Future of HS2 2b (Eastern Leg deprioritised)

[Austriantrain]

Exactly. It totally depends on how your through and terminal stations are being used such as the average turnaround time and the average dwell time. Through can have theoretical more capacity with lower platforms because the occupancy is a much lower percentage. However, if a terminus has a lot of conflicts depending on the ratio of platforms to outbound tracks, you're adding platforms with no major benefit to capacity other than having longer turnarounds.

Again all dependent on what sort of timetable HS2 plans on running.

I might miss something completely, but I find it very hard to believe that in a situation where a substiantial number of trains do not terminate at a station, a through station will not always have more capacity than a terminal. All other things being comparable of course, a terminal with 10 platforms and 4 access tracks will obviously have more capacity than a 2 platform through station with 2 access tracks on either side.

What I do definitely understand though is that if a terminal - as is obviously the case in Manchester - is vastly cheaper to build than a through station, and its capacity is sufficient for the proposed timetable, it is obviously the better choice. Only „caveat“ could be that future timetable expansion possibilities could be limited.

*if a majority of trains terminate there, a through station is - for all intents and purposes - in effect a terminal anyway.

 

[Bald Rick]

I don't think all of this work has been confirmed yet though.

It’s not just not been confirmed, it’s not being studied!

Some work was done for HS2 a while ago, but nothing is being studied for TPE.

As an aside, ETCS will only help raise speeds where the restrictions are caused by signalling principles. There’s not many of those.

 

[HSTEd]

If turnarounds become problematic in the future, you could certainly imagine a Thameslink style ATO overlay system being used to allow unattended train operation in the station area - which is relatively easy to keep under observation.

Train could then start back whilst the driver is still walking down it, and stop at the edge of the control area if they haven't keyed in.

But that is in the distant future.


I imagine for the cost of a through station you could get a huge terminus station with grade separation coming out of its ears.

 

[Starmill]

Some work was done for HS2 a while ago, but nothing is being studied for TPE.

It would have probably helped if I were quoting the correct post! I meant to suggest what had been discussed on the forum rather than studied officially.

I am not aware of any proposals which would re-enginier the route, change layouts significantly or add new off-line upgrades in order to improve journey times between Wigan and the Central Belt other than those discussed here or gains of a few seconds here and there as a result of ETCS. There is however time for them to be delivered even if they haven't been studied yet. I don't think anyone is expecting opening to Wigan before 2035 and it will not be too surprising to see that pushing back a little.

 

[Austriantrain]

I imagine for the cost of a through station you could get a huge terminus station with grade separation coming out of its ears.

In the case of Manchester almost certainly, because there is an above-ground site for a terminus available whereas for a through station not only would the station be below ground, but there would have to be an access tunnel under the city centre as well.

Even where it is not as clear cut, it is a difficult decision, as the discussion around Stuttgart 21 showed. OTOH, the Swiss have built not one, but two through stations under Zürich Main Station and thereby hugely increased capacity. But I am getting OT. It always depends and one type of station is not automatically better than the other, I agree on that.

 

[Bald Rick]

If turnarounds become problematic in the future, you could certainly imagine a Thameslink style ATO overlay system being used to allow unattended train operation in the station area - which is relatively easy to keep under observation.

Train could then start back whilst the driver is still walking down it, and stop at the edge of the control area if they haven't keyed in.

But that is in the distant future.


I imagine for the cost of a through station you could get a huge terminus station with grade separation coming out of its ears.

Reasonably sure HS2 will be ATO from the start. UTO is a different set of challenges of course, although don’t rule it out for empty stock at start / end of service.

 

[Watershed]

It's been discussed several times in light of increasing the max permissible speed for the TransPennine Express services yes. ETCS would also permit some more general speed increases. I don't think all of this work has been confirmed yet though.

TPE aren't going to be running above 110mph on the WCML for a long time yet. Non-tilt 125mph ain't gonna come cheap, and without a major timetable recast TPE can't improve end-to-end journey times (which is what the key market is).

The real benefit would be in better timekeeping and ending the Oxenholme/Penrith skip-stopping, but neither have substantial value on paper. And if all you can show for your £x million in improvements is that Joe Bloggs can get from Preston to Carlisle 3 minutes quicker, the sums simply won't add up.

When HS2 can benefit it will probably happen.

 

[Starmill]

TPE aren't going to be running above 110mph on the WCML for a long time yet. Non-tilt 125mph ain't gonna come cheap, and without a major timetable recast TPE can't improve end-to-end journey times (which is what the key market is).

The real benefit would be in better timekeeping and ending the Oxenholme/Penrith skip-stopping, but neither have substantial value on paper. And if all you can show for your £x million in improvements is that Joe Bloggs can get from Preston to Carlisle 3 minutes quicker, the sums simply won't add up.

When HS2 can benefit it will probably happen.

While this is all true nothing in this thread would be proposed for delivery for 15 years at the earliest. There are probably a significant number of pieces of local work that will need to be implemented in time for phase 2b services that haven't even begun being studied yet, like capacity at stations for parking (hopefully less of it but probably not), taxis, bus stands etc.

 

[edwin_m]

TPE aren't going to be running above 110mph on the WCML for a long time yet. Non-tilt 125mph ain't gonna come cheap, and without a major timetable recast TPE can't improve end-to-end journey times (which is what the key market is).

The real benefit would be in better timekeeping and ending the Oxenholme/Penrith skip-stopping, but neither have substantial value on paper. And if all you can show for your £x million in improvements is that Joe Bloggs can get from Preston to Carlisle 3 minutes quicker, the sums simply won't add up.

When HS2 can benefit it will probably happen.

Do you have evidence to support this view?

I'm sure there are places where the geometry allows 125mph now at standard (non-tilt) cant deficiencies, such as straight sections, and because 125 is already allowed as an EPS several of the issues that normally have to be considered will drop away.

Timetable-wise the three trains in the hour run as a "flight" with the TPE following the two Avanti workings and the rest of the hour available for freight. As long as it doesn't actually beat the stopping Pendolino schedule, in the northbound direction taking a few minutes out of the TPE timing is actually an operational benefit because it can follow more closely, though it will make the service interval on the route even more irregular. Southbound is a bit more complicated as it has to hit a particular path between Preston and Manchester.

 

[Class 170101]

Has the bit on Carlisle station in the station profiles section of the consultation website been seen before?

Says you can find out more in the consultation but the station modifications arent mentioned in the consultation document, instead there is the following section on the proposed new depot:

I would also question how the need to lose Platform 2 at Carlisle to lengthen Platform 3 means that the same isn't required on the other side with Platform 4 extension doesn't impinge on platforms 5 to 78.

Do you have evidence to support this view?

I'm sure there are places where the geometry allows 125mph now at standard (non-tilt) cant deficiencies, such as straight sections, and because 125 is already allowed as an EPS several of the issues that normally have to be considered will drop away.

Timetable-wise the three trains in the hour run as a "flight" with the TPE following the two Avanti workings and the rest of the hour available for freight. As long as it doesn't actually beat the stopping Pendolino schedule, in the northbound direction taking a few minutes out of the TPE timing is actually an operational benefit because it can follow more closely, though it will make the service interval on the route even more irregular. Southbound is a bit more complicated as it has to hit a particular path between Preston and Manchester.

125 mph running might allow another passenger path to follow in the flight northbound, see West Midlands between London and Rugby where a single 100mph path is now two paths at 110mph. However will this actually be the case anyway? I thought HS2 would mean no Glasgow workings on the WCML that currently run via the Trent Valley. So north of Wigan it would still be the existing three paths per hour, HS2, Avanti via Birmingham and TPE.

 

[edwin_m]

125 mph running might allow another passenger path to follow in the flight northbound, see West Midlands between London and Rugby where a single 100mph path is now two paths at 110mph. However will this actually be the case anyway? I thought HS2 would mean no Glasgow workings on the WCML that currently run via the Trent Valley. So north of Wigan it would still be the existing three paths per hour, HS2, Avanti via Birmingham and TPE.

I was responding to a post about the existing TPE so considering the situation before HS2. The HS2 service is proposed to be a London-Scotland every 30min splitting at Carlisle for Glasgow and Edinburgh, so there will be six passenger paths per hour north of Carlisle, plus a Liverpool in some hours unless that splits/joins at Preston. Nobody seems to know how that increase will be accommodated while still carrying the freight.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I think the Carlisle split for Glasgow/Edinburgh comes with HS2b (Manchester/Golborne).
For HS2a (Birmingham/Crewe) I think we are just looking at London-Glasgow services, plus the indirect Edinburghs as now.
The direct Edinburgh services remain on the ECML until HS2b.

 

[HSTEd]

I was responding to a post about the existing TPE so considering the situation before HS2. The HS2 service is proposed to be a London-Scotland every 30min splitting at Carlisle for Glasgow and Edinburgh, so there will be six passenger paths per hour north of Carlisle, plus a Liverpool in some hours unless that splits/joins at Preston. Nobody seems to know how that increase will be accommodated while still carrying the freight.

You might be able to manage a complex portion working operation at Carlisle, but that would likely take substantial investment in the station area to get it to work reliably.

 

[chiltern trev]

Regarding Annandale depot and Carlisle.

I was disappointed in the lack of certain information in this "consultation".

There are no details provided on the number of ECS workings each day into and out the Annandale depot from each of Glasgow, Edinburgh and Carlisle. Hence no calculation of the amount of dead ECS mileage.

There neither estimates provided for the cost of providing each of the sites Annandale, Todhills and Ravenstruther (which is by Carstairs) nor the operating costs of the depots and nor the ECS working costs.

The consultation document dismisses many other unnamed sites - it should have provided an Appendix Table listing all other sites considered and the reasons for discounting. Whilst the sites may have been discussed with various bodies, County Councils, etc., publishing the list could well have generated additional information in favour of a site or could have indeed altered, say, a planning policy on favour. The consultation document is lacking in transparency and thus appears to present the Annandale site as a done deal.

It was mentioned a lot of sites were considered - but is this information available in the public domain?

Various other locations have been mentioned up this thread:

• Carlisle east - towards Newcastle and Settle there is the former Durranhill Sidings north side of the Newcastle line, space for a few lines between the Newcastle and Settle lines and then south of the Settle line there are siding leading to the former Petteril Bridges Goods. I suspect this site is not long enough and definitely not wide enough (even after re-arranging/slewing the Newcastle and Settle lines).
• Kingmoor - why not included?
• Eastriggs - this was the site of the WW1 Devil's Porridge cordite works so perhaps there are old ordnance issues and, being adjacent to the tidal River Esk and Solway, a high tide flood and/or high river water level flood risk
• Longtown - the MOD site partly site in use and perhaps the wrong shape being a square site as opposed to long and thin. Maybe the MOD rights won out.

Number of tracks between Annandale and Carlisle. Perhaps additional tracks need to be re-instated on the short stretch between Carlisle Citadel station and the north side of the Eden bridge, and again north of Kingmoor through Gretna Junction to the Annandale site, maybe increase to at least 3 tracks if not 4. The Scottish government have proposed electrifying the Gretna<>Dumfries<>Kilmarnock line with talk of re-instating some or all of the double track which in turn would feed more traffic into and out of Carlisle. So additional tracks would also benefit the Dumfries line.

The name Annandale is somewhat misleading as the site is not actually in Annan dale. One mile to the south is Kirtle Water which flows into the River Esk at Gretna and then the Solway and is not part of the Annan Water catchment area, so a better name would be Gretna - note the site is immediately north of the A74(M) services. (The WCML runs WNW<>ESE at the site of the proposed depot). The A74(M) Annandale Water Services is about 21 miles further north being midway between Lockerbie and Moffat.

The document contains an error re Todhills which is claimed to be nearer Glasgow and Edinburgh (para 2.129) when in fact it is nearer to Carlisle being at the north end of the former Kingmoor Marshalling yard.

 

[daodao]

Given that it is going to be a long time before passenger numbers recover post Covid, and the railways' finances will be dire for many years to come, it would be sensible to put on hold major developments for which construction has not started. There may not be be the capacity requirements for them for a long time hence. It would therefore be wise to kick HS2b (both the western leg north of Crewe, and the eastern leg), together with NPR, into the long long grass. For example, 2 tph from London to Manchester are likely to be sufficient, of which at least 1 will need to run via Stoke.

 

[Ianno87]

Given that it is going to be a long time before passenger numbers recover post Covid, and the railways' finances will be dire for many years to come, it would be sensible to put on hold major developments for which construction has not started. There may not be be the capacity requirements for them for a long time hence. It would therefore be wise to kick HS2b (both the western leg north of Crewe, and the eastern leg), together with NPR, into the long long grass. For example, 2 tph from London to Manchester are likely to be sufficient, of which at least 1 will need to run via Stoke.

Define "a long time". Even if 2b were pressed ahead with if nothing had happened, it will still be best part of 20 years before it becomes a fully operational railway.

Do you have a crystal ball good enough to state categorically that 2tph or 3tph will still be "sufficient" in 20 years, never mind 40 or 50?

 

[stuu]

It will be 15 years minimum before trains are running on Phase 2b, actual construction won't even be happening for ~5 years. So there is plenty of time to see what the future looks like before a single shovel hits the ground, in the meantime it would be sensible to carry on with the planning process

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Given that it is going to be a long time before passenger numbers recover post Covid, and the railways' finances will be dire for many years to come, it would be sensible to put on hold major developments for which construction has not started. There may not be be the capacity requirements for them for a long time hence. It would therefore be wise to kick HS2b (both the western leg north of Crewe, and the eastern leg), together with NPR, into the long long grass. For example, 2 tph from London to Manchester are likely to be sufficient, of which at least 1 will need to run via Stoke.

As it stands, that would also kill off NPR, because the two have been inextricably linked, in order for the projects to feed off each other in the north.
In any case, capital spend is not as much of an issue as current spend.
HS2/NPR spend plays against new hospitals/schools/warships/roads, while Covid spend plays against benefits/pensions/subsidies/public sector salaries/taxes.
In rail terms the issues will be NR's maintenance budget and the TOC cost of delivering rail services, not so much infrastructure enhancements.

 

[Purple Orange]

Chit chat of cancellation is wishful thinking from those who oppose public spending on transport, or don't wish to see investment in another city because it's not happening in their city. Reading between the lines, I feel that most opposition is ideological.

 

[jfowkes]

Given that it is going to be a long time before passenger numbers recover post Covid, and the railways' finances will be dire for many years to come, it would be sensible to put on hold major developments for which construction has not started. There may not be be the capacity requirements for them for a long time hence. It would therefore be wise to kick HS2b (both the western leg north of Crewe, and the eastern leg), together with NPR, into the long long grass. For example, 2 tph from London to Manchester are likely to be sufficient, of which at least 1 will need to run via Stoke.

The long term trend needs to be a shift from cars and lorries to rail. Covid will be over in a few years and we'll still need to move all the people and stuff that isn't affected by remote working. That's still a lot of people and stuff.

 

[37424]

Chit chat of cancellation is wishful thinking from those who oppose public spending on transport, or don't wish to see investment in another city because it's not happening in their city. Reading between the lines, I feel that most opposition is ideological.

Well some people seem to think that there is bottomless pit to money to spend on public transport when there clearly isn't and therefore it should represent what is the best use of the money that available.

I guess its ideological for those that think we should only use public transport, or those that think we should only use private transport, I think there is roll for both, I was in favour of HS2 but I'm less convinced now and I think its wise to consider alternatives to the Eastern leg.

 

[Purple Orange]

Well some people seem to think that there is bottomless pit to money to spend on public transport when there clearly isn't and therefore it should represent what is the best use of the money that available.

I guess its ideological for those that think we should only use public transport, or those that think we should only use private transport, I think there is roll for both, I was in favour of HS2 but I'm less convinced now and I think its wise to consider alternatives to the Eastern leg.

The funding for capital expenditure doesn’t come from a pot of cash that is available to spend anywhere. Funding (and therefore the availability of cash) is based on potential revenue streams and economic benefits that flow from the specific project, rather than having £90bn available to spend on any project. What the statement “best use of of the available money” should really mean is that their is doubt about the business case specifically.

The arguments for alternatives to the eastern leg essentially mean upgrading the ECML and MML, which is also happening or building a new dedicated line in to London in to another terminus, which would result in a duplication of cost with HS2 phase 1, with over-capacity in London given that Euston is being designed to accommodate both legs and capital spend on the new alignment.

 

[HSTEd]

The arguments for alternatives to the eastern leg essentially mean upgrading the ECML and MML, which is also happening or building a new dedicated line in to London in to another terminus, which would result in a duplication of cost with HS2 phase 1, with over-capacity in London given that Euston is being designed to accommodate both legs and capital spend on the new alignment.

Not necessarily.

There are arguments that NPR makes the bulk of the Eastern leg entirely redundant.
A fast Manchester to Leeds railway will allow Manchester HS2 to crush the existing timings, which is all you need to relieve capacity

 

[Bald Rick]

The long term trend needs to be a shift from cars and lorries to rail.

Not so, the long term trend needs to be a shift from using fossil fuels to electricity. And that is happening.

 

[greyman42]

Large infrastructure projects will provide employment post Covid but i appreciate that funding it is another matter.

 

[stuu]

Not necessarily.

There are arguments that NPR makes the bulk of the Eastern leg entirely redundant.
A fast Manchester to Leeds railway will allow Manchester HS2 to crush the existing timings, which is all you need to relieve capacity

Nottingham and Sheffield respectfully disagree

 

[HSTEd]

Nottingham and Sheffield respectfully disagree

Even if you only remove the Sheffield bypass line you still cut a big fraction of the length of the eastern leg off.
If you cut everything north of Chesterfield half of the length simply vanishes - by the timet rains have crawled north out of Sheffield there is little point putting them on a fast line for the run into Leeds anyway.

You would probably retain a Birmingham-~Toton stub which still relieves the MML, but with only a third of the track.

 

[Purple Orange]

Not necessarily.

There are arguments that NPR makes the bulk of the Eastern leg entirely redundant.
A fast Manchester to Leeds railway will allow Manchester HS2 to crush the existing timings, which is all you need to relieve capacity

I doubt we will see a new dedicated line all the way from Leeds to Manchester built. In all likelihood it will be electrification and line-speed improvements of the existing line, but at best there might be a partial new line as a bypass through Greater Manchester to beyond Stalybridge and/or a bypass line from the east of Leeds. Plus the plans for Piccadilly with a reversing manouver doesn’t lend itself to Leeds-Manchester-London services. There may be Leeds-Manchester-Birmingham services, given it’ll be 200m units.

 

[HSTEd]

I doubt we will see a new dedicated line all the way from Leeds to Manchester built. In all likelihood it will be electrification and line-speed improvements of the existing line, but at best there might be a partial new line as a bypass through Greater Manchester to beyond Stalybridge and/or a bypass line from the east of Leeds.

Even with existing timings, London-Leeds via Manchester would be competitive with the ECML.

~2hrs is achievable even with a reversal.
With any improvements at all between Manchester and LEeds that would shrink considerably.

And all you need to run 400m formations to Leeds is a long platform at Leeds.

 

[Purple Orange]

Even with existing timings, London-Leeds via Manchester would be competitive with the ECML.

~2hrs is achievable even with a reversal.
With any improvements at all between Manchester and LEeds that would shrink considerably.

And all you need to run 400m formations to Leeds is a long platform at Leeds.

Again that is assuming a completely new line between Manchester and Leeds will be built. I might be proved to be wrong on my assumption, but I can’t see Whitehall approving a new line via Bradford. NPR is purely a concept today with aspirations to deliver 6 tph and 40 minute journey times between Leeds & Manc. Given that frequency is already 6 tph, it doesn’t take a huge stretch of imagination to conclude that a 40 min journey time will be delivered through a partially built line via Huddersfield.