Could/should HS2 Eastern leg be shelved?

[Purple Orange]

Could there be gains for Liverpool if the eastern leg doesn’t go ahead?

 

[MidlandMainlie]

between Nottingham and W Yorks its a mining area. We know from the manchester-preston electrification that heavy engineering in an ex mining area is difficult and unpredictable. Its quite hilly too which complicates it further. The Cheshire Plain is an easier proposition.

Indeed that was my understanding too, while phase 2a is much simpler and cheaper at around £4 Billion, so hopefully if Birmingham East Midlands leg is a similar in terms of cost and delivers most of the benefits of the Eastern leg with upgrades to existing lines north of the East Midlands then the government will hopefully go with that so the East Midlands doesn't miss out completely

 

[edwin_m]

In an article in the Leeds Live website today under the headline "Leeds leg of HS2 to be 'axed imminently' over catastrophic costs" there is the statement that "Leeds has already started work on a £500million station to serve HS2, with other projects in the city relying on it."

Is this true? If so, does anyone know how much has been spent and what on?

I've definitely seen a masterplan for the station area. Probably cost in the region of £100k.

between Nottingham and W Yorks its a mining area. We know from the manchester-preston electrification that heavy engineering in an ex mining area is difficult and unpredictable. Its quite hilly too which complicates it further. The Cheshire Plain is an easier proposition.

The Cheshire Plain has its own issues with salt mining. There's a viaduct that had/has to be "topped up" with extra sections due to subsidence.

I suspect that the Erewash valley would be restored to 4 tracks with HS2 services using the Eastern pair of lines?

If the route is significantly de-scoped then it becomes slower than the ECML for London-NE and possibly London-Leeds too. So it an eastern leg terminating near Trent might end up carrying trains for Sheffield (via Derby) and Nottingham instead of Leeds and York. Cross Country would probably then stay on the existing route because Derby via HS2 and Long Eaton would be no quicker.

 

[Roast Veg]

Someone more technical may be able to advise but I thought most of the complex engineering on the Eastern arm was North of Toton. I don't know how much a Birmingham to East Midlands line would cost compared to say phase 2a from Birmingham to Crewe?

I suspect that the Erewash valley would be restored to 4 tracks with HS2 services using the Eastern pair of lines?

What would happen at Chesterfield? The station is on the wrong side.

 

[HSTEd]

If the route is significantly de-scoped then it becomes slower than the ECML for London-NE and possibly London-Leeds too. So it an eastern leg terminating near Trent might end up carrying trains for Sheffield (via Derby) and Nottingham instead of Leeds and York. Cross Country would probably then stay on the existing route because Derby via HS2 and Long Eaton would be no quicker.

Eastern leg traffic to Leeds is likely to transfer to HS2 via Manchester.

 

[Roast Veg]

But if Leeds to London goes via NPR, doesn't that mean Liverpool gets a reduced service? They won't like hearing that...

 

[HSTEd]

But if Leeds to London goes via NPR, doesn't that mean Liverpool gets a reduced service? They won't like hearing that...

Does it?

There are currently 4(?) Manchester Airport/Manchester Picadilly terminators for Leeds each hour...

Which means we could send every Manchester train to Leeds!

 

[37424]

Eastern leg traffic to Leeds is likely to transfer to HS2 via Manchester.

Some would but I expect London services to York and the North East would likely stay on the East Coast.

 

[Roast Veg]

You also have to serve Wakefield somehow.

 

[HSTEd]

Some would but I expect London services to York and the North East would likely stay on the East Coast.

It might not be faster but I think it is probably still competitive to York and destinations beyond.

At which point capacity shortages on the ECML will force the transfer.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

What would happen at Chesterfield? The station is on the wrong side.

Would ether have to switch South of the station to the other pair of lines or build platforms on the Eastern side of the station, there looks to be plenty of room.

 

[JKF]

I’ve long thought that a high speed line from London to Leeds would probably be cheaper than from Birmingham to Leeds, due to topography and development. Although getting out of London would be the expensive part.

 

[mike57]

Assuming as seems likely, the eastern arm is postponed/canned what could be done with the ECML to improve journey times, and how much would it cost compared with HS2 eastern leg?

My thoughts would be:
Welwyn Viaduct
Newark Flat crossing
4 track all the way to Peterborough

Put these together and they are only going to shave minutes of the current times

Leeds seems more in need of speeding up than York, Although being a couple of miles shorter average journey times are 20 mins longer on average, once Church Fenton to Leeds is electrified could some Leeds trains approach from the east, would it save much time, is there capacity. Are there any easy wins that could be made by increasing line speed betweeen Doncaster and Wakefield, Wakefield to Leeds looks to be constrained by geography.

140mph running is going to need major resignalling, where does that sit on the cost spectrum.

Inevitably with the likely demise of HS2 east any east coast improvement are going to be small increments, so what would deliver biggest improvement for least cost?

 

[Purple Orange]

Assuming as seems likely, the eastern arm is postponed/canned what could be done with the ECML to improve journey times, and how much would it cost compared with HS2 eastern leg?

My thoughts would be:
Welwyn Viaduct
Newark Flat crossing
4 track all the way to Peterborough

Put these together and they are only going to shave minutes of the current times

Leeds seems more in need of speeding up than York, Although being a couple of miles shorter average journey times are 20 mins longer on average, once Church Fenton to Leeds is electrified could some Leeds trains approach from the east, would it save much time, is there capacity. Are there any easy wins that could be made by increasing line speed betweeen Doncaster and Wakefield, Wakefield to Leeds looks to be constrained by geography.

140mph running is going to need major resignalling, where does that sit on the cost spectrum.

Inevitably with the likely demise of HS2 east any east coast improvement are going to be small increments, so what would deliver biggest improvement for least cost?

It depends if Leeds-Manchester is taken forward as a new build line, but if it is then it is a realistic proposition that Leeds-London and Leeds-Birmingham will run via HS2 west, with journey times to London being in the region of 1 hour 40. At 1 hour 40, it then asks the question of whether it would be better to also send Newcastle services to London via Leeds & Manchester. There may not be a significant time saving for Newcastle via the ECML, but it opens up Kings Cross for seeing an increase in south east commuter services.

 

[JonathanH]

Leeds seems more in need of speeding up than York

Take out the intermediate stops? That is essentially why York has a faster service than Leeds.

There may not be a significant time saving for Newcastle via the ECML, but it opens up Kings Cross for seeing an increase in south east commuter services.

What are these south east commuter services that need to be increased? They have recently been reduced.

 

[Purple Orange]

What are these south east commuter services that need to be increased? They have recently been reduced.

We can’t take short term covid impacts as a measure for long term needs.

 

[JonathanH]

It depends if Leeds-Manchester is taken forward as a new build line, but if it is then it is a realistic proposition that Leeds-London and Leeds-Birmingham will run via HS2 west, with journey times to London being in the region of 1 hour 40.

This one always puzzles me - would there then be 6tph London to Manchester to Leeds to create room on the trains for Manchester and Leeds passengers or just extend 3tph Manchester onto Leeds on the basis of longer trains?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Aug 2021 ==

We can’t take short term covid impacts as a measure for long term needs.

We probably can on south east commuter services.

 

[Bald Rick]

My thoughts would be:
Welwyn Viaduct
Newark Flat crossing
4 track all the way to Peterborough

4 tracks from Huntingdon to Peterborough is by far the cheapest of these, and gives far more benefit than the others combined.

 

[HSTEd]

Isn't it likely that if you want to improve the ECML North service over long distances in this environment that your upgrades would be on platform lengthening (to get as close to 400m trains as possible) at terminus stations/Leeds/York, and then trying to upgrade the York-Leeds line so that journey times via Leeds and Manchester are as short as possible?

How hard would it be to get operationally 400m platforms at Leeds, York and Newcastle?

(I don't mean 400m continuous platform surface, more that a 400m train can call without blocking up half the station)

 

[JonathanH]

How hard would it be to get operationally 400m platforms at Leeds, York and Newcastle?

Maybe that is the answer to the conundrum. You run a combined 400m train from London to Manchester with one 200m unit reserved for travel to Leeds, York and Newcastle and the other 200m unit detached at Manchester reserved just for people finishing there.

 

[edwin_m]

4 tracks from Huntingdon to Peterborough is by far the cheapest of these, and gives far more benefit than the others combined.

However none of them are journey time enhancements, which was what was suggested for the ECML. Newark would give a few seconds by raising speed to 125mph but they are more about capacity. BR squeezed as much as it could in the way of ECML line speeds over the years, short of major realignment outside the railway boundary (and even did that in a couple of places), and the Azumas are probably about the ultimate in conventional train performance, so you'd probably be looking at a high speed bypass to get much more.

 

[JonathanH]

a high speed bypass to get much more.

But that then brings into question why you would build a bypass on a new alignment which isn't the eastern leg of HS2. Surely the business case for a bypass route on an alignment nearer to the existing ECML would be worse than for the existing HS2 eastern leg.

Let's not forget that there is no media / popular campaign to cancel the eastern leg of HS2 specifically, the pressure is to cancel the whole project. An ECML alignment would be equally opposed.

 

[edwin_m]

Maybe that is the answer to the conundrum. You run a combined 400m train from London to Manchester with one 200m unit reserved for travel to Leeds, York and Newcastle and the other 200m unit detached at Manchester reserved just for people finishing there.

However the HS2 train service spec proposes to run separate 400m trains to Manchester and Leeds, suggesting that a combined service wouldn't give enough seating capacity. And there isn't capacity either to run more trains between Birmingham and Manchester unless something else is cancelled.

 

[CdBrux]

This one always puzzles me - would there then be 6tph London to Manchester to Leeds to create room on the trains for Manchester and Leeds passengers or just extend 3tph Manchester onto Leeds on the basis of longer trains?

Presumably, in that scenario, you would have 3 tph Leeds -> London via Manchester, 2 Leeds* - > Brum via Manchester, 2 Leeds* -> Liverpool via Manchester
* coming from further north

Which would give a high frequency Leeds to Manchester.

The more I think of it, the more prioritising this along with a spur to East Midlands (assuming upgrade towards Sheffield is feasible at sensible cost) and also to Liverpool could make a lot of sense priority wise vs the eastern leg as currently planned. I could imagine it would better mitigate risk from lower passenger numbers by more intensively using the infrastructure that would be built

 

[HSTEd]

However the HS2 train service spec proposes to run separate 400m trains to Manchester and Leeds, suggesting that a combined service wouldn't give enough seating capacity. And there isn't capacity either to run more trains between Birmingham and Manchester unless something else is cancelled.

The last spec I saw suggested the Leeds trains would not all be 400m

I think 3 or 4 400m trains is likely to be enough for Manchester, Leeds and possibly other NOrth ECML traffic, at least in the medium term.

EDIT:

3 11-car Pendolinos (589 seats) and 2 9-car 801s (611 seats) per hour currently for Manchester and Leeds.
2,989 seats per hour.

Using the Class 374 (902 seats), 4 trains per hour is 3,608 seats per hour, an uplift of 21% over the status quo, assuming everything is an 11-car and 9-car respectively.

I think the 374 accomodations are probably a bit luxurious considering how short many of the journeys will be, so I think that is conservative, despite the loading gauge issue.

 

[CdBrux]

4 tracks from Huntingdon to Peterborough is by far the cheapest of these, and gives far more benefit than the others combined.

I don't doubt you at all but would be interested to learn how the benefit of that project is so much greater. I can imagine it allows long distance trains to pass the local trains not only adding capacity there but also more flexibility in the timetable to allow a better fit elsewhere in the network

 

[59CosG95]

4 tracks from Huntingdon to Peterborough is by far the cheapest of these, and gives far more benefit than the others combined.

Absolutely; Huntingdon to Woodwalton (where 3 tracks become 4 again) was definitely being looked at for 4-tracking before being quietly shelved. And aside from 1 bridge behind the IKEA warehouse in Peterborough, there are no bridge reconstructions required.
I swear there was a proposal for a "Peterborough South" to the east of the Hampton area of the city, next to Crown Lakes country park; 4-tracking all the way from Peterborough to Huntingdon (and then, by that dint, to Woolmer Green) would be a huge boon for such a station.

 

[JonathanH]

4-tracking all the way from Peterborough to Huntingdon (and then, by that dint, to Woolmer Green) would be a huge boon for such a station.

At the right speed it also allows long distance trains to overtake long distance trains (eg those stopping at Peterborough) and could completely segregate freight that has used the Hertford North line without having to worry about Welwyn.

 

[Bald Rick]

However none of them are journey time enhancements, which was what was suggested for the ECML

Au contraire.

Firstly, the two track section is 100mph or 105mph, adding in the extra tracks means strengthening the formation, and that may well enable a lift to 125mph.

Secondly, journey time is not always about speed. Many trains have pathing time between Peterborough and Hitchin to keep them in the right path through that two track section. With four tracks, the amount of pathing time will be reduced.

I don't doubt you at all but would be interested to learn how the benefit of that project is so much greater. I can imagine it allows long distance trains to pass the local trains not only adding capacity there but also more flexibility in the timetable to allow a better fit elsewhere in the network

It’s exactly that, it allows much more flexibility in the timetable. Newark and Welwyn don’t really do that, as the constraints there are over a much shorter stretch, and fewer in number per hour.

 

[The Ham]

We can’t take short term covid impacts as a measure for long term needs.

Indeed, just 2% growth over 15 years would wipe out a 25% fall in passenger numbers.

However the HS2 train service spec proposes to run separate 400m trains to Manchester and Leeds, suggesting that a combined service wouldn't give enough seating capacity. And there isn't capacity either to run more trains between Birmingham and Manchester unless something else is cancelled.

Assuming 17tph starting at London and ignoring the Birmingham starting (Southern end) services and a 15 hour day and 300 days a year then for HS2 services to carry 110 million passengers (so a 10% uplift on what's been models) you'd need each service to carry an average 720 passengers per service.

Whilst that sounds a lot when you compare it to 1,100 seats/service is possible that some seats can be used more than once per service.

I've also been fairly generous with allowing for start/end of day service reductions, number of days running, lack of services running (i.e. assuming no Birmingham starters) and of course numbers of passengers using the services.

As such there's a good chance that by diverting the NE services to go via Manchester would have suitable seating capacity.

As to if the track could, well the Birmingham to Manchester services could just be extended to Leeds to cover those two services, if needed just longer units.

That then just leaves the question of what to do with the remaining 7 services which head to the NE.

Assuming that there's the ability to go Birmingham to Newcastle via whatever sub of the Eastern Arm is retained (or would the junction for the Eastern Arm going to deleted from phase 1?) then that's likely to do so (as it'll still much faster than the existing route).

Likewise at least 1 of the London to Leeds and the London to York which splits in the East Midlands (mostly to provide connectivity to/from Old Oak Common), if that's the case then it's only 4 services.

However chances are at least one service could be deleted between London and Leeds or York.

That would mean the Manchester line would need to carry 8 services.