Restarting HS2 East

[TheGuy77]

Obviously very unlikely and expensive, but how could we build the Eastern section of HS2, to Sheffield, Leeds, York and Newcastle, in the cheapest way possible?

 

[JonathanH]

Obviously very unlikely and expensive, but how could we build the Eastern section of HS2, to Sheffield, Leeds, York and Newcastle, in the cheapest way possible?

The compromise of running to East Midlands Parkway, and an upgrade to the Erewash Valley line was exactly that, an attempt to build the Eastern Leg at the lowest cost, and it still got cancelled.

Some people talk of a spur from HS2 to join the Derby line after Tamworth, but it would still come with the expense of electrification through to Moorthorpe and Doncaster

 

[Halifaxlad]

Strategic alternatives to the HS2 Eastern Leg

An independent assessment of the strategic alternatives to HS2 Eastern Leg, this report forms part of the evidence base for the Integrated Rail Plan 2021.

www.gov.uk

Several strategic alternatives to the HS2 Eastern Leg have been proposed, focusing on upgrading existing lines or combining new high-speed lines with upgrades to the Midland Main Line (MML) and East Coast Main Line (ECML). These options aim to achieve similar connectivity and capacity benefits as the original HS2 Eastern Leg, but potentially at a lower cost.

 

[David Bullock]

now that the land for HS2 East has is being sold it feels more distant than ever.

I can’t help but feel like the reason why it was so easy to scrap this part of the route was because the biggest benefit would have been for journeys along the Leeds-Sheffield-Birmingham corridor (I.e cross country route)

any of the proposals in that report would obliterate local capacity in favour of marginally better journey times to London and they don’t go any way to solving the connectivity gap between West Yorks-South Yorks-East Mids-West Mids.

Upgrades and bypasses would also run into issues with very congested city centre approaches. Certainly Sheffield and Leeds would struggle to get any more trains through than they do now.

 

[lachlan]

now that the land for HS2 East has is being sold it feels more distant than ever.

I can’t help but feel like the reason why it was so easy to scrap this part of the route was because the biggest benefit would have been for journeys along the Leeds-Sheffield-Birmingham corridor (I.e cross country route)

any of the proposals in that report would obliterate local capacity in favour of marginally better journey times to London and they don’t go any way to solving the connectivity gap between West Yorks-South Yorks-East Mids-West Mids.

Upgrades and bypasses would also run into issues with very congested city centre approaches. Certainly Sheffield and Leeds would struggle to get any more trains through than they do now.

Indeed - it's easy to be cynical about HS2 when the part that most benefited the north was scrapped.

The obvious way to save money would have been to cut the East Midlands Hub station.

 

[HSTEd]

The Eastern Leg arguably died when Sheffield helped the bean counters kill Meadowhall station. We can debate why they did that (personally I think Sheffield council cares more about its position as the preeminent city of South Yorkshire than the prosperity of the county), but that effectively converted the line between Chesterfield and Leeds into a branch to serve Leeds and the line to York.

Once that happened, it was doomed, especially once NPR got floated with significant quantities of new construction.

At this point the most I could concieve is a section of high speed line between Manchester and Leeds, and a short connection onto the Birmingham-Derby line if some way of doing it without requiring electrification can be worked out.

 

[BerkshireRails]

The HS2 Eastern leg would mainly help with the Midland Mainline and the East Coast Mainline south of Newcastle; north of Newcastle, it was expected that passengers would go via the HS2 West. So maybe getting HS2 to East Midlands Parkway is the best thing that can happen.

 

[cle]

Getting to Tamworth (on the Birmingham-Derby line) is probably the best option.

It will reduce journey times for Tamworth (roughly 20 mins), Derby/Chesterfield/Sheffield (roughly 15 mins each) - and would introduce Burton to the HS network, with direct London services hovering around 1 hour.

You could relocate some services to Curzon St (or enable more calls on those out of BNS).

You could rework the MML service pattern (and add a fast London-Leicester-Nottingham only service), and play with the other patterns inc more for Bedford.

It doesn't do much for Leeds or York, admittedly.

 

[daodao]

Getting to Tamworth (on the Birmingham-Derby line) is probably the best option.

It will reduce journey times for Tamworth (roughly 20 mins), Derby/Chesterfield/Sheffield (roughly 15 mins each) - and would introduce Burton to the HS network, with direct London services hovering around 1 hour.

You could relocate some services to Curzon St (or enable more calls on those out of BNS).

You could rework the MML service pattern (and add a fast London-Leicester-Nottingham only service), and play with the other patterns inc more for Bedford.

It doesn't do much for Leeds or York, admittedly.

I agree.

 

[Energy]

The Eastern Leg arguably died when Sheffield helped the bean counters kill Meadowhall station.[...], but that effectively converted the line between Chesterfield and Leeds into a branch to serve Leeds and the line to York.

Once that happened, it was doomed, especially once NPR got floated with significant quantities of new construction.

Agreed. The F-shape plan (NPR + HS2 to Derby & Manchester) was better for Manchester and Leeds.

Both cities would end up with an extremely high-frequency service to London. By themselves, they each got 3tph 400m; for a London - Manchester - Leeds, a 4-6tph 400m service seems likely. They'd also get an extremely high-capacity and high-frequency service between the two cities.

For Manchester, it also allows them to push for the underground through station.

 

[London Trains]

Most will disagree with me, but in the current climate I now think it would be better to upgrade/improve the ECML than reinstate HS2 east - i.e. 4-tracking at Digswell Viaduct and between Huntingdon and Peterborough, 140mph upgrades where feasible, grade separation at Newark, a couple of extra platforms at Kings Cross (which would be required to fully unlock the benefits of the aforementioned improvements) etc.

 

[NCT]

Agreed. The F-shape plan (NPR + HS2 to Derby & Manchester) was better for Manchester and Leeds.

Both cities would end up with an extremely high-frequency service to London. By themselves, they each got 3tph 400m; for a London - Manchester - Leeds, a 4-6tph 400m service seems likely. They'd also get an extremely high-capacity and high-frequency service between the two cities.

For Manchester, it also allows them to push for the underground through station.

That's a classic case of a solution looking for a problem to fit.

When you are high-volume inter-city corridor operating at 2tph or 3tph you don't need frequency for the sake of frequency.

For London - Leeds the journey time penalty of going via Manchester is greater than the frequency gain. A point-to-point service with generous boarding and alighting times (nature of both ends being termini) is far more friendly to use than half the train having to funnel through end doors during a limited intermediate dwell.

The cost of an underground Piccadilly plus full HS TransPennine line to Leeds would be far greater than completing the East Midlands - Yorkshire portion of HS2 and a scale of NPR (or TRU+) that's proportionate to the actual TransPennine market size and journey distances.

Especially given Britain's city geography, as at Birmingham Curzon Street and Manchester Piccadilly, it's easier to find short and fat sites for surface terminus stations than to find long and (only slightly thinner) sites for underground through stations.

If everything got funnelled through Manchester (including Leeds and Scotland trains), dwell times at that Manchester Piccadilly would have to be far more than 2 minutes (10 minutes more likely) and you'd need at least an Old Oak Common sized station. Stations of these size underground, for the fortunes you pay, are never nice - Barcelona Sants, Antwerpen Centraal lowest level, Bologna high speed station are all horrible places at platform level.

 

[BerkshireRails]

Most will disagree with me, but in the current climate I now think it would be better to upgrade/improve the ECML than reinstate HS2 east - i.e. 4-tracking at Digswell Viaduct and between Huntingdon and Peterborough, 140mph upgrades where feasible, grade separation at Newark, a couple of extra platforms at Kings Cross (which would be required to fully unlock the benefits of the aforementioned improvements) etc.

Ware would the additional platforms go at Kings Cross?

 

[NCT]

Ware would the additional platforms go at Kings Cross?

Hertford.

 

[HSTEd]

For London - Leeds the journey time penalty of going via Manchester is greater than the frequency gain. A point-to-point service with generous boarding and alighting times (nature of both ends being termini) is far more friendly to use than half the train having to funnel through end doors during a limited intermediate dwell.

We don't have to have end doors.
The journey time is an hour to Manchester if the line ever gets there.

End doors are insanity, and the rolling stock is both not a significant portion of scheme costs and years from even starting construction.

The cost of an underground Piccadilly plus full HS TransPennine line to Leeds would be far greater than completing the East Midlands - Yorkshire portion of HS2 and a scale of NPR (or TRU+) that's proportionate to the actual TransPennine market size and journey distances.

I very much doubt that given the vastly greater distance.

Especially given Britain's city geography, as at Birmingham Curzon Street and Manchester Piccadilly, it's easier to find short and fat sites for surface terminus stations than to find long and (only slightly thinner) sites for underground through stations.

Even if we accept this, we now have auto reverse.
The journey time penalty for the train reversing is now approximately zero.

If everything got funnelled through Manchester (including Leeds and Scotland trains), dwell times at that Manchester Piccadilly would have to be far more than 2 minutes (10 minutes more likely) and you'd need at least an Old Oak Common sized station. Stations of these size underground, for the fortunes you pay, are never nice - Barcelona Sants, Antwerpen Centraal lowest level, Bologna high speed station are all horrible places at platform level.

Ten minutes is a very very generous dwell time for anything but a sleeper. Especially a train that is 70 minutes from London!
Five minutes or less is far more likely, and that means two platforms is likely suitable.
You might want three for redundancy.

However, as noted a through station is likely unnecessary now auto reverse can exist.

 

[NCT]

We don't have to have end doors.
The journey time is an hour to Manchester if the line ever gets there.

End doors are insanity, and the rolling stock is both not a significant portion of scheme costs and years from even starting construction.

Oh, so inter-city operations the world over are insanity then, are they?

I very much doubt that given the vastly greater distance.

Even if we accept this, we now have auto reverse.
The journey time penalty for the train reversing is now approximately zero.

I was responding specifically to a point about an underground through station. It's one thing to auto-reverse in a de-trained scenario (Paddington has a permanent de-training army), quite another with a driver fighting their way through a crowded train while the train is on the move.

Ten minutes is a very very generous dwell time for anything but a sleeper. Especially a train that is 70 minutes from London!
Five minutes or less is far more likely, and that means two platforms is likely suitable.
You might want three for redundancy.

However, as noted a through station is likely unnecessary now auto reverse can exist.

DB ICE's 6-minute dwells at Frankfurt Hbf are not enough. The Japanese might get away with short dwells but the Shinkansen actually represents restricted supply for the corridor population, so they can price off the suitcase brigade to make excess profits and the largely briefcase brigades can board and alight swiftly. European inter-city trains (including UK ones) carry more of the suitcase brigade and the passenger train interface environment should be designed for old ladies with two suitcases.

 

[HSTEd]

Oh, so inter-city operations the world over are insanity then, are they?

How many "inter-city" operations in the world operate on journeys as short as the ones on HS2 will be?

A London-Manchester-Leeds train with a transpennine HSL would be 70 minutes from London and 20 ish minutes from Leeds. 50 minutes from York if it extends there (less if the HSL extends to York).
A journey like that is not going to have the character of an "intercity" journey, it will turn into something that resembles Transpennine Express.

As far as I am aware, nothing like that operates regularly on the French system, and I can't think of a regular route like that on the German system.

I was responding specifically to a point about an underground through station. It's one thing to auto-reverse in a de-trained scenario (Paddington has a permanent de-training army), quite another with a driver fighting their way through a crowded train while the train is on the move.

You have several minutes before the train arrives in Manchester, the entire dwell in Manchester and several minutes after the train leaves Manchester.
And that's assuming the railway isn't outright operating GoA 3 (train captain only) throughout, GoA 3 high speed rail is already in service in China after all.

DB ICE's 6-minute dwells at Frankfurt Hbf are not enough. The Japanese might get away with short dwells but the Shinkansen actually represents restricted supply for the corridor population, so they can price off the suitcase brigade to make excess profits and the largely briefcase brigades can board and alight swiftly. European inter-city trains (including UK ones) carry more of the suitcase brigade and the passenger train interface environment should be designed for old ladies with two suitcases.

We don't put ten minute dwells into TPE services because some people with two suitcases might make up a small portion of the traffic.
If we end up with a high speed line to these cities, it will inherently change the characteristics of the route.

It won't really feel like an intercity system any longer, because most of the people doing the journeys will be doing them for the sorts of reasons they use today's regional express trains.
You don't run a inter-city style train to Brighton any more because the journey time shortened to the point that it doesn't really make any sense.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Most will disagree with me, but in the current climate I now think it would be better to upgrade/improve the ECML than reinstate HS2 east - i.e. 4-tracking at Digswell Viaduct and between Huntingdon and Peterborough, 140mph upgrades where feasible, grade separation at Newark, a couple of extra platforms at Kings Cross (which would be required to fully unlock the benefits of the aforementioned improvements) etc.

Honestly, 140mph upgrades for substantial sections would do the job just fine, but isn't it the case that at least some of the trains aren't capable of 140mph?

 

[Shrop]

Hertford.

While this suggested location for additional London platforms for the southern end of an eastern leg of HS2 might have been said in jest, perhaps it should be considered whilst bearing in mind of the complete joke that HS2 has become.

Think of it this way ... A fast rail link from London to Nottingham, Sheffield and Leeds was scuppered by Sunak, so why not provide a new route starting somewhere else north of London? The vicinity of Radlett springs to mind, with potential for linking into the existing rail route to central London, then through to Gatwick Airport and Brighton, plus of course its proximity to the M25 for road access, and on to Stansted Airport by existing road links in just an hour. Starting in the Radlett area would avoid £billions by not running directly into central London, and let's face it, Radlett isn't a lot less convenient for central London than is Old Oak Common anyway.

Now, with the remaining HS2 debacle still being built there is no longer any need to talk about running from London to Birmingham, focus instead on serving the northern cities that HS2 should have done. Use a route approximating to the M1 corridor, run to Sheffield and Leeds, and provide a new and much needed Cross Pennine link across to Manchester (and onwards to Liverpool).

 

[brad465]

Most will disagree with me, but in the current climate I now think it would be better to upgrade/improve the ECML than reinstate HS2 east - i.e. 4-tracking at Digswell Viaduct and between Huntingdon and Peterborough, 140mph upgrades where feasible, grade separation at Newark, a couple of extra platforms at Kings Cross (which would be required to fully unlock the benefits of the aforementioned improvements) etc.

Honestly, 140mph upgrades for substantial sections would do the job just fine, but isn't it the case that at least some of the trains aren't capable of 140mph?

I'm fully expecting @Bald Rick will rip this argument to shreds.

 

[London Trains]

Deleted

 

[Energy]

How many "inter-city" operations in the world operate on journeys as short as the ones on HS2 will be?

A London-Manchester-Leeds train with a transpennine HSL would be 70 minutes from London and 20 ish minutes from Leeds. 50 minutes from York if it extends there (less if the HSL extends to York).
A journey like that is not going to have the character of an "intercity" journey, it will turn into something that resembles Transpennine Express.

Exactly, HS1 Javelin services operate doors at 1/3rds and are around 1h20 maximum.

Sure, Eurostar services on the same line use end doors, but the shortest journey out (London St Pancras - Calais) is still 2 hours.

It won't really feel like an intercity system any longer, because most of the people doing the journeys will be doing them for the sorts of reasons they use today's regional express trains.
You don't run a inter-city style train to Brighton any more because the journey time shortened to the point that it doesn't really make any sense.

The UK is far too attached to "this is how France/Germany does it". Their ways aren't perfect, as seen by DB's current reliability, in particular, their use of existing lines into the city centre.

Especially given Britain's city geography, as at Birmingham Curzon Street and Manchester Piccadilly, it's easier to find short and fat sites for surface terminus stations than to find long and (only slightly thinner) sites for underground through stations.

Short? Both have 400m platforms, whether they are termini or through.

If everything got funnelled through Manchester (including Leeds and Scotland trains), dwell times at that Manchester Piccadilly would have to be far more than 2 minutes (10 minutes more likely)

Ok. London - Birmingham - Scotland services spend 12 (I think it used to be up to 17?) minutes sat at New St. I don't consider stopping say ~6 mins a big problem.

 

[HSTEd]

Ok. London - Birmingham - Scotland services spend 12 (I think it used to be up to 17?) minutes sat at New St. I don't consider stopping say ~6 mins a big problem.

This is more a result of timetabling convenience than anything.

London-Edinburgh trains appear to spend anything between two and eight minutes at Newcastle as far as I can see from a cursory examination of Realtimetrains.

But I think the salient point is we must remember how small the UK is and how fast high speed rail is in that context.
With the exception of London trains to Scotland (which likely wouldn't be routed through a Manchester station for the forseable), there will be very few journeys as long as those associated with high speed rail on teh continent.

Even London-Newcastle only gets you from Paris to Lyon or so.

 

[BerkshireRails]

You could probably put a single platform on York Way, and still have enough space to fit a narrow traffic lane so the road could remain open. The bus stop and bus stands would have to be removed.

Platform minus 1 anyone

Would this reuse the former Thameslink tunnel?

 

[Bald Rick]

Most will disagree with me, but in the current climate I now think it would be better to upgrade/improve the ECML than reinstate HS2 east - i.e. 4-tracking at Digswell Viaduct and between Huntingdon and Peterborough, 140mph upgrades where feasible, grade separation at Newark, a couple of extra platforms at Kings Cross (which would be required to fully unlock the benefits of the aforementioned improvements) etc.

Trouble is, this doesn’t give you much in the way of capacity or journey time.

Honestly, 140mph upgrades for substantial sections would do the job just fine, but isn't it the case that at least some of the trains aren't capable of 140mph?

All the 80x are 140mph capable (some may need some modification). The infrastructure, well that’s another matter. The cost and disruption to get the infrastructure to 140mph would be substantial. On any section above 125mph, all the OLE would need replacing, all Level Crossings would have to go, any structures under the track would have to be assessed (and possibly strengthened / rebuilt), all switches and crossings replaced, all platforms adjacent to the line closed (or at least with a fail safe system that passengers are not on the platforms with trains passing at that speed), it would all need regauging, some track geometry would need to be fiddled with, maintenance regimes would have to be changed, and of course resignalling - even with ETCS there would need to be alterations. Oh and someone would have to put new signs up .

All for 3 seconds a mile. Personally I can’t see it happening, but I hear there’s rumblings of looking into it again. If any of it was to be done Doncaster - York would be the obvious place as half of it was built for that speed in terms of civil engineering.

And then the big issue. The timetable. Making use of 140mph sections means recasting (again). The challenges with the current ECML recast are largely (but not exclusively) because of the quanity of trains, their wide range of calling patterns and differing levels of performance in terms of acceleration and top speed. Adding in more trains on essentially the same infrastructure and/or speeding up many of the trains will make the timetbale challenge harder. Although I’m told on another thread that some smart students with AI could rewrite the whole network timetable before I’ve started my second hob nob of the day, so perhaps I’m unduly pessimistic. #smarttimetabling

Starting in the Radlett area would avoid £billions by not running directly into central London, and let's face it, Radlett isn't a lot less convenient for central London than is Old Oak Common anyway.

Zone 1 to OOC will be 4 minutes with a train every 3 minutes or so.

Zone 1 to Radlett is 25 - 27 minutes with a train every 10/15 minutes. That is a LOT less convenient.

I'm fully expecting @Bald Rick will rip this argument to shreds.

I prefer to be surgical

 

[Shrop]

Zone 1 to OOC will be 4 minutes with a train every 3 minutes or so.

Zone 1 to Radlett is 25 - 27 minutes with a train every 10/15 minutes. That is a LOT less conconvenient

That's a VERY rosy picture you paint, of OOC to Zone 1, which certainly wouldn't get you to the Charing Cross area, or indeed to anywhere other than the western edge of Zone 1.
Then you paint a very dark picture of Radlett to Zone 1 assuming no improvements whatsoever.
One might even perceive this as a biased assessment without balance!

 

[NCT]

That's a VERY rosy picture you paint, of OOC to Zone 1, which certainly wouldn't get you to the Charing Cross area, or indeed to anywhere other than the western edge of Zone 1.
Then you paint a very dark picture of Radlett to Zone 1 assuming no improvements whatsoever.
One might even perceive this as a biased assessment without balance!

Nope.

Frequency and journey time to the first Zone 1 station. It was an entirely fair comparison.

Crossrail has slightly better penetration of Central London than Thameslink has. Just as there are parts of Central London awkward from Crossrail, there are those awkward from Thameslink.

 

[Bald Rick]

That's a VERY rosy picture you paint, of OOC to Zone 1, which certainly wouldn't get you to the Charing Cross area, or indeed to anywhere other than the western edge of Zone 1.
Then you paint a very dark picture of Radlett to Zone 1 assuming no improvements whatsoever.
One might even perceive this as a biased assessment without balance!

Lets do Charing Cross then:

OOC - Northern to Tottenham Court Road (every 2-3 mins), takes 3 mins. Change time 4 mins to Elizabeth Line, (will be every 2-3 minutes to OOC, allow 2 mins wait time) journey time 10 minutes. Total 19 mins.

Radlett - walk to Embankment (5mins), District / Circle to Blackfriars (every 2-3 mins), takes 3 mins. Change time 4 mins to Thameslink, (Trains to Radlett are at 5/10/15 intervals, allow 5 mins wait time), journey time 37 mins.
Total 54 minutes

 

[Shrop]

Nope.

Frequency and journey time to the first Zone 1 station. It was an entirely fair comparison.

Crossrail has slightly better penetration of Central London than Thameslink has. Just as there are parts of Central London awkward from Crossrail, there are those awkward from Thameslink.

I'll go with your second paragraph, but your first one just perpetuates the bias by re-stating the obvious and not giving any credence to my suggestion.
Let's suppose you were to spend perhaps 10% of the cost of Crossrail, to upgrade Thameslink, in other words a bargain. How about giving just a bit of thought to whether it might work, rather than assuming instant dismissal and then finding reasons to justify that dismissal? After all, we're all here to promote rail travel are we not? We can surely leave the knee jerk instant negatives to our politicians?

 

[NCT]

Let's suppose you were to spend perhaps 10% of the cost of Crossrail, to upgrade Thameslink, in other words a bargain.

That's a huge unfounded assertion.

If you make an assertion it's up to you to 'show your working' and explain how it might work, not to demand others do the work for you.