to be a high-speed commuter service.

 

[snowball]

Sorry I've lost track, but what is the proposed route of HS3?

As Midland says, we don't know yet, but one idea was a route in the Woodhead corridor, from which trains from Manchester could then turn either north along HS2 for Leeds, or south along HS2 for Sheffield. This is what WatcherZero and I were alluding to by a route serving both Leeds and Sheffield.

 

[HSTEd]

But there is no longer any northern HS2 access for the Sheffield station.

 

[DimTim]

What is needed in the north is not HS3
Most centres of population are no more than 30 miles apart. Leeds Manchester Sheffield. What is not possible at the present time because of the topography is direct routes (straight).
Reading to Paddington is 36 miles which is covered in less than 30 mins.

'Normal rail' can provide the journey times expected if we can straighten the routes. Electrification would also provide sufficient speed over the hills if the track geometry would allow.