HS2 Manchester leg scrapped: what should happen now?

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It's not about how many direct lines there are, it's about providing a quality, frequent fast service between those two cities while also allowing a frequent local services at the many stations along the present two routes. A bit like, er, HS2.

Is it not the case that the more direct lines between Liverpool and Manchester there are, the better that chance of that aspiration coming to fruition?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is it not the case that the more direct lines between Liverpool and Manchester there are, the better that chance of that aspiration coming to fruition?

The best way to achieve it is by building one more Liverpool<->Manchester line with no (or maybe one) intermediate station(s), yes. Specifically the Fiddler's Ferry line (one stop in Warrington) which is proposed as part of Northern Powerhouse Rail.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Is there, based on current passenger footfall, a known demand for passenger usage on existing railway stations between Liverpool and Manchester that will be suitably increased in order to reduce any existing carriage overcrowding?

 

[Peter Sarf]

Do the thread contributors think there should be as many direct rail links between Liverpool and Manchester as can be between Glasgow and Edinburgh?

I suppose the parallel is that Liverpool to Manchester is missing the equivalent of the fastest and direct Glasgow/Edinburgh service via Falkirk High.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I suppose the parallel is that Liverpool to Manchester is missing the equivalent of the fasted and direct Glasgow/Edinburgh service via Falkirk High.

That is exactly the line that I had in mind, when I raised the matter.

 

[Nottingham59]

Do the thread contributors think there should be as many direct rail links between Liverpool and Manchester as can be between Glasgow and Edinburgh?

At least one route needs to be four track. It's not the number of two-track railways that matters, it's the ability to mix meaningful frequencies of fast and slow trains, and that means a four track railway. Or a dedicated non-stop line.

Given the size and proximity of the metropolitan areas along the Liverpool - Manchester - Leeds axis, I'd say it needs around 8tph fast trains (not TGV speed - 110 or 140mph EMUs would be fine), plus a metro-style stopping service along each pair of slows.

The service aspiration should be to enable half of all households in Liverpool to reach Central Manchester within 60 minutes, and vice versa. That's the best way to achieve the agglomeration benefits which deliver economic growth.

From Liverpool to Manchester, the fast lines could go via Warrington Low Level, which could provide a regular 8tph fast service calling at Liverpool, Warrington BQ, Airport HS, Piccadilly, then on to Huddersfield, Dewsbury, Leeds.

But I think it would be better to provide the fast service by quadding the Chat Moss route. A twin-track tunnel from the M60 to Salford/Victoria would be aound 5 miles, around half the length of the HS2 tunnel from Davenport Green to Piccadilly. Would also need tunnels from Wavertree Technology Park to junction 5 of the M62, around 3 miles. And shorter tunnels going East to Standedge

It would make more sense for HS2 to approach Manchester from the West too, but that is a separate discussion.

 

[The Planner]

But I think it would be better to provide the fast service by quadding the Chat Moss route. A twin-track tunnel from the M60 to Salford/Victoria would be aound 5 miles, around half the length of the HS2 tunnel from Davenport Green to Piccadilly. Would also need tunnels from Wavertree Technology Park to junction 5 of the M62, around 3 miles. And shorter tunnels going East to Standedge

It would make more sense for HS2 to approach Manchester from the West too, but that is a separate discussion.

Presumably this still includes doing something at Liverpool? as quad tracking the Chat Moss still doesn't mean extra trains fit (at either end). It was an oft-mentioned response to HS2, why don't you quad track Cov to New St. Lovely idea, except where do all the new trains fit at Coventry and New St?

 

[stephen rp]

Ɓy

The best way to achieve it is by building one more Liverpool<->Manchester line with no (or maybe one) intermediate station(s), yes. Specifically the Fiddler's Ferry line (one stop in Warrington) which is proposed as part of Northern Powerhouse Rail.

And stop at Manchester Airport and still no quicker than Liverpool to Manchester now.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And stop at Manchester Airport and still no quicker than Liverpool to Manchester now.

But *would* allow Metrolink/Merseyrail on the CLC and a 4tph EMU stopping service on Chat Moss, both of which are sorely needed.

Just like HS2 is mostly about creating capacity on existing lines...

 

[cle]

But *would* allow Metrolink/Merseyrail on the CLC and a 4tph EMU stopping service on Chat Moss, both of which are sorely needed.

Just like HS2 is mostly about creating capacity on existing lines...

This is my preference.

CLC isn't great for end to end but I think has a lot of untapped local demand, esp in West Manchester/Trafford. Warrington's fast services seem better suited to regional trains into Victoria.

Chat Moss, trains should be 8 cars before we talk about quadding. Frequency isn't horrible right now, especially with the extras to Wigan and Preston out of Liverpool - etc (a quad section!)

 

[Nottingham59]

Presumably this still includes doing something at Liverpool? as quad tracking the Chat Moss still doesn't mean extra trains fit (at either end). It was an oft-mentioned response to HS2, why don't you quad track Cov to New St. Lovely idea, except where do all the new trains fit at Coventry and New St?

Yes. I would envisage more platforms at Lime St. There appears to be space for two platforms to the north of platform 1 within the footprint of the existing station. And space for another two between the station and Lord Nelson Street.

In the first instance, I would build these as 200m platforms, connected into the existing 5/4 track throat. The future intention woud be to extend them to 400m, accessed by two additional tracks in tunnels between Lime St and Edge Hill, but this would require demolition around Bronte St and St Andrews Gardens.

Capacity at Manchester would need increasing too. Personally I'd build a Hauptbahnhof for Manchester in the space between Salford Central and Manchester Victoria, incorporating 2 through platforms dedicated to Liverpool - Leeds through traffic (8tph) and four 400m platforms to terminate HS2 trains approaching Manchester from the West (4+ tph). Cheaper than building two HS2 stations at Piccadilly and at the Airport, and much more useful.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

All these postings concerning train lengths and associated capacity on Manchester to Liverpool train services makes me wonder where this untapped demand is hiding itself at this moment in time?

 

[Energy]

In the first instance, I would build these as 200m platforms, connected into the existing 5/4 track throat. The future intention woud be to extend them to 400m, accessed by two additional tracks in tunnels between Lime St and Edge Hill, but this would require demolition around Bronte St and St Andrews Gardens.

Does Liverpool really need 400m? 2tph 200m is enough for London, even 2tph 200m Liverpool - Newcastle / Edinburgh is a big improvement on the current service.

Lime St isn't going to be cheap to expand...

 

[stephen rp]

But *would* allow Metrolink/Merseyrail on the CLC and a 4tph EMU stopping service on Chat Moss, both of which are sorely needed.

Just like HS2 is mostly about creating capacity on existing lines...

You're talking enabling that by building a new line from Manchester to Liverpool (well, new line Manchester to Warrington) that would cost as much as Crossrail.

 

[The Planner]

Yes. I would envisage more platforms at Lime St. There appears to be space for two platforms to the north of platform 1 within the footprint of the existing station. And space for another two between the station and Lord Nelson Street.

In the first instance, I would build these as 200m platforms, connected into the existing 5/4 track throat. The future intention woud be to extend them to 400m, accessed by two additional tracks in tunnels between Lime St and Edge Hill, but this would require demolition around Bronte St and St Andrews Gardens.

Capacity at Manchester would need increasing too. Personally I'd build a Hauptbahnhof for Manchester in the space between Salford Central and Manchester Victoria, incorporating 2 through platforms dedicated to Liverpool - Leeds through traffic (8tph) and four 400m platforms to terminate HS2 trains approaching Manchester from the West (4+ tph). Cheaper than building two HS2 stations at Piccadilly and at the Airport, and much more useful.

So it isn't just quad tracking. Its dealing with either end, so in the same vein of HS2, you might as well build an off line route and not decimate patronage on the existing one whilst you build it? How is building a station at Salford/Victoria any cheaper than at Picc? as well as losing any P&R capability the airport has from the SE side of Manchester / North Cheshire?

 

[Nottingham59]

So it isn't just quad tracking. Its dealing with either end, so in the same vein of HS2, you might as well build an off line route and not decimate patronage on the existing one whilst you build it?

You can quad a line by building alongside it, or bypassing the settlements where space in constrained.

How is building a station at Salford/Victoria any cheaper than at Picc? as well as losing any P&R capability the airport has from the SE side of Manchester / North Cheshire?

No cheaper, but you only have to build one station. You can serve Cheshire P&R demand with a 1tph HS2 service coming off HS2 at Crewe and calling at Wilmslow, Stockport and Piccadilly, same as today. There is no need to build a second station at the airport. I'd expect fewer than 1% of passengers flying into Manchester are heading to London.

 

[The Planner]

You can quad a line by building alongside it, or bypassing the settlements where space in constrained.

So disrupting that line whilst doing it, you are not building alongside it possession free. Bypassing is a new line.

No cheaper, but you only have to build one station. You can serve Cheshire P&R demand with a 1tph HS2 service coming off HS2 at Crewe and calling at Wilmslow, Stockport and Piccadilly, same as today. There is no need to build a second station at the airport. I'd expect fewer than 1% of passengers flying into Manchester are heading to London.

So no ability to increase local services and a slower journey.

 

[HSTEd]

Capacity at Manchester would need increasing too. Personally I'd build a Hauptbahnhof for Manchester in the space between Salford Central and Manchester Victoria, incorporating 2 through platforms dedicated to Liverpool - Leeds through traffic (8tph) and four 400m platforms to terminate HS2 trains approaching Manchester from the West (4+ tph). Cheaper than building two HS2 stations at Piccadilly and at the Airport, and much more useful.

I don't think a Manchester Hbf (Hauptbahnhof, a large central station) near Victoria is really practical.
You would never be able to shunt all the lines over there.

If there is to be a Hbf, it has to be on the Castlefield corridor.
We even have the perfect site, the ex-University of Manchester North Campus!

But that is rather off topic.

 

[Snow1964]

Well yes, but
(a) leaving out a railway between a junction with Phase 2a of High Speed 2 south of Crewe in Cheshire and a point in the vicinity of the parish of Millington and Rostherne in Cheshire,
(b) leaving out a railway between Hoo Green in Cheshire and a junction with the West Coast Main Line at Bamfurlong

So amending a hybrid bill leaving in a railway from Manchester to a field in Cheshire, with no route announced from there to Warrington and no funding other than £12bn "promised" to build from Piccadilly to said field.

Thank you

So basically getting a new line which is just part of original HS2 to Manchester, and which for time being will effectively be just a (very expensive) deviation loop via Manchester Airport.

 

[Nottingham59]

So no ability to increase local services and a slower journey.

The market from London to Piccadilly (4000/d) is much larger than the market London-Wilmslow (230/d) or London-Stockport (617/d).

An HS2 train going direct to central Manchester at 360km/h, via Carrington Moss or even via Barton Moss, will save 10-15 minutes compared to looping around the southern edges of Manchester at 230km/h, with a stop at the airport.

4000 x 10mins saved by HS2 going direct to Manchester is far greater than the 230 x 15 mins saved by Wilmslow passengers plus the 620 x 25 minutes saved by Stockport passengers using an Airport HS station instead of an HS2 train on the classic line to Crewe.

 

[stephen rp]

Thank you

So basically getting a new line which is just part of original HS2 to Manchester, and which for time being will effectively be just a (very expensive) deviation loop via Manchester Airport.

Loop? The only thing "funded" (£12bn) is a line from Piccadilly to a field in Cheshire.

 

[chris2]

Loop? The only thing "funded" (£12bn) is a line from Piccadilly to a field in Cheshire.

I’m not sure the funding and this bill are necessarily the totality of the scheme. The proposition is a new line between Manchester and Liverpool. The money allocated to it is £12billion. The bill changes today preserve the section of HS2 that could facilitate such a line. Obviously a further bill will be needed to bring forward the rest of the route. Whether you can do it for £12billion is another matter. But given that significant design work and parliamentary time has already been spent on this route, presumably the decision makers felt it was better to build on this work than to start again.

 

[stephen rp]

I’m not sure the funding and this bill are necessarily the totality of the scheme. The proposition is a new line between Manchester and Liverpool. The money allocated to it is £12billion. The bill changes today preserve the section of HS2 that could facilitate such a line. Obviously a further bill will be needed to bring forward the rest of the route. Whether you can do it for £12billion is another matter. But given that significant design work and parliamentary time has already been spent on this route, presumably the decision makers felt it was better to build on this work than to start again.

I'm not sure how much "design work" has been done for the bit from a field in Cheshire to Warrington. No route has been made public. The government was lying when Network North was published and they said, "we will be investing £12 billion to better connect Manchester and Liverpool. That would allow for the delivery of Northern Powerhouse Rail, exactly as previously planned, including high-speed lines". £12bn might do the bit from Piccadilly to a field in Cheshire. It won't fund a new line Warrington to Marsden (or to Liverpool/Leeds).

 

[The Planner]

The market from London to Piccadilly (4000/d) is much larger than the market London-Wilmslow (230/d) or London-Stockport (617/d).

An HS2 train going direct to central Manchester at 360km/h, via Carrington Moss or even via Barton Moss, will save 10-15 minutes compared to looping around the southern edges of Manchester at 230km/h, with a stop at the airport.

4000 x 10mins saved by HS2 going direct to Manchester is far greater than the 230 x 15 mins saved by Wilmslow passengers plus the 620 x 25 minutes saved by Stockport passengers using an Airport HS station instead of an HS2 train on the classic line to Crewe.

Its not going to be 360kmh though is it. 2B could have been higher if it was required.

 

[Nottingham59]

Its not going to be 360kmh though is it. 2B could have been higher if it was required.

In the HS2 design, the main line to Golborne was rated at 360kph. Diverging lines have to slow down to 230kph, so the turn off to the Manchester spur was 230km/h, which would mean starting to decelerate about 5km before the point of divergence. The loop around South Manchester and the Tunnel from the Airport to Piccadilly was rated at 230kph too.

A direct alignment via Carrington Moss could run at 360kph all the way to the M60, and then go into a 5km tunnel direct to central Manchester. At 6km per minute, it would take under 3 minutes to cover the extra 16km from Hoo Green to the M60.

Such a train would arrive at central Manchester while a train on the HS2 route was still at the platform of the airport station. The time penalty for stopping at a suburban stations like the airport is huge. This map shows how the timings work.

 

[Krokodil]

Do the thread contributors think there should be as many direct rail links between Liverpool and Manchester as can be between Glasgow and Edinburgh?

Population sizes are similar. It would be great if Liverpool and Manchester could see a similar level of service.

Is there, based on current passenger footfall, a known demand for passenger usage on existing railway stations between Liverpool and Manchester that will be suitably increased in order to reduce any existing carriage overcrowding?

Current footfall is not a reliable indicator of future demand. Better frequencies boost demand, it's not just about dealing with existing crowding, it's about attracting passengers from other modes of transport.

Frequency isn't horrible right now

There are many stations within the metropolitan areas of both cities which only have an hourly service. The existing lines should see half-hourly - quarter-hourly within the cities themselves - stopping services. They can't at the moment because there's no capacity between the class 1s.

All these postings concerning train lengths and associated capacity on Manchester to Liverpool train services makes me wonder where this untapped demand is hiding itself at this moment in time?

Much of it is stuck in traffic on the M62.

You're talking enabling that by building a new line from Manchester to Liverpool (well, new line Manchester to Warrington) that would cost as much as Crossrail.

The expensive bit (tunnelling under Manchester) was originally supposed to be shared with HS2 before our myopic government cut that.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Much of it is stuck in traffic on the M62.

But that does not follow that all the Liverpool to Manchester M62 road traffic is solely between those two cities. HGV traffic finds logistic centres useful to be near the M62 for destinations all over Britain and the car traffic on that motorway also is used to many UK destinations.

 

[Krokodil]

But that does not follow that all the Liverpool to Manchester M62 road traffic is solely between those two cities. HGV traffic finds logistic centres useful to be near the M62 for destinations all over Britain and the car traffic on that motorway also is used to many UK destinations.

So take the Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester (and beyond) passenger traffic off of the M62 and the traffic which remains will flow more freely. Not forgetting all of the traffic from the less-fortunate stops clogging up A and B roads which would be on the rails if you weren't given a choice between being late into the office every day or having to arrive an hour early (such is the inconvenient time that the Liverpool-Airport stopper arrives at Oxford Road). With the fast trains removed from the existing lines you can have more stoppers.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

So take the Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester (and beyond) passenger traffic off of the M62 and the traffic which remains will flow more freely. Not forgetting all of the traffic from the less-fortunate stops clogging up A and B roads which would be on the rails if you weren't given a choice between being late into the office every day or having to arrive an hour early (such is the inconvenient time that the Liverpool-Airport stopper arrives at Oxford Road). With the fast trains removed from the existing lines you can have more stoppers.

One could add the excitement engendered in planning how to get to work and back on rail strike days....

 

[Krokodil]

One could add the excitement engendered in planning how to get to work and back on rail strike days....

My money is on much improved industrial relations within a year.