Shapps "promised to scrap HS2 Golborne spur"

[Starmill]

Is this all just an irrelevant announcement at this point? The second phase of HS2 isn't due to open until 2035-2040, so this government is basically making promises (or promises not to) about things that really can wait until the next government..

It's very relevant because the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill could receive Royal Assent before the end of this Parliament. Though this Parliament might not now make it to 2024.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Go to this link and click on "close map instructions". The part being dropped is the upper left orange arm above the fork. You can move about the map and zoom as you wish.

Doesn't show NPR however. Detailed NPR maps have have not been published, but NPR towards Warrington and Liverpool would continue westward from the east-west part of the Manchester arm just north of the fork, and would begin by running parallel to and south of the M56.

Interactive route map

Explore the interactive HS2 route map to see the railway, stations and construction works and find information about HS2 activity in your local area.

www.hs2.org.uk

Thanks, that's excellent. A very detailed map that shows exactly what I think is needed to understand this thread

 

[8A Rail]

So Golborne Link has now gone, Leeds etc link went previously, so what is next is the real question. I thought HS2 was about bringing the north closer to the south or someting to that effect? I be honest I wondering whether the real reasons for HS2 got lost in translation in the so called mickey mouse corridors of power. Certainly not to benefit the north that is for sure!

 

[jon0844]

Nobody actually believed the 'levelling up' nonsense did they?!

Perhaps there will be a few more bones thrown out before the next general election, only to be delayed or cancelled thereafter.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Personally, I don't see why it's thought impossible to four-track the WCML all the way from Crewe to Wigan. You would have to convert slope-sided cuttings in places like Hartford into vertical-sided box structures; and perhaps merge the two extra tracks onto the Chester line near the Daresbury Laboratory, to avoid taking land in Moore. But most of the route is not developed on one side or the other.

Though it would be windy and slow, four tracks would surely provide the capacity that is needed. (But what do I know? I think they could shoehorn in 6 tracks north of Bedford Station to accommodate East-West Rail.)

I have to admit 4-tracking from Crewe to where the WCML currently splits into 4 tracks North of Wigan would, off the top of my head, have been my preferred solution. It nicely solves the likely bottleneck at Wigan which the Golborne link would have otherwise caused. I can't imagine it would be that much slower than the Golborne link - maybe, 5 minutes a most(?) since the Golborne link doesn't take HS2 London-Scotland trains off the WCML for that large a distance compared to joining the WCML at Crewe. And 4-tracking would also allow a much better service (long distance trains serving Warrington plus a much-needed commuter route for the many significant population centres along that bit of the WCML - it would also allow opening stations at Golborne plus a couple of other places without slowing down the London/Birmingham-Scotland trains). What's not to love? (Other than the likely construction cost )

 

[Mollman]

So Golborne Link has now gone, Leeds etc link went previously, so what is next is the real question. I thought HS2 was about bringing the north closer to the south or someting to that effect? I be honest I wondering whether the real reasons for HS2 got lost in translation in the so called mickey mouse corridors of power. Certainly not to benefit the north that is for sure!

Indeed, but if they had really wanted something transformational that would also have reduced domestic flights and HGV traffic (though increased provision of railfreight) they would have planned HS2 all the way to Scotland.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed, but if they had really wanted something transformational that would also have reduced domestic flights and HGV traffic (though increased provision of railfreight) they would have planned HS2 all the way to Scotland.

The primary purpose of HS2 is to relieve the south WCML. One could I suppose argue that with less commuting there's less need for that, but that's the main reason for it.

Phase 1 technically does that alone, however squashing the 3tph Euston-Manchester into the present Manchester-Birmingham route would cause problems, so you need 2A and ideally 2B as well unless you just want to move rather than solving a bottleneck.

Anything else is a nice to have/can be used to signify levelling up/placate the independence-minded Scots.

 

[Starmill]

Anything else is a nice to have/can be used to signify levelling up/placate the independence-minded Scots

There's vast cost involved in building two new major London stations and phase 1.

Again your WCML-above-all bias is showing again. This cost isn't justified for relieving the south WCML service alone. However it is when you include the benefits of relieved ECML and MML at the London end.

In its current form HS2 won't be running close to capacity with mostly just traffic from Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and Scotland on it. However the MML and ECML won't receive any substantial relief without further billions spent on them directly.

 

[The Planner]

I have to admit 4-tracking from Crewe to where the WCML currently splits into 4 tracks North of Wigan would, off the top of my head, have been my preferred solution. It nicely solves the likely bottleneck at Wigan which the Golborne link would have otherwise caused. I can't imagine it would be that much slower than the Golborne link - maybe, 5 minutes a most(?) since the Golborne link doesn't take HS2 London-Scotland trains off the WCML for that large a distance compared to joining the WCML at Crewe. And 4-tracking would also allow a much better service (long distance trains serving Warrington plus a much-needed commuter route for the many significant population centres along that bit of the WCML - it would also allow opening stations at Golborne plus a couple of other places without slowing down the London/Birmingham-Scotland trains). What's not to love? (Other than the likely construction cost )

I believe it was 8 minutes saving with Golborne.

 

[MarkyT]

My guess is that the Warrington - Liverpool branch will get a new junction just before crossing the M6 and a new alignment roughly following the motorway will be examined. This could join into the WCML from the west near Golbourne or continue past Wigan. If joining at Golbourne, an inner fast bypass around the platforms at Wigan and avoiding the 80mph 1000m radius curves in the area might be possible, diverging near Bamfurlong and then running via a new surface/elevated alignment through fairly low-value industrial land to the west of the station (no residential demolition). North of Wigan, the excellent WCML alignment is nearly straight most of the way to Preston and much of it was 4 track in the past that might be reinstated to provide a dedicated HS pair with local passenger and freight traffic on the other pair. Together these works might be able to sustain up to 250kph running to just short of Preston, where I assume all HS2 Scottish expresses will stop anyway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Again your WCML-above-all bias is showing again.

With justification. The WCML is the UK's premier line, connecting England's three most important cities, London, Birmingham and Manchester, plus others, and connecting Glasgow's arguably first city commercially* with London. There is no railway in the UK more important than the WCML, and that is why the WCML is in receipt of effectively 6-tracking as a priority.

* Edinburgh may be the capital, but economically Glasgow is more important, plus it is larger.

 

[Starmill]

With justification. The WCML is the UK's premier line, connecting England's three most important cities, London, Birmingham and Manchester, plus others, and connecting Glasgow's arguably first city commercially* with London. There is no railway in the UK more important than the WCML, and that is why the WCML is in receipt of effectively 6-tracking as a priority.

* Edinburgh may be the capital, but economically Glasgow is more important, plus it is larger.

That's all your opinion and that's fine. But the business case for a London - Birmingham - Manchester high speed line is significantly weaker than the full Y as proposed. It's likely to have a BCR around 1, so not worth doing alone.

The reason for what is being built is politics, not economics. Again that's also fine as long as the truth is out about it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Jun 2022 ==

* Edinburgh may be the capital, but economically Glasgow is more important, plus it is larger.

Again this is wrong. Edinburgh - London earnt around twice as much as Glasgow - London in 2019. Why do you think Edinburgh trains are getting quicker while Glasgow ones aren't, and there has been 2tph for some time while there's only 1tph from Glasgow?

 

[Shrop]

The primary purpose of HS2 is to relieve the south WCML.

No. The primary purpose of HS2 was to level up the UK, but what's happened since it was designed (badly) is that compromises have been made which have resulted in it becoming yet another London-centric project.
Those who focussed on it providing relief to WCML have just latched on to one of its benefits, even if that is a significant benefit.
WCML would have had adequate benefit if HS2 had gone direct to Nottingham, Sheffield and Leeds, and these Northern cities would have had much greater time saving benefit than Birmingham, as well as matching Birmingham for size when combined. And Manchester would have benefitted significantly from this better route too.
All that the over-stated emphasis about relieving WCML has achieved, is to provide fodder for those who criticise the craziness of spending £96bn just to save 20 minutes on London to Birmingham journeys.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No. The primary purpose of HS2 was to level up the UK, but what's happened since it was designed (badly) is that compromises have been made which have resulted in it becoming yet another London-centric project.

It really wouldn't, and it wouldn't have had that effect. One of HS2's disadvantages is that it makes the UK more London-centric still.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I have to admit 4-tracking from Crewe to where the WCML currently splits into 4 tracks North of Wigan would, off the top of my head, have been my preferred solution. It nicely solves the likely bottleneck at Wigan which the Golborne link would have otherwise caused. I can't imagine it would be that much slower than the Golborne link - maybe, 5 minutes a most(?) since the Golborne link doesn't take HS2 London-Scotland trains off the WCML for that large a distance compared to joining the WCML at Crewe. And 4-tracking would also allow a much better service (long distance trains serving Warrington plus a much-needed commuter route for the many significant population centres along that bit of the WCML - it would also allow opening stations at Golborne plus a couple of other places without slowing down the London/Birmingham-Scotland trains). What's not to love? (Other than the likely construction cost )

4-tracking Winsford-Standish would involve duplicating several constraining 2-track structures.
eg Winsford station area (housing both sides), Vale Royal bridge and approaches, Hartford cutting, Dutton Viaduct (500m), Birdswood tunnel (75m), Winwick Jn-Golborne Jn rock cutting, Boar's Head cutting.
There are multiple flat junctions on curved track, and speeds as low as 80mph in several places because of curvature.
Standish-Balshaw Lane would need re-electrifying as the existing masts are mostly sat in the old 4-track layout.

 

[boabt]

* Edinburgh may be the capital, but economically Glasgow is more important, plus it is larger.

Used to be.
Edinburgh leapfrogged Glasgow around five years and continues to grow faster.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

4-tracking Winsford-Standish would involve duplicating several constraining 2-track structures.
eg Winsford station area, Vale Royal bridge and approaches, Hartford cutting, Dutton Viaduct, Birdswood tunnel, Winwick Jn-Golborne Jn rock cutting, Boar's Head cutting.
There are multiple flat junctions on curved track, and speeds as low as 80mph in several places because of curvature.
Standish-Balshaw Lane would need re-electrifying as the existing masts are mostly sat in the old 4-track layout.

Shame on me. I have been an enthusiast since February 1970 based in Preston until my move to USA. i have traveled the WCML so many times. Yet, I always thought that Euston to Milton Keynes was the difficult bit. I just did not realise how complex Crewe -Preston was.

Slightly OT they have not of course upgraded Euxton Jct to Catterall to Autotransformer yet, though quite a few of the structures are in place.

 

[matacaster]

What proportion of revenue do trains from / to Edinburgh make freight and passenger) ?
What proportion of such journeys are made by Scots and English?
If passenger trains were slowed down to say 80 North of preston, would that allow more freight through?
If Scots want independence, why should England fork out for high speed rail through the wilderness to what might be mainly of benefit to the Scots? (see questions above)

 

[boabt]

What proportion of revenue do trains from / to Edinburgh make freight and passenger) ?
What proportion of such journeys are made by Scots and English?
If passenger trains were slowed down to say 80 North of preston, would that allow more freight through?
If Scots want independence, why should England fork out for high speed rail through the wilderness to what might be mainly of benefit to the Scots? (see questions above)

There's really no need to talk about Carlisle and Lancaster in that way!

 

[matacaster]

There's really no need to talk about Carlisle and Lancaster in that way!

Yeh, but how many people actually go to Carlisle and an extra half hour ain't going to kill em!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Yeh, but how many people actually go to Carlisle and an extra half hour ain't going to kill em!

Carlisle folk, and anybody north of Crewe, face slower journeys with HS2 stock because it doesn't tilt like the Pendolinos (10-20 minutes difference).
Scottish freight is mainly located south and east of Glasgow, nothing much around Edinburgh, so is better routed via the WCML (or S&C/G&SW).
With a blank sheet of paper, London-Edinburgh traffic could just as easily be routed via the WCML as the ECML, and be faster after HS2 opens to Crewe.
It's only history that sends it mostly via the ECML today, with the WCML concentrating on Glasgow and freight.
Slowing trains won't do anything for modal shift from road/air.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, in recent times has made the Golborne scenario one of his "pet projects". In view of what has been discussed on this thread, has Andy Burnham made any recent comment on the matter. He has personal links to that part of the Greater Manchester.

 

[Shrop]

It really wouldn't, and it wouldn't have had that effect. One of HS2's disadvantages is that it makes the UK more London-centric still.

That's the whole point though, it's design was poor, which is why it was, and has increasingly become London-centric. It should have been built first from Leeds to Birmingham via Sheffield and Nottingham, and branching over to Manchester. Only with those aspects fully agreed, should the links to London have been progressed.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Carlisle folk, and anybody north of Crewe, face slower journeys with HS2 stock because it doesn't tilt like the Pendolinos (10-20 minutes difference).

I'm sure I recall a discussion on here a year or two ago that clarified that the lower maximum top speed would be compensated for by higher acceleration of the HS2 trains, probably leading to no overall slowdown in journey times? Plus, for technical reasons, there's no chance of building tilting stock to replace the Pendolinos when they eventually retire, HS2 or no HS2.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I'm sure I recall a discussion on here a year or two ago that clarified that the lower maximum top speed would be compensated for by higher acceleration of the HS2 trains, probably leading to no overall slowdown in journey times? Plus, for technical reasons, there's no chance of building tilting stock to replace the Pendolinos when they eventually retire, HS2 or no HS2.

Well, this isn't the place to go over that ground again, but the best we have seen is that the tilt/non-tilt time difference could be reduced to a few minutes if there were close to 100 interventions on each track to realign them Golborne-Carstairs (ignoring Crewe-Golborne as that was due to be by-passed by HS2 until this week).
There would also need to be OHLE and signalling changes to match.
None of that is planned or funded at the moment.
Euston-Crewe is due to be re-signed for non-tilt trains (805/807 as MUs) in the next year, without any track changes, but that's not significant for HS2 services.

 

[quantinghome]

That's the whole point though, it's design was poor, which is why it was, and has increasingly become London-centric. It should have been built first from Leeds to Birmingham via Sheffield and Nottingham, and branching over to Manchester. Only with those aspects fully agreed, should the links to London have been progressed.

So you disagree more with the phasing rather than the overall design of the HS2 network?

I can see your point - it may have been better to build the northern bit first to avoid politicians taking an axe to it. But the overall Y-shape of HS2 was pretty sensible given the country's population distribution. It could have been better connected to the rest of the network in places and more efficiently engineered. The main problems with HS2 have been a huge failure to sell the multiple benefits to the country at large, and failure to adopt appropriate procurement techniques to control costs.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Jun 2022 ==

I'm sure I recall a discussion on here a year or two ago that clarified that the lower maximum top speed would be compensated for by higher acceleration of the HS2 trains, probably leading to no overall slowdown in journey times? Plus, for technical reasons, there's no chance of building tilting stock to replace the Pendolinos when they eventually retire, HS2 or no HS2.

I believe the other benefit of faster accelerating trains is that it becomes viable to increase the non-tilt top speed on the straighter sections between the curves.

 

[MarkyT]

Well, this isn't the place to go over that ground again, but the best we have seen is that the tilt/non-tilt time difference could be reduced to a few minutes if there were close to 100 interventions on each track to realign them Golborne-Carstairs (ignoring Crewe-Golborne as that was due to be by-passed by HS2 until this week).
There would also need to be OHLE and signalling changes to match.
None of that is planned or funded at the moment.
Euston-Crewe is due to be re-signed for non-tilt trains (805/807 as MUs) in the next year, without any track changes, but that's not significant for HS2 services.

There are many straighter stretches of WCML north too where EPS speed signing and TASS equipment allow Pendolinos and Voyagers to go faster than other passenger traffic, but there's no need for the trains to actually tilt. That made sense in the era the Virgin tilting trains were the only ones regularly using the north part of the WCML and capable of these speeds, but now other 200kph capable non-tilting trains also use the route and could exploit them if they were suitably signed. TPE can't just say use the EPS speeds everywhere because in many places the EPS does rely on tilt. If the straighter sections were to be cleared for TPE at up to 200kph however, then that would be of use to future non-tilting HS2 trains as well.

 

[Shrop]

So you disagree more with the phasing rather than the overall design of the HS2 network?

Both. The phasing is wrong, as I've said, but the overall design is poor too. For over 15 years I've openly despaired about the "Heathrow imperative", which led to all manner of excuses for not using the far better option of the M1 corridor. Of course there were hurdles for the M1 route, but they were far too readily dismissed in favour of the Chiltern route, thanks to the crazy belief that it was necessary to serve Heathrow.
And who was pressing for the Heathrow routeing? From his position as Mayor of London? Good old wise and wonderful Boris.

 

[Railman]

If trains for the North are to leave Crewe on the conventional lines, will this announcment not have a big influence on the Crewe proposals of an underpass for HS2 trains, since the additional costs for fewer trains will be extortionate???

 

[quantinghome]

Both. The phasing is wrong, as I've said, but the overall design is poor too. For over 15 years I've openly despaired about the "Heathrow imperative", which led to all manner of excuses for not using the far better option of the M1 corridor. Of course there were hurdles for the M1 route, but they were far too readily dismissed in favour of the Chiltern route, thanks to the crazy belief that it was necessary to serve Heathrow.
And who was pressing for the Heathrow routeing? From his position as Mayor of London? Good old wise and wonderful Boris.

Not convinced with this argument TBH. Your favoured option would still require lots of tunnelling in London and would need to contend with built up areas along the M1 causing no end of difficulty. And the route via Old Oak Common does so much more than just serve Heathrow. It opens the entire Thames Valley region to quick and easy rail travel to/from the North and gives a much easier connection to West and East London.