Shapps "promised to scrap HS2 Golborne spur"

[Sonik]

I think you’re spot on with considering the likelihood of anything new to replace the eastern leg of the Golborne spur.

A question that some people who are genuinely ‘in the know’ might be able to answer, but I appreciate that they may not be able to say, is whether there is any serious design work taking place on NPR or HS2 east, now that phase 2b west legislation is making its way through parliamen?

I fully understand the cynicism, but it's worth bearing in mind that the business case for the Manchester leg itself is very weak, possibly negative, without any northern connection. In essence HS2 has already become a bit of a Concord fallacy, in that the scheme gets continued northwards, simply to justify politically, the massive costs already sunk on the earlier phases.

However unlike Concord, HS2 will leave a legacy that is useful to many for generations, and each additional section does support the overall HS2 business case, by connecting more areas of population, to access a wider market, and garner wider political support from the areas additionally connected. The eastern leg didn't really work like this because the proposed route didn't touch the most populous areas directly, e.g. being no direct connection to Derby and Nottingham.

Its also possible, that an alternate scheme to Golborne may even be much cheaper, by taking a slightly less direct (but still fast) route that doesn't require some of the more expensive civils elements, to thread through this very populous region.

So I think that while the timetable may get protracted it's still likely that something will happen eventually. Just IMHO of course but I may be wrong.

 

[MarkyT]

Its also possible, that an alternate scheme to Golborne may even be much cheaper, by taking a slightly less direct (but still fast) route that doesn't require some of the more expensive civils elements, to thread through this very populous region.

Or even if not cheaper, perhaps an alternative routing may be less controversial. It might also be better for Scottish journey times if a longer link bypassed the slow curves and platforms through Wigan.

 

[6Gman]

An observation on the 4-tracking of Crewe to Warrington / Wigan or wherever.

The Dutton Viaduct is Grade II* Listed.

Which puts it one level below Westminster Abbey.

 

[Nottingham59]

The Dutton Viaduct is Grade II* Listed.

But there seems plenty of space either side to build another structure parallel to it, surely?

 

[JustPassingBy]

But there seems plenty of space either side to build another structure parallel to it, surely?

Great lateral thinking.
Joking aside, does protected status means the views of said structure are also protected?

 

[WatcherZero]

A listing can judge that the setting or context is significant as part of its design aesthetic yes, however reversibility of the change, communal value and sustainability (having a use that generates the revenue needed to keep it maintained) are equally important.

Generally if you have something that historically performed a function like a bridge then having a new one next to it that continues that historical use but doesnt physically interfere with the original isnt particularly frowned upon. However with something like Iron Bridge or the Clifton Suspension Bridge you might judge that its setting is so significant that it overrides the justification for a replacement next to it performing the same function.

 

[6Gman]

Great lateral thinking.
Joking aside, does protected status means the views of said structure are also protected?

@WatcherZero explains the position well.

And @JustPassingBy is also right to point out the relevance of setting/ views. And I suspect the views of the viaduct from the river below would be considered important.

"Listing" doesn't - of itself - stop development automatically. But it does raise significant issues.

As an engineer once told me "we can do anything . . . as long as someone's willing to pay".

In the case of the Dutton Viaduct there are a number of relevant factors. None of which make it simple or cheap!

 

[tomuk]

@WatcherZero explains the position well.

And @JustPassingBy is also right to point out the relevance of setting/ views. And I suspect the views of the viaduct from the river below would be considered important.

"Listing" doesn't - of itself - stop development automatically. But it does raise significant issues.

As an engineer once told me "we can do anything . . . as long as someone's willing to pay".

In the case of the Dutton Viaduct there are a number of relevant factors. None of which make it simple or cheap!

Well as dutton viaduct isn't going to be widened nor the rest of the WMCL there isn't an issue.

 

[Nottingham59]

Well as dutton viaduct isn't going to be widened nor the rest of the WMCL there isn't an issue.

So what route will the HS2-Scotland trains take then?

 

[Bletchleyite]

So what route will the HS2-Scotland trains take then?

If there's only 1tph from Euston, as it appears there will be if Golborne isn't built, then it'll just drop into the path of the existing fast Euston-Glasgow exactly as it is now, just a bit quicker. In that case it'll be a 200m train to Glasgow only so will be able to serve all existing stations as now.

Similarly the Brum-Scotland would be 200m and drop onto the WCML at Crewe, again in the existing path, with the old Euston-Brum-Scotland reverting to terminating at Wolves.

 

[tomuk]

So what route will the HS2-Scotland trains take then?

There will be two outcomes; no interventions and the services will just be made to fit on the WMCL north of Crewe with resultant impact on frequency and local services or the 'Union Connectivity' option using the NPR Link from High Legh to Warrington BQ LL and a new link to the west of Warrington from Fiddlers Ferry past Buttonwood and Haydock to Orrel and then follow the M6 to Euxton.

 

[Greybeard33]

If there's only 1tph from Euston, as it appears there will be if Golborne isn't built, then it'll just drop into the path of the existing fast Euston-Glasgow exactly as it is now, just a bit quicker. In that case it'll be a 200m train to Glasgow only so will be able to serve all existing stations as now.

Similarly the Brum-Scotland would be 200m and drop onto the WCML at Crewe, again in the existing path, with the old Euston-Brum-Scotland reverting to terminating at Wolves.

The iTSS in the Phase 2b Western Leg Strategic Outline Business Case Update indicates that, without the Golborne Link, the HS2 Scottish service would remain the same as Phase 2a. 1tph (200m) from Euston to Glasgow, calling only at OOC, Preston and Carlisle. No HS2 service to Edinburgh nor from Birmingham to Scotland.

Of course, this service specification is only indicative, but it is what is assumed in the BCR calculations.

 

[Nottingham59]

the 'Union Connectivity' option

All that the UCR says about options is:

"However, the ‘Golborne Link’ does not resolve all of
the identified issues. The suitability of alternative
connections between HS2 and the WCML have
been considered by the Review. The emerging
evidence suggests that an alternative connection
to the WCML, for example at some point south
of Preston, could offer more benefits and an
opportunity to reduce journey times by two to three
minutes more than the ‘Golborne Link’. However,
more work is required to better understand the
case for and against such options."

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1036027/union-connectivity-review-final-report.pdf

That seems to imply they should extend the Golborne Link tojoin the WCML north of Wigan. I must have missed something: where are more details of this "Union Connectivity option" come from, please?

 

[Sonik]

That seems to imply they should extend the Golborne Link tojoin the WCML north of Wigan. I must have missed something: where are more details of this "Union Connectivity option" come from, please?

There are different ways of interpreting things and I'd suggest the situation has been left deliberately ambiguous, because the outcome will be controversial to some whatever option is taken forward.

That allows those potentially affected to draw there own conclusions, so there isn't really anything for anyone to argue with in the meantime until such time as a new proposal is put forward.

 

[snowball]

All that the UCR says about options is:

[etc]

That seems to imply they should extend the Golborne Link tojoin the WCML north of Wigan. I must have missed something: where are more details of this "Union Connectivity option" come from, please?

I asked the same question back on page 5 of the thread, and, as I concluded after the discussion there, I think tomuk is supplying us with new inside information rather than drawing concusions from anything published.

However the mention of going "past" Haydock seems problematic. It looks as though it would require a tunnel, or go through a lot of houses.

 

[Pinus contorta]

I asked the same question back on page 5 of the thread, and, as I concluded after the discussion there, I think tomuk is supplying us with new inside information rather than drawing concusions from anything published.

However the mention of going "past" Haydock seems problematic. It looks as though it would require a tunnel, or go through a lot of houses.

I can't see how it goes past the numerous housing and industrial developments in and around Haydock either. Also, if it goes through a tunnel how does that work with all the mine shafts that have been capped in the area? Does it cause lots of problems from a civil engineering perspective? Some of the early mines might not be marked on any maps. I know there were drift mines as well, which might cause problems.

 

[tomuk]

However the mention of going "past" Haydock seems problematic. It looks as though it would require a tunnel, or go through a lot of houses.

HS2 Phase 1 has 51km of tunnels.

 

[Mordac]

HS2 Phase 1 has 51km of tunnels.

No well heeled NYMBYs in Haydock, though.

 

[Walkabout]

At around the time this thread started Warrington South MP Andy Carter said in the local rag: "There are better ways to connect Manchester with the north and Scotland than via the Golborne spur, I’ve repeatedly argued for changes to be made to the route along with Sir Graham and James Grundy, my MP colleague in Leigh.”

I read this at the time and wondered what he was talking about; the Golborne Spur was never intended to improve journey times between Manchester and Scotland after all. I wondered then if he was aware of plans which hadn't been made public.

The Union Connectivity Review said: "The ‘Golborne Link’ —the current proposed connection between HS2 and the WCML—is expected to deliver quicker journey times and more capacity between England and Scotland and resolve some of the constraints between Crewe and Preston. However, the ‘Golborne Link’ does not resolve all of the identified issues. The suitability of alternative connections between HS2 and the WCML have been considered by the Review. The emerging evidence suggests that an alternative connection to the WCML, for example at some point south of Preston, could offer more benefits and an opportunity to reduce journey times by two to three minutes more than the ‘Golborne Link’. However, more work is required to better understand the case for and against such options."

The Government announcement that the Golborne Link is being dropped from the HS2 Bill says: "We will look at the potential for these alternatives to bring benefits to passengers sooner, allowing improved Scotland services from Manchester and Manchester Airport, as well as from Birmingham and London. HS2 trains will continue to serve Wigan and Preston, as well as Lancaster, Cumbria and Scotland."

It can't be the plan to run services from Manchester to Scotland southwest for 20 miles via the (as I understand it) 'slower-than-HS2' NPR line to Fiddler's Ferry and then via a 20+mile new line to link with the WCML 'south of Preston' can it? Surely the only thing which would allow "improved Scotland services from Manchester and Manchester Airport" would be an upgraded or new line between Manchester and WCML around Euxton? Would that route also be feasible for the HS2 traffic which would have used the Golborne Spur?

 

[snowball]

The Government announcement that the Golborne Link is being dropped from the HS2 Bill says: "We will look at the potential for these alternatives to bring benefits to passengers sooner, allowing improved Scotland services from Manchester and Manchester Airport, as well as from Birmingham and London. HS2 trains will continue to serve Wigan and Preston, as well as Lancaster, Cumbria and Scotland."

Welcome to the forum, and thanks for drawing attention to the bit you've bolded. I hadn't noticed that bit before, and I suspect others hadn't either, as there have been no comments on it.

Those words come from Stevenson's statement to parliament. The other place the announcement was made was in this press release, which contains a lot of references to Scotland (as you'd expect as their services to and from London and Birmingham will be slowed), but none to Manchester or Manchester Airport.

All very confusing.

 

[Sonik]

The other place the announcement was made was in this press release, which contains a lot of references to Scotland (as you'd expect as their services to and from London and Birmingham will be slowed)

You do have to wonder what discussions are going on behind closed doors, because the silence from the SNP on this is deafening.

Not usually so shy in taking any opportunity to complain about getting the short straw.

 

[Nottingham59]

allowing improved Scotland services from Manchester and Manchester Airport

When I saw that, I assumed that what they had in mind was to extend the Golborne link further north, so that it joined the WCML north of Wigan, with a spur allowing access from the Manchester/Bolton line. But that's only a guess.

Of course, they could instead be thinking of a East-North chord at Millington to allow trains to go the long way round from HS2 Piccadilly and HS2 Airport to head north.

 

[Walkabout]

When I saw that, I assumed that what they had in mind was to extend the Golborne link further north, so that it joined the WCML north of Wigan, with a spur allowing access from the Manchester/Bolton line. But that's only a guess.

Of course, they could instead be thinking of a East-North chord at Millington to allow trains to go the long way round from HS2 Piccadilly and HS2 Airport to head north.

The comment about Scotland was contained in the announcement that the Golborne link was being dropped though - so there'll be nothing there to extend, nor anything to head north on.

 

[Nottingham59]

the Golborne link was being dropped though

The link is being dropped from this iteration of the legislation, which is needed to enable the start of construction of the committed route from Crewe to Manchester Piccadilly.

They don't say that they are going to drop the link completely, only that they need to think about the route a bit more. What they have said is entirely compatible with re-introduction of the Golborne Link at a later date, on the same or another alignment.

What other connection would offer "an opportunity to reduce journey times by two to three minutes more than the ‘Golborne Link’", as stated by the UCR?

 

[hwl]

The link is being dropped from this iteration of the legislation, which is needed to enable the start of construction of the committed route from Crewe to Manchester Piccadilly.

They don't say that they are going to drop the link completely, only that they need to think about the route a bit more. What they have said is entirely compatible with re-introduction of the Golborne Link at a later date, on the same or another alignment.

Agreed

What other connection would offer "an opportunity to reduce journey times by two to three minutes more than the ‘Golborne Link’", as stated by the UCR?

Nothing apart from an extended equivalent Golborne link that connects to the WCML further north.

The existing route out towards the WCML west and northwest from Manchester are comparatively slow and cause all sorts of complication in terms of Manchester Airport connectivity (either direct or changing trains) hence one way to reduce Castlefield corridor issues is to run "NPR" services south from Piccadilly on HS2 infrastructure via the new airport station.
NPR already proposes to cover Piccadilly - Airport - Warrington - Lime Street adding an East - North Connection to an HS alignment 3-4miles east of Warrington to add a similar option for Piccadilly - Airport - Preston - stations further north and enables better capacity utilisation on the Bolton and Castlefield corridors e.g. fewer fast service and more semi-fast. It would also enable more stopping on WCML services in the Warrington - Preston area benefitting local Wigan area users.

 

[Walkabout]

They don't say that they are going to drop the link completely, only that they need to think about the route a bit more. What they have said is entirely compatible with re-introduction of the Golborne Link at a later date, on the same or another alignment.

I'd tend to agree with you but Andy Carter's remarks suggest some knowledge of a plan which provides a better Manchester to Scotland route and doesn't include the Golborne link - which he's been campaigning against. The UCR doesn't hint at extending the Golborne link but at an alternative.

What other connection would offer "an opportunity to reduce journey times by two to three minutes more than the ‘Golborne Link’", as stated by the UCR?

As I suggested in my earlier post - a route from HS2 at Piccadilly north-west towards Euxton. I've no idea if that's feasible though.

 

[snowball]

As I suggested in my earlier post - a route from HS2 at Piccadilly north-west towards Euxton. I've no idea if that's feasible though.

I think if there's one thing we can reasonably sure of, it's that the government is not seriously considering anything like that.

 

[Walkabout]

So are we saying that Shapps has been misleading Brady & Carter and they're both eventually going to have to tell their constituents that the only things that have changed about the Golborne Link is that it's now longer, renamed, will carry more services and have an extra loop of track in Brady's constituency?

 

[snowball]

So are we saying that Shapps has been misleading Brady & Carter and they're both eventually going to have to tell their constituents that the only things that have changed about the Golborne Link is that it's now longer, renamed, will carry more services and have an extra loop of track in Brady's constituency?

We don't know the exact wording of what Shapps promised, but my reading of the original Guardian item is that it was just a promise to take it out of the Bill, not a guarantee that nothing similar would ever be built.

 

[Nottingham59]

Shapps has been misleading Brady & Carter

Who knows?

Shapps is using what the UCR said as an excuse to postpone the Golborne link for now. Sir Graham Brady is chairman of the 1922 committee, so currently has a key role in keeping Boris, and therefore Shapps, in their jobs. So I doubt if they will do anything to upset him in the short term. Don't expect any announcements soon.

But politics change. If it became more important to promise better Scotland-England links than keeping Brady happy, then they'd put the Golborne Link back on the table in an instant.