Potential options for the proposed high speed line from Manchester towards Leeds

[Gareth]

Pretty sure the Warrington line is the bit planned to refuse the Fiddler's Ferry route and Bank Quay low level.

 

[snowball]

Pretty sure the Warrington line is the bit planned to refuse the Fiddler's Ferry route and Bank Quay low level.

That's explicitly stated in the IRP but is west of Bank Quay, towards Liverpool, not towards Manchester and Huddersfield.

 

[AGH]

Being a local, that line is pretty much usable in terms of reinstatement until it gets to the M6 at Thelwall. Latchford viaduct is beyond repair. Various videos on YouTube of people up there. Needs a total replacement. If you didn't use it then tunnel is the only option due to being built up and thus prohibitively expensive. When they widened the M6 at Thelwall, the track bed was lost. That I suspect will be the point of the new line. Going to be a lot of NIMBYs kicking off at that point but you have to break some eggs to make an omelette. Can't see it going beyond that as Lymn more built up now and some level crossings would need to be dealt with. The ship canal is also a major obstacle for any new alignment be it tunnel or otherwise. This is why going out to Thelwall on the old route imho makes sense. It's rural after Lymn but you hit problems again at Broadheath.

Warrington to Ditton is entirely usable albeit will need upgrading and level crossings removed etc. If you follow the Sankey canal there is one of many foot crossings at Sankey bridges. I'd like to see reinstatement of some stations along that route but all dependant on the usage. Stations at Latchford, Thelwall, Penketh, Widnes South and likely an interchange at Ditton would be useful locally and remove a fair bit of traffic.

Was talk some years ago of a curve through Arpley to allow low level to reach the WCML without reversing. Fiddlers Ferry power station closing stopped that need but might be useful once this is upgraded.

 

[edwin_m]

Being a local, that line is pretty much usable in terms of reinstatement until it gets to the M6 at Thelwall. Latchford viaduct is beyond repair. Various videos on YouTube of people up there. Needs a total replacement. If you didn't use it then tunnel is the only option due to being built up and thus prohibitively expensive. When they widened the M6 at Thelwall, the track bed was lost. That I suspect will be the point of the new line. Going to be a lot of NIMBYs kicking off at that point but you have to break some eggs to make an omelette. Can't see it going beyond that as Lymn more built up now and some level crossings would need to be dealt with. The ship canal is also a major obstacle for any new alignment be it tunnel or otherwise. This is why going out to Thelwall on the old route imho makes sense. It's rural after Lymn but you hit problems again at Broadheath.

Warrington to Ditton is entirely usable albeit will need upgrading and level crossings removed etc. If you follow the Sankey canal there is one of many foot crossings at Sankey bridges. I'd like to see reinstatement of some stations along that route but all dependant on the usage. Stations at Latchford, Thelwall, Penketh, Widnes South and likely an interchange at Ditton would be useful locally and remove a fair bit of traffic.

Was talk some years ago of a curve through Arpley to allow low level to reach the WCML without reversing. Fiddlers Ferry power station closing stopped that need but might be useful once this is upgraded.

It seems pretty clear to me that the line from Warrington will join HS2 and continue via the Airport. The exact point where it leaves the old line (going eastwards) isn't known but I'd agree it makes sense to follow it at least as far as a replacement Ship Canal crossing at or very close to the disused one. It would then turn away southwards once out of the built-up area to pick up HS2 at High Legh, the junction already included in the designs for the Manchester route.
I don't see that the Arpley Curve serves any useful purpose in this scenario, as it only provides an alternative route from south of Warrington to Liverpool, and we have one of those already via Runcorn.

 

[AGH]

There seems a good point to head south after it passes under the A56 east of Grappenhall. Dive under the M6 in the ball park of Lymn services. No room I would suggest to cross the Ship canal elsewhere. Lots of houses and flats gone up on any spare land.

I only mentioned Arpley as redundancy. I presume they will retain the current curve again for redundancy. Thinking about Bank Quay LL then that also is going to need a bit of rejigging as I don't think the gap between the WCML and Slutchers lane is long enough just from last time I walked from the Car Park down there to Bank Quay.

The bridge over the Mersey just further up will probably need replacing as well. After that it's an uncomplicated but climbing run to Thelwall. Interesting times.

 

[MattRat]

Being a local, that line is pretty much usable in terms of reinstatement until it gets to the M6 at Thelwall. Latchford viaduct is beyond repair. Various videos on YouTube of people up there. Needs a total replacement. If you didn't use it then tunnel is the only option due to being built up and thus prohibitively expensive. When they widened the M6 at Thelwall, the track bed was lost. That I suspect will be the point of the new line. Going to be a lot of NIMBYs kicking off at that point but you have to break some eggs to make an omelette. Can't see it going beyond that as Lymn more built up now and some level crossings would need to be dealt with. The ship canal is also a major obstacle for any new alignment be it tunnel or otherwise. This is why going out to Thelwall on the old route imho makes sense. It's rural after Lymn but you hit problems again at Broadheath.

Warrington to Ditton is entirely usable albeit will need upgrading and level crossings removed etc. If you follow the Sankey canal there is one of many foot crossings at Sankey bridges. I'd like to see reinstatement of some stations along that route but all dependant on the usage. Stations at Latchford, Thelwall, Penketh, Widnes South and likely an interchange at Ditton would be useful locally and remove a fair bit of traffic.

Was talk some years ago of a curve through Arpley to allow low level to reach the WCML without reversing. Fiddlers Ferry power station closing stopped that need but might be useful once this is upgraded.

NIMBYs will likely be handled by Steve Rotheram. I'm sure he'll think of a way to work around them, I trust him. Cost is the bigger issue, IMO. Just take a look at the situation in Manchester, and you realise if it so much as looks costly, the government will run away screaming their heads off like a bunch of children. They just don't seem able to grasp the concept that you can't put a price on infrastructure.

 

[Purple Orange]

Could the NPR line be split in to phase 1 and phase 2? If so, which section Manchester-Marsden or HS2-Liverpool would be phase 1?

 

[edwin_m]

Could the NPR line be split in to phase 1 and phase 2? If so, which section Manchester-Marsden or HS2-Liverpool would be phase 1?

I would think HS2-Liverpool would be built more quickly, because there is much less route to build and it's in much easier terrain, despite needing some major structures for the junctions and canal crossing. That doesn't really answer your question though - the Marsden route could be started first so it was all ready at about the same time.

 

[Purple Orange]

I would think HS2-Liverpool would be built more quickly, because there is much less route to build and it's in much easier terrain, despite needing some major structures for the junctions and canal crossing. That doesn't really answer your question though - the Marsden route could be started first so it was all ready at about the same time.

I do wonder if, like the Handsacre junction, the existing line through Guide Bridge could be used in a similar way to facilitate running Birmingham-Manchester-Leeds services until the new line is built. That route would still be faster than the route via Sheffield.

 

[MattRat]

Could the NPR line be split in to phase 1 and phase 2? If so, which section Manchester-Marsden or HS2-Liverpool would be phase 1?

Wouldn't we just get another Eastern Leg style fiasco when the Liverpool leg gets dropped?

 

[Greybeard33]

Could the NPR line be split in to phase 1 and phase 2? If so, which section Manchester-Marsden or HS2-Liverpool would be phase 1?

See the bar chart on p135 of the IRP. It shows Liverpool - Manchester completed by the early 2040s and Manchester - Leeds by the mid 2040s. This phasing makes sense because the HS2 Liverpool trains can start using the new line as soon as it is ready. If the Marsden line were completed first, it could only carry the 2tph Leeds - Birmingham. The Leeds - Liverpool trains would have to continue running via the Chat Moss line and I doubt the Piccadilly HS2 station would have the capacity to turnaround additional trains from Leeds.

I do wonder if, like the Handsacre junction, the existing line through Guide Bridge could be used in a similar way to facilitate running Birmingham-Manchester-Leeds services until the new line is built. That route would still be faster than the route via Sheffield.

Good point. It seems possible there might be a junction with the Guide Bridge line near Ardwick.

 

[edwin_m]

Good point. It seems possible there might be a junction with the Guide Bridge line near Ardwick.

The junction that got added to the HS2 plans recently looks as if it could lead towards Guide Bridge. But it could also lead to a portal north of Ardwick depot. From there, a Leeds line could, for example, tunnel through to the Medlock valley and maybe even use a bit of the Victoria-Stalybridge line before tunnelling again from somewhere between Oldham and Ashton through to Marsden.

 

[Purple Orange]

See the bar chart on p135 of the IRP. It shows Liverpool - Manchester completed by the early 2040s and Manchester - Leeds by the mid 2040s. This phasing makes sense because the HS2 Liverpool trains can start using the new line as soon as it is ready. If the Marsden line were completed first, it could only carry the 2tph Leeds - Birmingham. The Leeds - Liverpool trains would have to continue running via the Chat Moss line and I doubt the Piccadilly HS2 station would have the capacity to turnaround additional trains from Leeds.

Good point. It seems possible there might be a junction with the Guide Bridge line near Ardwick.

On that basis, assuming a ‘temporary’ operation could happen along the line through Guide Bridge, getting the Liverpool side done first would be preferential.

I would like to eventually see plans for new build from Warrington to Lime Street, so we begin to see journey time savings vs the line via Chat Moss. That is probably decades away.

 

[Glenn1969]

On that basis, assuming a ‘temporary’ operation could happen along the line through Guide Bridge, getting the Liverpool side done first would be preferential.

I would like to eventually see plans for new build from Warrington to Lime Street, so we begin to see journey time savings vs the line via Chat Moss. That is probably decades away.

Early/mid 2040s? That's even later than the old plan that was superceded by the IRP? thought they were intending at least some build in this decade with improvements in the 2030s?

 

[Purple Orange]

Early/mid 2040s? That's even later than the old plan that was superceded by the IRP? thought they were intending at least some build in this decade with improvements in the 2030s?

Phase 1 of NPR will be be in the 2030s. Phase 1 is essentially trans or nine route upgrade, but that was obvious years ago that it would be a part of NPR.

 

[HSTEd]

Early/mid 2040s? That's even later than the old plan that was superceded by the IRP? thought they were intending at least some build in this decade with improvements in the 2030s?

They have rebaged the TPRU to be part of NPR so they can claim they are delivering "NPR" earlier.

But all the actual serious work has been pushed back decades and is probably never going to happen.

 

[Meerkat]

I assumed the line would go into a tunnel east of the A49 and go under the ship canal. Would they trust the old embankment (its pretty high isnt it??)? And whilst the trains wont be going that fast at that point stuck up there they will be very visible and audible to a decent number of locals.

 

[Greybeard33]

I assumed the line would go into a tunnel east of the A49 and go under the ship canal. Would they trust the old embankment (its pretty high isnt it??)? And whilst the trains wont be going that fast at that point stuck up there they will be very visible and audible to a decent number of locals.

The IRP says:

3.87 The Government is asking HS2 Ltd to take forward route selection for the section of new line from the existing HS2 route to Warrington, for inclusion in a future hybrid Bill.

So it may well be that the route across the Ship Canal is yet to be determined.

 

[AGH]

Cost seems to be a major consideration here. In that respect I think it's odds on that as much old railway routes will be used as possible. That part of Warrington is pretty built up so a tunnel would have to Dive under almost immediately and steeply as the River Mersey is in close proximity. Per my previous post IMHO this will run to Thelwall before leaving the old route. That will save 100s of millions

 

[edwin_m]

You'd also have to dig a very large hole in a built-up area of Warrington to provide a tunnel portal - which would probably be more disruptive than re-using the old route.

 

[Meerkat]

Cost seems to be a major consideration here. In that respect I think it's odds on that as much old railway routes will be used as possible. That part of Warrington is pretty built up so a tunnel would have to Dive under almost immediately and steeply as the River Mersey is in close proximity. Per my previous post IMHO this will run to Thelwall before leaving the old route. That will save 100s of millions

Using rather high, old, twisty, embankments that haven't been maintained for decades sounds like a big project risk. From photos/google a lot of the new lines built along old formations have involved embankments/cuttings being resloped with consequent land take, which would be tricky here. You have also got to demolish a rickety old high viaduct and build a new one in a constricted site over a live navigation. Or you can build a new tunnel and control a lot more, and there shouldn't be a shortage of tunneling expertise these days!
Didn't they decide it was cheaper to tunnel from OOC to Ruislip than muck about dealing with all the issues on the surface?

You'd also have to dig a very large hole in a built-up area of Warrington to provide a tunnel portal - which would probably be more disruptive than re-using the old route.

I make it that they have a clear and straight km between the A49 bridge and the next crossing, with the width of a double track embankment and the run round. More room than for the Western portal of Crossrail. Have you seen how quick modern electric passenger railways go up and down? HS1 goes from a viaduct to portal in 500m (the bit from Dagenham to Ebbsfleet is like a rollercoaster!).
And you have Arpley yard immediately available for taking spoil away by train.

 

[edwin_m]

I make it that they have a clear and straight km between the A49 bridge and the next crossing, with the width of a double track embankment and the run round. More room than for the Western portal of Crossrail. Have you seen how quick modern electric passenger railways go up and down? HS1 goes from a viaduct to portal in 500m (the bit from Dagenham to Ebbsfleet is like a rollercoaster!).
And you have Arpley yard immediately available for taking spoil away by train.

Possible I suppose, though I think they'd tunnel from the other end rather than have the TBM base in a built-up area.

 

[matacaster]

At the Leeds end, how are they going to fit 8 fast trains per hour between Ravensthorpe & Leeds without wrecking the local services at Dewsbury, Batley, etc.?

Yes, they might be able to reinstate 4 tracks through Dewsbury station. They might also be able to reinstate the ex-LNWR viaduct from Farnley Jn into Leeds - but will that be enough ??

No.

 

[Bald Rick]

No.

Alternatively, Yes.

 

[Greybeard33]

At the Leeds end, how are they going to fit 8 fast trains per hour between Ravensthorpe & Leeds without wrecking the local services at Dewsbury, Batley, etc.?

Yes, they might be able to reinstate 4 tracks through Dewsbury station. They might also be able to reinstate the ex-LNWR viaduct from Farnley Jn into Leeds - but will that be enough ??

From the TRU thread:

Way too soon to be planning the detail. But it’s quite simple - with electric trains and some linespeed improvements the stoppers will take about 17 minutes Leeds - Ravensthorpe. Possibly less. A non stop train will do the same in 9 mins; one that stops at Dewsbury about 12 minutes. In theory, that provides capacity for 14 trains an hour each way including 2 stoppers at 3 minute headways (each stopper takes four paths).

Of the 8tph promised in the IRP, it seems likely that 2tph would be from Birmingham via HS2 and 4tph from Liverpool via Warrington and HS2, with the remaining 2tph being semi-fasts using the old line via Stalybridge. The latter 2tph would likely call at Dewsbury. This would leave line capacity for 2tph of stoppers between Ravensthorpe and Leeds, according to the above calculation by @Bald Rick.

 

[matacaster]

Alternatively, Yes.

Maybe?

 

[LittleAH]

Maybe?

Pre-Covid 7tph fit through that section. One more with ETCS and 4 tracking between Ravensthorpe and Huddersfield along with grade separation more than facilitates 8tph.

 

[Bald Rick]

Maybe?

No, yes!

Pre-Covid 7tph fit through that section. One more with ETCS and 4 tracking between Ravensthorpe and Huddersfield along with grade separation more than facilitates 8tph.

Were talking 10 tph though (post IRP) : 8 fast + 2 stoppers.

That stretch wasn’t the constraint that caused 7tph.

 

[Purple Orange]

No, yes!



Were talking 10 tph though (post IRP) : 8 fast + 2 stoppers.

That stretch wasn’t the constraint that caused 7tph.

It reckon it’ll be 6 fast, 2 semi-fast and 2 stoppers. The IRP states 8 tph from Manchester to Leeds, but when you look at what is feeding through Manchester HS2 tunnel, it can only be 2 fast from Birmingham and 4 fast from Liverpool. Therefore the rest could be concluded to be coming from the classic lines through Stalybridge.

 

[The Ham]

Unfortunately Piccadilly Gardens isn't large enough.

Believe me I've spent an unhealthy amoutn of time trying to fit something like Stuttgart 21 into Manchester.

If it's a choiuce between 200m underground through platforms and a 400m surface station, I will take the 400m solution every day of the week.

It leaves open the door of running trains that long on the Transpennine route in the future, which means that we have functionally infinite capacity compared to the current solution

Whilst a through station isn't going ahead, it maybe possible to build a 400m station.

Yes you may only be able to build a 200m station box under the park, however if you had a larger diameter TBM it could be possible to build platforms within the tunnel to facilitate the extra length. The issue is trying to change the cutting head for a smaller one once you've gone far enough.

Whilst that wouldn't give you lots of width on the platforms within the tunnels you'd almost certainly be able to get more than at tube stations.

If you went large enough with the diameter of the cutting head you could double stack with a metro line. However that would be beyond the scope of anything that most governments would consider let alone fund.