Possible combination of HS2 phase 2 with "rail north'

[edwin_m]

It’s not quite that simple - it’s not just 110/125EPS, there’s loads of places with EPS differentials at lower speeds, and smaller differentials. North of Lancaster there’s not much track suitable for higher speeds than the existing ‘base’ linespeed.

But surely the same principle would apply - upgrade the general speed restriction to whatever speed is possible without tilt, and abolish the separate EPS speed if the two are the same?

 

[Bald Rick]

But surely the same principle would apply - upgrade the general speed restriction to whatever speed is possible without tilt, and abolish the separate EPS speed if the two are the same?

Yes, but, usually where the EPS speed is lower than the ruling line speed of 125mph it is almost always down to curvature, and unlikely to be changed without a change to the curving rules.

 

[ABB125]

Yes, but, usually where the EPS speed is lower than the regular speed it is entirely down to curvature, and unlikely to be changed without a change to the curving rules.

Why would the EPS speed be lower than the normal speed? Surely this is pointless, and the tilting train could not tilt and use the normal speed?

 

[Bald Rick]

Why would the EPS speed be lower than the normal speed? Surely this is pointless, and the tilting train could not tilt and use the normal speed?

Apologies, drafting error I have had a long week, and there’s still 2 days to go!

What I meant was that where the EPS speed is lower than the ‘ruling’ speed, ie 125mph, it is almost always due to curvature. Post amended.

 

[edwin_m]

What I meant was that where the EPS speed is lower than the ‘ruling’ speed, ie 125mph, it is almost always due to curvature. Post amended.

In that case the general speed would remain below the EPS speed and the signage and TASS works work as it does today. Non-tilting (therefore non-TASS-fitted) trains could run at the higher general speed.

But there will be places where it's possible to raise the general speed to equal the EPS speed, which would usually be 125 but occasionally less. I believe there's scope to do that on some of the straighter parts of the WCML simply because nobody has had a need to raise the general speed above 110 until recently. When Virgin was driving the upgrade it was in their interests to make sure no potential competitor with a non-tilting train could take advantage, so as far as I'm aware the general speeds were untouched. For example there's a longish straight section from north of Wigan to south of Preston, and they talked about 135mph for tilting trains through Lockerbie which probably means non-tilting trains can do more than 110.

 

[Roger B]

In that case the general speed would remain below the EPS speed and the signage and TASS works work as it does today. Non-tilting (therefore non-TASS-fitted) trains could run at the higher general speed.

But there will be places where it's possible to raise the general speed to equal the EPS speed, which would usually be 125 but occasionally less. I believe there's scope to do that on some of the straighter parts of the WCML simply because nobody has had a need to raise the general speed above 110 until recently. When Virgin was driving the upgrade it was in their interests to make sure no potential competitor with a non-tilting train could take advantage, so as far as I'm aware the general speeds were untouched. For example there's a longish straight section from north of Wigan to south of Preston, and they talked about 135mph for tilting trains through Lockerbie which probably means non-tilting trains can do more than 110.

I reckon there's quite a bit of scope for increasing speeds for non-tilting trains and trimming a few minutes off here and there on straighter sections of the WCML. I've read (somewhere - can't lay my hands on it at the mo) that the weight of the bogies is also a consideration, with trains having lighter-weight bogies potentially being permitted to travel at higher speeds on curved sections than those with heavier bogies. Can anyone confirm / explain the physics behind this?

 

[edwin_m]

I reckon there's quite a bit of scope for increasing speeds for non-tilting trains and trimming a few minutes off here and there on straighter sections of the WCML. I've read (somewhere - can't lay my hands on it at the mo) that the weight of the bogies is also a consideration, with trains having lighter-weight bogies potentially being permitted to travel at higher speeds on curved sections than those with heavier bogies. Can anyone confirm / explain the physics behind this?

Sprinters and multiple units are sometimes allowed higher speeds, but it tends to be on track which is older or maintained less often, so the WCML wouldn't qualify. It's probably more overall axle load (and unrelated things like braking performance) rather than the weight of the bogies themselves.

 

[Bald Rick]

In that case the general speed would remain below the EPS speed and the signage and TASS works work as it does today. Non-tilting (therefore non-TASS-fitted) trains could run at the higher general speed.

But there will be places where it's possible to raise the general speed to equal the EPS speed, which would usually be 125 but occasionally less. I believe there's scope to do that on some of the straighter parts of the WCML simply because nobody has had a need to raise the general speed above 110 until recently. When Virgin was driving the upgrade it was in their interests to make sure no potential competitor with a non-tilting train could take advantage, so as far as I'm aware the general speeds were untouched. For example there's a longish straight section from north of Wigan to south of Preston, and they talked about 135mph for tilting trains through Lockerbie which probably means non-tilting trains can do more than 110.

I reckon there's quite a bit of scope for increasing speeds for non-tilting trains and trimming a few minutes off here and there on straighter sections of the WCML. I've read (somewhere - can't lay my hands on it at the mo) that the weight of the bogies is also a consideration, with trains having lighter-weight bogies potentially being permitted to travel at higher speeds on curved sections than those with heavier bogies. Can anyone confirm / explain the physics behind this?

Without going into too much detail, but I was involved in the WCRM linespeed project, and can advise that

a) there are some, but not many places north of Lancaster where non-tilting trains could operate above the current non-titling linespeed profile. This would change if the rules on curving are relaxed to ‘exceptional’ values (as is done on a handful of routes elsewhere) which was of course not necessary to contemplate with tilting trains. However this might eke out 5-10mph at most.

b) the linespeed profile was driven by Railtrack, not Virgin. At that time there was no prospect whatsoever of competitors on the WCML; the North West Trains service to Euston was considered to be a fly-by-night operation which was quickly proved correct. The profile was indeed done on the basis of a tilting train, but many non-tilt speeds were revised upwards also. The reason that some straighter parts weren’t raised is a little complex to explain but was because of the braking curves and how you actually sign the restrictions.

 

[MarkyT]

I reckon there's quite a bit of scope for increasing speeds for non-tilting trains and trimming a few minutes off here and there on straighter sections of the WCML. I've read (somewhere - can't lay my hands on it at the mo) that the weight of the bogies is also a consideration, with trains having lighter-weight bogies potentially being permitted to travel at higher speeds on curved sections than those with heavier bogies. Can anyone confirm / explain the physics behind this?

Sprinters and multiple units are sometimes allowed higher speeds, but it tends to be on track which is older or maintained less often, so the WCML wouldn't qualify. It's probably more overall axle load (and unrelated things like braking performance) rather than the weight of the bogies themselves.

Heavy tilt bogies also affect performance. In the case of Voyagers, the tilting version is over 20% heavier than the non-tilt, with the same installed power, or put another way the lighter non-tilt variety is over 20% more powerful:

Clearly, trains with a higher power output per tonne weight figure can accelerate out of curve restrictions more rapidly than those with a lower value.

 

[CdBrux]

The government has now published the terms of reference for "An integrated rail plan for the Midlands and the north: High Speed North"

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...rail-plan-for-the-north-and-midlands#contents

Purpose
The government is fully committed to providing better rail connectivity between London, the Midlands and the north, ensuring all parts of the country benefit from opportunities for economic development and prosperity. As well as committing to deliver HS2, the government remains strongly committed to Northern Powerhouse Rail, improving connectivity between northern cities as well as between London, the Midlands and the north.

The Oakervee review concluded that for Phase 2b of HS2 (the route from Birmingham to Manchester and Leeds) a Y-shaped network was the right strategic answer for the country. However, the review also concluded that Phase 2b needs to be considered as part of an Integrated Rail Plan for the north and Midlands which also includes Northern Powerhouse Rail, Midlands Rail Hub, and other major Network Rail schemes to ensure these are scoped, designed, delivered, and can be operated as an integrated network. The Oakervee Review also identified the opportunity to challenge design and costs on Phase 2b, including standards, running speed, and responsibility for delivery.

The government agrees that, on current plans, Phase 2b of HS2 will deliver connectivity for the East Midlands and the North of England considerably later than the rest of HS2, and that there are questions about whether its design maximises the benefits from connectivity. The government wants to ensure that Phase 2b of HS2 and other planned rail investments in the Midlands and the north are scoped and delivered in an integrated way, including with the wider rail network, whilst driving down unnecessary costs and over-specification.

Scope of the Integrated Rail Plan
The government, working with HS2 Ltd and local leaders, will therefore draw up an Integrated Rail Plan for the Midlands and the north which is framed by the government’s commitment to bring forward transformational rail improvements along the HS2 route as quickly as possible. This work will be informed by an assessment from the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) looking at the rail needs of the Midlands and the north, and the available evidence on Northern Powerhouse Rail, Midlands Rail Hub, HS2 Phase 2b and other proposed Network Rail projects.

The government will also proceed with the legislation to allow for the development of the Western Leg provided it does not prejudge any recommendations or decisions that will be taken in this plan, and noting that Phase 2b can be legislated for in two or more hybrid bills, which may run concurrently.

The plan will consider the following, based on the NIC’s assessment and taking into account value for money, levelling up, affordability and deliverability considerations:

1. How best to integrate HS2 Phase 2b and wider transport plans in the north and Midlands, delivering benefits from investments more quickly. This should include a recommended way forward on scoping, phasing and sequencing delivery of HS2 Phase 2b, Northern Powerhouse Rail, Midlands Rail Hub and other proposed rail investments. This should take into account: government commitments; the current state of development for different projects; the transformational and capacity benefits of these schemes; fiscal and supply chain capability constraints; network integration; consenting routes (including legislation); and, in line with the Oakervee Review conclusion, the appropriate mix of high speed line and upgrades of conventional network, and the sequencing of these, on any elements of the investments under consideration.
   
   
2. How best to reduce cost, including opportunities to reconsider HS2 Phase 2b scope and design standards to prevent over-specification, improve efficiency and reduce costs, drawing on the Phase One lessons learnt work to be led by the Infrastructure and Projects Authority (see below).
   
   
3. The recommended approach to sponsorship and delivery, including governance and delivery models, and how to take account of the views of local leaders, consistent with delivering on the objectives of the scheme and value for money. This will include exploring options for new delivery vehicles with northern leaders for the relevant rail enhancements including new lines that may form part of the delivery of HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail.
   
   
4. How best to deliver rail connectivity with Scotland, in conjunction with the Scottish Government.
   

Input to the Integrated Rail Plan - IPA review on lessons learned from cost overruns
As one of the inputs to the Integrated Rail Plan, the Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA) will conduct a review of the lessons of HS2 Phases 1 and 2a for delivery of the project, particularly Phase 2b. This will include (but is not limited to) the effects of the following on costs of delivery:

• sponsors’ requirements (including delivery into service dates)
• planning and consents process
• engineering specifications including speed
• procurement model and risk allocation
• environmental mitigation
• the role of consultants versus in-house staff;
• the role of Project Representatives.

This IPA review should consider decisions made in Phase 1 to date and recommend where it is sensible to deviate from specifications and practice to reduce anticipated final costs in a way that preserves value for money and the strategic and economic case.

The IPA will also draw from the lessons on HS2 to make recommendations for infrastructure more generally including in the areas of legislation, planning, procurement and governance, to ensure all infrastructure projects can be effectively delivered.

Timing of the Integrated Rail Plan
The Integrated Rail Plan will be published by the end of the year.

Unless I have missed something I have not seen any mention of who will be involved in this beyond mentioning government working with local leaders, maybe that will come in the next weeks?

 

[WatcherZero]

Sounds like National Infrastructure Commission will be doing the bulk of it with input from local authorities.

Edit:

Yes confirmed the National Infrastructure Commission (Treasury agency) will do the integration review while the Infrastructure & Projects Authority (joint Cabinet office/Treasury agency) will do the review into lessons learned from Phase 1.

 

[Class 170101]

Sounds like National Infrastructure Commission will be doing the bulk of it with input from local authorities.

Edit:

Yes confirmed the National Infrastructure Commission (Treasury agency) will do the integration review while the Infrastructure & Projects Authority (joint Cabinet office/Treasury agency) will do the review into lessons learned from Phase 1.

Great a project built to a cost rather than to a spec then.

 

[daikilo]

Great a project built to a cost rather than to a spec then.

It certainly looks as though Phase 2b may change given these words in para 1 of the scope "|..] the appropriate mix of high speed line and upgrades of conventional network, and the sequencing of these, on any elements of the investments under consideration."

Paragraph 4 of the scope adds "How best to deliver rail connectivity with Scotland, in conjunction with the Scottish Government."

 

[SamYeager]

Great a project built to a cost rather than to a spec then.

Given Crossrail's ever receding opening date and the ever increasing estimates for HS2 it's hardly surprising although depressing. Almost certainly this will result in increased spending at a later date to rectify the penny wise, pound foolish decisions taken at this stage but that's likely to be well after the current Treasury/Dft civil servants and politicians have moved on.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I'm much happier with a rethink of Phase 2b given the fairly horrific ideas being thrown about or even officially considered to tack on east-west connectivity onto it. What I can only hope is that they don't stop at the concept of east-west as well. Sure, east-west is the weakest part of the Northern transport setup at the moment (no one is exactly complaining about the frequent 125mph service from Newcastle to York!) but there are still other links which need looked at. Quite frankly it's the whole TransPennine Express network that should be covered by this plan. All that's really required is for high quality mainline tracks to be provided in, out of and between the major cities of the region. High speed isn't even necessary: a new pair of 100mph tracks bypassing or overtaking new or existing commuter rail services would be as or more useful than multi-billion pound tunnels under the Pennines.

It wouldn't surprise me if the decision a few years ago to put Sheffield on a classic spur rather than as a parkway on the mainline was what triggered this. The ECML north of York and the WCML north of Wigan both work reasonably well as high-capacity InterCity mainline railways. However, once HS2 was committed to running on NR tracks to reach Sheffield, all the various problems (and opportunities) on the network up there must have come into view. Reinstating the extra tracks between Dore and Sheffield Midland seems pretty essential, but would do as much or more benefit to non-HS2 services as it would to HS2 ones.

Something of note with the Wigan connection is that it's only planned to be used by Scottish HS2 trains. It was included in the HS2 plans because the government asked HS2 Ltd to come up with a coherent single line connecting up with the WCML, and HS2 got its engineering consultants to draw up just that. There's no fundamental reason why, however, a new section of HS2 line to reduce Scottish journey times needs to be joined up with the rest of it. The end-to-end journey time is what matters. If, for instance, the cost of bridging the Ship Canal were shown to be unreasonably high, it might make sense to initially spend the money on another part of the network. Maybe the biggest gains would be building that length of track up around Glasgow or Edinburgh? It doesn't have to mean there'd never be a link - all that's required really is that the planning and construction includes passive or active provision for the mainline to be extended. Plenty of high speed networks get built in chunks rather than linearly.

 

[Haydn1971]

I'm much happier with a rethink of Phase 2b given the fairly horrific ideas being thrown about or even officially considered to tack on east-west connectivity onto it.

The whole Sheffield HS2 Station debacle was a real face palm moment for local politics here for me in Sheffield - Whats been offered currently is an improvement on what Sheffield has, but sadly, not the huge step change that Meadowhall HS2 offered for Sheffield/Rotherham/Barnsley. I’m not sure how to fix that now, because a Parkway Station near Mexborough just isn’t going to be useful for enough people.

With regard to cross pennine routes, the sticking point for Hope Valley has always been Hazel Grove and Stockport, there simply isn’t enough space to accommodate extra Sheffield trains through that area, short term fixes of six car 185s or perhaps even reformed 222 units might help, but ultimately fixes are needed at the congestion points, in Stockport and eventually Dore-Sheffield. The Northern Power whatever it’s called now thing needs to be a programme of evolutionary step changes, not just a scheme like “Crossrail for the north” it needs to be considered more as a network in the sense of the Overground, but a lot faster ! Linking keys cities, towns, HS2 stations, WCML/ECML stations etc

 

[miami]

HS2b will take 5 tph on Manchester-Stockport (3x London, 2xXC), but replace with at least 2 EMUs to Macclesfield. Perhaps an extra service to Sheffield could fit in then?

I assume Cardiff will still run down Stockport/Wilmslow/Crewe.

 

[Greybeard33]

HS2b will take 5 tph on Manchester-Stockport (3x London, 2xXC), but replace with at least 2 EMUs to Macclesfield. Perhaps an extra service to Sheffield could fit in then?

I assume Cardiff will still run down Stockport/Wilmslow/Crewe.

What about replacement services from Manchester and Stockport to Stoke, Stafford and Wolverhampton?

 

[HSTEd]

The value engineering seems likely to jettison the York connecting line and replace it with a much shorter connecting line from the vicinity of Conisbrough/Mexborough.
Even with the terrain its ~7km (connect to an existing line near Warmsworth) versus about 23km.

And the line between Doncaster and York is hardly slow.

 

[edwin_m]

The value engineering seems likely to jettison the York connecting line and replace it with a much shorter connecting line from the vicinity of Conisbrough/Mexborough.
Even with the terrain its ~7km (connect to an existing line near Warmsworth) versus about 23km.

And the line between Doncaster and York is hardly slow.

Hmmm. Straight into the low speed curve and flat junctions at Doncaster.

 

[ABB125]

The value engineering seems likely to jettison the York connecting line and replace it with a much shorter connecting line from the vicinity of Conisbrough/Mexborough.
Even with the terrain its ~7km (connect to an existing line near Warmsworth) versus about 23km.

And the line between Doncaster and York is hardly slow.

Hmmm. Straight into the low speed curve and flat junctions at Doncaster.

Surely it would be more sensible to build a few more miles and join the line just north of Doncaster where the linespeed returns to 125mph?

 

[johnnychips]

Surely it would be more sensible to build a few more miles and join the line just north of Doncaster where the linespeed returns to 125mph?

This would maybe make more sense. The line between Conisbrough and Doncaster is two-track, runs through a nature reserve in the Don gorge then a very deep limestone cutting in Warmsworth. I suppose it could then take the Doncaster avoiding line to Bentley if Doncaster station is to be avoided. Current traffic is three fast and two slows in one direction an hour, plus quite a lot of freight.

 

[NotATrainspott]

A better line from Leeds to York would be a useful part of any east-west improvements. Dropping the HS2 York connection and moving it down to Doncaster might save you some HS2 cash but it means east-west improvements would be starting from scratch. The HS2 line would provide a high quality railway from around Junction 46 on the M1 up to south of York station. That could tie into a new line into Leeds or an upgraded route via Cross Gates.

 

[edwin_m]

A better line from Leeds to York would be a useful part of any east-west improvements. Dropping the HS2 York connection and moving it down to Doncaster might save you some HS2 cash but it means east-west improvements would be starting from scratch. The HS2 line would provide a high quality railway from around Junction 46 on the M1 up to south of York station. That could tie into a new line into Leeds or an upgraded route via Cross Gates.

Putting a connection off from Micklefield area into the HS2 York connection, which itself ends not far north of Church Fenton, doesn't give you much capacity relief and virtually no high speed running, but requires four complex grade-separated junctions (one of which might, or might not, be "free" with HS2).

 

[WatcherZero]

Government has briefed today they will be splitting 2B into Eastern and Western leg bills with the Western leg Bill to be advanced first and possibly accelerated ahead of its current delivery timetable. The Western Leg bill will be written while the NPR review is in progress and published shortly after. They are saying their first priority is rebuilding Manchester Piccadilly for HS2/NPR.

 

[Haydn1971]

To be fair, building the link to Manchester was always going to happen first, it’s the least contentious bit of 2b ! The question now is will that western leg stop at Manchester Airport until the NPR bit is more pinned down in terms of how it passes through central Manchester? The current Piccadilly Station HS2 proposal doesn’t really align well for a east-west NPR route doesn’t it ?

 

[Purple Orange]

To be fair, building the link to Manchester was always going to happen first, it’s the least contentious bit of 2b ! The question now is will that western leg stop at Manchester Airport until the NPR bit is more pinned down in terms of how it passes through central Manchester? The current Piccadilly Station HS2 proposal doesn’t really align well for a east-west NPR route doesn’t it ?

I don’t think the alignment of the current Piccadilly HS2 proposal hampers the east-west route. We know that NPR should encompass a route that covers Liverpool-MancAirport-Piccadilly-Leeds-Newcastle, therefore through Manchester it requires a route that comes in from the south, then bends towards north east. Making this in to a slight ‘S’ shape also brings the possibility of building a tunnelled route towards Preston, with a junction north of Piccadilly.

 

[Haydn1971]

I don’t think the alignment of the current Piccadilly HS2 proposal hampers the east-west route. We know that NPR should encompass a route that covers Liverpool-MancAirport-Piccadilly-Leeds-Newcastle, therefore through Manchester it requires a route that comes in from the south, then bends towards north east. Making this in to a slight ‘S’ shape also brings the possibility of building a tunnelled route towards Preston, with a junction north of Piccadilly.

You are aware that the Piccadilly alignment for HS2 is almost a loop from the south that hooks almost to face west ? That’s kinda 180 degrees out of alignment for Airport to Leeds, much more than a slight S shape. Ideally a HS2/NPR needs to be intersecting Piccadilly at 90 degrees, probably in a low level station not parallel. We aren’t wanting another 40mph line through Manchester and to be fair, just because every train stops at Manchester now, doesn’t mean the service pattern for NPR has every service stop there in the future - you might (for example) have a Liverpool-Airport-Leeds-Newcastle service or a Liverpool-Warrington-Leeds-York-Newcastle or Crewe-Airport-Huddersfield-Wakefield-Selby-Hull service mixed with Manchester stopping services, with through services requiring a 100-140mph alignment through Piccadilly. Gives a magical headline super short time say from Leeds to Airport for example.

 

[edwin_m]

I'd say an interim HS route terminating at the Airport is pretty pointless. Unlike Old Oak Common there's no sensible onward rail connection since the existing airport station is too far away to walk. The best that cold be hoped for is a fairly slow tram link. Providing an improved service for those who can access the airport station, probably by car, while doing nothing for those who use public transport to get to Piccadilly sends entirely the wrong message. And there probably isn't the route capacity to run two separate sets of Manchester services without reducing their frequencies - or the platform capacity at the Airport to terminate them.

Burnham is talking about the tunnel from the airport tracking further west and making a right turn so as to be pointing east when it gets to Piccadilly. This is apparently a shorter tunnel than currently planned, but would require the entirety of the HS Piccadilly station to be underground (although the site can probably be cleared to build it by cut and cover). The extra cost for the station might outweigh any saving on the tunnel, and changing the route introduces delays for design, consultation and legal powers.

The other option would be to keep the tunnel as planned and have Leeds trains make a 180 degree turn west of the station. In this case Piccadilly could have elevated platforms for terminating HS2 trains and underground for through NPR trains, assuming all this can be connected up to the tunnel portal. The turn could perhaps be engineered to bring the route to the surface facing east somewhere near Miles Platting, from where there is a some possibility of surface running along the Medlock valley, heading for the gap between Oldham and Ashton.

 

[Bald Rick]

The extra cost for the station might outweigh any saving on the tunnel, and changing the route introduces delays for design, consultation and legal powers

I doubt that very much. Every km of tunnel reduced will save about £200m; new underground stations start at a billion for a 2 platform example.