Potential HS3 TransPennine Service Patterns

[Haydn1971]

Whilst I acknowledge, I'm about 20 years early on this one, reports today in RTM about a £30m fund to push feasibility stage plans forward for the Northern Powerhouse, led me pondering exactly what we might end up with as a service pattern and how that might impact on the current HS2 Ph2 Plans.

Using the options in this news item...

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.c...d-plans-to-transform-rail-in-the-north/101306

Option 2 alone is £12-19Bn
Options 3 & 7 would be £9.5-15Bn
Option 7 & 8 would be £7.5-12Bn

Option 2 clearly (in my head) uses a branch from HS2 near Barnsley and a "Woodhead" route, where as Options 3 & 7 or 7 & 8 aren't as obviously linked to HS2.

Assuming current service patterns on the Leeds to Sheffield HS2 line 10 paths are used by HS2 services, leaving potentially 8 paths available (using Birmingham Interchange as an indication of maximum paths).

Given the speed differentials, the likelihood that a 15 minute frequency will be part of the aspiration for Leeds-Manchester, plus the idea being thrown about have regional HS commuter units on the Leeds to Sheffield link** I'm starting to think that the Leeds-Sheffield link will be looking very well used from day one and that 4 platforms at Meadowhall and 5 at Leeds just isn't going to meet the needs from day one, especially so with the current terminus style station at Leeds.

**This could be an alternative to the semi-fasts and/or the XC services.

Discuss ?

 

[deltic]

Whilst I acknowledge, I'm about 20 years early on this one, reports today in RTM about a £30m fund to push feasibility stage plans forward for the Northern Powerhouse, led me pondering exactly what we might end up with as a service pattern and how that might impact on the current HS2 Ph2 Plans.

More like 40 years early!

 

[Altnabreac]

Whilst I acknowledge, I'm about 20 years early on this one, reports today in RTM about a £30m fund to push feasibility stage plans forward for the Northern Powerhouse, led me pondering exactly what we might end up with as a service pattern and how that might impact on the current HS2 Ph2 Plans.

Using the options in this news item...

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.c...d-plans-to-transform-rail-in-the-north/101306

Option 2 alone is £12-19Bn
Options 3 & 7 would be £9.5-15Bn
Option 7 & 8 would be £7.5-12Bn

Option 2 clearly (in my head) uses a branch from HS2 near Barnsley and a "Woodhead" route, where as Options 3 & 7 or 7 & 8 aren't as obviously linked to HS2.

Assuming current service patterns on the Leeds to Sheffield HS2 line 10 paths are used by HS2 services, leaving potentially 8 paths available (using Birmingham Interchange as an indication of maximum paths).

Given the speed differentials, the likelihood that a 15 minute frequency will be part of the aspiration for Leeds-Manchester, plus the idea being thrown about have regional HS commuter units on the Leeds to Sheffield link** I'm starting to think that the Leeds-Sheffield link will be looking very well used from day one and that 4 platforms at Meadowhall and 5 at Leeds just isn't going to meet the needs from day one, especially so with the current terminus style station at Leeds.

**This could be an alternative to the semi-fasts and/or the XC services.

Discuss ?

I'll bite

I'll assume Option 2 & 4 gets built as:

• new HS3 High Speed line from Barnsley - Woodhead Base Tunnel - Manchester
• new / reopened Classic Line connection from HS3 - Stocksfield - Sheffield Victoria
• Sheffield Victoria - south facing link to HS2 near Killamarsh
• Sheffield Victoria - Rotherham link
• Castleford - south facing link to HS2 near Normanton
• Midland Main Line - HS2 north facing link at Toton
• new High Speed line Golborne - new Liverpool City Centre station
• link from HS Liverpool to Manchester bound Chat Moss line near Golborne

Both new High Speed lines at Manchester connected in such a way as to be able to access platforms 13-16.

So my service pattern is as follows:

• 4tph Leeds HS - HS2 - HS3 - Manchester Piccadilly (13-16). Continues as 2tph to Preston via Wigan and 2tph to Liverpool HS via Chat Moss.
• 4tph Liverpool HS - HS2 - Manchester Airport HS - Manchester Piccadilly (13-16). Continues as 2tph to Leeds via Manchester Victoria / Huddersfield and 2tph to Leeds via Manchester Victoria / Rochdale / Halifax / Bradford Interchange.
• 2tph Newcastle - York - HS2 - HS3 - Manchester Piccadilly (13-16) - Liverpool HS via Chat Moss.
• 2tph Leicester - Toton - HS2 - Sheffield Victoria - HS3 - Manchester Piccadilly (13-16) - Preston via Wigan.
• 2tph Cleethorpes - Doncaster - Rotherham - Sheffield Victoria - HS3 - Manchester Piccadilly (13-16) - Preston via Bolton.
• 2tph Hull - Selby - Castleford - HS2 - HS3 - Manchester Piccadilly (13-16) - Warrington - Liverpool LS.

Gives a HS2 utilisation of:
4tph Leeds - Woodlesford
6tph Woodlesford - Normanton
8tph Normanton - Barnsley
2tph Killamarsh - Toton
4tph Manchester - Golborne
8tph Golborne - Liverpool

Core HS3 utilisation of 12tph.

The 6tph from Preston can extend to Scotland, Barrow, Oxenholme and Blackpool as/when electrified.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

More like 40 years early!

Having achieved the age of three score years and ten this year, I think I shall give this particular thread a miss...

 

[Chester1]

More like 40 years early!

Having achieved the age of three score years and ten this year, I think I shall give this particular thread a miss...

If its a rebuild of the existing Manchester-Huddersfield-Leeds then it could be completed by end of control period 6 in 2024 or by HS2 services starting in 2026. To limit costs I think it would be limited to four tracking Manchester to Stalybridge again using the existing route, rebuilding most of Stalybridge-Huddersfield on a new alignment and rebuilding Dewsbury, Batley, Morley and Cottingley to have two through tracks for overtaking stoppers.

 

[HSTEd]

There is no particular hard reason to have a speed differential.

We can make 320kph commuter units just as easily as 320kph long distance units.
And with Javelin like traction packages they will take off like a scalded cat.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If its a rebuild of the existing Manchester-Huddersfield-Leeds then it could be completed by end of control period 6 in 2024 or by HS2 services starting in 2026. To limit costs I think it would be limited to four tracking Manchester to Stalybridge again using the existing route, rebuilding most of Stalybridge-Huddersfield on a new alignment and rebuilding Dewsbury, Batley, Morley and Cottingley to have two through tracks for overtaking stoppers.

To do this, it would have to win its place in the queue for funding against other competing projects in CP6. Can you see what other projects may be vying for the same share of finance in that period?

HS2 projects starting in 2026. Let us see what actuality brings over the next 11 years regarding that particular project.

 

[Haydn1971]

If its a rebuild of the existing Manchester-Huddersfield-Leeds then it could be completed by end of control period 6 in 2024 or by HS2 services starting in 2026.

Given the huge problems created by "just" electrification on GWML/MML/TPE - I seriously doubt online will be promoted as the cheaper option now.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There is no particular hard reason to have a speed differential. We can make 320kph commuter units just as easily as 320kph long distance units. And with Javelin like traction packages they will take off like a scalded cat.

Whilst that's a fair point, it's also fair to say that costs would presumably increase considerably for a 320kph unit over a 225kph unit.

Again, purely speculative talk, but this would be especially relevant if the only 320kph running is a few miles south to Sheffield and a bit longer to Leeds from (my expected) Hoyland junction, 225kph being used mostly on new alignment and probably at much lower speeds on the classic lines south of say Meadowhall (Midland, Chesterfield, Derby perhaps).

 

[glbotu]

So, Option 1 won't get built. I reckon I can say that with a lot of certainty. Other than the fact you start getting into difficult terrain, York - Newcastle is a 125 mph main line already (some of which could probably go to 140 mph - York - Northallerton?). I think Options 3 and 2 are the most likely, but looking at the picture, it suggests that getting to Sheffield is entirely on HS2. That would seem to imply a junction North of Meadowhall Interchange and not some Sheffield Victoria re-opening scheme. Possibly Meadowhall will be built with the ability to reverse TransNorth trains. Options 5 and 10 are all but confirmed with Hull Trains paying for Electrification and Upgrade to Hull - ECML. A little bit of extra work could electrify Leeds - Selby and Sheffield - Doncaster. I'd say Option 10 links better with Option 7, which seems to be electrified Hope Valley and less so with a HS connection. So 2+6+5 makes sense, or 8+7+10 (possibly 8+7+10+5), although 8 seems to have been discounted (assuming it was quad-track North TP).

 

[edwin_m]

York - Newcastle is a 125 mph main line already (some of which could probably go to 140 mph - York - Northallerton?).

It is 125mph from the northern edge of York through to Aycliffe, a bit north of Darlington, except for a slightly slower bit between Croft and Darlington. However there is no 125mph between Aycliffe and Newcastle, unless it's been upgraded in the last year or so.

 

[Haydn1971]

Leeds to Newcastle via York is about 105 miles looking at Google Maps "walking distance".

Doing some head math....

Option 1 in just 50 minutes, loosely assuming a generous 3 minute dwell at York, 3 minutes to accelerate and decelerate, that would about leave 35 minutes to do about 85 miles at full pelt (feel free to be more accurate). So that's presumably a 140mph alignment along much of the route. Add a station at Darlington and your looking at trying to do 70 miles in 26 minutes - that's HS2 speeds unless the dwell and acc/decel times come down. Anyone care to fire up excel and do some more accurate sums ?

Option 6 does on first impressions look like a line speed improvement to 125/140mph depending on the number of stops along the way.

 

[HowardGWR]

Having achieved the age of three score years and ten this year, I think I shall give this particular thread a miss...

No need, lots of us in the same boat (May 6th 1945 in my case). Of course it could be there well before our 80th if they abandoned this BCR nonsense and just had the ability to say 'we need it' and then just got on and did it.

 

[HSTEd]

Using my data set from the Class 395 it appears that the stop-to-stop running time is equal to two minutes plus the journey time at 140mph.
(So 140 miles would take 62 minutes stop-to-stop).

 

[Haydn1971]

Using my data set from the Class 395 it appears that the stop-to-stop running time is equal to two minutes plus the journey time at 140mph.
(So 140 miles would take 62 minutes stop-to-stop).

Cheers, I'll do the sums at lunchtime

 

[glbotu]

It is 125mph from the northern edge of York through to Aycliffe, a bit north of Darlington, except for a slightly slower bit between Croft and Darlington. However there is no 125mph between Aycliffe and Newcastle, unless it's been upgraded in the last year or so.

Well, yes, although due to service patterns (ie: most trains stopping at Durham), the benefit from linespeed increases is minimal. The main speed restriction is 75 mph for the Durham viaduct, otherwise, North of Aycliffe you have:

4.5 miles at 100 mph
3 miles at 75 mph (restriction for viaduct), this is mostly on approach to Durham
1.5 miles at 90 mph
10 miles at 115 mph

Before hitting Low Fell Junction and the approach to Newcastle Central. Compared to the 45 miles of pretty much uninterrupted 125 mph running, the last 19 miles with a stop at Durham isn't really a huge impact on running times.

 

[Jonny]

Well, yes, although due to service patterns (ie: most trains stopping at Durham), the benefit from linespeed increases is minimal. The main speed restriction is 75 mph for the Durham viaduct, otherwise, North of Aycliffe you have:

4.5 miles at 100 mph
3 miles at 75 mph (restriction for viaduct), this is mostly on approach to Durham
1.5 miles at 90 mph
10 miles at 115 mph

Before hitting Low Fell Junction and the approach to Newcastle Central. Compared to the 45 miles of pretty much uninterrupted 125 mph running, the last 19 miles with a stop at Durham isn't really a huge impact on running times.

There could be a benefit from a new alignment between Aycliffe and the approach to Newcastle, possibly with an option to upgrade to 140 mph Aycliffe to York. That would free up capacity for local services and/or freight (as long as the old line is kept open). Also, if the ECML will be feeding into two high speed lines then another one may be justified as a feeder.

 

[glbotu]

There could be a benefit from a new alignment between Aycliffe and the approach to Newcastle, possibly with an option to upgrade to 140 mph Aycliffe to York. That would free up capacity for local services and/or freight (as long as the old line is kept open). Also, if the ECML will be feeding into two high speed lines then another one may be justified as a feeder.

I don't think that there's likely to be a huge capacity requirement post HS2/HS3, especially that I assume longer trains will take care of that.

The ECML services will transfer to HS2, the TPE services will transfer to HS3. Hopefully, they'll all be run by 8+ car ICE style stock (Classic Compatible) as opposed to 2x 9 car IC, 2x 4/5 car IC + 1 3 car RE. There aren't really local services to speak of between Darlington and Newcastle. They're all Intercity/Regional Express services of one sort or another (unless you count the early morning Saltburn - Newcastles, which are just there to take an unused IC path for commuters).

Additionally, new alignments are hard to come by, in what is exceptionally tricky terrain, with a lot of built up areas on the approach to Newcastle. Unless you plan on building a new station at Newcastle, which would probably have to be completely underground. The only logical route would be the Leamside line (from Ferryhill - Pelaw), although that probably screws over a lot of people in Washington who would like to have their railway service back and conveniently avoids Durham, which has more passenger demand than Darlington (despite being smaller).

 

[TBY-Paul]

My understanding of HS2/HS3 was that is was supposed to be a new route to create new opportunities. Reading the some of the previous posts regarding HS3 Option 1, it would appear people are advocating that minimal upgrades to the existing ECML between York & Newcastle would be enough. I'm surprised nobody has suggested missing out Darlington just to save a few more minutes on a Newcastle-York journey. :roll:

Previous HS2 reports have suggested the need for a Tees Valley interchange (that's the desolate bit between Newcastle & York), but the question would be where best to put it to create the greatest economic benefit.

Until recently Darlington has provided the main connections to the ECML from The Tees Valley line & the Durham Coast line. Some connections were poor, and still are, between the likes of Hartlepool and Darlington. Things have improved with the introduction of Grand Central services at Hartlepool & Eaglescliffe plus the proposed Virgin Service to Middlesbrough. These are/will be great improvements to South bound routes, anyone wishing to go Northbound are still faced with the same options that have existed for decades.

HS2/HS3 should be used as an opportunity to create better links and economic growth to an area of the country that has suffered significantly since the Mid 70's.
In an Idea world, I would like to see a Tees Valley Interchange station located nearer to Teesside, somewhere that would benefit areas both North & South of the River Tees. Geographically, somewhere parallel to the line that runs from Eaglescliffe to Stockton would be ideal, whilst feeding a line from the South would be straight forward, getting out Northbound would present problems of either demolition or tunnelling, but the onward connections from that location would be great, Hartlepool 15mins, Middlesbrough 10-15mins, Darlington 15min, Durham 25-30mins(via upgraded Stillington).

I fully expect "if" a Tees Valley interchange is included in the plans, then it will end up near to Darlington, if not part of Darlington Station, and the rest of Teesside's rail links to remain the same. And a golden opportunity will be missed.

 

[Haydn1971]

Paul - I'm all for a pucker HS line to Newcastle and beyond, my OP was more focused on the services that could run on HS3 and how stations at Leeds and Sheffield might cope. But yep, let's have a 400kph line up the east coast please

 

[HSTEd]

If we had Class 395s on a newbuild 140mph line between York and Newcastle we could get a journey time of 38 minutes running non stop.
Projected London-York journey time is 92 minutes on HS2 apparently - which takes Newcastle down to 2hr10.

Bits of the current alignment could be used for that - for instance you could surrender the space occupied by two tracks between Northallerton and York to make room for a ~140-155mph high speed line (as I recall its dead straight).
After all once the high speed passenger stuff is gone there is not that much to fill up a two track railway with.

If you had a 140mph York avoider running to the west of the city you could potentially get a 2hr London-NCL time, which makes things start to look interesting in terms of Edinburgh service routing.

And 85 miles of 140mph line (half of it on the existing alignment) is unlikely to break the bank. And a few mile long York avoider potentially diffuses the SNP ranting over the HS2-to-Scotland row by cutting another ~15 minutes off the HS2 time to Edinburgh. (Honestly I imagine any viable 140mph alignment into Newcastle could easily be made to support 160mph or even more at negligible cost, and it doesn't take long for a train running 140mph south of York to accelerate to 160mph if it has an avoiding line).

 

[Haydn1971]

If we had Class 395s on a newbuild 140mph line between York and Newcastle we could get a journey time of 38 minutes running non stop.

I'd suggest that it's well established that if you are building a new line for 140mph service, the cost of building it to a generally 400kph alignment isn't much greater. In the short term use may be restricted to 140mph* use, but a faster alignment provides for longer term improves to speed based purely on rolling stock.

*I'm making a huge speculative assumption here that once HS2 goes live, a lot of the IEP fleet will go to strengthen GWML, but the rest will end up on whatever form CrossCountry takes at that time as it will be the only remaining high volume intercity operator - given that HS2 CC stock will be taking the main passenger load on ECML & WCML once HS2 gets into running Scotland services.

 

[glbotu]

If we had Class 395s on a newbuild 140mph line between York and Newcastle we could get a journey time of 38 minutes running non stop.
Projected London-York journey time is 92 minutes on HS2 apparently - which takes Newcastle down to 2hr10.

Bits of the current alignment could be used for that - for instance you could surrender the space occupied by two tracks between Northallerton and York to make room for a ~140-155mph high speed line (as I recall its dead straight).
After all once the high speed passenger stuff is gone there is not that much to fill up a two track railway with.

Upgrading the ECML from Darlington - York as a "High Speed" Railway is certainly a good idea. I assume with ETCS signalling we could get 140mph on it already (there are no significant costs there). A bit more thought and you could probably get the lot to 160-ish mph (and given TPE will be running on HS3, there's no problem about where to put the non-high speed trains. They'll all be high speed (with I assume an electrified classic line via Yarm to Middlesbrough).

If you had a 140mph York avoider running to the west of the city you could potentially get a 2hr London-NCL time, which makes things start to look interesting in terms of Edinburgh service routing.

There's a reason there's only one train a day that doesn't stop at York (0540 Flying Scotsman), it just doesn't make financial sense. York is a major transport interchange. The High Speed 2 connection to the ECML is at Church Fenton, avoiding Leeds, which would make the nearest connection to the classic network South of Newcastle Meadowhall Interchange (unless you're suggesting none). Even with the journey down to 2hrs ish, you need that York stop to justify the service most of the time, even more important now that the South ECML is more of a Regional Express, given HS2 has taken all its major services North of there. I don't see a York avoiding line being of great use.

And 85 miles of 140mph line (half of it on the existing alignment) is unlikely to break the bank. And a few mile long York avoider potentially diffuses the SNP ranting over the HS2-to-Scotland row by cutting another ~15 minutes off the HS2 time to Edinburgh. (Honestly I imagine any viable 140mph alignment into Newcastle could easily be made to support 160mph or even more at negligible cost, and it doesn't take long for a train running 140mph south of York to accelerate to 160mph if it has an avoiding line).

The problem is constructing a brand new high speed line from Darlington to Newcastle. There's a reason pretty much all the railways through that part of the country are so winding. There are lots and lots and lots of hills. You'll find yourself going Tunnel/Viaduct/Tunnel/Viaduct, which is pretty Bank breaking. Tunnels and Viaducts have much greater costs than plain line running.

The thing is, HS2 and HS3 are being built to improve capacity, not to improve speed. It's just that if you're building new lines, you might as well build them high speed, because the extra cost is small and you get advantages (like tackling gradients better* and lower operational costs). You have to be able to justify the construction.

What the North East needs is better local connections, which won't happen along the existing ECML, because it doesn't go anywhere useful** (except between Darlington, Chester-Le-Street, Durham and Newcastle), three of which have a large demand for Intercity services and double up as commuter services in the morning and evening.

Real improvements could be made by re-opening Durham - Sunderland and possibly Stillington. Leamside to Washington (possibly the whole way to take freight off the ECML). Metro extensions to West Newcastle, re-opening to Ashington and frequency improvements on the Durham Coast Line between Newcastle and Middlesbrough all make sense, but an expensive high speed line to do the job of the current line (but without stopping at Durham, whose direct London service is very popular - I've been on 1Y03 at 0459 and seen a decent crowd), just seems pointless.

*Small gradients, not like those in the North East of England.
** These are just about adequately connected by the existing service (it's turn-up and go ish and there are plans for an extra East Coast and an Extra TPE which will improve things), although Chester-Le-Street should go hourly*** and if the XC and TPE trains were longer, that would probably do it.
*** Which I think will be done by the extra TPE.

 

[HSTEd]

There's a reason there's only one train a day that doesn't stop at York (0540 Flying Scotsman), it just doesn't make financial sense. York is a major transport interchange. The High Speed 2 connection to the ECML is at Church Fenton, avoiding Leeds, which would make the nearest connection to the classic network South of Newcastle Meadowhall Interchange (unless you're suggesting none).

It doesn't make financial sense because the York avoiding line is so slow that about the only thing you save is dwell time.
A 140-160mph avoider would cut five or six minutes off before considering dwell, which is a rather different matter.
That sort of time is very expensive to get by any other means.

Even with the journey down to 2hrs ish, you need that York stop to justify the service most of the time, even more important now that the South ECML is more of a Regional Express, given HS2 has taken all its major services North of there. I don't see a York avoiding line being of great use.

Well the point here would be to release space in the more crowded west coast Classic compatible lashups by allowing two of the Scotland bound sets (the two sets bound for Edinburgh each hour) to be carried on the far less crowded ECML lashups.
There aren't really many CC destinations on the east coast, unlike in the west which has places like Liverpool and Glasgow to serve.
And since it would cost almost nothing its probably worth having anyway.

The problem is constructing a brand new high speed line from Darlington to Newcastle. There's a reason pretty much all the railways through that part of the country are so winding. There are lots and lots and lots of hills. You'll find yourself going Tunnel/Viaduct/Tunnel/Viaduct, which is pretty Bank breaking. Tunnels and Viaducts have much greater costs than plain line running.

TSI derogations, such as have already been granted to certain German lines, would permit 4% gradients to be accepted, modern high speed trains can attack them with little difficulty.

It turns the train route into a rollercoaster but the train has enough power to not care, so you can just go up and down with the terrain rather than cutting through it as traditional railways did to keep the gradient below 1%.

 

[Haydn1971]

It turns the train route into a rollercoaster but the train has enough power to not care, so you can just go up and down with the terrain rather than cutting through it as traditional railways did to keep the gradient below 1%.

Going slightly OT, whilst I know that Network Rail have "simplistic" speed plans for its network in the general public domain, is there anything for gradients ?

 

[HSTEd]

Going slightly OT, whilst I know that Network Rail have "simplistic" speed plans for its network in the general public domain, is there anything for gradients ?

Not that I know of.
But Lickey is 2.65% - and an AGV has a 'balancing speed' of something around 200km/h up that slope.

Its only 140km/h at 4%, but since it will be approaching the sloep at high speed and the height of the banks will be relatively small it should be able to keep the speed up.

 

[glbotu]

Not that I know of.
But Lickey is 2.65% - and an AGV has a 'balancing speed' of something around 200km/h up that slope.

Its only 140km/h at 4%, but since it will be approaching the sloep at high speed and the height of the banks will be relatively small it should be able to keep the speed up.

We're not talking about 4% gradients though. We're talking about frequent hills with 10% + gradients that you'll need to either avoid (with curves, slow) or go through (with Tunnels/Viaducts, expensive). The existing ECML already has several significant viaducts (Durham and Chester-Le-Street being the obvious ones) and that's with a lot of contour following.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It doesn't make financial sense because the York avoiding line is so slow that about the only thing you save is dwell time.
A 140-160mph avoider would cut five or six minutes off before considering dwell, which is a rather different matter.
That sort of time is very expensive to get by any other means.

Currently, the Flying Scotsman doesn't even use the avoiding line, it just doesn't stop at York.

Well the point here would be to release space in the more crowded west coast Classic compatible lashups by allowing two of the Scotland bound sets (the two sets bound for Edinburgh each hour) to be carried on the far less crowded ECML lashups.

At the moment, the fastest way to get to London from Edinburgh is via ECML. With HS2 at Leeds, that won't change, because it'll take longer to get to Crewe. While more time saving is great, I just don't see it being a priority option, especially avoiding York and Durham.

There aren't really many CC destinations on the east coast, unlike in the west which has places like Liverpool and Glasgow to serve.
And since it would cost almost nothing its probably worth having anyway.

Major East Coast destinations North of "Transpennine" (Liverpool, Leeds, Manchester, Hull):

York - 205,000
Northallerton - 15,000
Teesside (Middlesbrough/Stockton/Hartlepool Urban Area*) - 380,000
Darlington - 106,000
Durham - 48,000**
Tyne and Wear (Newcastle/Sunderland Urban Area*) - 1,118,000
Edinburgh - 782,000

Total: 2,654,000

Major West Coast destinations North of Same:

Preston - 115,000
Lancaster - 45,000
Wigan - 97,000
Blackpool - 142,000
Barrow-in-Furness - 62,000
Carlisle - 75,000
Glasgow (Urban Area pop.) - 1,750,000

Total: 2,286,000

By population metric, the East Coast Mainline North of "Transpennine", which is ostensibly the end of HS2, there are more people to be served on the ECML than the WCML. I don't think you can make this argument.

I know you mention Liverpool, I assume this will be run using some sort of junction between HS2 and WCML classic somewhere in the Greater Manchester Area to allow the fast services over Chat Moss, rather than coming off at Crewe. It won't contribute significantly to Classic Compatible running on the WCML. I'd also suggest if you include Merseyside Urban Area, you have to include Kingston-Upon-Hull Urban area.

York as a major tourist attraction is a very important destination and not just to people from London. It's a cheap and fast day trip from most of the North East.

Even if you include Liverpool in this with it's 1,135,000 population, the East Coast still has a decent population to serve, you certainly can't avoid it, just for the sake of speeding up Edinburgh - London journeys. (Including Hull, with 573,000 also then almost cancels this out, leaving East and West Coast with similar Classic Compatible destinations).

TSI derogations, such as have already been granted to certain German lines, would permit 4% gradients to be accepted, modern high speed trains can attack them with little difficulty.

It turns the train route into a rollercoaster but the train has enough power to not care, so you can just go up and down with the terrain rather than cutting through it as traditional railways did to keep the gradient below 1%.

I discussed this in my previous post.

I want to also make the point that I'm not saying that this shouldn't get built, just that other railway projects should take priority over this and probably will. With respects to HS3, I absolutely think that a high speed Transpennine service between Leeds, Manchester and Sheffield makes a lot of sense. I just don't think extending a brand new High Speed Railway through County Durham is as beneficial to the scheme.

*I use Urban Areas, because that's the population that will notably be served by a major Intercity railway.
** Durham's population is not reflected in its railway patronage which is notably higher than Darlington for entry/exit. Darlington currently gets a large portion of Teesside traffic, which is why it warrants more stops, something that should change over the course of the ECML upgrade, which will have regular services from Middlesbrough - London.

 

[Haydn1971]

We're not talking about 4% gradients though. We're talking about frequent hills with 10% + gradients that you'll need to either avoid (with curves, slow) or go through (with Tunnels/Viaducts, expensive). The existing ECML already has several significant viaducts (Durham and Chester-Le-Street being the obvious ones) and that's with a lot of contour following.

The M62 manages to get over the Pennines without exceeding a 4% gradient (J21-22) without tunnels and with only short viaduct lengths (Rakeeood) - it's "relatively" easy now with modern design software to dynamically adjust alignments within the constraints of specific parameters compared to the processes used even just 20 years ago. The key design difficulties will be horizontal curvature of the route to avoid settlements, roads, railways and those pesky flood plain areas - much worse than that, locally elected members fronting local self interest campaign groups.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
But we digress - Lets get the bill in place for HS2 Phase 1 first !

 

[glbotu]

The M62 manages to get over the Pennines without exceeding a 4% gradient (J21-22) without tunnels and with only short viaduct lengths (Rakeeood) - it's "relatively" easy now with modern design software to dynamically adjust alignments within the constraints of specific parameters compared to the processes used even just 20 years ago. The key design difficulties will be horizontal curvature of the route to avoid settlements, roads, railways and those pesky flood plain areas - much worse than that, locally elected members fronting local self interest campaign groups.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
But we digress - Lets get the bill in place for HS2 Phase 1 first !

Oh god, given the recent Durham City constituency election campaign, I'd be surprised if anything ever got built at all. All major parties were cock-tailing about how they stopped this planning permission and this other planning permission.

Meanwhile, rent prices in the city are around double anywhere around it.

But that's a real digression.

 

[HSTEd]

We're not talking about 4% gradients though. We're talking about frequent hills with 10% + gradients that you'll need to either avoid (with curves, slow) or go through (with Tunnels/Viaducts, expensive). The existing ECML already has several significant viaducts (Durham and Chester-Le-Street being the obvious ones) and that's with a lot of contour following.

Remember the earth moving gear that we have at our disposal.
The optimal <2.5% route in terms of construction cost for HS2 Phase 1 has no tunnels outside the M25.
The Chiltern tunnels exist for political reasons only.
Cuttings and embankments combined with a 4% gradient capability allow us a great deal of flexibility compared to traditional routings.
As mentioned above the ability to use computers to optimise routings through thousands of iterations is also a big help.

It is not that hard to find relatively straight alignments if your gradient concerns are relatively relaxed. We could certainly do far better than the current railways between Newcastle and York - and because it's a passenger only line we can use greater degrees of track super-elevation without excessive wear concerns.

By population metric, the East Coast Mainline North of "Transpennine", which is ostensibly the end of HS2, there are more people to be served on the ECML than the WCML. I don't think you can make this argument.

You are forgetting that geography means nothing - we just have to consider how to get the required classic compatible lashups into the smallest number of paths over the congested regions - primarily the core but also segments likely to see large amounts of local traffic.
The network is not a landscape over which the railway runs - for these purposes it is a series of arcology-esque point-cities (stations) connected by impermeable tubes.

I know you mention Liverpool, I assume this will be run using some sort of junction between HS2 and WCML classic somewhere in the Greater Manchester Area to allow the fast services over Chat Moss, rather than coming off at Crewe. It won't contribute significantly to Classic Compatible running on the WCML. I'd also suggest if you include Merseyside Urban Area, you have to include Kingston-Upon-Hull Urban area.

Liverpool will need CC sets, since they can't be full length they will end up as part of a lashup.
Its our job to make sure that all the lashups end up at 400m to make max use of capacity. We also don't want splits at Birmingham International as that could cause problems if a train fails in the platform as it will be one of the most highly stressed stations of all.