HS2 future northern extensions

[edwin_m]

I think the political thing is more to do with using it to influence the vote one way or the other, and the question of who pays for what, rather than reflecting on the merits or otherwise of any scheme being put forward.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I think the political thing is more to do with using it to influence the vote one way or the other, and the question of who pays for what, rather than reflecting on the merits or otherwise of any scheme being put forward.

In which case it would be just a bluff too far for Westminster to say that it would only happen if the Union is preserved. I don't see Network Rail being too chuffed about being denied the ability to build it just because of a petty political disagreement, especially when it is the only realistic long-term option for the future of the WCML north of Preston. It is quite lovely that of all things, the railways are something which all parties of power actually agree upon (for long-term things like infrastructure, not short-term like franchising).

 

[clc]

The Scottish section will be full business case so any announcements from the Holyrood side could be more definitive.

Any whispers coming out about the BCR? I imagine the BCR would have to be at least 2 to justify the £2 billion+ cost.

 

[HSTEd]

The economic benefits to England and Wales from a high speed line to Scotland could not hope to justify the cost of such a route.
And an independant Scotland turning around and spending a huge fraction of its entire budget on building a line in another country to connect it to a foreign capital in less time would be a political impossibility.

Urgo - if Scotland votes with Salmond high speed rail to Scotland is dead, especially as it is likely a train that used high speed lines as far as Newcastle and then ran over the classic line over the border (since local services would almost certainly break at the border) would be enough to bear down on airline travel without costing the rBritish state enormous amounts primarily for the benefit of the Scottish state.

 

[po8crg]

The only way independence makes a practical difference is if some politicians decide to be silly about border controls. If anyone boarding a cross-border train had to go through passport control before boarding (like Eurostar) then it would hammer the rail market.

I can just see the Daily Mail claiming that illegal immigrants are coming into England through Scotland and insisting on full border controls, and some politician being daft enough to agree with them.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The economic benefits to England and Wales from a high speed line to Scotland could not hope to justify the cost of such a route.
And an independant Scotland turning around and spending a huge fraction of its entire budget on building a line in another country to connect it to a foreign capital in less time would be a political impossibility.

Urgo - if Scotland votes with Salmond high speed rail to Scotland is dead, especially as it is likely a train that used high speed lines as far as Newcastle and then ran over the classic line over the border (since local services would almost certainly break at the border) would be enough to bear down on airline travel without costing the rBritish state enormous amounts primarily for the benefit of the Scottish state.

The BCR of the whole scheme improves the further northwards it is extended, notably because they will then be able to use the existing high-speed trains more efficiently (halve the journey time, halve the number of trains needed for the same service) and they will have complete freedom in using higher-capacity trains on routes which may then require it with the increase in passenger numbers that comes from such a journey time decrease. As more passengers use the sections in England, due to the extra Scottish passengers, the faster the cost of Phase 1 and 2 will be paid off and there are an awful lot of passengers who will be using it post completion. The current air-rail market for Scotland-London is 80%-20%, which would be completely reversed if the journey time is reduced to less than 3 hours without taking into account the suppressed demand caused by the need to travel by air in order to make a day trip possible. That then touches on the fact that with a proper Scotland and a Newcastle extension, and with the coming upgrades to the GWML, the domestic air market from London to the periphery of the country will be weaker than it has ever been before with the resulting benefits for the environment and airport capacity of the SE of England.

In order to provide the capacity needed for freight and for any kind of local services near the borders, a new line is needed that goes all the way to the Central Belt. If the line were extended to Newcastle and no further as a kind of political statement it would not benefit England because it would still limit the amount of freight able to travel to where it needs to go. It would not be the case that freight from ports or wherever in England would travel to the end of the HS line and then be transferred to road for the journey to the Central belt made impossible by the capacity constraints - it would simply be driven by lorry all the way from start to finish. That benefits no one and will cost both countries and the world due to the environmental concerns. If the line stopped in Newcastle it would also preclude any real upgrades in the services north of the city (there is actually quite a bit of distance northwards from Newcastle to the border) so local and regional services that would run only in England would also suffer. As with the rest of HS2, the cost of not doing something is not zero and if the business case looks ropey for doing something, the business case for not doing something can be even worse.

 

[HSTEd]

The BCR of the whole scheme improves the further northwards it is extended, notably because they will then be able to use the existing high-speed trains more efficiently (halve the journey time, halve the number of trains needed for the same service)

But the number of trains that would be running cross border to an independent scotland is a rounding error on the amount of stock required for the project.
Also the savings are going to be rather minor when you use the baseline of running Classic compatibles on a high speed line to Newcastle and then up the ECML.

and they will have complete freedom in using higher-capacity trains on routes which may then require it with the increase in passenger numbers that comes from such a journey time decrease. As more passengers use the sections in England, due to the extra Scottish passengers, the faster the cost of Phase 1 and 2 will be paid off and there are an awful lot of passengers who will be using it post completion.

Thinking that a large fraction of passengers on HS2-1 and 2 will be from scotland is just plain delusional.
The Scotland market will be a rounding error compared to the Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester markets, it will essentially make no difference to the economics of those segments.

The current air-rail market for Scotland-London is 80%-20%, which would be completely reversed if the journey time is reduced to less than 3 hours without taking into account the suppressed demand caused by the need to travel by air in order to make a day trip possible.

Considering that even with HS2-1+2 only the journey time to Glasgow and Edinburgh will be around the 3hr30 mark, and that with a high speed line to Newcastle times of roughly 3hrs to Edinburgh might be achievable (just) it is not unreasonable to assume that most of these travel time benefits will already be achieved without construction of a proper Scotland link.
And can the Scottish government really pay for a high speed line from the Central Belt to Wigan or from the Central Belt to Newcastle off its own bat?

There are no significant popultion centres north of Wigan and Newcastle that will benefit from construction of such a line which means that the British Government would have little reason to agree to pay for it.

That then touches on the fact that with a proper Scotland and a Newcastle extension, and with the coming upgrades to the GWML, the domestic air market from London to the periphery of the country will be weaker than it has ever been before with the resulting benefits for the environment and airport capacity of the SE of England.

Building a high speed line from Wigan to the Central Belt at British expense is not a good way to improve airport capacity in the South East of England.
You could buy a multi runway airport for the cost of such a project. (Billions of pounds).
The environmental damage from such markets is also marginal when you consider the ridiculous quantities of pollutants pumped into cities in the SE of England by car combustion engines - at ground level where they do the most damage to people's health.

In order to provide the capacity needed for freight and for any kind of local services near the borders, a new line is needed that goes all the way to the Central Belt.

Local services to serve what?
There are only two lines that cross the border from England into Scotland.
Neither of them have significant demand for local services.
Freight can be routed up the S&C if it is really critical that it run in England.
Running north of there will be for the Scottish Government to decide and pay for.

If the line were extended to Newcastle and no further as a kind of political statement it would not benefit England because it would still limit the amount of freight able to travel to where it needs to go.

The economic fragmentation inherent in independance will almost certainly reduce cross border passenger traffic, probably to levels more akin to that seen between Ireland and the United Kingdom than that seen today between England and Scotland.

This will free large amounts of paths on both main lines and on cross border roads. Additionally the economic benefits from such a link are likely to accrue primarily to Scotland and not to England.

It would not be the case that freight from ports or wherever in England would travel to the end of the HS line and then be transferred to road for the journey to the Central belt made impossible by the capacity constraints - it would simply be driven by lorry all the way from start to finish. That benefits no one and will cost both countries and the world due to the environmental concerns.

England has all the container ports of significant size, therefore the benefits from improved cross border connections will accrue chiefly to Scotland in terms of easier access to markets nad the like.
The Scottish market is not critical to England but the Global market is definitely critical to the Scottish economy.
England would be hurt by the lack of such links but the damage would be incredibly minor - Scotland would suffer most of the damage and thus should pay for the majority of the cost of the link.

If the line stopped in Newcastle it would also preclude any real upgrades in the services north of the city (there is actually quite a bit of distance northwards from Newcastle to the border)

Distance is irrelevant, there is quite a lot of land but almost noone lives there.

so local and regional services that would run only in England would also suffer.

Services that are almost certainly in receipt of massive quantities of public money in the form of subsidy payments - it is not clear that axing them would be a net loss to the national economy.
As far as I know most of the stations recieve only a token service anyway.

With the death of local services on cross border routes significant numbers of paths become available and you could designate one line as being for passenger services and the other line could be essentailly dedicated to freight.

How many freights can be run if you have two tracks which are run on the freight's timetable with any passenger services running at their convenience only?

As with the rest of HS2, the cost of not doing something is not zero and if the business case looks ropey for doing something, the business case for not doing something can be even worse.

I don't think the benefit of having a handful of local trains at Widdrington is really going to significantly improve the business case for a Scottish HSL paid for by England in the case of an independent Scotland.

 

[Altnabreac]

I agree that independence would affect the political case for a cross border line.

However some of your points are overblown. Glasgow/Edinburgh - London is a very significant market and would continue to be so post independence. More importantly its a very large air market that can be captured by HSR so they are new to rail passengers. Definitely not a rounding error!

Also what people forget is that there a significant cross border flows from north of England to Scotland as well.

However I agree a Newcastle route is more likely post independence. If the journey time can get below 3 hours without 100% dedicated high speed line then that may be enough.

The suggestion that traffic levels and economic interdependence will plummet is a bit silly.

Other countries have managed to cooperate and work together on cross border infrastructure projects even where the economic benefit is stronger for one side (Fehmarn Belt fixed link say) but I agree Scotland would have more interest in it happening.

 

[edwin_m]

There is a local aspiration for a stopping service between Edinburgh and Newcastle. This would probably replace the Morpeth and Dunbar shuttles and give a better service to stations in between, possibly also speeding up longer-distance trains by allowing them to make fewer stops.

While most aircraft emissions may be at altitude, the effect on global warming is just as much and according to some people more than the same emission at ground level. Short haul flights use proportionately more fuel per mile because of the more frequent takeoffs, with emissions increasing in proportion.

 

[HSTEd]

Other countries have managed to cooperate and work together on cross border infrastructure projects even where the economic benefit is stronger for one side (Fehmarn Belt fixed link say) but I agree Scotland would have more interest in it happening.

You mean the Fehmarn Belt fixed link where Germany has repeatedly delayed construction on the supporting infrastructure on its side?
Its the same as the Betuweroute - the German infrastructure is still not in place and will not be for for years.

It is clear that Germany does not really believe either of those connections are really important thanks to the casual way that completion has been pushed back in both cases.

However some of your points are overblown. Glasgow/Edinburgh - London is a very significant market and would continue to be so post independence. More importantly its a very large air market that can be captured by HSR so they are new to rail passengers. Definitely not a rounding error!

There is something like enough demand for two long train sets per hour to Scotland, if all the flights are obliterated.
Compare that to 9 trains per hour to the Birmingham/Leeds/Manchester axis plus the additional classic compatibles to Newcastle, Liverpool and other destinations.

You are looking at ten percent of traffic or something like that.

The suggestion that traffic levels and economic interdependence will plummet is a bit silly.

Why not?
Unless Scottish independance remains entirely nominal then differences will develop between standards/regulations on both sides of the border, tax rates and similar which will inherent provide a disincentive to cross border trade.
Why bother chasing the Scottish market when you have to take on endless additional costs to do?

While most aircraft emissions may be at altitude, the effect on global warming is just as much and according to some people more than the same emission at ground level. Short haul flights use proportionately more fuel per mile because of the more frequent takeoffs, with emissions increasing in proportion.

And yet emissions from aircraft are a very small fraction of overall emissions - the major transport culprit being cars by some incredible margin, followed by the kind of lights good vehicle that will not be removed by modal shift to rail.

 

[Altnabreac]

You mean the Fehmarn Belt fixed link where Germany has repeatedly delayed construction on the supporting infrastructure on its side?
Its the same as the Betuweroute - the German infrastructure is still not in place and will not be for for years.

It is clear that Germany does not really believe either of those connections are really important thanks to the casual way that completion has been pushed back in both cases.

Agreed but its still happening. My point is that Scottish HSR would be less of a priority for rUK post independence but still a viable scheme that would eventually go ahead, albeit possibly not as quickly. It seems you agree.

There is something like enough demand for two long train sets per hour to Scotland, if all the flights are obliterated.
Compare that to 9 trains per hour to the Birmingham/Leeds/Manchester axis plus the additional classic compatibles to Newcastle, Liverpool and other destinations.

You are looking at ten percent of traffic or something like that.

2 long trains per hour and 1 classic compatible (to Birmingham) is the proposed HS2 phase 2 service plus additional trains to Manchester/Leeds on the classic network. This assumes a much lower transfer of Scottish air passengers to HS2 than would happen post Phase 3.

I'd suggest a more likely post Phase 3 service would be 4 long trains per hour to London (the 2 Scottish plus the 2 Newcastle paths), plus 2-4 trains (some classic compatible) to Birmingham/Manchester/Leeds/Liverpool.

I don't pretend its the majority of traffic but its likely to be circa 25% of the train paths although of course some of the passengers on those paths will be from NE England as well.

10-25% is not a rounding error

Why not?
Unless Scottish independance remains entirely nominal then differences will develop between standards/regulations on both sides of the border, tax rates and similar which will inherent provide a disincentive to cross border trade.
Why bother chasing the Scottish market when you have to take on endless additional costs to do?

Independence would not remove the strong economic links between the countries, businesses will operate on both sides of the border as they do now between UK and Ireland etc. Scots will work in London and travel home to see their families and vice versa.

As an English resident of Scotland I'm not going to suddenly decide never to go and visit my relatives again just because they live in a different country.

I agree that some travel demand patterns would change as would political priorities, I'm personally not in favour on independence but a lot of the arguments around the topic are unhelpful and exaggerated. People would still travel for a whole host of reasons and demand would still exist for cross border rail journeys whether local or long distance.

Dumfries folk will still take advantage of the wider variety of shops in Carlisle. Berwick folk will still go for a night out in Edinburgh. Motherwell girls will still head to Newcastle for their hen night.

 

[edwin_m]

And yet emissions from aircraft are a very small fraction of overall emissions - the major transport culprit being cars by some incredible margin, followed by the kind of lights good vehicle that will not be removed by modal shift to rail.

This is true, but while most car journeys are difficult to divert to rail the air journeys are somewhat easier to divert to high speed rail. Also emissions per mile and per journey are likely to be higher for short haul air journeys than any other type of journey.

There is also the possibility that oil and jet fuel prices could shoot upwards in the future, in which case businesses in Scotland will be severely disadvantaged by lack of connectivity. This is partly mitigated if they have access to train services that achieve journey times similar to some of their flights (once airport access and check-in times are considered), and are powered by electricity that can be sourced in a variety of ways.

 

[clc]

"An Independant Scotland 'would lose it's HS2' warns Minister"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ould-lose-its-hs2-warns-minister-9256659.html

Let's say there's a yes vote in September, what options would the Scottish Government consider?

- spend £9 billion building a new HS line all the way to the border plus new city centre stations in Glasgow and Edinburgh (£9 billion is the estimate given in the Scottish Govt's Infrastructure Investment Plan);

- spend a few billion on just enough new track to get the journey time close to 3 hours, no new stations, classic compatibles only (perhaps spend the £3-£4 billion that Scotland would have contributed towards HS2 after a no vote);

- do nothing beyond existing plans ie. Glasgow-Edinburgh HSR with spur to WCML which will reduce cross border journeys by 10-15 mins. Settle for journey time of around 3h 25m.

Personally I think the first option is a non starter. Politically it would be very difficult to justify that level of expenditure and nothing else would get built for years. The voters wouldn't buy into it.

The middle option is a possibility. I don't think many people in Scotland expect a HS line to be built all the way to the Central Belt, whatever the result of the referendum, so politically there wouldn't be any public feeling of being short changed. Still some political difficulty due to the cost. I'm not sure how the business case would stack up.

The third option is a strong possibility and probably the most likely. Financially doable and, with the Scottish Govt being able to point to some expensive new infrastructure bringing Glasgow and Edinburgh closer together and much improved cross border journey times, politically it wouldn't be too problematic.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I don't want to repeat what I said earlier but the jist of it is that the cost to rUK of not extending HS2 is not zero. There will be a point at which there is little extra benefit from extending it in terms of journey times (a point somewhere around Abington, I would believe) but at that point there's no point in not just doing the whole hog and allowing captive sets all the way to Glasgow and Edinburgh. There would be no way though that the rUK government would ever pay for anything north of Glasgow or Edinburgh though in any eventuality.

 

[Altnabreac]

I tend to think your middle option is the most likely to happen whether or not Scotland is independent.

Worth bearing in mind the DfT mandate to HS2 is to investigate options that reduce journey times below 3 hours, not to create a full European Gauge City Centre route.

Given there is no commitment to build anything north of Manchester/Leeds yet it seems cheeky to threaten to cancel something which doesn't yet exist.

 

[eisenach]

How about extending the Manchester branch under the pennines to Leeds to link with the Leeds branch. Nice loop, no reversing, fast Leeds to Manchester services, probably even faster that way from Manchester to Sheffield.
It's not a starter, I know, but ...

 

[Emyr]

I don't think any of the existing tunnels are suitable, so you're into the realm of expensive engineering...

 

[NotATrainspott]

David Higgins at the Transport Select Committee - talks about east-west links as well.

 

[Haydn1971]

David Higgins at the Transport Select Committee - talks about east-west links as well.

I didn't see that as been a specific HS2 type route, more improvements to existing infrastructure, perhaps a 100mph whole line speed ? Although 140mph would be pretty nice

 

[NotATrainspott]

What would an ideal TransPennine network look like? As nice as it would be to have 400km/h HSR blasting between Manchester and Leeds it probably wouldn't be that useful in the grand scheme of things compared to a more tailored solution which would benefit more locations like Huddersfield or Bradford. I would imagine it would result in the TransPennine new lines becoming more of an intermeshed network of lines rather than one single one, based around the rough triangle shape of Manchester-Leeds-Sheffield with the main stations located roughly adjacent to their existing main/HS2 stations.

The core would be on mostly new alignment and would prioritise serving large-ish locations on the way rather than being non-stop (so Huddersfield and Bradford would be between Manchester and Leeds, and Wakefield and Barnsley served between Leeds and Sheffield). On new or otherwise dedicated (grade separation at the very least, dedicated alignments where necessary) electrified infrastructure with a reasonably high linespeed it would create a Northernland metro of sorts which would tie the cities together into one region far better than a series of non-stop HS2-alikes. From the vertices there would be extensions to suitable places like Liverpool & North Wales or the Humber Estuary.

Beyond the TransPennine metro service there would be further improvements on and reconnections between the various local rail networks so that a two or more cities' worth of local lines can be combined to improve connections even more (c.f. Airdrie-Bathgate - Airdrie to Edinburgh, Bathgate to Glasgow and obviously Airdrie to Bathgate are now trivial journeys by rail where previously they would have involved considerable amounts of doubling-back). Schemes like Bradford Crossrail or Colne-Skipton would be examples of this.

 

[Haydn1971]

I suspect that Sheffield wouldn't get a look in on a TransPennine route, it would be nice, but the Higgins Report suggests at Liverpool-Manchester-Huddersfield-Leeds-Hull, which is pants...

Personally, I'd like to see as much use of existing corridors as possible, with a semi-fast calling at intermediate places like Warrington, Dewsbury, Selby, Garforth, Selby, Brough etc... This route should have as much linkage to the existing network as possible, but be as seperated as much as possible to reduce delay by local trains.

As to where the route should go... That's another question altogether

 

[edwin_m]

The Woodhead line could be re-opened (with a new tunnel if necessary) giving a link to Sheffield and a few miles of new alignment to the north of Barnsley could connect into the HS2 Leeds route. This would take the fast Manchester-Leeds trains, leaving the Diggle route for intermediate stations and freight. There are options to extend these services towards Liverpool and York, but the feasibility of all this depends critically on platform capacity at both Manchester and Leeds.

 

[Haydn1971]

The Woodhead line could be re-opened

When I look at a map, I see little benefit in routing via Woodhead over Hope Valley, I see even less benefit when I consider that there is no direct link from the Woodhead route into Sheffield Midland Station, that building a chord to Sheffield Midland would be very costly plus require a reversal to go to Meadowhall and that a new chord to Meadowhall could be cheaper, but misses a key source of passengers at Sheffield Midland - unless of course someone makes a stupid choice and shove the Sheffield HS2 station at Victoria.

 

[WatcherZero]

Its only 40 miles, its through some tough terrain but it is only 40 miles, thats about the length of a tube line. Sticking to an old Victorian alignment doesnt reflect the modern day built up areas and the requirement for speed over connections resulting in a winding route, tacking it onto HS2 also would be a bodge resulting in trains reversing in Piccadilly (if they wanted to join HS2). New Crossrail style alignment between the two mostly underground surfacing where practical to do so offers the opportunity to tack on branches serving other large towns along the way and continuing onward to Liverpool and Hull.

 

[edwin_m]

When I look at a map, I see little benefit in routing via Woodhead over Hope Valley, I see even less benefit when I consider that there is no direct link from the Woodhead route into Sheffield Midland Station, that building a chord to Sheffield Midland would be very costly plus require a reversal to go to Meadowhall and that a new chord to Meadowhall could be cheaper, but misses a key source of passengers at Sheffield Midland - unless of course someone makes a stupid choice and shove the Sheffield HS2 station at Victoria.

The benefit for Manchester-Sheffield would be segregating fast and slow trains, plus it has the potential to run to Leeds as well with the minimum of extra infrastructure. Instead of reviving the former route through Deepcar there's the option of following the M1 from Barnsley down to Meadowhall and on the existing line to Sheffield, or even joining HS2 southwards although I'm not sure what that would achieve.

 

[Haydn1971]

Hmm.. Tracking further east towards the Barnsley-Meadowhall line is an option too... Fair bit of new corridor though and would be too far south for Huddersfield - I can imagine one new TransPennine route, but two ? Just a few miles apart. ? Nah

 

[edwin_m]

Its only 40 miles, its through some tough terrain but it is only 40 miles, thats about the length of a tube line. Sticking to an old Victorian alignment doesnt reflect the modern day built up areas and the requirement for speed over connections resulting in a winding route, tacking it onto HS2 also would be a bodge resulting in trains reversing in Piccadilly (if they wanted to join HS2). New Crossrail style alignment between the two mostly underground surfacing where practical to do so offers the opportunity to tack on branches serving other large towns along the way and continuing onward to Liverpool and Hull.

Is speed really that important for a 40 mile route? Averaging 80mph would give a half-hour journey which already beats any competing mode, averaging 120mph would only cut that by 10min. With relatively minor modifications the Woodhead route gives a reasonable alignment out of Manchester without the costs of a long tunnel, as well as options for access into Sheffield and Leeds on past, present and future rail alignments with minimal extra disruption.

A mainly tunnelled new route would be difficult in hilly country, as it would have to keep emerging onto viaducts to cross the valleys or to serve intevening places. Far better I suggest for the existing routes to serve this function.

The reversal at Piccadilly need not be a problem with slick working, as long as a reasonably fast and convenient station layout could be devised. An alternative would be to tunnel under the city and emerge in the Salford/Eccles area to head for Liverpool using bits of other HS2 proposed alignments, but my suggested route employs the new HS2 infrastructure which will never otherwise be used to its full capacity and also includes a call at the Airport.

 

[Haydn1971]

Tunnels and viaducts are pretty costly folks...

 

[NotATrainspott]

Would it be possible though for the Woodhead route to simultaneously become the main TransPennine artery at the same time as serving local places though? There is a need for some sort of dedicated infrastructure of similar dependability to a London Underground line or HS2 to be at the core of the new network. Enhanced and reinstated local services along the route of the former Woodhead line would be complementary to the rest of the investments being made and there would be great benefits from reopening the whole route as a local stopping one like Airdrie-Bathgate.

If there's one thing that the referendum has done it has been to prevent the status quo from continuing across the UK. Whether it will be yes or no, it's brought the issues of regional development back to the top of the agenda. If the complete and total collapse of the United Kingdom is to be avoided there will have to be much more attention (i.e. money) given to the country outside of the South East of England. As nice as it is that Boris is right that a pound spent in Shoreditch will do more for the economy in the short term than a pound spent in Sheffield, the long-term problems afflicting the North will just be exacerbated. It's clearly not possible to simply depopulate all of the North and move it to post-airport Heathrow as Boris seems to think is a good idea.

 

[tbtc]

One of the key points of the HS2 design appears to be designing the route so that the "big" stations are termini - so that London - Manchester doesn't go through Birmingham, London - Glasgow doesn't go through Manchester - they don't seem to want trains delayed by large numbers alighting/boarding at intermediate stations (compare the scrums that you can get at New Street/ Piccadilly/ York etc when longer distance services end up with long dwell times).

So, whilst there's certainly justification for improving "trans pennine" routes, I don't think that's anything for HS2 to "solve" - by the time any HS2 service from London has come in to central Manchester, seen hundreds get off, see hundreds more board and set off again towards Leeds, the direct London - Leeds service will have travelled half the way from Meadowhall to Leeds, and therefore overtaken a "via Manchester" service.

That, to me, suggests a separate solution to the M62 corridor (would be nice to involve Sheffield, believe me, but we always seem to be the afterthought - not on that axis from Liverpool to Hull).

I'd say something like Liverpool - Warrington - Manchester - XXX - Leeds - Hambleton Junction (for services towards Hull, for connections northbound and southbound on the ECML).

The question is, where to stop between Manchester and Leeds? Bradford is bigger than Huddersfield and more in need of an improved Manchester service... but Huddersfield is on a more direct route. But, if you serve Huddersfield, what about Dewsbury? And, if so, are you just duplicating the existing route?

Would you also want to serve Oldham (so as to offer something "different")? Or do stops at "local" places like Oldham get in the way of a "High Speed" line? What speeds are we talking? 125mph would be quite an improvement on the current service from Leeds to Manchester - around forty miles as the crow flies but taking an hour).

Basically, there's a problem, I don't think that HS2 is the answer, but then I'm not sure how best to solve all of the competing issues faced. All I know is that nostalgia (Woodhead, SELRAP) isn't the answer.