Alternatives to the Golborne Spur?

[Arkeeos]

Since it is now official that the Golborne spur is scrapped and there is no current proposed alternative, what options could there be to connect HS2 to the WCML?

Its unlikely that they've scrapped the link to be more ambitious with the connection, but who knows. The cheap, and probably likely option is to connect to the WCML before Warrington. But potentially it could connect before Preston which would be preferable, or maybe there's a way to allow Scotland services go from Scotland - Manchester.

 

[snowball]

There was some discussion of this previously in the original Infrastructure thread

Shapps "promised to scrap HS2 Golborne spur"

The Guardian website is claiming that Grant Shapps, the transport secretary, has privately promised to drop the Golborne spur. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/apr/06/senior-tory-graham-brady-grant-shapps-privately-assured-hs2-branch-scrapped Exclusive: Assurances offered to Graham...

www.railforums.co.uk

Somebody claimed to know of a proposal to follow the NPR Warrington-Liverpool line from the Lymm area, through Warrington Bank Quay low level to the Fiddlers Ferry area, then turn north.

 

[MarkyT]

There was some discussion of this previously in the original Infrastructure thread

Shapps "promised to scrap HS2 Golborne spur"

The Guardian website is claiming that Grant Shapps, the transport secretary, has privately promised to drop the Golborne spur. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/apr/06/senior-tory-graham-brady-grant-shapps-privately-assured-hs2-branch-scrapped Exclusive: Assurances offered to Graham...

www.railforums.co.uk

Somebody claimed to know of a proposal to follow the NPR Warrington-Liverpool line from the Lymm area, through Warrington Bank Quay low level to the Fiddlers Ferry area, then turn north.

While it's sensible to follow the Liverpool spur so far, it's probably better to turn off before entering Warrington and follow the motorway north towards Wigan/Preston. The new Warrington station will probably not have a high through speed as HS2 Liverpool and NPR trains are all likely to stop there. Remember Golborne was planned long before the idea of NPR and the Liverpool spur was a thing, so revisiting the overall design is reasonable. Just a shame that the previous precedent of announcing alternatives as part of the change communication has been discontinued.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

If just south of Preston would need a new viaduct over the Ribble but that should not be too costly in the scheme of things.

 

[tomuk]

If just south of Preston would need a new viaduct over the Ribble but that should not be too costly in the scheme of things.

Are all the tracks over the existing viaduct used? I think there are five tracks with space for six.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Are all the tracks over the existing viaduct used? I think there are five tracks with space for six.

You maybe correct but the viaduct looks in bad shape and if we are all about capacity, logic suggests another one maybe built.

 

[2192]

"Since it is now official that the Golborne spur is scrapped and there is no current proposed alternative, what options could there be to connect HS2 to the WCML?
Its unlikely that they've scrapped the link to be more ambitious with the connection, but who knows. The cheap, and probably likely option is to connect to the WCML before Warrington. But potentially it could connect before Preston which would be preferable, or maybe there's a way to allow Scotland services go from Scotland - Manchester."

"Scrapped" is too strong! They have kept it as a possibility if they don't think of anything any better. It could well be reinstated after the next election. I think they only said it to calm down local MP's in marginal seats.

 

[MarkyT]

Golborne was a poor compromise anyway as it would discharge Scottish trains from the end of the high speed line directly into the 80 mph restriction through the curves and platforms of Wigan North Western station. Once north of Wigan, the existing alignment is very straight and much of it had additional tracks in the past whose former alignment width might be used to construct a new dedicated higher speed pair.

 

[2192]

"Golborne was a poor compromise anyway as it would discharge Scottish trains from the end of the high speed line directly into the 80 mph restriction through the curves and platforms of Wigan North Western station. Once north of Wigan, the existing alignment is very straight and much of it had additional tracks in the past whose former alignment width might be used to construct a new dedicated higher speed pair."

Agreed, but avoiding Wigan means trains off HS2 cannot stop there.

 

[bib]

I'm just drawing lines on maps and trying to avoid flattening villages, but if you hypothetically only wanted to speed up services to Scotland and didn't care about connecting to the north of England, I wonder if you could bypass Wigan on the east and Leyland/Preston on the west. First section might be a bit hilly, but I guess it'd be doable if needed.
Looking on RTT for a Glasgow- Euston train, from Barton & Broughton to Bamfurlong Jn is 21.5mi , WTT is 22.5mins including 2min dwell for stops at Preston and Wigan NW (1min each). If the HS line was slightly longer, maybe 23mi, and you could average say 150mph thats about 9 mins saved. Might get you near 3h30 for London-Glasgow.
Then you decide you haven't spent enough money yet and build a 25mi Lake District base tunnel allowing you to skip Oxenholme - Penrith to save another 15 mins which gets you to about 70% modal share on Glasgow-London according to the graph in the Union Connectivity Review.

 

[snowball]

Agreed, but avoiding Wigan means trains off HS2 cannot stop there.

Unless they leave HS2 at Crewe.

 

[Nottingham59]

build a 25mi Lake District base tunnel allowing you to skip Oxenholme - Penrith

You really don't need a base tunnel for TGV-style lines. Provided they are straight (minimum radius ~5km) you can route them up and over hills at up to 3% gradients. And a train doing 200mph on a straight alignment past Oxenholme could coast over Shap Summit without drawing any power. *

It wouldn't be cheap, because of the earthworks involved to get a straight alignment, and you'd have to put the line in a tube or green tunnel to satisfy the NIMBY's. But nowhere near as expensive as building an 8.8m diameter base tunnel.

Unless they leave HS2 at Crewe.

An HS2 service calling at Crewe, Warrington, Wigan and terminating at Preston makes a lot of sense, and would be an efficient use of the rolling stock.


* The rule of thumb is that a train doing 10mph can rise 1m before stopping. As energy varies as the square of the speed, 100mph gives you 100m of altitude, and 200mph equates to 400m. Shap summit is only 316m ASL.

 

[HSTEd]

It wouldn't be cheap, because of the earthworks involved to get a straight alignment, and you'd have to put the line in a tube or green tunnel to satisfy the NIMBY's. But nowhere near as expensive as building an 8.8m diameter base tunnel.

I actually doubt this - once the cost of fighting the objectors, the delays as a result and the mitigations necessary to satisfy them are included you would be better just going straight through a base tunnel.
I doubt you would get cleared for a straight surface alignment away from the M6, which stretches out the extension and costs more money.

And the line is highly unlikely to ever be close to full, you might get a little bit of freight use out of it, especially with ETCS enabled bi-directional running. It might be possible to engineer a tunnel that allows the bulk of the existing route over Shap to be abandoned.

 

[Nottingham59]

you would be better just going straight through a base tunnel.

You might be right. But a 25-mile twin-bore base tunnel at £100M/stkm would cost £8Bn. There's a lot of other places where 80km of tunnel would be more use.

And if the problem is slow freights, then the quickest and cheapest fix is to insist that all freights use electric haulage over Shap and Beattock etc.

 

[MarkyT]

Here's my suggestion, with Scottish Main Line and Liverpool Spur diverging just south of Lymm. Follows M6 and joins WCML just south of Golborne rather than north thereof:

Still leaves the speed problem through Wigan though, so a higher speed 'inner bypass' might be plausible through industrial land to the west of the stations:

 

[HSTEd]

Given that the Spur was cancelled to get construction out of Shapp's constituency - perhaps we should consider the boundaries of said constituency?

 

[TheBigD]

Given that the Spur was cancelled to get construction out of Shapp's constituency - perhaps we should consider the boundaries of said constituency?

Shapps' constituency is Welwyn Hatfield. Nowhere near HS2, Golborne Spur etc etc...

 

[Nottingham59]

Shapps' constituency

It was Graham Brady who is the MP for Altrincham. He's chair of the 1922 committee and therefore running the election for the new PM.

 

[MarkyT]

It was Graham Brady who is the MP for Altrincham. He's chair of the 1922 committee and therefore running the election for the new PM.

I think my route following M56/M6 avoids the constituency altogether, although clearly, it would affect a whole new set of people instead!

Altrincham and Sale West - MapIt

MapIt: a web service that maps postcodes and geographical points to administrative areas.

mapit.mysociety.org

Note my Wigan inner bypass speed improvement would be compatible with the original Golborne spur proposal as well.

 

[tomuk]

I think my route following M56/M6 avoids the constituency altogether, although clearly, it would affect a whole new set of people instead!

Altrincham and Sale West - MapIt

MapIt: a web service that maps postcodes and geographical points to administrative areas.

mapit.mysociety.org

Note my Wigan inner bypass speed improvement would be compatible with the original Golborne spur proposal as well.

Andy Carter the Warrington South MP was also vehemently against the Golborne Link you can't resurrect it just be avoiding Graham Brady's constituency. Your proposed routing still duplicates the MSC crossing, probably cause more disruption than reusing the disused railway to Golborne and unless it ploughs through part of Wigan doesn't fix the conflicts with the flat junctions around Wigan.

 

[MarkyT]

Andy Carter the Warrington South MP was also vehemently against the Golborne Link you can't resurrect it just be avoiding Graham Brady's constituency. Your proposed routing still duplicates the MSC crossing, probably cause more disruption than reusing the disused railway to Golborne and unless it ploughs through part of Wigan doesn't fix the conflicts with the flat junctions around Wigan.

Warrington South abuts Altrincham & Sale, so if the only criterion is to not annoy local MPs, there's no realistic way through for a new route. My route following the M6 is at least following an existing transport corridor, however, so should raise fewer real local objections, and the MSC crossing is probably similar in scope and cost to the original Golborne spur proposal, is further away from residential areas and is next to the motorway again. I think with the frequency likely in the area, some flat junctions would be plausible for stoppers turning off at Wigan from the new fast lines for instance. I'd go for full four tracking north of Wigan with the fasts on the west side which would remove many conflicts, but the fast and slows may need to transpose on the southern approach to Preston for minimal conflict. I'm assuming Scottish HS2 expresses will call at Preston. Although it closely followed the corridor for a way, very little of the actual disused 'Wigan Junction Branch' alignment was proposed to be used for the original Golborne spur.

 

[tomuk]

, and the MSC crossing is probably similar in scope and cost to the original Golborne spur proposal,

That maybe the case but the line from High Legh to the Warrington area including the MSC crossing duplicates the NPR line. If only you could combine the two?!

 

[MarkyT]

That maybe the case but the line from High Legh to the Warrington area including the MSC crossing duplicates the NPR line. If only you could combine the two?!

So they both need a MSC crossing. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that the 'Warrington and Stockport' alignment will be chosen to enter Warrington BQ from the east as the corridor is clear of development. The Latchford viaduct will probably need a complete rebuild for that, but once over the canal on that alignment, there's no obvious escape route heading north through the urban area unless you go right round Warrington miles to the west. The approach that way is also quite slow due to curvature for the last mile or two, but that's not a big problem for HS2 Liverpool spur and NPR traffic which will likely all stop at BQ. It's probably impossible to reengineer that line with the speeds desirable for longer distance non stop Scottish trains to pass through the area. I'm not convinced that the cost or difficulty of the original MSC crossing on the Golborne spur was a major problem financially or politically, but the route as planned was in close proximity to settlements around Partington, Cadishead and Hollis Green, and that may have been the issue.

 

[Bald Rick]

I actually doubt this - once the cost of fighting the objectors, the delays as a result and the mitigations necessary to satisfy them are included you would be better just going straight through a base tunnel.

it would be interesting to see a worked example of costs for these alternatives.

given that you will have to go through exactly the same consents exercise to build a base tunnel as for a surface route, just with fewer potential objectors, the cost of the consents process is going to be roughly the same for either option. Certainly not more than a couple of tens of millions.

It was Graham Brady who is the MP for Altrincham. He's chair of the 1922 committee and therefore running the election for the new PM.

Just imagine, if the conservatives lose the next election, and ‘the north’ campaigns for reinstatement, as does Scotland as part of the price of a coalition… what is the best way to annoy the back benches of the Conservative party?

 

[tomuk]

So they both need a MSC crossing. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that the 'Warrington and Stockport' alignment will be chosen to enter Warrington BQ from the east as the corridor is clear of development. The Latchford viaduct will probably need a complete rebuild for that, but once over the canal on that alignment, there's no obvious escape route heading north through the urban area unless you go right round Warrington miles to the west.

And why is going to the west of Warrington a problem?

The approach that way is also quite slow due to curvature for the last mile or two, but that's not a big problem for HS2 Liverpool spur and NPR traffic which will likely all stop at BQ. It's probably impossible to reengineer that line with the speeds desirable for longer distance non stop Scottish trains to pass through the area.

Looking at at the ITSS, of the 'North' HS2 services 1tph was going to stop at Warrington and Wigan and 1tph at Wigan only, additionally 2tph 'fast' to Scotland would not stop between Birmingham Interchange and Preston. Would it not be a good idea to amend these stopping patterns so a consistent interchange could be had at a combined NPR\HS2 Warrington BQ Low Level.

 

[MarkyT]

And why is going to the west of Warrington a problem?

Mainly of the extra distance of a big kink getting around the urban area on the surface, especially if speed through Warrington was limited. You nearly have to reach Fiddlers Ferry near Widnes before you could find a decent gap to turn north between the built-up areas.

Looking at at the ITSS, of the 'North' HS2 services 1tph was going to stop at Warrington and Wigan and 1tph at Wigan only, additionally 2tph 'fast' to Scotland would not stop between Birmingham Interchange and Preston. Would it not be a good idea to amend these stopping patterns so a consistent interchange could be had at a combined NPR\HS2 Warrington BQ Low Level.

If all Scotland trains stopped at Warrington rather than Preston for NW interchange, then some intervention for through speed at Preston would be desirable. Not sure Preston and the surrounding area would be very pleased with losing all their fastest proposed trains to London either.

 

[Bald Rick]

Looking at at the ITSS, of the 'North' HS2 services 1tph was going to stop at Warrington and Wigan and 1tph at Wigan only, additionally 2tph 'fast' to Scotland would not stop between Birmingham Interchange and Preston. Would it not be a good idea to amend these stopping patterns so a consistent interchange could be had at a combined NPR\HS2

What would be the point of interchange between HS2 and NPR at Warrington?

 

[tomuk]

Mainly of the extra distance of a big kink getting around the urban area on the surface, especially if speed through Warrington was limited. You nearly have to reach Fiddlers Ferry near Widnes before you could find a decent gap to turn north between the built-up areas.

I'm still not seeing what the problem is there would be plenty of fast running north from Fiddlers Ferry to Preston

If all Scotland trains stopped at Warrington rather than Preston for NW interchange, then some intervention for through speed at Preston would be desirable. Not sure Preston and the surrounding area would be very pleased with losing all their fastest proposed trains to London either.

I didn't necessarily suggest that stops at Preston should be replaced with stops at Warrington but surely Warrington is a better interchange for the North with interchange to NPR and also North Wales.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Aug 2022 ==

What would be the point of interchange between HS2 and NPR at Warrington?

Access to Liverpool, Manchester and even Leeds from the north.

 

[HSTEd]

it would be interesting to see a worked example of costs for these alternatives.

given that you will have to go through exactly the same consents exercise to build a base tunnel as for a surface route, just with fewer potential objectors, the cost of the consents process is going to be roughly the same for either option. Certainly not more than a couple of tens of millions.

The price of the surface route is infinite, because it's unbuildable.
Just as a surface route through the Chilterns was unbuildable and even the "short tunnel" route was unbuildable

The cash cost of the surface route might be somewhat cheaper - although it's almost certainly substantially longer and will require huuge earthworks - but its political cost is ridiculously high. Lune gorge is not technically in the National Parks but the public will not share that veiw. Even if you could thread a surface line through,, there would be years of protest and rancour, and those delays will play havoc with budgets - see the nuclear example.

EDIT:

The trend in infrastruture in the UK and indeed the democratic world is to burying everything - hell we have a mine moving low value commodoties digging a 37km long tunnel [Woodsmith Mine tunnel] to avoid surface disturbances!

 

[MarkyT]

I'm still not seeing what the problem is there would be plenty of fast running north from Fiddlers Ferry to Preston

So new construction all the way to at least Preston, and there you've got the Wigan problem all over again; join the WCML south of the station and you're subject to speed restrictions for through trains, join north thereof and fast ones can't call unless they run conventional WCML all the way from Crewe.