HS2 Crewe-Manchester Bill Published

[Bald Rick]

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

The land value thing is, in my view, ill informed bluster.

When it was ‘just’ an HS2 station, it didn’t seem to be a problem. The ‘problem’ only emerged when NPR was added in.

The extra land required for the NPR platforms, plus the extra track out to the NPR portal (including the extra flyover), is relatively small compared to the HS2 land take. I don’t understand how that suddenly makes it a problem.

What would be a problem is building a 4-6 platform station, 400 metres long, 30metres (apparently) under central Manchester, along with the approach tunnels and junctions. If it is to be in an open box that is a phenomenal amount of excavation in a city centre, leaving aside all the property that would have to go. If it is a deep station (as I believe the NPR alternative was proposed), it would still need much surface land take and demolition to get it built and to provide station facilities, and of course access for passengers. Something of that scale has never been built in this country. The closest on the drawing board is the Crossrail 2 proposal for Wimbledon, which is 4 x 250 metre platforms. IIRC that was a 12 year construction period and £4bn (at 2015 prices) for something half the size. As they say in another place “Do the Math”.

Incidentally NR won’t be paying for the land, but yes the acquiring authority (HS2) will be paying Market Value. That is the market value in a no scheme world, which in this case will be what it is now, which is not high value development land (if it was, there would surely be high value development plans already in hand, but AIUI there aren’t....

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

That is indeed the case that MCC and GMCA are making for the underground station.

There is absolutely no way that the land value of the whole NPR / HS2 station site is worth more than the extra cost of the underground station.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

There is the perception that if protesters make enough fuss, the line will be put underground or lowered in the environment.
That's how we ended up with the long Chiltern tunnels, at seemingly any cost.
Northern residents are entitled to expect that they will get similar treatment in the HS2 planning (levelling up and all that).
There will also be a massive protest from the residents along the Cheshire section where most of the line is on substantial viaducts/embankments, largely because of the area's geology (salt brining).
The design of the station in Manchester isn't going to be the only issue over the route.

 

[Dspatula]

The arguments against the above ground station just seem so laughably weak, it’s like they’ve never set foot in the actual area they're talking about.

The land value one falls down immediately given that direct connection to London is already there and yet the entire area is covered in low value shed businesses. The idea that a viaduct will cut off communities is equally nonsense given the only residential properties in the area are on Chapel Town St which will be become more accessible with current plans anyway. Then they argue that the new road layout at Pin Mill Brow will be worse, which it clearly isn’t compared to the ocean of road you have to cross in current layout, the new layout at least cuts it into manageable chunks having the railway in a tunnel isn't going to make the ring road less of a barrier.

If you actually go to the area you’ll very quickly realise that it’s really geography that make it feel cut off, once you leave Piccadilly at Ducie St and head around the north side of the station the land very sharply drops away and walking down Jutland St gives you the real idea of just how much this drop is the area already feels like it’s in a hole and there’s a huge retaining wall that cuts off the bit between Fairfield St and Great Ancoats and this is then cut off again north to south by both the river Medlock and the inner ring road.

The NPR tunnel argument doesn’t really work either given it would be a low speed complete U turn to facing the right way and conveniently we have an existing example of that given the length of this tunnel U turn would be pretty much the same as Oxford Road to Victoria a journey which takes 6 minutes to complete.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Why wouldn't the tunnel head straight (north-east) for Marsden (or at least to the edge of the urban area)? Earlier proposals had it surfacing at Miles Platting.
A tunnel was the answer at Lille and Antwerp, both termini before high speed arrived (deep level at Antwerp, which is a 3-level station).
Also in Berlin, where the north-south tunnel alignment at Hbf complements the elevated east-west Stadtbahn and replaced several old termini.
Vienna has a magnificent through Hbf instead of 2 termini (3 if you count the bypassed Westbf).
The HS2 station can still be on the surface, the NPR tunnel/platforms needn't impede that or the Crewe-Manchester Bill.

 

[Senex]

Why wouldn't the tunnel head straight (north-east) for Marsden (or at least to the edge of the urban area)? Earlier proposals had it surfacing at Miles Platting.
A tunnel was the answer at Lille and Antwerp, both termini before high speed arrived (deep level at Antwerp, which is a 3-level station).
Also in Berlin, where the north-south tunnel alignment at Hbf complements the elevated east-west Stadtbahn and replaced several old termini.
Vienna has a magnificent through Hbf instead of 2 termini (3 if you count the bypassed Westbf).
The HS2 station can still be on the surface, the NPR tunnel/platforms needn't impede that or the Crewe-Manchester Bill.

You might add in Leipzig (in use), Stuttgart (being built), and Frankfurt/Main (being planned), as well as the Passante AV in Florence (being built). Not on the same scale but involving some major tunnelling in an inner-city area, the replacement of the old tortuous limited-capacity connections from the east in Prague Hlavni (the old FJB station) with two major new twin-track tunnels turning Hlavni into a genuine major through station. We've got all the skills and expertise to do jobs of that sort here—just not the will (unless it's to buy off Tory voters in the Chilterns or provide yet more jam for London). It's worth noting that Lille, Antwerp, Florence, Leipzig, Stutttgart are not capital cities ... .

 

[HSTEd]

The HS2 station can still be on the surface, the NPR tunnel/platforms needn't impede that or the Crewe-Manchester Bill.

So you want to pay for a half full surface HS2 approach and a half full subsurface NPR approach?

HS2 and NPR are joined at the hip and will be in any sane world given the capacity surplus north of Birmingham

Would I prefer a brand new statement station? Yes.
But I wouldn't build the one they are proposing - I would use the fact the Commercial Property Market is basically dead at this point to cancel the University North Campus redevelopment put a Manchester Hbf there.

But that is a different dream for a different time.

Building a giant underground box HS2/NPR station, or building a surface HS2 station and then a tiny underengineered NPR underground station are not the options I would chose.
Given autoreverse exists and the likely trend to driver optional operation - I see little disadvantage in the reversing solution.

And I think Burnham should note our dramatic oversupply of commercial property - there is no demand for massive redevelopment in that area as much as he might wish there was.

 

[CdBrux]

Why wouldn't the tunnel head straight (north-east) for Marsden (or at least to the edge of the urban area)? Earlier proposals had it surfacing at Miles Platting.
A tunnel was the answer at Lille and Antwerp, both termini before high speed arrived (deep level at Antwerp, which is a 3-level station).
Also in Berlin, where the north-south tunnel alignment at Hbf complements the elevated east-west Stadtbahn and replaced several old termini.
Vienna has a magnificent through Hbf instead of 2 termini (3 if you count the bypassed Westbf).
The HS2 station can still be on the surface, the NPR tunnel/platforms needn't impede that or the Crewe-Manchester Bill.

I think if you compare the alignment of Piccadilly station to where the NPR tunnel would need to go to you'll find that tunnel needs to do an approx 120 degree bend. In Lille and Antwerp, plus Stuttgart the station is on a straight through line. Lille is not fully underground and Antwerp is beneath an existing (and stunning) station.
MCC and GMCA proposal is just to have the NPR underground, directly under the originally proposed HS2 and approach lines on the surface so you would construct those first, and the tramlines at ground level before the HS2 station. Quite how this is acceptable and a slightly larger footprint and viaducts for NPR as proposed is not I just don't get. It has all the hallmarks of stirring up grievance politics or simply trying to get some money for something else (Metrolink expansion?) in order to suddenly fall silent on this topic

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Jan 2022 ==

That's how we ended up with the long Chiltern tunnels, at seemingly any cost.

How much extra cost was it out of interest?

 

[Bald Rick]

Why wouldn't the tunnel head straight (north-east) for Marsden (or at least to the edge of the urban area)? Earlier proposals had it surfacing at Miles Platting.
A tunnel was the answer at Lille and Antwerp, both termini before high speed arrived (deep level at Antwerp, which is a 3-level station).
Also in Berlin, where the north-south tunnel alignment at Hbf complements the elevated east-west Stadtbahn and replaced several old termini.
Vienna has a magnificent through Hbf instead of 2 termini (3 if you count the bypassed Westbf).
The HS2 station can still be on the surface, the NPR tunnel/platforms needn't impede that or the Crewe-Manchester Bill.

Where would your junction between NPR and HS2 be?

Where would your underground station be, including the access to bui,d it and for passengers to reach it, and how would you build it?

 

[snowball]

Warrington Council wants the Golborne link dropped - presumably because it would bypass Warrington.

(Or maybe because it would bypass Warrington but not Wigan!)

Council to use ‘every opportunity’ to press case for removal of HS2 Golborne link

TOWN Hall chiefs have vowed to use ‘every opportunity’ to press the case for the Golborne link to be removed from the HS2 plans.

www.warringtonguardian.co.uk

TOWN Hall chiefs have vowed to use ‘every opportunity’ to press the case for the Golborne link to be removed from the HS2 plans.

As reported earlier this week, the Government says passengers across the north west are one step closer to faster, greener and more reliable train services after it introduced the Bill for the next phase of HS2.

However, uncertainty surrounds whether the HS2 Golborne link will go ahead.
The council has shared its views on the matter. A spokesman said: “We have noted that the HS2 Phase 2B Hybrid Bill Western Leg (Crewe – Manchester) has now been published.

“Our position remains unchanged in that we are supportive of the delivery of HS2 from London to Manchester – however, we remain strongly opposed to the inclusion of the Golborne link in the Government’s plans.

“We are disappointed that the Golborne link is included in the Hybrid Bill and we will continue to use every opportunity to press the case for the Golborne link to be removed from the plans as the Bill is considered by Parliament. However, we are very encouraged by the inclusion in the Hybrid Bill of the necessary infrastructure which would allow future proposals for Northern Powerhouse Rail to come forward to ultimately connect Liverpool to Leeds, via a new Warrington Bank Quay Low Level station – and using part of the HS2 route to achieve this, via Manchester Airport and Manchester Piccadilly stations.

“This was announced as part of the recently published Integrated Rail Plan and would potentially bring massive increases to HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail services to Warrington.

“We will be pressing the Government to confirm a timetable to complete route selection work for the Northern Powerhouse Rail scheme.”

 

[MattRat]

Never thought I'd say this, but I'm with the protesters. Saying that, I mean as a tool rather than on their side. The station should be a through station, and if the protesters can ensure that, I'll be grateful. Having to play spin the train in Manchester is a joke, especially looking at the no expense spared part of the line down south.

 

[tomuk]

Never thought I'd say this, but I'm with the protesters. Saying that, I mean as a tool rather than on their side. The station should be a through station, and if the protesters can ensure that, I'll be grateful. Having to play spin the train in Manchester is a joke, especially looking at the no expense spared part of the line down south.

Would you be willing to sacrifice HS2\NPR trains to Liverpool to fund Andy 'King of the North' Burnham's Underground Grotto?

 

[edwin_m]

Those that advocate a through station in Manchester are ignoring at least one elephant in the room. Would you be prepared to accept 5-10 years delay to achieve this?

 

[Bald Rick]

The station should be a through station

Why?

Those that advocate a through station in Manchester are ignoring at least one elephant in the room. Would you be prepared to accept 5-10 years delay to achieve this?

10 years at least. 5 years just to get back to where we are now. Then an extra 5 years (at least) in additional construction.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Warrington Council wants the Golborne link dropped - presumably because it would bypass Warrington.
(Or maybe because it would bypass Warrington but not Wigan!)

"Warrington", in a local government sense, hosts the HS2 Golborne route in two stretches.
The first is at its very eastern limit around Agden/Heatley (Lymm), before it crosses the Bollin into Trafford.
The other section is north of the Mersey/MSC and wanders along its eastern border at Glazebrook and Risley and then skirts Culcheth to its south and west (roughly following the alignment of the former GC Glazebrook-Wigan branch).
There will be some massive structures, mostly on embankment/viaduct over the waterways and flood plain, with the Culcheth section mostly in a cutting.
It's either the Nimbys in Lymm*/Culcheth objecting, or the desire of Warrington to force the direct service to Preston/Glasgow to stay on the congested WCML through BQ.
Maybe the IRP has given them a vision of a major interchange at Bank Quay, with both high level (WCML) and low level (NPR) trains, each carrying HS2 services.

* the NPR route via Bank Quay is also bound to impact Warrington around Penketh and Lymm


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Jan 2022 ==

Where would your junction between NPR and HS2 be?
Where would your underground station be, including the access to bui,d it and for passengers to reach it, and how would you build it?

Well that needs detailed engineering study, which I hope has already been done as part of the HS2/NPR studies.
Now that HS2 Ltd has the remit to design the new sections of NPR as well as the HS2 route we might get some more options on the NPR solution.

 

[Bald Rick]

Well that needs detailed engineering study, which I hope has already been done as part of the HS2/NPR studies.
Now that HS2 Ltd has the remit to design the new sections of NPR as well as the HS2 route we might get some more options on the NPR solution.

they have, and the answer was not as you describe, hence why I asked you what your answer is.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

they have, and the answer was not as you describe, hence why I asked you what your answer is.

Does the old Picc-Vic tunnel proposal offer anything?
Presumably that would have taken the slow line traffic from Slade Lane rather than the fast, as a metro route, and on the wrong side for HS2.
Until we see the route of the whole eastern leg of NPR it's hard to know how to optimise the route.
The former NPR tunnelling idea was to emerge at Miles Platting to feed both Standedge and Calder Valley lines - presumably that is out of scope now Marsden is the target.
Reversal at Piccadilly suggests reusing the GC solum east of Ardwick, but you seem to oppose that too, though there's room for 2 new tracks on the former 4-track solum.
All I'm saying really is that if it is all in tunnel, it might as well be under the city.
Manchester has already seen one half-baked solution in the form of the Ordsall Chord, we don't want another.

 

[hwl]

Does the old Picc-Vic tunnel proposal offer anything?
Presumably that would have taken the slow line traffic from Slade Lane rather than the fast, as a metro route, and on the wrong side for HS2.
Until we see the route of the whole eastern leg of NPR it's hard to know how to optimise the route.
The former NPR tunnelling idea was to emerge at Miles Platting to feed both Standedge and Calder Valley lines - presumably that is out of scope now Marsden is the target.
Reversal at Piccadilly suggests reusing the GC solum east of Ardwick, but you seem to oppose that too, though there's room for 2 new tracks on the former 4-track solum.
All I'm saying really is that if it is all in tunnel, it might as well be under the city.
Manchester has already seen one half-baked solution in the form of the Ordsall Chord, we don't want another.

The curvature required for a through tunnel solution with roughly existing HS2 track alignment from the south has huge impacts on obtainable line speed for an HS line for a considerable distance, to avoid that then needs starting from scratch on a new Airport to Picc. HS2 alignment.
A though solution needs the track to rotate through 260-270 degrees rotation north of the station to point to Marsden. The reversing solution needs about 80degrees.
Gently curves = longer distance travelled but at potentially higher speeds. The reversing solution from Picc. to Marsden offers lower journey times (distance and speed permutations) as soon as the wheels start to turn. The through solution effectively removes most of the dwell time savings it could make.

 

[CdBrux]

The former NPR tunnelling idea was to emerge at Miles Platting to feed both Standedge and Calder Valley lines

I think the 'NPR idea' you mention was more the idea of MCC / GMCA and not any 'official' one. i.e. there is no 'former NPR tunneling idea'. My understanding is that the IRP is the by far most detailed 'official' view so far.
To me the fundamental issue of NPR & HS2 is they are broadly at 90 degrees to each other, thus sharing some infrastructure as between Liverpool and Manchester in order that NPR becomes affordable (and helpful to HS2 as well) is always going to require some sort of compromise from what may be the operationally perfect situation. And that's what this is. What you seem to be arguing for is the no compromise solution which would cost a huge amount more, take a lot longer to build and, in all honesty if you build NPR through station under HS2 surface station then may well not save you more than a minute or two, if that.
"Don't let perfection be the enemy of more than good enough"

 

[MattRat]

Those that advocate a through station in Manchester are ignoring at least one elephant in the room. Would you be prepared to accept 5-10 years delay to achieve this?

Why?

10 years at least. 5 years just to get back to where we are now. Then an extra 5 years (at least) in additional construction.

Assuming a tunnel. I'll accept a tunnel, as that also benefits Leeds services, but why can't we have an overground through station, that would be the best compromise.

The only other alternative I see, is to get the Government to go with one of their alternate plans, which is Birmingham to Leeds via the ECML.

 

[edwin_m]

Assuming a tunnel. I'll accept a tunnel, as that also benefits Leeds services, but why can't we have an overground through station, that would be the best compromise.

The only other alternative I see, is to get the Government to go with one of their alternate plans, which is Birmingham to Leeds via the ECML.

The western end of a through station would be near the western end of Piccadilly, so would need a big swathe of central Manchester demolishing to create the ramp and portal. Just look at what they did to Brussels in the 1970s. Alternatively, it would have to be much further east, away from the centre and from interchange with other trains.

According to the recent reports, Birmingham to Leeds via ECML (or any other option short of the full eastern leg) is not significantly quicker than the existing route, so very little point in doing it. Reversing in Manchester is unlikely to cost more than a few minutes and with driver step back it may be no longer than a normal stop, so it's certainly not going to make the difference between being faster or slower than one of those alternatives.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The curvature required for a through tunnel solution with roughly existing HS2 track alignment from the south has huge impacts on obtainable line speed for an HS line for a considerable distance, to avoid that then needs starting from scratch on a new Airport to Picc. HS2 alignment.
A though solution needs the track to rotate through 260-270 degrees rotation north of the station to point to Marsden. The reversing solution needs about 80degrees.
Gently curves = longer distance travelled but at potentially higher speeds. The reversing solution from Picc. to Marsden offers lower journey times (distance and speed permutations) as soon as the wheels start to turn. The through solution effectively removes most of the dwell time savings it could make.

Well, the HS2 alignment at Piccadilly is roughly WNW, and Marsden is pretty much NE from there (assuming a straight line).
So the tunnelled turn would be about 112°, and the reversal turn about 68°.
But doesn't it all depend on the degree of tunnelling of the overall Marsden route (and line speeds)?
Things like where a surface access shaft could be sited for the multiple TBMs involved?
It sounds as though all that has been planned but not announced, to be so sure of the reversal policy.

 

[Starmill]

I'll accept a tunnel, as that also benefits Leeds services, but why can't we have an overground through station, that would be the best compromise.

Is it not obvious? There are rather a lot of high value buildings in Manchester city centre...

 

[Bald Rick]

Assuming a tunnel. I'll accept a tunnel, as that also benefits Leeds services, but why can't we have an overground through station, that would be the best compromise.

that doesn’t answer why.

 

[Class 170101]

Except I would have thought any land / buildings on the HS2 route are now virtually worthless

 

[Austriantrain]

You might add in Leipzig (in use), Stuttgart (being built), and Frankfurt/Main (being planned), as well as the Passante AV in Florence (being built). Not on the same scale but involving some major tunnelling in an inner-city area, the replacement of the old tortuous limited-capacity connections from the east in Prague Hlavni (the old FJB station) with two major new twin-track tunnels turning Hlavni into a genuine major through station. We've got all the skills and expertise to do jobs of that sort here—just not the will (unless it's to buy off Tory voters in the Chilterns or provide yet more jam for London). It's worth noting that Lille, Antwerp, Florence, Leipzig, Stutttgart are not capital cities ... .

Also Zürich HB with two underground through stations and one underground terminal.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Jan 2022 ==

Is it not obvious? There are rather a lot of high value buildings in Manchester city centre..

There are lot of rather high value buildings in Zurich and Frankfurt city-centres as well.

Never thought I'd say this, but I'm with the protesters. Saying that, I mean as a tool rather than on their side. The station should be a through station, and if the protesters can ensure that, I'll be grateful. Having to play spin the train in Manchester is a joke, especially looking at the no expense spared part of the line down south.

Internationally built city-center through stations usually cater at least for 20-24 trains an hour and for traffic through the city, i.e. from one city side to another. The now-planned Budapest through line is a good example of this.

TheHS2/IPR station will serve a route that arrives from the south and leaves towards the east; it doesn’t need to traverse the city. And on the NPR side, if I understand it right, there will be approximately 8 trains an hour. So not comparable at all.

From an outside perspective, the fact that there will be two main stations in Birmingham is a lot more surprising than the choice for Manchester.

 

[SynthD]

Except I would have thought any land / buildings on the HS2 route are now virtually worthless

But the government has to buy them for the price in a non HS2 world.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Those that advocate a through station in Manchester are ignoring at least one elephant in the room. Would you be prepared to accept 5-10 years delay to achieve this?

No.

Because of --

Why? 10 years at least. 5 years just to get back to where we are now. Then an extra 5 years (at least) in additional construction.

 

[Class 170101]

Assuming a tunnel. I'll accept a tunnel, as that also benefits Leeds services, but why can't we have an overground through station, that would be the best compromise.

that doesn’t answer why.

Personally I would have a 'north' facing station so it then can head directly towards Preston, Carlisle and Scotland. I would have thought it would also weaken the case significantly for Golborne HS2 Link to the WCML.

However looking purely at geography, Manchester to Liverpool is somewhat southwest in direction so it becomes rather difficult to serve Manchester to Liverpool on SW / NE direction compared to Manchester London broadly north to south. Then serve Leeds which is north east of Manchester. So a (broadly) north facing station for London to Scotland doesn't work with a route Liverpool to Leeds via Manchester.

So I think therefore station as proposed is compromise of those objectives now further compromised itself by the loss of HS2 Stage 2B Eastern and the need to provide good servces between Birmingham and Leeds albeit via Manchester.

The only other alternative I see, is to get the Government to go with one of their alternate plans, which is Birmingham to Leeds via the ECML.

My view would be HS2 Stage 2B Eastern is probably the best option but has caveats on what it is trying to achieve around the East Midlands. I am not convinced about having Toton on the network as that means connecting services for Nottingham and Derby from said station. However nor am I convinced about East Midlands Parkway as whilst that gets you through services between London / Birmingham and Derby / Nottingham it leaves Toton as a large derelict / poorly used site which of course the original HS2 2B Eastern planned to resolve.

Maybe the main route should be to Toton (and north to Leeds) with a link to the existing East Midlands Parkway Station for Derby and Nottingham.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Jan 2022 ==

But the government has to buy them for the price in a non HS2 world.

Yes but they would be worthless to Andy Burnham because he can't buy them yet he would get money for them in terms of local taxes if they were unaffected by HS2 construction, I would have thought

 

[edwin_m]

Except I would have thought any land / buildings on the HS2 route are now virtually worthless

If the route was changed to accommodate an underground station, then a lot of valuable land/building that aren't on the route now would become so. If the proposal is a near-surface station then those buildings would include some very high-value ones in the city centre.

 

[Nottingham59]

I think it's far too late to change the HS2 plans now.

In my opinion, the whole problem stems from the original brief for the HS2 project. Basically the government said "Choose a route to build a high-speed railway from London to Manchester". And that's what we have got, without reference to the rest of the network. And HS2 has been grappling with that deficiency ever since.

If the brief had been "Design a rail network for Manchester, fit for the 21st Century, that allows many more rail passengers to travel into, out of, and through the city - including a high-speed service towards London", then we would have got a very different solution. It would have been much better and could even have been cheaper that what we are facing now.