HS2 Crewe-Manchester Bill Published

[rapmastaj]

Up until now I supported HS2 because I thought it would improve rail capacity, which I see as a far more important issue than journey times to London. But the suggested service patterns show the result will more likely be to reduce capacity.

Already, the rail network is geared far too much towards travel to London, at the expense of local and regional journeys. Where I live in Leeds, the rail service to London is already excellent, but the same cannot be said of the service to Sheffield, Manchester, Birmingham or other cities.

Yes, sometimes I want to go to London, but other times I want to go to Sheffield, Bristol, Cambridge, Doncaster or Edinburgh. Connectivity on all of these journeys will be either unchanged or actively made worse by HS2.

Here are some of the proposals:
- Leeds to Doncaster (fast) reduced to 1tph
- Leeds to Grantham / Stevenage direct service removed
- very poor connectivity between local stations along ECML
- Leicester to Nottingham reduced to 1tph
- Leicester to Derby / Sheffield reduced to 1tph
- no improvement to the hourly Leeds - Sheffield cross-country service which is normally packed
- no improvement to connections between the SW and North, which are already far slower than London trains

Yes I know the business case will be based on journey time savings to London, source of the greatest number of journeys. But this relentless focus on shaving a few minutes off a certain trip at the expense of reduced connectivity to anywhere else will simply increase inequalities in rail access. Hey presto, we enter a vicious circle where rail usage will become even more London focused, further diminishing business cases for any future improvements for regional journeys.

 

[Starmill]

Up until now I supported HS2 because I thought it would improve rail capacity, which I see as a far more important issue than journey times to London. But the suggested service patterns show the result will more likely be to reduce capacity.

I think that it is a natural consequence of removing a significant part of HS2's infrastructure that capacity will go down on routes where HS2 services need to be diverted onto the existing network. Nowhere is this clearer than in the Trent area, which will still constrain capacity even after grade separation of East Junction.

 

[bib]

Some interesting stuff in that IRP annex. Fig 3 shows the eastern leg options and costs. A few weeks before the IRP was published there were some leaks that suggested what looks like the 'Hybrid via Erewash - £28Bn' option, featuring the HS2 east alignment from Birmingham-East Midlands as well as the section from Leeds-Thurnscoe. In the end it got cut back to the 'Hybrid to Sheffield - £13bn' option.

Based on the Hybrid to Leeds option being £17bn, they're pricing a new/expanded Leeds station and upgrading Sheffield-Leeds via ECML at £4bn. Fig 8 gives a 13 min journey time improvement for that option vs the Hybrid to Sheffield option, although only a 4 min improvement on Birmingham - Leeds, and no improvement on Nottingham-Leeds, which is rather odd, unless they're routing them via Newark.

 

[Greybeard33]

V unlikely that a line alongside the existing to (and via) Guide Bridge can meet the journey times. It needs to be much straighter (and shorter). Also nowhere obvious for a portal at Guide Bridge.

It looks to me as though a portal could be sited west of Guide Bridge, where the existing line passes under the M60 and the Denton to Ashton Moss line. Mainly scrub and low grade industrial land in that area. A straight route towards Marsden would then go under Ashton and pass north of Stalybridge.

 

[edwin_m]

Piccadilly to Marsden is 30 km in a straight line, from Guide Bridge it's 20 km.
If we can contemplate a 30 km tunnel* I wouldn't have thought it mattered cost- or time-wise whether the Piccadilly end was on the surface or underground.

* similar length to the Guadarrama tunnel north of Madrid

It matters hugely. Stations need a lot more design work than tunnels, and all design and consultation to date would be voided by changing to an underground. The tunnel from the south would enter the station from its other end, changing its alignment perhaps as far as the airport station. This has been in development for at least a decade, and starting again from zero would delay both HS2 Manchester and NPR Liverpool by a similar amount. And who’s to say that whoever is in power then would give it the go-ahead?

It was in the Integrated Rail Plan for the Midlands and North published in November that there will be a new line from Manchester (immediately east of Piccadilly High Speed) to Yorkshire (though it didn't explicitly say in tunnel). There were strong hints that it will only just reach into Yorkshire. This leaves it unclear how much 3- or 4-tracking there will be between the end of this line and Huddersfield. There is another proposal, for which a decision is awaited on the recently completed public inquiry, for a new pair of fast lines from Hudds to just beyond Ravensthorpe. So the capacity concerns remaining are Marsden to Hudds, Ravensthorpe to Leeds, Leeds station, and east of Leeds.

The idea is that fast trains follow slow ones on the double tracks and overtake on the quadruple. This is less capacity than a four-track throughout, but we’ve discussed how it can support 8tph fast and a couple of stoppers.

 

[RSimons]

It was in the Integrated Rail Plan for the Midlands and North published in November that there will be a new line from Manchester (immediately east of Piccadilly High Speed) to Yorkshire

It was probably in the December Modern Railways but I have not received it yet - I am in Canada and it is sent through the US where I think it is transferred to ox cart. It does not really matter but sometimes I’m not up to date.

 

[Glenn1969]

Some interesting stuff in that IRP annex. Fig 3 shows the eastern leg options and costs. A few weeks before the IRP was published there were some leaks that suggested what looks like the 'Hybrid via Erewash - £28Bn' option, featuring the HS2 east alignment from Birmingham-East Midlands as well as the section from Leeds-Thurnscoe. In the end it got cut back to the 'Hybrid to Sheffield - £13bn' option.

Based on the Hybrid to Leeds option being £17bn, they're pricing a new/expanded Leeds station and upgrading Sheffield-Leeds via ECML at £4bn. Fig 8 gives a 13 min journey time improvement for that option vs the Hybrid to Sheffield option, although only a 4 min improvement on Birmingham - Leeds, and no improvement on Nottingham-Leeds, which is rather odd, unless they're routing them via Newark.

As a West Yorkshire passenger the Hybrid to Leeds is what should have been chosen. If anything Leeds may end up with a worse service than it has now

 

[Roast Veg]

As a West Yorkshire passenger the Hybrid to Leeds is what should have been chosen. If anything Leeds may end up with a worse service than it has now

In what regard? ECML speeds to London will tick up, and Liverpool/Manchester/Birmingham speeds will shoot up. Service provision to everywhere else will be approximately the same as now, with the possible (hopeful) exception of an improved service to Sheffield. Hybrid would definitely have been preferable, but at least it can happen later if the demand/cost balances out.

There are losers here though. The good people of Coventry, Leicester, and Stoke will have a materially worse service in the current plans.

 

[snowball]

There are numerous versions

It was probably in the December Modern Railways but I have not received it yet - I am in Canada and it is sent through the US where I think it is transferred to ox cart. It does not really matter but sometimes I’m not up to date.

There's plenty of coverage for you to read on here if you're so inclined!

 

[Glenn1969]

In what regard? ECML speeds to London will tick up, and Liverpool/Manchester/Birmingham speeds will shoot up. Service provision to everywhere else will be approximately the same as now, with the possible (hopeful) exception of an improved service to Sheffield. Hybrid would definitely have been preferable, but at least it can happen later if the demand/cost balances out.

There are losers here though. The good people of Coventry, Leicester, and Stoke will have a materially worse service in the current plans.

There is no capacity increase for Birmingham to Leeds or Sheffield to Leeds unless I missed something and London to Leeds sees almost no uplift. I'm also still waiting for an explanation on how NPR/TRU and existing services can fit on the 2 track section between Ravensthorpe and Leeds that was pretty full pre Covid

 

[Roast Veg]

There is no capacity increase for Birmingham to Leeds or Sheffield to Leeds unless I missed something

Via Manchester - not quite as fast as via the East Midlands but still significantly quicker than today.

London to Leeds sees almost no uplift.

The documents upthread give a material indication of journey time improvements on the ECML.

I'm also still waiting for an explanation on how NPR/TRU and existing services can fit on the 2 track section between Ravensthorpe and Leeds that was pretty full pre Covid

TRU, combined with better performing rolling stock. @Bald Rick detailed a proposed service pattern elsewhere on the forum some months ago.

 

[Glenn1969]

Via Manchester - not quite as fast as via the East Midlands but still significantly quicker than today.

The documents upthread give a material indication of journey time improvements on the ECML.

TRU, combined with better performing rolling stock. @Bald Rick detailed a proposed service pattern elsewhere on the forum some months ago.

I saw the ECML maps. The uplift is minimal

 

[Starmill]

The documents upthread give a material indication of journey time improvements on the ECML.

It's very unclear how much capacity growth the ECML can really accommodate. Can the new London Kings Cross accommodate an 11*26m train? What about Leeds? Even with the majority of the Edinburgh to London traffic removed that's not much use for Leeds and Wakefield to London. Two extra standard coaches in each 9 car probably seems like the upper limit.

 

[Greybeard33]

I think there has but I’ve never seen it. Safe to say it would be something like an extra £5bn, and a certain decade longer on the delivery date. And all because a few people can’t get their heads round trains reversing.

I think the objections of Manchester City Council and the GM Mayor to the Piccadilly surface station are less about trains reversing, more about the viaducts and cutting blighting prime development land between Piccadilly and Ardwick. See:

Huge concrete viaducts 'to blight east Manchester' in cut-price rail plans

Government wants to build a high-speed station at Piccadilly above ground to save money. But local leaders say that would mean ‘severing’ communities, cost thousands of potential new jobs and would be incapable of expanding in the future

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk

A concrete jungle of viaducts will ‘sever’ east Manchester if government plans for a cut-price high-speed railway station at Piccadilly go ahead, local leaders have warned - while 14,000 potential new jobs would be lost due to the amount of land required to build it.

Under government’s existing proposal, HS2 would rise up from underground on a viaduct at least nine metres high for a mile-long stretch between Ardwick and the new station.

Manchester council says Northern Powerhouse Rail, the proposed high-speed link to Leeds, would then have to come back out of the station on ANOTHER viaduct, somewhere near to the first.

It is unclear how far across the city that would stretch.

But in the process, Chancellor Lane, one of the main road arteries into the city centre from Ardwick, would have to be closed for good and a huge new road interchange built at Pin Mill Brow.

Local leaders are warning that unless ministers back their alternative, which would place the new station entirely underground at Piccadilly instead, part of Manchester will be cut off and blighted forever.

New analysis by the council also finds that the scale of the land required to build the government’s preferred option would cost up to 14,000 new jobs as a result of the lost development opportunities around Piccadilly, cutting potential economic growth by an estimated £333m by 2050.

And both leaders and technical experts warn that the station would be full from day one of HS2 and NPR, meaning the station would have no capacity to accept any extra services across the North beyond that.

The council’s own analysis suggests that by building on the surface, the new high speed station would swallow up half a million square metres of prime development land, costing 14,000 potential new jobs in the process, along with 2,600 jobs in the immediate construction zone while work takes place.

It seems likely that Manchester will petition against the Phase 2b WL hybrid bill over this issue. I suspect some MPs will regard this as "looking a gift horse in the mouth"....

 

[Bald Rick]

It looks to me as though a portal could be sited west of Guide Bridge, where the existing line passes under the M60 and the Denton to Ashton Moss line. Mainly scrub and low grade industrial land in that area. A straight route towards Marsden would then go under Ashton and pass north of Stalybridge.

theres nowhere near enough space there. It’s not just a portal, but a construction site.

I'm also still waiting for an explanation on how NPR/TRU and existing services can fit on the 2 track section between Ravensthorpe and Leeds that was pretty full pre Covid

I explained it on the TRU thread, in response to a question from you:

Transpennine Route Upgrade and Electrification updates

So now your saving is down to about 2.3 minuites. More than I was expecting actually.

www.railforums.co.uk

It seems likely that Manchester will petition against the Phase 2b WL hybrid bill over this issue. I suspect some MPs will regard this as "looking a gift horse in the mouth"....

I suspect they will have a choice: have the station as proposed, or no HS2 to Manchester.

 

[CdBrux]

I think there has but I’ve never seen it. Safe to say it would be something like an extra £5bn, and a certain decade longer on the delivery date.

I have in mind from some official document (forget which) an extra £7bn and 7 years longer. I don't know if that is just the station or also includes any additional tunneling vs the proposed option.
The local politicians seem to be using it to help create a 'them and us' situation claiming had it been London it would have for sure been underground

 

[Bald Rick]

The local politicians seem to be using it to help create a 'them and us' situation claiming had it been London it would have for sure been underground

perhaps said politicians should pop down to London, and see a very large worksite next door to Euston that will be very definitely not underground.

 

[javelin]

perhaps said politicians should pop down to London, and see a very large worksite next door to Euston that will be very definitely not underground.

Old Oak Common says hi.

Euston is not a through station, Piccadilly effectively will be on NPR. You know very well if this were in London there would be no hesitation to put it underground.

 

[mr_jrt]

I notice the concerns upthread about poor connectivity between Leicester and Nottingham. Easy solution: Chuck a few quid the GCR's way so they can operate half hourly shuttles with a stop at Loughborough into the bargain. The out of station interchanges at either end will need a bit of improving, mind. (and yes mods - I'm joking)

 

[javelin]

I have in mind from some official document (forget which) an extra £7bn and 7 years longer. I don't know if that is just the station or also includes any additional tunneling vs the proposed option.

How many stations in London have cost anywhere near £7bn to build? And yet we are to believe that an underground station in an underdeveloped part of Manchester will blow the budget? It's baloney.

 

[Bald Rick]

Old Oak Common says hi.

which is sub surface, not underground. And will have no development directly on top of it. An underground station at Manchester would have to be a long way down. Unless, of course, you wanted to demolish half a square kilometre of Central Manchester real estate.

Euston is not a through station, Piccadilly effectively will be on NPR. You know very well if this were in London there would be no hesitation to put it underground.

I know very well that if there was a through station in London that was single ended, it would be at Euston and built as the current station is being.

How many stations in London have cost anywhere near £7bn to build? And yet we are to believe that an underground station in an underdeveloped part of Manchester will blow the budget? It's baloney.

Euston says hi.

 

[Washington]

Why not build the HS2 line to Manchester Airport/Parkway and then build the NPR extension from there to Leeds with provision for creating a triangular junction for the Manchester central station when they have agreed what they need and how it is to be funded? It might be possible to revive the hybrid to Leeds line on the Eastern route in place of the hybrid to Sheffield with the money saved on the meantime.

 

[HSTEd]

Why not build the HS2 line to Manchester Airport/Parkway and then build the NPR extension from there to Leeds with provision for creating a triangular junction for the Manchester central station when they have agreed what they need and how it is to be funded? It might be possible to revive the hybrid to Leeds line on the Eastern route in place of the hybrid to Sheffield with the money saved on the meantime.

What good is the triangular junction?

How many trains do you expect will try to avoid stopping at Manchester?

 

[javelin]

which is sub surface, not underground. And will have no development directly on top of it. An underground station at Manchester would have to be a long way down. Unless, of course, you wanted to demolish half a square kilometre of Central Manchester real estate.

Baloney

Old Oak Common has a station box 20m below ground. The various studies of an underground Piccadilly station have a station box at 30 m below ground. So that in no way justifies the ridiculous costing.

Euston says hi.

Thanks for proving my point; a highly complex station rebuild + underground station rebuild + expansion. Build cost £2.6bn.

A largely self-contained new station in light industrial wasteland? ~8bn+?

Do you seriously think Piccadilly underground would be, by at least 3 times, the most expensive station ever built in Britain? In fact there's no point asking, the answer is pretty darn obvious.

 

[Bald Rick]

Thanks for proving my point; a highly complex station rebuild + underground station rebuild + expansion. Build cost £2.6bn.

£2.6bn is the contractors cost for the station but doesn’t include all the other stuff to make it ‘a station’.

 

[javelin]

£2.6bn is the contractors cost for the station but doesn’t include all the other stuff to make it ‘a station’.

The rest isn't going to cost £5.4bn.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jan 2022 ==

Or put it this way, the Government is claiming that the cost of a single underground station in Manchester will be over 40% of the entire Crossrail budget!

It's so outrageous I don't understand why there hasn't been more pushback on it.

 

[Bald Rick]

The rest isn't going to cost £5.4bn.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jan 2022 ==

Or put it this way, the Government is claiming that the cost of a single underground station in Manchester will be over 40% of the entire Crossrail budget!

It's so outrageous I don't understand why there hasn't been more pushback on it.

May I ask if you have ever been involved in designing or estimating a main line underground station?

 

[Glenn1969]

May I ask if you have ever been involved in designing or estimating a main line underground station?

But this is about the high value development land Burnham and co suddenly can't sell because it's needed for all the viaducts unless either I missed something or NR are prepared to pay market value for it?. BTW pretty sure an underground station does cost plenty

 

[CdBrux]

But this is about the high value development land Burnham and co suddenly can't sell because it's needed for all the viaducts unless either I missed something or NR are prepared to pay market value for it?. BTW pretty sure an underground station does cost plenty

2 questions:
1. HOw come this has not been an issue for the many years since the first plans were published? Yes with NPR added footprint is a bit bigger but still...
2. If value of land is so great then why doesn't Burnham present a business case that the value of land is worth more than the extra costs in build and time taken? Otherwise they wouldn't have a case?

 

[Greybeard33]

2 questions:
1. HOw come this has not been an issue for the many years since the first plans were published? Yes with NPR added footprint is a bit bigger but still...
2. If value of land is so great then why doesn't Burnham present a business case that the value of land is worth more than the extra costs in build and time taken? Otherwise they wouldn't have a case?

1. This has been an issue for several years, ever since a combined HS2 and NPR station at Piccadilly was first mooted. The original HS2 Ltd proposal for a four platform HS2-only station had a smaller land take, but I do not think that design was ever fully agreed with Manchester City Council.
2. That is indeed the case that MCC and GMCA are making for the underground station.