Shapps "promised to scrap HS2 Golborne spur"

[Bletchleyite]

Or even the full one:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1051209/hs2-phase-2b-western-leg-crewe-to-manchester-an-update-on-the-strategic-outline-business-case.pdf

Thanks. That seems stupid, why not run the Edinburgh portion? It is added capacity even if the ECML remained the quicker premier route?

Similarly, where has the Lancaster semifast gone? The WCML?

It's starting to look poor value with the service cut this much.

 

[Class 170101]

Thanks. That seems stupid, why not run the Edinburgh portion? It is added capacity even if the ECML remained the quicker premier route?

I thought the Edinburgh portion had to run as there were no 400m platforms planned at Glasgow,

it should call at Birmingham Interchange en-route anyway as it must surely shorten Birmingham to Edinburgh journeys.

Similarly, where has the Lancaster semifast gone? The WCML?

Its still there

It's starting to look poor value with the service cut this much.

Grant Shapps and Rishi Sunak I reckon, the former believes in flying anyway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sorry, so it is. That could usefully be another Glasgow.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I thought the Edinburgh portion had to run as there were no 400m platforms planned at Glasgow,

Without the Golborne link the one remaining HS2 Euston-Glasgow is a 200m train.

 

[Pinus contorta]

I'm still trying to work out, if as suggested, Golborne link is removed, how they intend to get a new high speed formation to go in a straight line up to Preston. If it has to go round the houses, so as to speak. And it won't be fast if it has to go over old mining subsidence along the old Wigan loop line formation.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The rooted objection to the Golborne link route is from Cheshire, not "Lancashire".
If Graham Brady gets his way, the route north to Golborne or Preston will be canned, because of the 5-mile stretch around Dunham and across the Bollin/Mersey/MSC.
A dog-leg route via the NPR new line to Warrington (still to be defined) and then somehow onto the WCML would be utterly stupid.
You might as well upgrade the WCML north of Crewe.

 

[snowball]

I'm still trying to work out, if as suggested, Golborne link is removed, how they intend to get a new high speed formation to go in a straight line up to Preston. If it has to go round the houses, so as to speak. And it won't be fast if it has to go over old mining subsidence along the old Wigan loop line formation.

Presumably the leak is intended to give the impression that HS2 trains to Scotland will remain on the WCML everywhere north of Crewe.

 

[Greybeard33]

Or even the full one:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1051209/hs2-phase-2b-western-leg-crewe-to-manchester-an-update-on-the-strategic-outline-business-case.pdf
Thanks. That seems stupid, why not run the Edinburgh portion? It is added capacity even if the ECML remained the quicker premier route?

The ITSS with no link to the WCML north of Crewe, Fig.A.8 in that document, has the same service pattern on the WCML north of Crewe as the ITSS for Phase 2a only, Fig.A.6, i.e 2tph Euston to Liverpool, 1tph Euston to Lancaster (portion worked with one of the Liverpools) and 1tph Euston to Glasgow, all 200m. Presumably the classic Euston to Edinburgh and Birmingham New Street to Edinburgh services, via the WCML all the way, are assumed to be retained as well.

Maybe the timetable would not work satisfactorily if an Edinburgh portion were added to the HS2 Glasgow train? Carstairs to Edinburgh takes longer than Carstairs to Glasgow, and splitting/joining adds a few minutes to journey time. Crewe to Wigan via the WCML takes about 13 minutes longer than via the Golborne link, so perhaps the turnaround time at Edinburgh would be too short, necessitating the purchase of additional costly Classic Compatible trainsets?

Of course, these are only Indicative Train Service Specifications.

The rationale for considering the business case for the 2b Western Leg without no Golborne link is given in section A.39 of the Business Case Update document (p117):

Design option without a link to the WCML north of Crewe
A.39 As highlighted in the Strategic Case, the Union Connectivity Review, undertaken by Sir Peter Hendy, identified that there could be opportunities to further improve capacity and journey times to Scotland with an alternative HS2 connection to the WCML from that assumed in this business case, and recommended that the Government should review alternative options. The Government is considering its response to UCR recommendations, that it review options for alternative northerly connections between HS2 and the West Coast Main Line.

It is the Government’s intention to deliver the right infrastructure for long term benefits to the rail network, to the North and to Scotland. To this end a modelling sensitivity has been taken on a design option for the Proposed Scheme with no link to the WCML north of Crewe. This results in the removal of all HS2 services between London and Edinburgh and between Birmingham and Scotland, as well as reducing the number of HS2 services between London and Glasgow from 2tph to 1tph, shown in Annex 2. This scenario is shown to have a BCR of 0.7 with Level 2 WEIs [Wider Economic Impacts].

The comparable BCR of the reference Western Leg scheme, including the Golborne link, is 0.9, calculated on the same basis. So omitting the Golborne link makes the poor Value for Money of the Western Leg even worse!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

With no Golborne link, and all HS2 WCML trains north of Crewe at 200m, there would be no need for major 400m station extensions at Preston and Carlisle.
Also probably no need for the rolling stock depot at Quintinshill.

With new options under consideration, I can see the Golborne link being "deferred" from the current western leg Bill going through parliament, pending a redesign.
It would be ironic if we get a new (indirect) route to Liverpool via the NPR alignment, but lose one to places further north.
The HS2/NPR Liverpool route also relieves the classic route Crewe-Weaver Jn.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Of note that 200m < 266m, so unless the classic line Glasgow remained that is like reducing all Pendolinos to 8 car. Which when they were that length was grossly insufficient.

Extending the Lancaster to Glasgow would solve that. "But paths", well, HS2 is the premier line so other stuff would be subservient.

 

[stuu]

My cynical side would note that removing from the HS2 bill is not remotely the same thing as cancelling the spur. Perhaps Shapps promised to remove it from the HS2 bill, and instead it will be part of the NPR bill (should such a thing ever come to pass)?

 

[Pinus contorta]

My cynical side would note that removing from the HS2 bill is not remotely the same thing as cancelling the spur. Perhaps Shapps promised to remove it from the HS2 bill, and instead it will be part of the NPR bill (should such a thing ever come to pass)?

I did initially think they were kicking the can down the road so as to speak.

 

[Mollman]

Extending the Lancaster to Glasgow would solve that. "But paths", well, HS2 is the premier line so other stuff would be subservient.

Just when we are trying to encourage more Anglo-Scottish freight, the majority of which use the WCML.

 

[Greybeard33]

Of note that 200m < 266m, so unless the classic line Glasgow remained that is like reducing all Pendolinos to 8 car. Which when they were that length was grossly insufficient.

A 200m HS2 unit is specified to have a minimum of 500 seats, maybe 550 or more depending on layout. That compares with 589 in an 11-car 390 and only 469 in a 9-car.

Pendolinos have poor capacity per unit length.

 

[EastisECML]

I wonder what gets chopped next?

 

[Bletchleyite]

A 200m HS2 unit is specified to have a minimum of 500 seats, maybe 550 or more depending on layout. That compares with 589 in an 11-car 390 and only 469 in a 9-car.

Pendolinos have poor capacity per unit length.

They do, but 550 is still fewer than 589. There absolutely cannot be a reduction in capacity on any InterCity route due to HS2. We have to be looking to increase it, otherwise the whole thing is worthless and I would begin to oppose it.

We all know how that went last time, and XC has still not recovered. Only 1tph fast Glasgow with lower capacity than now would be an absolute disaster.

Time for Sturgeon to say something.

Just when we are trying to encourage more Anglo-Scottish freight, the majority of which use the WCML.

If Golborne is built there will be 3tph of HS2 trains north of Lancaster. No reason there should not be if it isn't.

But if it's that much of a problem, wire the S&C and send the freight there. A downgraded Anglo Scottish service is not acceptable.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It's never really been explained what the legacy WCML services will be when HS2 starts.
Without the Golborne link we're presuming the HS2 Glasgow will replace the current Trent Valley service, but that might not be how it works out.
I doubt DfT are in any position to be definite about this, with traffic forecasts so vague at the moment.
But once you get to a downward spiral it's hard to stop.
The HS2 fleet order will be too big if we are not careful.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The HS2 fleet order will be too big if we are not careful.

I wouldn't worry too much about that. Pendolinos will be old by then, so they could be used on legacy WCML services if spare.

 

[Greybeard33]

They do, but 550 is still fewer than 589. There absolutely cannot be a reduction in capacity on any InterCity route due to HS2. We have to be looking to increase it, otherwise the whole thing is worthless and I would begin to oppose it.

We all know how that went last time, and XC has still not recovered. Only 1tph fast Glasgow with lower capacity than now would be an absolute disaster.

Time for Sturgeon to say something.



If Golborne is built there will be 3tph of HS2 trains north of Lancaster. No reason there should not be if it isn't.

But if it's that much of a problem, wire the S&C and send the freight there. A downgraded Anglo Scottish service is not acceptable.

The capacity of the HS2 Phase 2a/no Golborne link Glasgow service should not be compared with the existing WCML service because it is planned to make fewer intermediate stops. Just OOC, Preston and Carlisle. Passengers from Euston for Warrington, Wigan and Lancaster, who currently use the Glasgow train, will instead take the HS2 Lancaster service. Another 200m of capacity that has no equivalent in the current timetable.

The S&C cannot relieve Beattock.

 

[Edgeley]

The rooted objection to the Golborne link route is from Cheshire, not "Lancashire".

A lot of opposition in the Lowton area near Leigh. The local MP and the two Warrington MPs oppose the spur.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The capacity of the HS2 Phase 2a/no Golborne link Glasgow service should not be compared with the existing WCML service because it is planned to make fewer intermediate stops. Just OOC, Preston and Carlisle. Passengers from Euston for Warrington, Wigan and Lancaster, who currently use the Glasgow train, will instead take the HS2 Lancaster service. Another 200m of capacity that has no equivalent in the current timetable.

The S&C cannot relieve Beattock.

Warrington, Wigan and Lancaster are not super busy, and it is likely that the slower Euston to Scotland via Brum service, which carries a lot of through passengers by virtue of being cheaper on Advances, will no longer run in the same form.

It is a downgrade and needs highlighting as such. HS2 will have a huge "sparks effect" - it is XC all over. Manchester for instance is getting a big capacity increase despite at present the Scottish services being far busier.

 

[The Planner]

I wouldn't worry too much about that. Pendolinos will be old by then, so they could be used on legacy WCML services if spare.

One of the original plans was to test the HS2 sets on the WCML anyway. Would be convoluted to do now with the changes in plan.

 

[Greybeard33]

Warrington, Wigan and Lancaster are not super busy, and it is likely that the slower Euston to Scotland via Brum service, which carries a lot of through passengers by virtue of being cheaper on Advances, will no longer run in the same form.

It is a downgrade and needs highlighting as such. HS2 will have a huge "sparks effect" - it is XC all over. Manchester for instance is getting a big capacity increase despite at present the Scottish services being far busier.

New Street to Scotland services will surely still be needed, at least until Golborne (or a substitute link) enables HS2 to run a Curzon Street to Scotland service.

If necessary, pricing will no doubt be used to encourage London passengers on to the classic services to Scotland, as with the via Brum services today.

 

[Class 170101]

Warrington, Wigan and Lancaster are not super busy, and it is likely that the slower Euston to Scotland via Brum service, which carries a lot of through passengers by virtue of being cheaper on Advances, will no longer run in the same form.

It is a downgrade and needs highlighting as such. HS2 will have a huge "sparks effect" - it is XC all over. Manchester for instance is getting a big capacity increase despite at present the Scottish services being far busier.

New Street to Scotland services will surely still be needed, at least until Golborne (or a substitute link) enables HS2 to run a Curzon Street to Scotland service.

If necessary, pricing will no doubt be used to encourage London passengers on to the classic services to Scotland, as with the via Brum services today.

I imagine Euston to Scotland via New Street would still remain for intermediate journeys but also it means two more terminating services at New Street if this current service is split.

 

[tomuk]

New Street to Scotland services will surely still be needed, at least until Golborne (or a substitute link) enables HS2 to run a Curzon Street to Scotland service.

If necessary, pricing will no doubt be used to encourage London passengers on to the classic services to Scotland, as with the via Brum services today.

Why can't a Birmingham to Scotland service be run with classic compatible sets from Curzon Street? The train could either rejoin the WMCL at Crewe or use the Handsacre link and serve Stafford.

 

[Watershed]

Why can't a Birmingham to Scotland service be run with classic compatible sets from Curzon Street? The train could either rejoin the WMCL at Crewe or use the Handsacre link and serve Stafford.

It would barely be any faster - indeed, possibly slower, than the existing route if it used the Handsacre link. Rejoining at Crewe is a more likely scenario.

 

[Greybeard33]

It would barely be any faster - indeed, possibly slower, than the existing route if it used the Handsacre link. Rejoining at Crewe is a more likely scenario.

But would the few minutes saved between Birmingham and Crewe justify the purchase of costly Classic Compatible sets to run all the way to Edinburgh?

 

[tomuk]

It would barely be any faster - indeed, possibly slower, than the existing route if it used the Handsacre link. Rejoining at Crewe is a more likely scenario.

Speed isn't necessarily the issue but a lack of capacity at New Street to continue the WMCL services as is and the planned enhancements to local services. There will be space at Curzon Street.

But would the few minutes saved between Birmingham and Crewe justify the purchase of costly Classic Compatible sets to run all the way to Edinburgh?

All the sets that are currently planned to be ordered are classic compatible. It's only in the later phases captive sets for the core Manchester/Birmingham/London would be ordered.

 

[The Ham]

Speed isn't necessarily the issue but a lack of capacity at New Street to continue the WMCL services as is and the planned enhancements to local services. There will be space at Curzon Street.

Indeed, and the "driving consideration" for HS2 had always been about capacity, as confirmed by a letter from HS2 limited to government on February 2009 (helpfully stored by StopHS2 on their website):

https://www.google.com/url?q=http://stophs2.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/20090213_letter_to_lord_adonis_re_objectives_for_hs2.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjKiJWpwa70AhU7hf0HHZ8-BFIQFnoECAkQAg&usg=AOvVaw0gAVNxQHnxmQbKEkDjqPEK

All the sets that are currently planned to be ordered are classic compatible. It's only in the later phases captive sets for the core Manchester/Birmingham/London would be ordered.

The other thing to note is that this would also allow the use of a 400m train from Birmingham to then spilt at some point along the route.

That would give quite a capacity boost to write a number of the stations among the whole route.

Also, assuming that 550 seats are achieved on the 200m sets, that's only a decrease in capacity if 11 coach 390's (589 seats) were being used (and then only a fairly small decrease with a 6.7% fall).

That is until pairs of 80x's stay being used, then if they are replaced by a single HS2CC set then they'll see a bit of a larger capacity reduction (still only about a 8.5% reduction from 600 seats).

However many stations will see both halves calling and with it serving both Edinburgh and Glasgow it's likely that any such small reduction would likely (bearing in mind this is talking about from Birmingham services) be offset by the fact that some people using the existing Birmingham to Glasgow services are likely to change for services to Edinburgh. (i.e. of there's a train with 600 people traveling from Birmingham to Glasgow, there's a high probability that 50 could change trains at Glasgow to go to Edinburgh or to somewhere else where a change of train at Edinburgh was easier than a change at Glasgow).

 

[EastisECML]

I wish the Curzon Street station was planned to be bigger with classic compatible platforms as well as its own tracks East out of the city towards Tamworth/Nuneaton, to the Sutton Coldfield branch, and to Coventry. It would mean longer distance trains approaching from this direction terminating but it would free up New Street for locals and some longer distance trains at least.