HS2 Crewe-Manchester Bill Published

[Austriantrain]

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.

Wasn’t the true original brief „relieve the inner WCML“?

 

[Nottingham59]

Wasn’t the true original brief „relieve the inner WCML“?

No, unfortunately it wasn't. In it's original form it was "Design a high-speed line from London to the West Midlands, and include access to Heathrow Airport". This brief was later extended to Manchester and Leeds.

By forcing them to design in access to Heathrow, they've ended up with the cost of a second un-necessary station in London (£2bn?), plus an extra ten minutes and an extra ten miles on all HS2 journeys to central London. And it means that Euston (several £billion more) will only ever serve trains that are half full. Old Oak Common, if needed at all, would have been much cheaper and much more useful on the WCML fast lines, rather than on the high-speed route.

If the brief had been "Relieve the inner WCML", it would have been so much easier. They could have just dug a twin-bore tunnel from Euston to Tring, and then a two-track railway across open country to just past Rugby (and perhaps continuing to Leicester).

That would have addressed the inner WCML, which is the biggest issue facing the rail network today. And it would have left ~£30bn over to solve the next biggest issue, which is how to get more rail passengers into, out of, through and between Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds.

But this discussion really belongs in a different thread. Sorry mods.

 

[MattRat]

that doesn’t answer why.

Becuase reversing is a ridiculous way to run a railway. It'd be like having to drive backwards to get to your destination.

 

[The Planner]

No, unfortunately it wasn't. In it's original form it was "Design a high-speed line from London to the West Midlands, and include access to Heathrow Airport". This brief was later extended to Manchester and Leeds.

By forcing them to design in access to Heathrow, they've ended up with the cost of a second un-necessary station in London (£2bn?), plus an extra ten minutes and an extra ten miles on all HS2 journeys to central London. And it means that Euston (several £billion more) will only ever serve trains that are half full. Old Oak Common, if needed at all, would have been much cheaper and much more useful on the WCML fast lines, rather than on the high-speed route.

If the brief had been "Relieve the inner WCML", it would have been so much easier. They could have just dug a twin-bore tunnel from Euston to Tring, and then a two-track railway across open country to just past Rugby (and perhaps continuing to Leicester).

That would have addressed the inner WCML, which is the biggest issue facing the rail network today. And it would have left ~£30bn over to solve the next biggest issue, which is how to get more rail passengers into, out of, through and between Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds.

But this discussion really belongs in a different thread. Sorry mods.

Doesnt address the Cov corridor though current plan does.

 

[snowball]

Becuase reversing is a ridiculous way to run a railway. It'd be like having to drive backwards to get to your destination.

It's not so ridiculous that avoiding it justifies spending billions of pounds extra and waiting years extra. It's only a few hundred yards for God's sake.

 

[The Planner]

Becuase reversing is a ridiculous way to run a railway. It'd be like having to drive backwards to get to your destination.

I have no doubt there are a myriad of examples where driving out of your way makes the journey easier and quicker, M25 for a start.

 

[MattRat]

It's not so ridiculous that avoiding it justifies spending billions of pounds extra and waiting years extra. It's only a few hundred yards for God's sake.

Cost wasn't an issue between London and Birmingham, why is it an issue now?

I have no doubt there are a myriad of examples where driving out of your way makes the journey easier and quicker, M25 for a start.

But you wouldn't drive backwards down the M25.

 

[The Planner]

Cost wasn't an issue between London and Birmingham, why is it an issue now?

But you wouldn't drive backwards down the M25.

Thats not what I meant and you know it.

 

[snowball]

Cost wasn't an issue between London and Birmingham, why is it an issue now?

Of course cost was an issue between London and Birmingham. Birmingham isn't getting an underground station under New Street, or a through station. It's getting an above-ground station, partly on stilts, on a new site that requires some walking to other stations in the city centre. It's a compromise. London isn't getting a new station under Trafalgar Square.

But you wouldn't drive backwards down the M25

What's that got to do with anything? It would be lethal to drive backwards on the M25. A train reversing at Piccadilly High Speed will come in on one side of the alignment and leave again on the same side, no conflicts, no fuss.

 

[Glenn1969]

Thats not what I meant and you know it.

Manchester is at least getting a station and access to HS2, unlike Leeds (for now at least)

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

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.

The first part of your Manchester brief (pre-HS2) gave us the Manchester Hub plan (Ordsall Chord and rebuilt Picc/OxRd stations on the South Junction line, thus avoiding reversals at Picc)
Except they dropped the rebuilt stations part and would rather not be reminded of the current half-baked solution, or the wasted cost.

You are quite right about the HS2 brief, as it followed the Y-shaped vision rather than including any idea of an east-west link, which was forced on DfT by the TfN members (and the "levelling up" agenda) in the last few years.
Now we are back to something like a lop-sided T high speed network, but not finished off in the Leeds direction past Marsden.
It's probably too late to change the reversal plan, but it does feel like another of "the ones that got away".
Going back 180-odd years, the whole rail network was full of such compromises - such as the GWR routes approaching London and Birmingham avoiding the existing LNWR network.

 

[CdBrux]

The first part of your Manchester brief (pre-HS2) gave us the Manchester Hub plan (Ordsall Chord and rebuilt Picc/OxRd stations on the South Junction line, thus avoiding reversals at Picc)

The reason for this was to create extra paths out of Picc to the south by avoiding the reversals crossing the whole throat either on the way in or out of the station to get to the airport line. I don't believe this is in any way the same situation as HS2 / NPR and thus not really relevant

 

[MattRat]

Manchester is at least getting a station and access to HS2, unlike Leeds (for now at least)

Actually the 'plan' is to have the train reverse and then go on to Leeds. It's ridiculous, and I don't see why on a 21st century railway we have to put up with victorian standards.

 

[bnc2018]

As a slight aside from the current discussion, I was a little confused by the phase 2b bill. In the Integrated Rail Plan, it just said that the Union Connectivity Review was looking into alternatives for the Golborne link, and then when the UCR was released it said that the government should review the link. So why does the bill still include it? Was it just easier to get the powers to build it now rather than waiting for a review if it happens? If so, doesn't that cause planning blight all along the route even if it gets built in a completely different form?

 

[stuu]

Actually the 'plan' is to have the train reverse and then go on to Leeds. It's ridiculous, and I don't see why on a 21st century railway we have to put up with victorian standards.

Can you explain why? With sensible operating procedures like stepping back of drivers like on the underground, it should make no or virtually no difference to journey times. For a very big cost saving

 

[Dave_Cardboard]

What is the perceived "problem" with reversing a train at a station?

For my two cents worth, at time of posting, it's 2022 not 1922. We have electric multiple unit trainsets with distributed traction and cabs at each end which can be reversed in minutes. It's not as if we need to uncouple a locomotive, run it round and off to a turntable, rotate 180 degree then reacquire the parked rake of carriages. (Or have a second loco on a spur ready.) I well remember being down at Charing Cross in rush hour in the early 90's (waiting to meet a mate) and was really impressed that they turned around the trains there in minutes. I cannot imagine the process has gotten more difficult since.

 

[MattRat]

Can you explain why? With sensible operating procedures like stepping back of drivers like on the underground, it should make no or virtually no difference to journey times. For a very big cost saving

Just look at Europe. There's a reason all turnback stations are being turned into through stations. Idle trains take up space, and that's space Piccadilly doesn't really have, especially if they want to increase any service patterns.

 

[Austriantrain]

Just look at Europe. There's a reason all turnback stations are being turned into through stations. Idle trains take up space, and that's space Piccadilly doesn't really have, especially if they want to increase any service patterns.

As I tried to point out, the examples from Europe have completely different operating profiles. If 24 tph had to go into and out of Piccadilly in both directions, it would be a completely different story.

If Manchester had an an underground cross-City line, it would be more S-Bahn-style, either to Vic and Rochdale or to Salford Central and Bolton. Easier to build too, mainly two-platform stations.

 

[stuu]

Just look at Europe. There's a reason all turnback stations are being turned into through stations. Idle trains take up space, and that's space Piccadilly doesn't really have, especially if they want to increase any service patterns.

But the new platforms at Manchester Piccadilly will be designed to be used for reversing trains - so the approaches are grade-separated to avoid conflict. The trains will be pretty much automated too. I agree it doesn't seem ideal, but the plan is to send the trains on towards Leeds, not north across the city centre, so it's not the same as other European examples.

If a through station were designed, it would need an s-shaped tunnel which would negate any time savings from not reversing. The other alternative would have been a station at right angles to Piccadilly, but that would have needed to be further away from the city centre and the main station, and probably cost more time accessing the platforms than is lost reversing

 

[LOL The Irony]

but why can't we have an overground through station, that would be the best compromise.

Because you'd have to demolish swathes of New Islington and Miles Platting. Burnham's plan of an underground station would take several years and billion pounds more to complete. I don't like the current plan but it's the best we've got without breaking the bank.

 

[snowball]

As a slight aside from the current discussion, I was a little confused by the phase 2b bill. In the Integrated Rail Plan, it just said that the Union Connectivity Review was looking into alternatives for the Golborne link, and then when the UCR was released it said that the government should review the link. So why does the bill still include it? Was it just easier to get the powers to build it now rather than waiting for a review if it happens? If so, doesn't that cause planning blight all along the route even if it gets built in a completely different form?

It's still a bit unclear. The Union Connectivity Review said that further work was necessary to decide on what to do about the Golborne link but I don't know whether DfT has commissioned anybody to do that work. In the meantime it's still in the bill, but by the time the parliamentary committee gets round to looking at that part of the project, somebody may have decided to do something different instead.

 

[Greybeard33]

If a through station were designed, it would need an s-shaped tunnel which would negate any time savings from not reversing. The other alternative would have been a station at right angles to Piccadilly, but that would have needed to be further away from the city centre and the main station, and probably cost more time accessing the platforms than is lost reversing

Mannchester City Council seems to be basing its advocacy of an underground Piccadilly station on the report it commissioned from Bechtel back in 2019. That offered four concepts, on different alignments, for a through sub-surface or underground station with six 440m platforms, serving both HS2 and NPR. For example, the sub-surface option illustrated below would be constructed as an open box, but would require a major realignment of the tunnel from the Airport.


However, the report did not include full feasibility studies or detailed costings, and did not go so far as to recommend any of these options, merely:

That a short study is commissioned to reconsider the engineering feasibility and indicative/conceptual costs of one or more underground options at Piccadilly, taking account of all relevant factors including the relative costs of different approach routes. This study should include both detailed simulation of train movements with a view to optimization of track layouts and line speeds, and, in so far as available information on geotechnical factors allows, the technical feasibility of a combined wholly underground station.

Whether or not such crayonista concepts might merited further analysis two years ago, that bird has surely flown now the hybrid bill has been published.

 

[tomuk]

Well looking at that suggestion I wouldn't like to be the one building the junction/station throat underneath the viaducts supporting a 14 platform mainline station and very close if not under the River Medlock. Not to mention the Metrolink line that crosses the site.

 

[edwin_m]

The first part of your Manchester brief (pre-HS2) gave us the Manchester Hub plan (Ordsall Chord and rebuilt Picc/OxRd stations on the South Junction line, thus avoiding reversals at Picc)
Except they dropped the rebuilt stations part and would rather not be reminded of the current half-baked solution, or the wasted cost.

You are quite right about the HS2 brief, as it followed the Y-shaped vision rather than including any idea of an east-west link, which was forced on DfT by the TfN members (and the "levelling up" agenda) in the last few years.
Now we are back to something like a lop-sided T high speed network, but not finished off in the Leeds direction past Marsden.
It's probably too late to change the reversal plan, but it does feel like another of "the ones that got away".
Going back 180-odd years, the whole rail network was full of such compromises - such as the GWR routes approaching London and Birmingham avoiding the existing LNWR network.

The reason for this was to create extra paths out of Picc to the south by avoiding the reversals crossing the whole throat either on the way in or out of the station to get to the airport line. I don't believe this is in any way the same situation as HS2 / NPR and thus not really relevant

It was mainly about eliminating the non-reversing Liverpool trains that went right across the layout. The Airport reversers were easier to deal with because they could cross the layout in two stages, and the Sheffield-Airport reversers continued.

 

[Bald Rick]

Becuase reversing is a ridiculous way to run a railway. It'd be like having to drive backwards to get to your destination.

There we go.

The response is “no it isnt”. What exactly is the problem with reversing? It happens in various places around the country, and elsewhere in the world.

Cost wasn't an issue between London and Birmingham, why is it an issue now?

Cost was very much an issue between London and Birmingham. Hence no link to Heathrow. Or more pertinently, no underground cross London station to link the line to HS1.

Just look at Europe. There's a reason all turnback stations are being turned into through stations

all?

 

[Starmill]

Cost was very much an issue between London and Birmingham. Hence no link to Heathrow. Or more pertineatly, no underground cross London station to link the line to HS1.

Or indeed, links of any kind for through trains to anywhere elsewhere on the network except for Old Oak Common and London Euston.

 

[Jim the Jim]

What is the perceived "problem" with reversing a train at a station?

For my two cents worth, at time of posting, it's 2022 not 1922. We have electric multiple unit trainsets with distributed traction and cabs at each end which can be reversed in minutes. It's not as if we need to uncouple a locomotive, run it round and off to a turntable, rotate 180 degree then reacquire the parked rake of carriages. (Or have a second loco on a spur ready.) I well remember being down at Charing Cross in rush hour in the early 90's (waiting to meet a mate) and was really impressed that they turned around the trains there in minutes. I cannot imagine the process has gotten more difficult since.

Yes, this criticism seems rather unwarranted to me. Reversing a train is not like driving backwards down the M25, because unlike most road vehicle, modern trains have two possible front ends. And if "Victorian standards" weren't up to the job, this was mostly because Victorian trains didn't have that capability.

The one little issue I can think of is you have to get the driver from one end of the train to the other - which won't be super-quick on a long train - or change drivers. But high-speed trains at major stations stop for a good while to let everyone on and off anyway, so it's not clear this is going to lead to extra delays.

 

[XAM2175]

Becuase reversing is a ridiculous way to run a railway. It'd be like having to drive backwards to get to your destination.

You know that there's a driver's cab at the other end of the train too, right?

 

[Glenn1969]

Yes, this criticism seems rather unwarranted to me. Reversing a train is not like driving backwards down the M25, because unlike most road vehicle, modern trains have two possible front ends. And if "Victorian standards" weren't up to the job, this was mostly because Victorian trains didn't have that capability.

The one little issue I can think of is you have to get the driver from one end of the train to the other - which won't be super-quick on a long train - or change drivers. But high-speed trains at major stations stop for a good while to let everyone on and off anyway, so it's not clear this is going to lead to extra delays.

I just thought it would add extra time to the journey. I still think Calder Valley trains have a 5 to 7 minute time penalty for the reverse and dwell at Bradford Int- would Piccadilly HS2/NPR be similar ?

 

[The Planner]

I just thought it would add extra time to the journey. I still think Calder Valley trains have a 5 to 7 minute time penalty for the reverse and dwell at Bradford Int- would Piccadilly HS2/NPR be similar ?

Depends if you force a driver change at the reversal. The would reduce the time required as previously mentioned. Don't compare what happens now with one driver and agreements with what could be done with HS2.