Shapps "promised to scrap HS2 Golborne spur"

[Bletchleyite]

Would it make sense then to provide heavy fast freight trains with an electric banker instead?

I understand that freights have a lower top speed than passenger, but if we're talking about underpowered freights crawling to Shap summit, then the correct answer, as you say, isn't to build lots of expensive new railway so they can continue to do that, but instead to provide them with enough power (two or even three locomotives) such that they can run at their maximum permitted speed throughout.

Northern don't run 75mph Class 156s to Windermere any more, eating capacity, and nor should freight operators be running underpowered trains that also unnecessarily eat capacity.

One more thought, as there won't be any Pendolinos but rather HS2 units, and HS2 units will be 110mph on the classic line, not 125, won't this make some of the pathing easier due to reduced speed differentials?

 

[Watershed]

I understand that freights have a lower top speed than passenger, but if we're talking about underpowered freights crawling to Shap summit, then the correct answer, as you say, isn't to build lots of expensive new railway so they can continue to do that, but instead to provide them with enough power (two or even three locomotives) such that they can run at their maximum permitted speed throughout.

Northern don't run 75mph Class 156s to Windermere any more, eating capacity, and nor should freight operators be running underpowered trains that also unnecessarily eat capacity.

One more thought, as there won't be any Pendolinos but rather HS2 units, and HS2 units will be 110mph on the classic line, not 125, won't this make some of the pathing easier due to reduced speed differentials?

Indeed, but even if all freights had sufficient power to run at 75mph up the banks (it is exceptionally unlikely they will ever run much faster than this) that would still cause issues over such long distances.

And having sufficient power to do even that would require a major power supply upgrade.

Lines such as the northern WCML will always be hamstrung by mixing fundamentally incompatible types of traffic.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed, but even if all freights had sufficient power to run at 75mph up the banks (it is exceptionally unlikely they will ever run much faster than this) that would still cause issues over such long distances.

Yes, true, 75mph operation causes challenges, but rather fewer than if they're down to 40-50mph by the top.

And having sufficient power to do even that would require a major power supply upgrade.

Cheaper or more expensive than 4-tracking?

Are there other options such as battery/hydrogen powered bankers or even diesel? (If you added them from Lancaster to Carlisle, say, you could get a lot of the power back on regen).

Lines such as the northern WCML will always be hamstrung by mixing fundamentally incompatible types of traffic.

Yes, true, but short of building HS2 all the way to Scotland we're stuck with that.

 

[The Planner]

Yes, true, 75mph operation causes challenges, but rather fewer than if they're down to 40-50mph by the top.



Cheaper or more expensive than 4-tracking?

Are there other options such as battery/hydrogen powered bankers or even diesel?



Yes, true, but short of building HS2 all the way to Scotland we're stuck with that.

Power is a consideration with both 4 tracking or making freight faster as you are trying to put more trains in either way. Power costs a fortune.

 

[WatcherZero]

So that's a problem between Lancaster and about half way between Oxenholme and Penrith (or vice versa). That only needs one more fast path for the full HS2 service (for the second Euston-Scotland).

What of the rest of it? It's fairly flat.

Lot of flat junctions between Crewe and Wigan and unlike the south no grade separation.
You have just as many trains if not more trying to go east-west as you do north-south and almost all the junctions are at-grade.

 

[Watershed]

Lot of flat junctions between Crewe and Wigan and unlike the south no grade separation.
You have just as many trains if not more trying to go east-west as you do north-south and almost all the junctions are at-grade.

Plus the layout changes countless times:

• paired by use (Euston-Rugby)
• paired by direction (Rugby-Colwich Jn)
• double track (Colwich Jn-Whitehouse Jn)
• paired by use (Whitehouse Jn-Crewe)
• paired by direction (Crewe-Winsford)
• double track (Winsford-Acton Grange Jn)
• paired by use (Acton Grange Jn-Warrington BQ)
• paired by direction (Warrington BQ-Winwick Jn)
• double track (Winwick Jn-Golborne Jn)
• paired by use (Golborne Jn-Wigan NW)
• double track (Wigan NW-Balshaw Lane)
• paired by use (Balshaw Lane-Preston)

And then there are about 20 major flat junctions on top.

You almost couldn't come up with a worse layout, with more conflicts, if you tried!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

So that's a problem between Lancaster and about half way between Oxenholme and Penrith (or vice versa). That only needs one more fast path for the full HS2 service (for the second Euston-Scotland).
What of the rest of it? It's fairly flat.

That's only Grayrigg and the southern Shap bank.
There are 3 other banks - northern Shap and both sides of Beattock (northern sides not as steep).
It certainly needs more dynamic loops.
Acton Grange-Wigan, and the slow routes through Preston and Carlisle also need improving.

The DfT announcement makes clear that anything is possible within the £96 billion IRP funding envelope.
Essentially the Rostherne-Golborne money can be spent elsewhere (unless NR and HS2 Ltd have overspent it elsewhere).
15 miles-worth of HSL credit won't go far on a Weaver Jn-Carstairs upgrade.

Government takes action to ensure Scotland receives best possible HS2 service

Intention to remove Golborne Link from HS2 Bill announced with alternative options to be explored.

www.gov.uk

The government has today (6 June 2022) committed to leaving no stone unturned when it comes to finding the right solution to take HS2 trains to Scotland.
The Department for Transport has announced its intention to remove the Golborne Link from the current HS2 Bill and explore alternatives that deliver similar benefits, within the £96 billion envelope of the Integrated Rail Plan.
(snip)
The independent Union Connectivity Review undertaken by Sir Peter Hendy claimed that the Golborne Link does not resolve all the current capacity constraints on the West Coast Main Line between Crewe and Preston.
In line with this review, the government has committed to exploring a number of alternatives that could deliver similar benefits within the framework of the Integrated Rail Plan – ranging from upgrading existing infrastructure to brand new high speed links.

 

[Starmill]

You almost couldn't come up with a worse layout, with more conflicts, if you tried!

Except of course for the same route but 20 years ago! It's notably less tangled and more useful now than then. Which says a lot about the state it was in at the start of the century.

 

[Watershed]

The DfT announcement makes clear that anything is possible within the £96 billion IRP funding envelope.
Essentially the Rostherne-Golborne money can be spent elsewhere (unless NR and HS2 Ltd have overspent it elsewhere).
15 miles-worth of HSL credit won't go far on a Weaver Jn-Carstairs upgrade.

"Within the £96bn envelope" is code for "doing it on the cheap", of course. Just as NPR will forever be hamstrung by terminating at Marsden, some 7 miles west of Huddersfield.

 

[Sonik]

Plus the layout changes countless times:

• paired by use (Euston-Rugby)
• paired by direction (Rugby-Colwich Jn)
• double track (Colwich Jn-Whitehouse Jn)
• paired by use (Whitehouse Jn-Crewe)
• paired by direction (Crewe-Winsford)
• double track (Winsford-Acton Grange Jn)
• paired by use (Acton Grange Jn-Warrington BQ)
• paired by direction (Warrington BQ-Winwick Jn)
• double track (Winwick Jn-Golborne Jn)
• paired by use (Golborne Jn-Wigan NW)
• double track (Wigan NW-Balshaw Lane)
• paired by use (Balshaw Lane-Preston)

And then there are about 20 major flat junctions on top.

You almost couldn't come up with a worse layout, with more conflicts, if you tried!

No doubt NR understand full well what all these issues are, as does the head of the NIC John Armitt, who was after all in charge of Railtrack when the WCML upgrade started at Euston in the late 90's

So it seems to me that what SPH has done, via the Union Connectivity Review, is ensured that all the non-workable 'solutions' (e.g. upgrading existing lines between Crewe and Preston) get debated and ruled out openly, so that TPTB can see for themselves why a new line is needed. Since whatever gets done is still about 10-20 years out, this discussion doesn't really delay anything.

Not sure either that doing nothing is an option, in the context of a possible Scottish Independence vote. But any possible upgrade or new line is also therefore a bargaining chip for Westminster, one they may wish to keep in their back pocket, for now at least.

A new route west of Wigan, essentially following the M6 from Thelwall to Euxton or thereabouts, would not be completely stupid. It's potentially cheaper to build and much harder for locals to object to, since it follows an existing corridor. And it would additionally allow for direct services between Manchester/Airport and Scotland, which enhances the CBR. And don't forget that the CBR for phase 2 to Manchester is really quite weak without a northern connection towards Preston. So just as phase 2 is currently being used to justify the already committed expenditure in the Chilterns, the snowball continues northwards.

Just my 2p

 

[snowball]

No doubt NR understand full well what all these issues are, as does the head of the NIC John Armitt, who was after all in charge of Railtrack when the WCML upgrade started at Euston in the late 90's

So it seems to me that what SPH has done, via the Union Connectivity Review, is ensured that all the non-workable 'solutions' (e.g. upgrading existing lines between Crewe and Preston) get debated and ruled out openly, so that TPTB can see for themselves why a new line is needed. Since whatever gets done is still about 10-20 years out, this discussion doesn't really delay anything.

I suppose NIC is the National Infrastructure Commission and SPH is Sir Peter Hendy, but WTF is TPTB?

 

[JonathanH]

but WTF is TPTB?

The powers that be.

I won't translate your other acronym!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I suppose NIC is the National Infrastructure Commission and SPH is Sir Peter Hendy, but WTF is TPTB?

The Powers That Be?

 

[Howardh]

Can anyone link to a map of the proposed spur as I'm not sure what the Golborne Link was supposed to look like. I've just read a report in the Manchester News which failed to provide a map!
Thanks!

Also - was there any plan to have HS2 so one could get from Glasgow/Edinburgh direct to Piccadilly without changing, and it all via HS2 (ie that link)?

 

[Nottingham59]

Can anyone link to a map of the proposed spur as I'm not sure what the Golborne Link was supposed to look like?

The Golborne link is shown here (dotted red line, from openrailwaymap.org), splitting from the HS2 line to Manchester and joining the WCML north of Newton-le-Willows.

 

[Howardh]

The Golborne link is shown here (from openrailwaymap.org), splitting from the HS2 line to Manchester and joining the WCML north of Newton-le-Willows.

View attachment 115851

Thanks, so it couldn't have a direct Scotland/Manchester service then; so that isn't lost.

 

[Watershed]

Thanks, so it couldn't have a direct Scotland/Manchester service then; so that isn't lost.

Not necessarily - I believe there was to be a third side of the triangle, to allow for the Liverpool-Manchester NPR services? Perhaps I am misunderstanding though.

 

[The Planner]

Thanks, so it couldn't have a direct Scotland/Manchester service then; so that isn't lost.

The top end of the triangle that allowed that was binned very early on.

 

[Nottingham59]

I believe there was to be a third side of the triangle, to allow for the Liverpool-Manchester NPR services?

The NPR links are still there. The current plans include provision for two junctions.

The first is a two-way junction on the HS2 line from Manchester, located near Altrincham on the map above. From Manchester, turn left to join the main HS2 line to Birmingham and London; straight ahead to take NPR traffic from Manchester Airport to Liverpool via Warrington low level

The second is a three-way junction near Knutsford, on the main HS2 line from the south. To the left joins the NPR route ; to the centre is the Golborne Link; to the right is the HS2 line to Manchester Airport.

The NPR route from these junctions to Warrington is not defined yet.

There is no provision for traffic from Manchester Airport to turn right onto the Golborne Link, which would be a very roundabout route to get from central Manchester towards Scotland.

 

[snowball]

The top end of the triangle that allowed that was binned very early on.

and even before it was binned, it was designed for low speeds, for ECS movements, not needed after the rolling stock depot was moved from Golborne to Crewe.

HS2 does not seem to have ever been intended for Manchester-Scotland or Leeds-Scotland services.

Edit: Since I wrote the above, Nottingham59's post has appeared. We are talking about two different things. Long before the NPR links were added, a triangular junction was proposed, which would have allowed ECS from Manchester to turn north towards Golborne.

 

[WatcherZero]

Yes, the northern HS2 rolling stock depot would have originally been in Golborne (to service the passing Scotland trains) and there was a low speed turn allowing trains from Manchester to access it directly, but the local nimbies killed that and the hundred+ jobs it would have provided quite early.

 

[Sonik]

and even before it was binned, it was designed for low speeds, for ECS movements, not needed after the rolling stock depot was moved from Golborne to Crewe.

HS2 does not seem to have ever been intended for Manchester-Scotland or Leeds-Scotland services.

Edit: Since I wrote the above, Nottingham59's post has appeared. We are talking about two different things. Long before the NPR links were added, a triangular junction was proposed, which would have allowed ECS from Manchester to turn north towards Golborne.

That's why a route north following the M6 makes more sense IMO, because it allows for a high speed curve round Lymm, joined to the new WBQ/NPR section from Hoo junction, which also makes it slightly shorter than the Golborne route. It's also probably cheaper because much of the land alongside the M6 already belongs to the DfT, the Germans do this kind of thing all the time.

Essentially it would be the same arrangement as the Birmingham delta junction and the junction for phase 2b, with additional tracks and grade separation as appropriate.

It is quite an indirect route from Manchester to Scotland but surely will be much quicker than the Castlefeild corridor, and thus reduces demand on another substantial bottleneck. On the route from Crewe to Preston it's no less direct.

 

[snowball]

Just heard part of the introduction to PM on BBC Radio 4. I think there'll be an item on the dropping of the Golborne link.

Edit: there was an item but not particularly enlightening.

 

[Nottingham59]

Just heard part of the introduction to PM on BBC Radio 4. I think there'll be an item on the dropping of the Golborne link.

Rail industry groups outraged as HS2 Golborne link quietly scrapped

Local MPs opposed plan for 13-mile stretch of new track but industry says move is ‘hugely disappointing’

www.theguardian.com

"A £3bn branch of the High Speed 2 network designed to speed up rail journeys between London and Scotland has been quietly ditched by ministers, provoking outrage from rail industry groups.

"The change was announced on Monday evening as the result of the confidence vote in Boris Johnson was being determined. Three leading industry bodies said the decision to scrap the Golborne link would create a bottleneck for trains and negatively affect passengers and freight."

 

[Some guy]

Rail industry groups outraged as HS2 Golborne link quietly scrapped

Local MPs opposed plan for 13-mile stretch of new track but industry says move is ‘hugely disappointing’

www.theguardian.com

"A £3bn branch of the High Speed 2 network designed to speed up rail journeys between London and Scotland has been quietly ditched by ministers, provoking outrage from rail industry groups.

"The change was announced on Monday evening as the result of the confidence vote in Boris Johnson was being determined. Three leading industry bodies said the decision to scrap the Golborne link would create a bottleneck for trains and negatively affect passengers and freight."

It’s a disgrace so the high speed line they’ve bragged about only goes about 140 miles of the country and then it’s 260 miles of it will exactly be the same so it will take about 40 minutes maximum off London to Scotland services

 

[Roast Veg]

WCML north is down for ETCS, but even that doesn't unlock much and will be unlikely before Phase 2A. Anything Class 6 wise is going S&C I suspect in the future.

And thence via Clitheroe and Leyland, presumably - but does that work northbound? There's nowhere really to send it without an intervention somewhere.

 

[Mikey C]

Rail industry groups outraged as HS2 Golborne link quietly scrapped

Local MPs opposed plan for 13-mile stretch of new track but industry says move is ‘hugely disappointing’

www.theguardian.com

"A £3bn branch of the High Speed 2 network designed to speed up rail journeys between London and Scotland has been quietly ditched by ministers, provoking outrage from rail industry groups.

"The change was announced on Monday evening as the result of the confidence vote in Boris Johnson was being determined. Three leading industry bodies said the decision to scrap the Golborne link would create a bottleneck for trains and negatively affect passengers and freight."

If this is scrapped and nothing built in its place, then yes this would be an outrage (though a future government could always reinstate it)

On the other hand, if this has been scrapped to be replaced with a different and potentially better scheme, then it might then be seen as the right decision.

 

[The Planner]

And thence via Clitheroe and Leyland, presumably - but does that work northbound? There's nowhere really to send it without an intervention somewhere.

Why? Hold it on the slows at Farington, getting a margin is going to be easier than trying to jump loop to loop.

 

[paul1609]

A new route west of Wigan, essentially following the M6 from Thelwall to Euxton or thereabouts, would not be completely stupid. It's potentially cheaper to build and much harder for locals to object to, since it follows an existing corridor. And it would additionally allow for direct services between Manchester/Airport and Scotland, which enhances the CBR. And don't forget that the CBR for phase 2 to Manchester is really quite weak without a northern connection towards Preston. So just as phase 2 is currently being used to justify the already committed expenditure in the Chilterns, the snowball continues northwards.

Just my 2p

The M20 is compared to the M6 a comparatively recent and straight motorway but HS1, a170 mph railway required a corridor of up to a mile alongside the motorway to straighten the railway plus a route through Ashford Town centre. If you tried to do the same between Thelwall and Euxton you need major demolition of urban areas to fit in the railway. The let's build a railway alongside the motorway isn't really a goer for much of the Uk's motorway network.

 

[Sonik]

The M20 is compared to the M6 a comparatively recent and straight motorway but HS1, a170 mph railway required a corridor of up to a mile alongside the motorway to straighten the railway plus a route through Ashford Town centre. If you tried to do the same between Thelwall and Euxton you need major demolition of urban areas to fit in the railway. The let's build a railway alongside the motorway isn't really a goer for much of the Uk's motorway network.

Fair comments, but I'm not sure how else you could get from Hoo Green to Preston through the various built up areas to the east, which is why the Golborne link stopped short. The M6 is pretty straight most of the way and does have generous margins through the major built up areas.

It may be the case that some sections have to have a slightly lower speed limit, or maybe some short tunnels if budget allows. The key benefit is to bypass all the existing bottlenecks on WCML, as SPH stated as the goal in the Union connectivity review.