Possible combination of HS2 phase 2 with "rail north'

[ohgoditsjames]

Basically the worst case scenario for Sheffield is the Y shaped line is scrapped in favour of the C shape, Leeds to be served via Manchester with NPR covering the cost of the Manchester to Leeds section (thus HS2 saves a huge amount of money).

It's fine though, everyone fortunate enough to be on the M62 corridor will benefit in some shape or form from the Manchester to Leeds section, then there's the extension of HS3 to Liverpool and Hull which will still benefit from NPR even if their extensions aren't built.


Leaving Sheffield without NPR's planned 27 minute journey time between Sheffield and Leeds, continuation of the diabolical connections to Manchester and Liverpool and no improved connections to Nottingham, Birmingham and London and no electric services.

Basically us in Sheffield could be screwed.

Very much feels like we’ve been forgotten, whilst everyone else seems to be getting confirmation for both HS2 and NPR, we’re sat here anxiously waiting whether or not we’re going to either be completely bumped off the line or have to make do with a slow spur followed by absolutely no commitment to being integrated into NPR or any electrification.

The idea that a service from Manchester to Nottingham via Leeds with the use of NPR will be faster than a service from Manchester to Nottingham VIA Sheffield is worrisome.

Would very much prefer us not to be left behind.

The idea that we could very well be shafted by both HS2 and NPR worries me.

As I've said before, we've been almost entirely forgotten throughout this ordeal to the point where when we do get a mention people say "even Sheffield", what does "even Sheffield" mean? Show's what people actually think of us, we're just a "second rate backwater" and that's incredibly sad.

Is anyone actually fighting our corner? Some city councilors and MP's are making a lot of noise but ours don't seem to. Take Andy Burnham for example, he's very vocal, where's our equivalent?!

 

[Gareth]

I wouldn't take it as a given that Newcastle-London services would go via the Pennines, if that's the way they end up deciding to serve Leeds. There's every chance, more likely than not even, that they would end up staying on the ECML.

 

[edwin_m]

I've demonstrated in posts above how running London-Leeds/Newcastle trains via Manchester would overload the Airport-Manchester section. Thinking some more, it would also overload the section from Birmingham northwards. London-Birmingham is maximum capacity, 3TPH come off to go to Curzon Street but 5TPH or 6TPH would come on going northwards from Curzon Street, so this section would be over maximum capacity. It works with the Y network because there are four tracks from where the Curzon Street branch joins in to where the eastern branch splits off.

So I'm pretty confident that the part of the eastern leg through Toton is essential to deliver HS2 services similar to what was originally promised. Manchester-Leeds is not a substitute unless those promises are heavily scaled back.

 

[Meerkat]

6TPH come on from Birmingham?

 

[edwin_m]

6TPH come on from Birmingham?

Roughly that if you expect trains to Manchester, Scotland, Leeds and Newcastle all to use the same tracks. Certainly more than the 3TPH from London that go off into Birmingham.

 

[si404]

6TPH come on from Birmingham?

When there's two branches north from Birmingham (1 Scotland, 2 Manchester, 2 Leeds, 1 Newcastle). Throw in a Nottingham (from Midlands Connect) and 2 Liverpool (from NPR) and actually it's 9tph.

With just one heading to Leeds via Manchester services would merge together. You can extend Manchester trains to Leeds and Newcastle. Same with trains out of London (though you wouldn't serve Newcastle).

So you'd have something like this with a C and a branch to Liverpool:
4 London-Birmingham
2 London-Liverpool/Lancs
2 London-Scotland
2 London-Manchester
2 London-York
2 Birmingham-Liverpool
1 Birmingham-Scotland
1 Birmingham-Newcastle
1 Birmingham-Leeds
1 Birmingham-Manchester
2 Liverpool-Newcastle
4 Liverpool-Manchester

Manchester is the only winner of a C and everywhere else ends up losing - Liverpool will have its cross-Pennine services reduced to make room for London and Birmingham to Leeds services. Leeds wouldn't have the same journey time reduction. Newcastle's trains to London would remain on the ECML due to no time savings and overcrowding issues if they went via Manchester. Birmingham doesn't get the major relief of the XCML route allowing it to increase commuter service to places like Tamworth as well as getting more trains to the East Midlands (and faster). Sheffield and the East Midlands get nothing.

Given NPR's desire for fast and frequent Leeds-Sheffield services, and Midlands Connect's desire for fast and frequent Birmingham-East Midlands services (not to mention the Leeds-Leicester high speed trains), the HS2 Y is not actually that much construction on top of intra-regional desires - a curve near Water Orton, the line from Toton to Chesterfield, and a Sheffield bypass. It has always been the part of the scheme with the best business case, save perhaps phase 2a - it's relatively cheap to build and adds a whole lot of new benefits. I cannot see it going - worst case is that the Sheffield bypass is pushed back.

 

[The Ham]

The ideal solution might be something along the lines of:
- HS2 to Crewe gets built (2030)
- HS2 to Manchester gets built (2033)
- HSN between Manchester and Leeds is built (2036)
- HS2 between Birmingham and Sheffield is built (2037)
- HSN other bits get added on (2038 to 2045)
- HS2 to Leeds is built (2042)

More or less in that order, more or less with a few years between each section being built.

It would mean that high (or at least higher) speed services between Sheffield and Leeds may be 5 years after there's a better service from Birmingham to Sheffield, but even then the initial Birmingham to Leeds via Sheffield would be ~15 minutes quicker than it is today. Add in electrification of the line and you might be able to trim a bit more time off of that.

It would also mean that Liverpool may only be 5 years after Manchester (which will cause some upset at least having a set date for it could appease many).

It would mean that as there's a fairly small timeframe between HS2 phase 1 and the full system being developed that there's a chance that pairs of trains would be able to cater for the demand expected, which would reduce the pressure on the number of paths on any one bit of the system.

Chances are that probably by 2050 there would be further HS lines needing to be opening (High Speed East and High Speed Wales & Western) to cater for East Coast and Wales & Western capacity issues.

 

[tbtc]

Basically the worst case scenario for Sheffield is the Y shaped line is scrapped in favour of the C shape, Leeds to be served via Manchester with NPR covering the cost of the Manchester to Leeds section (thus HS2 saves a huge amount of money).

It's fine though, everyone fortunate enough to be on the M62 corridor will benefit in some shape or form from the Manchester to Leeds section, then there's the extension of HS3 to Liverpool and Hull which will still benefit from NPR even if their extensions aren't built.


Leaving Sheffield without NPR's planned 27 minute journey time between Sheffield and Leeds, continuation of the diabolical connections to Manchester and Liverpool and no improved connections to Nottingham, Birmingham and London and no electric services.

Basically us in Sheffield could be screwed.

Very much feels like we’ve been forgotten, whilst everyone else seems to be getting confirmation for both HS2 and NPR, we’re sat here anxiously waiting whether or not we’re going to either be completely bumped off the line or have to make do with a slow spur followed by absolutely no commitment to being integrated into NPR or any electrification.

The idea that a service from Manchester to Nottingham via Leeds with the use of NPR will be faster than a service from Manchester to Nottingham VIA Sheffield is worrisome.

Would very much prefer us not to be left behind.

The idea that we could very well be shafted by both HS2 and NPR worries me.

As I've said before, we've been almost entirely forgotten throughout this ordeal to the point where when we do get a mention people say "even Sheffield", what does "even Sheffield" mean? Show's what people actually think of us, we're just a "second rate backwater" and that's incredibly sad.

Is anyone actually fighting our corner? Some city councilors and MP's are making a lot of noise but ours don't seem to. Take Andy Burnham for example, he's very vocal, where's our equivalent?!

Realistically, the "top tier" of English cities is seen as London/ Birmingham/ Manchester/ Leeds.

Much as I like Sheffield, it's not at that level, and not important enough for (longer distance) high speed services to be diverted through.

That means we either accept a "Parkway" station (which would be a lot better than the option available for Nottingham/Derby, given that Meadowhall is already well connected with good train/trams/buses etc) or we are a low priority branch line with a fairly minimal service - a service that will probably be the first to get removed in the event of disruption.

We'll have trains trundling through Chesterfield on existing track, fighting their way through the freight and the flat junctions, to get to the HS2 line in Nottinghamshire, little improvement on London journey times (when compared to the savings that Manchester/ Leeds/ Birmingham will get).

Sheffield to Leeds is only around thirty miles as the crow flies (even though there's only one train per hour that goes in much under sixty minutes) - imagine how much faster a frequent Meadowhall - Leeds service will be compared to what we have now? Because I don't think we'll be getting any kind of "high speed" line built from Sheffield to somewhere on the other side of Mexborough (where it'd join the planned eastern arm) - thus little speed benefit compared to what we currently have - and not extra paths through Brightside.

We thought we were more important than we are - we tried to get HS2 to divert through Victoria - instead we've been given the consolation prize of a slow branch (which means Sheffield will have a much poorer London service than Manchester/Leeds get) - South Yorkshire will be somewhere that high speed trains whizz through without stopping, like the "flyover states" in the US - the Leeds/ York/ Newcastle passengers will zip through without stopping meaning no local benefit.

But, I think that the decision has been made, so we'd better be happy with the wooden spoon that we "won"!

 

[ohgoditsjames]

Realistically, the "top tier" of English cities is seen as London/ Birmingham/ Manchester/ Leeds.

Much as I like Sheffield, it's not at that level, and not important enough for (longer distance) high speed services to be diverted through.

That means we either accept a "Parkway" station (which would be a lot better than the option available for Nottingham/Derby, given that Meadowhall is already well connected with good train/trams/buses etc) or we are a low priority branch line with a fairly minimal service - a service that will probably be the first to get removed in the event of disruption.

We'll have trains trundling through Chesterfield on existing track, fighting their way through the freight and the flat junctions, to get to the HS2 line in Nottinghamshire, little improvement on London journey times (when compared to the savings that Manchester/ Leeds/ Birmingham will get).

Sheffield to Leeds is only around thirty miles as the crow flies (even though there's only one train per hour that goes in much under sixty minutes) - imagine how much faster a frequent Meadowhall - Leeds service will be compared to what we have now? Because I don't think we'll be getting any kind of "high speed" line built from Sheffield to somewhere on the other side of Mexborough (where it'd join the planned eastern arm) - thus little speed benefit compared to what we currently have - and not extra paths through Brightside.

We thought we were more important than we are - we tried to get HS2 to divert through Victoria - instead we've been given the consolation prize of a slow branch (which means Sheffield will have a much poorer London service than Manchester/Leeds get) - South Yorkshire will be somewhere that high speed trains whizz through without stopping, like the "flyover states" in the US - the Leeds/ York/ Newcastle passengers will zip through without stopping meaning no local benefit.

But, I think that the decision has been made, so we'd better be happy with the wooden spoon that we "won"!

You say this but this wasn't always the case. Leeds has had massive amounts of money put into it over the past 30 years and finally Sheffield is seeing huge amounts of money put into it (£580 million Heart of the City 2 development, £300 million West Bar scheme, St Pauls 4 etc) however this isn't a weeing competition about where is seeing the most money put into it because obviously Manchester is leading that race by a mile.

The point is how are other places are playing catch up with cities already prospering, how are they meant to compete when they get naff all?

 

[Meerkat]

What is the time difference between an electrified MML and swinging out West on the HS2?

 

[Dr_Paul]

I have an unpleasant feeling that the HS2 will (eventually) get built to its Birmingham station and... that's your lot.

 

[Gareth]

You say this but this wasn't always the case.

tbtc is right that London/Birmingham/Manchester/Leeds are considered by the UK government as the only ones with any sort of economic role in the country. tbtc seems to agree with the settlement, whereas I personally think it's a farce.

However, farce or not: that is the situation we find ourselves in. HS2 is fundamentally about connecting the three 'second cities' with London. How everywhere else is served, or not as the case may be, is "in the hands of the gods", as Christiano Ronaldo might put it.

 

[matacaster]

Basically the worst case scenario for Sheffield is the Y shaped line is scrapped in favour of the C shape, Leeds to be served via Manchester with NPR covering the cost of the Manchester to Leeds section (thus HS2 saves a huge amount of money).

It's fine though, everyone fortunate enough to be on the M62 corridor will benefit in some shape or form from the Manchester to Leeds section, then there's the extension of HS3 to Liverpool and Hull which will still benefit from NPR even if their extensions aren't built.


Leaving Sheffield without NPR's planned 27 minute journey time between Sheffield and Leeds, continuation of the diabolical connections to Manchester and Liverpool and no improved connections to Nottingham, Birmingham and London and no electric services.

Basically us in Sheffield could be screwed.

Very much feels like we’ve been forgotten, whilst everyone else seems to be getting confirmation for both HS2 and NPR, we’re sat here anxiously waiting whether or not we’re going to either be completely bumped off the line or have to make do with a slow spur followed by absolutely no commitment to being integrated into NPR or any electrification.

The idea that a service from Manchester to Nottingham via Leeds with the use of NPR will be faster than a service from Manchester to Nottingham VIA Sheffield is worrisome.

Would very much prefer us not to be left behind.

The idea that we could very well be shafted by both HS2 and NPR worries me.

As I've said before, we've been almost entirely forgotten throughout this ordeal to the point where when we do get a mention people say "even Sheffield", what does "even Sheffield" mean? Show's what people actually think of us, we're just a "second rate backwater" and that's incredibly sad.

Is anyone actually fighting our corner? Some city councilors and MP's are making a lot of noise but ours don't seem to. Take Andy Burnham for example, he's very vocal, where's our equivalent?!

I'd rather fancy a Lightbulb with a thru station at Piccadilly and Leeds. Best miss Bradford centre as Bradford in wrong direction and worse has awful topography and history of flooding. The Bradford beck is also likely in the way.

 

[The Ham]

I have an unpleasant feeling that the HS2 will (eventually) get built to its Birmingham station and... that's your lot.

If it reaches Birmingham then it's likely to reach Crewe, even if it stops there, then chances are within a few years there'll be pressure to continue with it or at least something which looks a lot like it. Not least nectar of the capacity constraints in and around Manchester.

 

[matacaster]

I have an unpleasant feeling that the HS2 will (eventually) get built to its Birmingham station and... that's your lot.

Me too!

 

[Gareth]

I think Crewe is likely at this point too.

 

[tbtc]

You say this but this wasn't always the case. Leeds has had massive amounts of money put into it over the past 30 years and finally Sheffield is seeing huge amounts of money put into it (£580 million Heart of the City 2 development, £300 million West Bar scheme, St Pauls 4 etc) however this isn't a weeing competition about where is seeing the most money put into it because obviously Manchester is leading that race by a mile.

The point is how are other places are playing catch up with cities already prospering, how are they meant to compete when they get naff all?

Sure - and I remember Leeds before Harvey Nicks made it acceptable for southerners to be seen in West Yorkshire.

But we are where we are - Leeds might not be a much bigger city than Sheffield in population terms (due to the way boundaries go) but Leeds *is* a bigger draw in terms of London passengers - HS2 isn't intended to regenerate "left behind" places - it's about linking the A-list cities (and, whilst Sheffield has many attractions, one of the main draws is that it *isn't* competing to be the biggest and best - it's different).

(Maybe there's an alternative plan for a network that links left behind places like Stoke/ Bradford/ Hull/ Sunderland but I'd need to wait until pay day until I can afford more crayons)

tbtc is right that London/Birmingham/Manchester/Leeds are considered by the UK government as the only ones with any sort of economic role in the country. tbtc seems to agree with the settlement, whereas I personally think it's a farce.

However, farce or not: that is the situation we find ourselves in. HS2 is fundamentally about connecting the three 'second cities' with London. How everywhere else is served, or not as the case may be, is "in the hands of the gods", as Christiano Ronaldo might put it.

I'm not saying I agree with it, just trying to reflect reality. That's why Liverpool plays second fiddle to Manchester, Sheffield plays second fiddle to Leeds, Sunderland plays second fiddle to Newcastle - the UK Government think that having one big city in each region is all that matters (instead of significant devolution), and other towns/cities can benefit from the "trickle down".

If we are discussing high speed plans, we need to deal with the reality of how things are - rightly or wrongly.

In comparison, the Scottish Government have been good at managing the tricky balance between Glasgow and Edinburgh, instead of throwing all the investment at one and hoping that the other will become a commuter town for people working in the "favoured" place.

 

[Gareth]

Actually, Edinburgh's doing rather well out of devolution; Glasgow less so. I think the presence of the government in the latter city has at least something to do with it.

 

[daikilo]

In his speech on tuesday, the PM was clear that his focus is on "the spine". If he was thinking of what shape a spine is then it seems to me he is not envisaging a Y shape per se.

He also became poetic around certain limbs. For me the question will be the speed target for the "limbs".

 

[Robertj21a]

I'm not convinced that everyone is as bothered about speed as some would have us believe. Many people would be very happy to just have a *proper* efficient railway from Liverpool to Hull......

 

[Dr Hoo]

What is the time difference between an electrified MML and swinging out West on the HS2?

What point-to-point journeys do you have in mind? (Hopefully we can avoid another Toton v Derby v Nottingham digression.)

 

[The Ham]

I'm not convinced that everyone is as bothered about speed as some would have us believe. Many people would be very happy to just have a *proper* efficient railway from Liverpool to Hull......

Given that the journey time between Liverpool and Hull (129 miles) is comparable to the journey time between London and Hull (205 miles) many would like that to be more comparable for the distance traveled.

To achieve that would require a cut of about 1/3. Otherwise if you wanted to do something in Liverpool and there was a comparable thing available in London (as if there wouldn't be something comparable in London!) then based on journey times people are now likely to hear to London than Liverpool.

Even getting Hull Liverpool to sub 2 hours would make it more doable for a day trip. It would also make it that bit faster than driving (circa 3 hours) so that the train became a more viable option for more people.

 

[ohgoditsjames]

What is the time difference between an electrified MML and swinging out West on the HS2?

An electrified MML isn't going to provide massive speed differences, the line is far too curvy.

 

[edwin_m]

The ideal solution might be something along the lines of:
- HS2 to Crewe gets built (2030)
- HS2 to Manchester gets built (2033)
- HSN between Manchester and Leeds is built (2036)
- HS2 between Birmingham and Sheffield is built (2037)
- HSN other bits get added on (2038 to 2045)
- HS2 to Leeds is built (2042)

More or less in that order, more or less with a few years between each section being built.

It would mean that high (or at least higher) speed services between Sheffield and Leeds may be 5 years after there's a better service from Birmingham to Sheffield, but even then the initial Birmingham to Leeds via Sheffield would be ~15 minutes quicker than it is today. Add in electrification of the line and you might be able to trim a bit more time off of that.

It would also mean that Liverpool may only be 5 years after Manchester (which will cause some upset at least having a set date for it could appease many).

It would mean that as there's a fairly small timeframe between HS2 phase 1 and the full system being developed that there's a chance that pairs of trains would be able to cater for the demand expected, which would reduce the pressure on the number of paths on any one bit of the system.

Chances are that probably by 2050 there would be further HS lines needing to be opening (High Speed East and High Speed Wales & Western) to cater for East Coast and Wales & Western capacity issues.

Given the emphasis being put on the north I think the ideal would be:

• 2030: London-Crewe
• 2035: Liverpool-Airport-Manchester, Birmingham-Toton(ish), Sheffield(ish)-Leeds
• 2040: Manchester-Leeds, Crewe-Airport/Golborne (or preferably north of Wigan), Toton-Clay Cross and link to above

This brings forward the NPR and Midlands Connect aspirations, with the ones that are already part-designed as HS2 going first. The Transpennine and Birmingham-NE services, currently much slower than London routes, each get a boost from being able to use two high speed sections with the gaps being filled in later.

 

[CdBrux]

the 14tph limit is for past a single point only. Ie out of London. It's not a total figure.


I'd imagine the 14 per Oakervee as being similar, but no Macclesfield (the junctions won't be built)
2 Newcastle/Sheffield
1 Leeds/York
1 Leeds/Manchester
1 Leeds/Leeds
2 Manchester/Manchester
3 Birmingham/Birmingham
2 Glasgow/Edinburgh
2 Liverpool/Lancs

Oakervee report suggested, that in addition to dropping the Stafford, Stoke, Macclesfield service so as not to build Handsacre junction also to drop the 2 York & Newcastle services so as not to build the link from south of Leeds to the ECML.
I suspect the government would find both of those politically difficult to do.

 

[Senex]

I have an unpleasant feeling that the HS2 will (eventually) get built to its Birmingham station and... that's your lot.

Me too (as matacaster has already said). But let's take Johnson at his word (if we dare!) and assume that Phases 1 and 2a are built as one go, then that gets us as far as Crewe. The announcement seemed to leave lots of wriggle-room after that, as even though it did commit to the whole programme, it introduced the review for the Manchester Branch and the Leeds line, apparently specifically to see how costs might be controlled—which sounds dangerously like de-speccing to me, even if things do get beyond the end of Phase 2a. Or as ever, jam for London and some for Birmingham, but cheese-paring of the project for the north-west and Yorkshire.
And what are the timescales now? The papers seemed to be suggesting 2028-2031 for completion to Crewe, though with some possible delay for the section from Euston to Old Oak Common, but as late as 2040 for Phase 2b if it does get done. Does that really mean nothing for Sheffield and Leeds for another two decades and the published aspirations dor Manchester not being met for the same time? And given that the HS2 go-ahead was not accompanied by any announcements on money for the Trans-Pennine Ugrade, the Castlefield Corridor, or the MML electrification, is it likely that after the opening of HS2 between London and Birmingam the journey-time between those two cities will be roughly the same as that between Manchester and Leeds? Does that help level up the north or just add to the draw of London?

 

[The Ham]

Given the emphasis being put on the north I think the ideal would be:

• 2030: London-Crewe
• 2035: Liverpool-Airport-Manchester, Birmingham-Toton(ish), Sheffield(ish)-Leeds
• 2040: Manchester-Leeds, Crewe-Airport/Golborne (or preferably north of Wigan), Toton-Clay Cross and link to above

This brings forward the NPR and Midlands Connect aspirations, with the ones that are already part-designed as HS2 going first. The Transpennine and Birmingham-NE services, currently much slower than London routes, each get a boost from being able to use two high speed sections with the gaps being filled in later.

That also seems reasonable.

 

[edwin_m]

Oakervee report suggested, that in addition to dropping the Stafford, Stoke, Macclesfield service so as not to build Handsacre junction also to drop the 2 York & Newcastle services so as not to build the link from south of Leeds to the ECML.
I suspect the government would find both of those politically difficult to do.

The HS2 journey planner shows 1hr 24min for London-York but todays services are only 20-odd minutes slower than that, and the same difference would apply further north. So dropping the York leg doesn't make a huge amount of difference to timings, although it removes most of the scope to free up capacity on the ECML. Birmingham-York trains benefit more from HS2 but they would probably go via Leeds, where there would most likely be a connection from HS2 to classic towards York.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The problem with most attempts to cut chunks out of HS2 to save money is that the benefit of the scheme also drops by even more, so you end up with less bang for your buck. The Phase 2 concept is really very solid - the only tweak we've seen is the use of the classic line to serve South Yorkshire rather than a compromise parkway station at Meadowhall.

Cutting chunks off Phase 2 isn't going to make Phase 1 meaningfully cheaper, and Phase 2 is what you need to deliver most of the capacity benefits for anywhere other than the southern WCML. It's a tough situation. Bringing down the headline cost of the scheme can then cause more damage to NR's plans since they'd need to plough more money into the classic lines. For instance, saving that connection towards York means you would probably have to go back to that proposed new line between Alexandra Palace and Biggleswade. That would be a different project under a different brand and different name, but it would still be the Treasury paying for it.

I think the best possible cost-benefit ratio would be achieved by building even more lines with new cash, rather than trying to shuffle around the limited pot already allocated.

 

[CdBrux]

A large part of the reason for Oakervee cutting those 3 services was to limit phase 1 to 14 tph as he thought 17tph was possibly too much for the line to handle. It may also then lead to a cheaper design in the Euston throat. IIRC he recognised less impact on ECML as now just removing Leeds services