Rival Manchester Piccadilly proposal

[Wtloild]

From MEN today:

This is the alternative proposal for the redevelopment of Piccadilly Station that architects say will save 'billions'.

It includes a new underground station for high speed rail services and a high speed rail tunnel under the city centre.

Architects Weston Williamson say their speculative proposal 'offers significant advantages in terms of connectivity and value for money in infrastructure investment'.

Key to the plans is the creation of the 's-shaped' tunnel that would 'allow train services to pass between Manchester Airport and West Yorkshire via Manchester Piccadilly without having to reverse'.


Under the speculative proposals an undergound station, linked to the existing station, would be built for HS2 services



It would, the architects say, allow direct high speed train services from Birmingham, Liverpool and Glasgow to Leeds via Manchester Piccadilly and direct HS2 services between London and Leeds would also become possible via Manchester.

"This would have the option of deferring the Phase 2b branch between Birmingham and Leeds and so save several billion pounds," Weston Williamson claims.

The rival plans for Piccadilly Station that architects say will 'save billions'

The speculative proposal includes a new underground HS2 station and 's-shaped tunnel' under the city centre

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk

 

[JonathanH]

Doesn't this only 'save billions' because it focuses more spending in Manchester at the expense of the East Midlands (and journey time between Birmingham and Leeds).

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Doesn't this only 'save billions' because it focuses more spending in Manchester at the expense of the East Midlands (and journey time between Birmingham and Leeds).

I like the Manchester idea but not the other idea.

 

[edwin_m]

Services from London to Birmingham to Leeds via Manchester do have some benefits, particular for Bradford, and I would expect some to operate assuming both HS2 and NPR get built. The capability must exist for trains approaching via the Airport to continue on NPR towards Leeds, as the NPR core service will do that. This may involve reversing, but with decent operating procedures such as having a second driver boarding the rear of the train as it arrives, it can be done within the dwell time that would be expected for a major stop such as Manchester.

However it can't replace the HS2 eastern leg for the London to Leeds service. HS2 plans to run maximum length sets three times and hour between London and both Leeds and Manchester. Therefore these sets wouldn't have capacity to carry both Leeds and Manchester passengers from London on the same train, and there isn't enough capacity on the HS2 western leg to run separate trains for both cities.

Also HS2 is close to a hybrid bill for the existing plans at Piccadilly, which I believe are upgradeable to add NPR later. Changing the station and the route of the tunnel would involve further rounds of design and consultation and throw the plans for any HS infrastructure in Manchester back by several years.

 

[Camden]

The tunneling involved in taking hs2 across the Pennines to Yorkshire will be so vast that it will easily outweigh any cost savings, and that's even before factoring in the inevitable cost overruns and gold plating of the Manchester underground station.

The trouble is, the government have already signalled they are determined to do it, via NPR. Turning their nose up at the comparatively cheap and high benefit Liverpool connection (dismissing passenger numbers, as Leeds-Manchester has only half Liverpool-Manchester demand) in favour of taking the line across the Pennines "first".

Now it could be this is just a continuation of Osbornian hostility towards the city of Liverpool, and it certainly wouldn't be the first example of costly logic and fact defying decisions on that score, but everything is pointing to a decision having been made: the Pennines link will happen for Manchester, and in turn other cities losing HS2 connectivity/competitiveness will be the price those cities will be made to pay. Having both is simply financially unjustifiable (even for the DfT).

Work hunting consultancies know which way the wind is blowing, aided by a continuing stream of noise pointing in the same direction. The time simply hasn't come for the government to officially let people know.

(Ps. I disagree on capacity being an issue. 400m trains three times an hour are vastly overkill for one city. Add another city and make it 4tph and you've reduced overall number of trains on the main trunk by two. Add in that 2tph to Birmingham will be more than enough to serve both and that's another 2tph paths saved).

 

[Mollman]

Where did Glasgow come from on their list of High Speed links?

 

[Glenn1969]

The article claims HS2 Ltd is responsible for NPR. Unless things have changed that isn't actually the case and TfN is driving NPR. The several billions saving is the assumption that Phase 2b will be abolished

 

[WatcherZero]

The saving comes from avoiding duplication of two high speed lines to Leeds, NPR from the West and HS2 from the South. Fold HS2 Leeds into NPR while at the same time reducing the track mileage and it makes it look like your saving tens of billions from HS2 mollifying the Conservative Right (London and the South East) that want the project cancelled.

The proposal is from the architects Weston Williamson to the National Infrastructure Commission inquiry into HS2/NPR savings. I believe Weston Williamson were employed by TfTN to work on the NPR design, that's their interest in HS2.

The eastern leg of HS2 would be put off for a decade or two (or just left to die).



Getting the expanded Manchester Triangle junction to work might be tough as I understand the site is already restricted due to being shoehorned into a small section of land with neighbouring listed buildings/nature reserves. Im sure Warringtonians would also be pissed that it would also make NPR bypass them via Runcorn.

 

[grangergranger]

I'm confused. Hasn't there been Plans for the East Midlands Hub which suggests the east leg of phase 2b is still planned.
Unless HS2 is Now planning to terminate there while continuing the leg towards Sheffield & Leeds on existing lines??

 

[johnnychips]

Just looking at post #8, would there be any advantage in going to Doncaster and north thereof using HS2? It would have to be electrified and improved to beat the current 1h 40 from Kings Cross - though I suppose you could improve the line from Chesterfield to Rotherham that avoids Sheffield. Apologies for going OT from Manchester, but it suggests this scheme hasn’t been thought through.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Just looking at post #8, would there be any advantage in going to Doncaster and north thereof using HS2? It would have to be electrified and improved to beat the current 1h 40 from Kings Cross - though I suppose you could improve the line from Chesterfield to Rotherham that avoids Sheffield. Apologies for going OT from Manchester, but it suggests this scheme hasn’t been thought through.

I completely agree. Scrapping the Eastern leg would be a mistake.

 

[edwin_m]

The trouble is, the government have already signalled they are determined to do it, via NPR. Turning their nose up at the comparatively cheap and high benefit Liverpool connection (dismissing passenger numbers, as Leeds-Manchester has only half Liverpool-Manchester demand) in favour of taking the line across the Pennines "first".

I think Liverpool-Manchester, using the HS2 route via the airport station for the eastern half and also creating a better route into Liverpool, is more likely to happen than Manchester-Leeds but maybe just isn't mentioned as the article is about Manchester-Leeds so it isn't really relevant.

(Ps. I disagree on capacity being an issue. 400m trains three times an hour are vastly overkill for one city. Add another city and make it 4tph and you've reduced overall number of trains on the main trunk by two. Add in that 2tph to Birmingham will be more than enough to serve both and that's another 2tph paths saved).

Manchester currently has 3TPH of mostly 11-car Pendolinos from London, Birmingham is similar and Leeds has 2TPH of Azumas. It's not unreasonable when planning a project to meet the needs of the next century or so for it to have a good amount of "stretch" in the capacity by allowing 3TPH of 400m trains each. Just think how few trains and passengers there were on these routes 60 years ago before WCML electrification compared with today!

The proposal to serve Leeds via Derby and Sheffield is also deeply flawed. The MML will have very little capacity release due to the need to serve Leicester and is also quite slow, so a London-Leeds train via HS2 and Sheffield will be slower than via Manchester and quite possibly slower than the existing route. In which case all the through passengers will gravitate to the trains via Manchester, the Leeds and Manchester passengers will be crowding each other out and we'll be back to rationing by price. Or maybe just cancel the Liverpool trains to free up capacity for Manchester and Leeds?

 

[Camden]

I think Liverpool-Manchester, using the HS2 route via the airport station for the eastern half and also creating a better route into Liverpool, is more likely to happen than Manchester-Leeds but maybe just isn't mentioned as the article is about Manchester-Leeds so it isn't really relevant.

The thrust of my point there is that their determined and pointed choice (government, not this consultancy) is to prioritise Manchester -Leeds NPR, even though it's much more difficult, much more expensive, has a much longer delivery timeframe, and is much less needed. Nothing in that decision makes any logical sense for just NPR. It is that, combined with the repeated noise around the Leeds via Manchester possibility, which leads me to suspect that this (axing of HS2 eastern arm) is all a done deal, simply unannounced.

Re cancelling Liverpool's HS2 trains to benefit the other cities. It already is excluded from having Birmingham trains, plus classic line running is clearly a risk to robust timetabling on an intensive high speed line. So nothing would surprise me.

Worth noting there that HS2 latest suggests coupling the two Liverpool HS2 trains to an extra unit at Crewe (as far as 400m can go on that line), to mitigate crowding. This is deemed good enough a solution to very real, forecast rather than theorised crowding concerns. I don't understand any perception that 2 cities sharing 6 x 400m trains every hour to London and Birmingham could be in any way tight on capacity, adding further weight to the conclusion that Leeds is to be served via Manchester. I don't believe there will be HS2 eastern arm classic line services either.

 

[Purple Orange]

The trouble is, the government have already signalled they are determined to do it, via NPR. Turning their nose up at the comparatively cheap and high benefit Liverpool connection (dismissing passenger numbers, as Leeds-Manchester has only half Liverpool-Manchester demand) in favour of taking the line across the Pennines "first".

We also need to consider traffic flows on the M62 & M56 between the three cities, which as I understand the Leeds-Manchester leg is far busier than Manchester-Liverpool. Furthermore, faster Leeds-Manchester rail services has a knock-on effect of improving services to the north-east & Scotland from both Manchester and Liverpool (Manchester-Edinburgh may well be faster via the ECML than the WCML), but prioritising Liverpool-Manchester NPR will only improve journey times to Liverpool from Leeds & Newcastle, but not to Manchester from Leeds & Newcastle.

(Ps. I disagree on capacity being an issue. 400m trains three times an hour are vastly overkill for one city. Add another city and make it 4tph and you've reduced overall number of trains on the main trunk by two. Add in that 2tph to Birmingham will be more than enough to serve both and that's another 2tph paths saved).

With that view in mind, do you believe Birmngham needs 3 tph to London? Your assumptions covers all cities, therefore the 17 tph could be reduced to 14 tph if Leeds, Manchester & Birmingham have 2 tph. But, today Birmingham and Manchester require 3 tph, which equates to a total 750m of train carriages per hour. Going to 2 tph will be 800m of train per hour, which offers little room for growth. Essentially what HS2 is promising is an increase in train capacity to each city which is broadly the equivalent of 1 additional train per hour on today’s network. On that basis, 3 tph at 400m does not seem too much of a stretch.

 

[30907]

The notion of scrapping the East Midlands/South Yorkshire leg without remainder (as implied) is a non-starter IMO.
However, here is an alternative scenario:
1. build a classic-compatible new/upgraded route from HS2 near Birmingham (as planned) or near Lichfield via Derby and Sheffield to Moorthorpe/Church Fenton.
This would take XC (electric/bimode) services as well as HS2 London trains.
2. electrify Kettering-Nottingham and make Nottingham the destination for fast trains from St Pancras (thus compensating for the loss of Toton).
Exactly which bits of my suggestion would have to be new build I am not sure, and I haven't got my crayons handy . I think Sheffield would have to be done underground, and possibly through Derby, and there would have to be some sections on new alignment (eg north of Ambergate).

Another similar scenario would keep the new-build along the M42 towards the Toton area but de-specc north of there, with Sheffield being the destination for HS2 London trains via that route.

Assuming that HS2 has the capacity for this service pattern, the real winner on either of these scenarios is XC (and Bradford), but there are no real losers:
by running over upgrade/new build to city centres, Sheffield, Derby and Nottingham do as well as now. Leeds is still on a captive route which is only marginally longer than via Toton, and might gain in frequency what it loses in speed.

Not sure this is as good as the official plan, but I'd be jnterested to see what people think.

 

[edwin_m]

The notion of scrapping the East Midlands/South Yorkshire leg without remainder (as implied) is a non-starter IMO.
However, here is an alternative scenario:
1. build a classic-compatible new/upgraded route from HS2 near Birmingham (as planned) or near Lichfield via Derby and Sheffield to Moorthorpe/Church Fenton.
This would take XC (electric/bimode) services as well as HS2 London trains.
2. electrify Kettering-Nottingham and make Nottingham the destination for fast trains from St Pancras (thus compensating for the loss of Toton).
Exactly which bits of my suggestion would have to be new build I am not sure, and I haven't got my crayons handy . I think Sheffield would have to be done underground, and possibly through Derby, and there would have to be some sections on new alignment (eg north of Ambergate).

Another similar scenario would keep the new-build along the M42 towards the Toton area but de-specc north of there, with Sheffield being the destination for HS2 London trains via that route.

Assuming that HS2 has the capacity for this service pattern, the real winner on either of these scenarios is XC (and Bradford), but there are no real losers:
by running over upgrade/new build to city centres, Sheffield, Derby and Nottingham do as well as now. Leeds is still on a captive route which is only marginally longer than via Toton, and might gain in frequency what it loses in speed.

Not sure this is as good as the official plan, but I'd be jnterested to see what people think.

On current plans London-York (and by extension everywhere else up to Newcastle) is only 27min quicker via HS2 eastern leg than via the ECML. So if the eastern leg is descoped by very much, these journeys will be no quicker and might as well stay on their existing route. Another 20min on the journey time (which is about what you'd get looping through Sheffield on the existing route) makes London-Leeds quicker via ECML. So downgrading bits of the eastern leg may end up losing more in benefit than it saves in cost.

In terms of phasing there are probably some benefits to building Birmingham to Toton and north of Sheffield to Leeds before the bit in between. You mention the benefits of the first part and north of Sheffield there is also the NPR service to consider.

I'd suggest any new infrastructure should be to the full spec including UIC compatibility, as that won't cost much more than a UK-gauge route. But upgraded sections would probably remain for classic compatibles only, as upgrade for UIC would cost more than building a new line.

 

[Camden]

We also need to consider traffic flows on the M62 & M56 between the three cities, which as I understand the Leeds-Manchester leg is far busier than Manchester-Liverpool.

You understand incorrectly: Manchester-Liverpool is much more intense across all modes, including that rail has a lower modal share (and thus greater potential for growth too, despite the high volumes).

I won't refer to the rest as it feels more like defensiveness than point making. The thrust of my point is not a "mine is bigger than yours", but to point to the dogged determination to spend a lot of money on one thing (Pennines) and not another (Liverpool), and the conclusions one can possibly draw about the subsequent implications for another piece of high spending (Leeds via Sheffield) that looks increasingly disposable.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If any of the cities planned for HS2 can be a sacrificial lamb for cutting costs, the obvious one is not Leeds or Liverpool, but Birmingham- which is too close to London to really reap the benefits of High Speed Rail's increased speeds. That ship has sailed now, but the limited benefit for London to Birmingham was always the weakest point in the case for HS2. With hindsight, the entire project would have been better off being built from the Northern termini rather than from London... but old habits die hard.

 

[class26]

If any of the cities planned for HS2 can be a sacrificial lamb for cutting costs, the obvious one is not Leeds or Liverpool, but Birmingham- which is too close to London to really reap the benefits of High Speed Rail's increased speeds. That ship has sailed now, but the limited benefit for London to Birmingham was always the weakest point in the case for HS2. With hindsight, the entire project would have been better off being built from the Northern termini rather than from London... but old habits die hard.

But as the line will pass Brum why omit it ? Also have you factored in the speed up between Brum / Leed, Brum /Man ?
I think it would be absurd to omit Englands second city when the line goes past its doorstep and would also exclude possible future developments to the south west thus making a fast Bristol - Leeds /Newcastle route
You could argue for a through station in Brum but that is a different argument entirely

 

[Purple Orange]

You understand incorrectly: Manchester-Liverpool is much more intense across all modes, including that rail has a lower modal share (and thus greater potential for growth too, despite the high volumes).

I won't refer to the rest as it feels more like defensiveness than point making. The thrust of my point is not a "mine is bigger than yours", but to point to the dogged determination to spend a lot of money on one thing (Pennines) and not another (Liverpool), and the conclusions one can possibly draw about the subsequent implications for another piece of high spending (Leeds via Sheffield) that looks increasingly disposable.

That’s an interesting diagram. What sort of volumes do the lines represent?

PS. I also think that that the Liverpool-Manchester NPR should be built first, on the basis that it appears to be the fastest route to establishing NPR services (with reversals at Piccadilly). I’m just trying to rationalise the reasons for Leeds-Manchester being prioritised, so I hope my points don’t make you feel like you are being defensive.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

But as the line will pass Brum why omit it ? Also have you factored in the speed up between Brum / Leed, Brum /Man ?
I think it would be absurd to omit Englands second city when the line goes past its doorstep and would also exclude possible future developments to the south west thus making a fast Bristol - Leeds /Newcastle route
You could argue for a through station in Brum but that is a different argument entirely

On the other hand if you weren't serving Birmingham in the first place, you wouldn't go anywhere near it!

 

[Purple Orange]

But as the line will pass Brum why omit it ? Also have you factored in the speed up between Brum / Leed, Brum /Man ?
I think it would be absurd to omit Englands second city when the line goes past its doorstep and would also exclude possible future developments to the south west thus making a fast Bristol - Leeds /Newcastle route
You could argue for a through station in Brum but that is a different argument entirely

If the eastern leg is built, Newcastle/Leeds to Bristol will be faster via OOC (with more frequent services) than a Birmingham through route. At most, the Bristol-Birmingham line will be electrified, but I can’t imagine a dedicated High Speed line between the two being built. Given the slower speed between Bristol & Birmingham, the cost of building a link connecting HS2 and under Birmingham or through New Street may not be as cost effective as encouraging people to change at OOC.

 

[JonathanH]

If the eastern leg is built, Newcastle/Leeds to Bristol will be faster via OOC (with more frequent services) than a Birmingham through route. At most, the Bristol-Birmingham line will be electrified, but I can’t imagine a dedicated High Speed line between the two being built. Given the slower speed between Bristol & Birmingham, the cost of building a link connecting HS2 and under Birmingham or through New Street may not be as cost effective as encouraging people to change at OOC.

Why would people not just change in Birmingham? Birmingham to Bristol is only 80 minutes, Old Oak Common to Bristol is the same.

Why is there so much hate for the Eastern leg of HS2? The reduction in journey time between Birmingham and places on the Eastern side is game changing.

The Manchester proposal appears to say spend more money in Manchester and you can just ignore people in the East Midlands and Yorkshire.

 

[HSTEd]

However it can't replace the HS2 eastern leg for the London to Leeds service. HS2 plans to run maximum length sets three times and hour between London and both Leeds and Manchester. Therefore these sets wouldn't have capacity to carry both Leeds and Manchester passengers from London on the same train, and there isn't enough capacity on the HS2 western leg to run separate trains for both cities.

My understanding is that this is no longer the case, and Leeds has now been reduced to 2.5 sets per hour.

Ofcourse, if you are going to have trains carrying only Leeds and Manchester passengers, you could build a dedicated subfleet of high-capacity double deck 400m sets.
But let's not start that debate again.
(Could also go to 4 trains an hour on top of that)

Also not sure about the veracity of claims about the Western leg.....

EDIT:

Also note that you could have a hybrid scheme, where you go from Manchester to Leeds, and then just discard teh HS2 eastern Leg north of Chesterfield - which would be entirely superfluous.
The only thing north of Chesterfield is trains to Leeds and York, which can be served via Manchester.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

My understanding is that this is no longer the case, and Leeds has now been reduced to 2.5 sets per hour.

Ofcourse, if you are going to have trains carrying only Leeds and Manchester passengers, you could build a dedicated subfleet of high-capacity double deck 400m sets.
But let's not start that debate again.
(Could also go to 4 trains an hour on top of that)

Also not sure about the veracity of claims about the Western leg.....

Yes It is one set dividing to Sheffield. So it is 3tph (2 400 metre trains per hour and 2 x 200m sets dividing at East Midlands Hub (going to Sheffield).

 

[Purple Orange]

Why would people not just change in Birmingham? Birmingham to Bristol is only 80 minutes, Old Oak Common to Bristol is the same.

Why is there so much hate for the Eastern leg of HS2? The reduction in journey time between Birmingham and places on the Eastern side is game changing.

If OOC to Bristol is the same as Birmingham to Bristol, surely the higher frequency of services makes OOC a more viable option. With OOC you’d have 3 tph from Leeds taking 1 hr 15 mins and a change at the same station and then a further 80 mins to Bristol vs 2 tph to Curzon St (50 mins) then a 15 min walk to New Street which adds complexity before an 80 min journey to Bristol.

I’m not sure where you are getting hatred of the eastern leg from.

 

[JonathanH]

If OOC to Bristol is the same as Birmingham to Bristol, surely the higher frequency of services makes OOC a more viable option. With OOC you’d have 3 tph from Leeds taking 1 hr 15 mins and a change at the same station and then a further 80 mins to Bristol vs 2 tph to Curzon St (50 mins) then a 15 min walk to New Street which adds complexity before an 80 min journey to Bristol.

I’m not sure where you are getting hatred of the eastern leg from.

Old Oak Common isn't exactly going to be a quick cross platform interchange either (although I concede it might be easier). Still, 50+15+5+80 < 75+10+80. Not sure 3tph vs 2tph makes much difference.

My reference to 'hate' for the eastern leg is that every proposal to reduce costs appears to be to chop this and slow down services to these places. I agree that the solution for Sheffield isn't ideal but to force people to go via Manchester seems a bit odd.

 

[Purple Orange]

Old Oak Common isn't exactly going to be a quick cross platform interchange either (although I concede it might easier). Still, 50+15+5+80 < 75+10+80. Not sure 3tph vs 2tph makes much difference.

My reference to 'hate' for the eastern leg is that every proposal to reduce costs appears to be to chop this and slow down services to these places. I agree that the solution for Sheffield isn't ideal but to force people to go via Manchester seems a bit odd.

I think the Curzon Street to New Street issue could be a massive problem. At OOC, the best case scenario could be a 5 min connection time, at worst it would be 30 mins (assuming the HS2 train arrives as the Bristol bound train leaves), but it would be all in one location, time to get a coffee etc etc. At Birmingham the connection time will be 15 mins at best (it will take 15 mins to get to the station plus getting down on to the platform), and at worst it would be a 45 min total connection if you arrive at New Street just as the Bristol train leaves.

The only scenario I could see going via Birmingham would be preferable is if the Birmingham train happens to be leaving Leeds before any London bound train, but if you missed the Birmingham train there would be more options to go via OOC than to wait for the next Birmingham train.

 

[mmh]

Old Oak Common isn't exactly going to be a quick cross platform interchange either (although I concede it might be easier). Still, 50+15+5+80 < 75+10+80. Not sure 3tph vs 2tph makes much difference.

There's also the issue that while HS2 is supposed to be about increasing capacity, we are told, sending northbound passengers east to London to connect with it isn't a good use of capacity on the GWML.

 

[Camden]

Why is there so much hate for the Eastern leg of HS2? The reduction in journey time between Birmingham and places on the Eastern side is game changing.

The Manchester proposal appears to say spend more money in Manchester and you can just ignore people in the East Midlands and Yorkshire.

Interestingly the benefit cost ratio is dramatically higher for the east leg versus the west leg. However HS2 doesn't need those BCR arguments anymore, and it is the government's wish to tunnel under Manchester which is driving their recent declaration that that BCR should no longer be the be all and end all: They know otherwise they risk being taken to court for going ahead with a double digit billions open ended project with questionable to negative BCR, by those with an above 5 BCR miffed at being snubbed.

Eventually I expect more people will come to accept that the arguments propping these things up are just convenient at the time. I've watched this going on for years, and by far the best indicators haven't been logic, funding and business cases, but observing politics, noting personal networks, and having an eye and ear for things that betray the understanding of the first hand informed.

Just over a year ago the government was on the cusp of announcing a £7bn spend on Liverpool transport, including a HS2 link. This was scuppered behind the scenes, widely reported to be by Yorkshire politicians with influence who held up the TfN report that would enable it to happen along with government lobbying. While they later welcomed prioritisation of the Pennines tunnel - they didn't like the idea of coming second themselves (at the time claiming they wanted a "whole network" approach, which goes to underline the use of convenient arguments).

They'll get what they wished for, but not in the way they hoped. They might have enough influence to scupper Liverpool's ambitions, but a) they demanded the tunnel and b) this is for Manchester.