High Speed Rail beyond HS2

[VTPreston_Tez]

@Nym that was the idea. Pass through Blackburn or call at/pass through Blackpool.

 

[Nym]

Not my idea at all... it wouldn't see Preston or Blackburn, just zoom straight past both of them when HS2 actually gets that far up...

 

[HSTEd]

I still don't think the Manchester-Scotland route is viable, there is just no significant non-end to end traffic north of the satellite towns of Greater Manchester who will still see massive acceleration of services going CC from Manchester.

Meanwhile the Newcastle route gets you a far larger population base for a similar cost and only fifteen minutes on end to end Glasgow Journey times and not much more additional track.
It also gets you a direct Edinburgh-Glasgow line for "Free"

 

[VTPreston_Tez]

ATM it seems London-Glasgow will call at Preston. However from Manchester to Carlisle (another part of HS2) that's where it comes in.

 

[Stats]

I have listed below the service pattern...

You could have saved yourself all that typing by quoting my post in the other HS2 thread.

Still, it seems that York is part of the network, which is one sop to Easterners like me who are worried about losing our direct links to Scotland, since changing at York is much quicker than at Leeds - we might even keep our Edinburgh trains.

They'll still be Scotland - York services whatever happens, but whether it is operated by HS2 or a "classic" franchise is an entirely different question.

 

[Nym]

They'll still be Scotland - York services whatever happens, but whether it is operated by HS2 or a "classic" franchise is an entirely different question.

And it makes very little difference as to what serves it since it is unlikely that HS2 will progress north of York in the foreseeable future, and that any further developments beyond HS2b LR will be HS3 out toward Cardiff and Swansea. And just to throw more contiversy in, using the Severn Bridge to cross the severn anyone??

 

[HSTEd]

And it makes very little difference as to what serves it since it is unlikely that HS2 will progress north of York in the foreseeable future, and that any further developments beyond HS2b LR will be HS3 out toward Cardiff and Swansea. And just to throw more contiversy in, using the Severn Bridge to cross the severn anyone??

Need a new Severn Rail Crossing indeed, especially if High Speed ever heads out there, (would allow the closing down of the Severn Tunnel which is apparently a maintenance nightmare if nothing else).

Perhaps a new modern two (or even four) track bridge near the site of the original Severn Rail bridge?

As for HS2 to Scotland, it has a rather weak case in my opinion, at this point we will only ever be able to justify one route to the North and in my opinion that would be via York/Newcastle/Edinburgh, but even that is far in the future.

 

[Nym]

Just use the M48, perfectly serviceable bridge, and there should be space for an S2 down the middle to retain access to Chepstow, downgrade to be re-numbered the A something, A466 or A403, slap an M on the end for the spurs to the M4, and one HS line either side with a high fence, running down at ~100mph...

I'd keep the severn tunnel initally though, if using the M48, although branching up from Patchway and sharing the line between Conventional and HS services would work OK. Since the line I'd expect to be seeing up to 8tph to Bristol Parkway (4tph to Temple Meads and Beyond, 4tph to over the Severn, and some tph branching off erlier for Kemble, Cheltenham etc.) It would be conseivable to run as four track to the start of the crossing, 100mph shared to cross, and then back to four track again after, is too much to loose the Chepstow link...

 

[HSTEd]

Wouldn't using the original severn crossing as a rail crossing require significant alterations to meet the different structural loadings caused by freight trains as compared to spread out road traffic?

Likewise wouldn't such modifications cut the capacity of the M4 over the Severn Estuary rather precipitously?
Unless the Second Severn Crossing is half empty.

 

[Nym]

The M48 runs most of the time as D1W and is currently only D2W at maximum, and no traffic is sent that way other than Chepstow traffic.

And this would also be reason for keeping the tunnel open as an alternative route. But the M48 isn't in too badder state other than the road platform, it would take some work to bring up to standard, but structurally, it should be OK for heavy rail.

PS: The ACTUAL 2nd crossing is the M48, and is lightly used compared to the 3rd ACTUAL crossing, the M4... Like I said, signed Chepstow only vice M4 and D2W (Mostly used as D1W) vice D3M for the M4.

 

[Ivo]

The M48 runs most of the time as D1W and is currently only D2W at maximum, and no traffic is sent that way other than Chepstow traffic.

And this would also be reason for keeping the tunnel open as an alternative route. But the M48 isn't in too badder state other than the road platform, it would take some work to bring up to standard, but structurally, it should be OK for heavy rail.

You do know it has a 40 speed limit at present? That would suggest a lot of work lies ahead if any conversion was to take place. I do agree that most traffic there is only to or from (or via) Chepstow, but it means no more X14 bus on the bridge

Also, what is an S2? There is literally a metre between the carriageways on the bridge.

 

[Nym]

S2 = Single Carriageway Two Lane Road
D2 = Dual Carriageway Road, Two Lanes Each
W = Wide
And I recon on there being enough space for an S2, HS Rail and current foot / bike pax...

 

[Martin222002]

You could have saved yourself all that typing by quoting my post in the other HS2 thread.

Ah! I haven't seen that.

Why do you require 260m trains to match a rake of Mark 4s? One of the benefits of modern multiple unit operation (see the AGV) is that you can maintain capacity with shorter trains, in this case 200m trains should be able to (nearly anyway) match the capacity of the 9 coach rakes used now.

I think the DfT is more thinking of IEP or whatever EMU is used on the ECML at that point, which will be of a length of around 260m with either 10 or 11 coaches, depending on how long they are. For example an 11 car 390 will have around 590 seats, which is 40 less than the estimated 550 seats of the 200m HS2 sets, and one of the issues raised in the consultation was that the 200m sets would have less seats than the current trains.

Also Im of the opinion than running 3tph to Leeds, Manchester and Birmingham is likely overkill (these trains can have three times as many seats as the existing fleet of Cl390s, meaning that we will not be short of capacity in any reasonable scenario,

I agree. 400m long trains every 20 minutes to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds would be overkill, that's why I think it would be likely that you would have only have single 200m captive sets in the off peak periods, with them doubled up 2x200m captive sets in the peak to cater for the additional passengers you have at that time of day. I don't think I've seen that officially stated anywhere, but the DfT saying that the captive sets would be 200m long and not 400m long possibly suggests this.

This Manchester (Outskirts) thing rather annoys me, when I was hoping for something that ran right through the city, perhaps underneath it.

The current plan looks like there is going to be two stations serving Manchester and the surrounding are, with a station in the city centre and a station on the outskirts of Manchester, most likely in the vicinity of Manchester Airport which would be able to serve the Airport, Stockport and the southern suburbs of Manchester.

As for going up the WCML to Scotland, yes the trains won't tilt but I think there would be some line speed improvements on the Northern end of the WCML to allow them run as close to the EPS speeds as is possible. Personally I think for serving Edinburgh from London going via the WCML makes the most sense as you can run the Glasgow and Edinburgh trains in double formations (as the service pattern suggests), giving both places a fast half hourly service to London.

 

[HSTEd]

I think the DfT is more thinking of IEP or whatever EMU is used on the ECML at that point, which will be of a length of around 260m with either 10 or 11 coaches, depending on how long they are. For example an 11 car 390 will have around 590 seats, which is 40 less than the estimated 550 seats of the 200m HS2 sets, and one of the issues raised in the consultation was that the 200m sets would have less seats than the current trains.

But you use up paths on HS2 to prevent a marginal loss in seat count which could easily be made up by going to 2tph to Newcastle with 2tph extended to Edinburgh and Glasgow, while still fitting those trains into fewer paths than would otherwise be the case. (as the two trains terminating at Newcastle would just be running coupled up on the back of the Scotland trains and could uncouple and attach to the returning train, or run via a different stopping pattern north of Leeds)

I agree. 400m long trains every 20 minutes to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds would be overkill, that's why I think it would be likely that you would have only have single 200m captive sets in the off peak periods, with them doubled up 2x200m captive sets in the peak to cater for the additional passengers you have at that time of day. I don't think I've seen that officially stated anywhere, but the DfT saying that the captive sets would be 200m long and not 400m long possibly suggests this.

This is another thing that annoys me, a 2 x 200m formation requires a full second train service crew for the second unit when a slightly larger crew could cover the entire train otherwise.
It also reduces the capacity significantly (due to crumple zones or whatever) which is why there is/was a serious proposal to go the other way with the TGV Duplex and join ~200m trains together using new powered passenger vehicles in the middle of the formation.
Im not entirely convinced the savings in the form of reduced track access charges in off peak periods are really worth it when you consider the extra operational movements required to move the second half of the sets from the depot for the peaks and then move them back again, especially as the captive sets are "captive".

The current plan looks like there is going to be two stations serving Manchester and the surrounding are, with a station in the city centre and a station on the outskirts of Manchester, most likely in the vicinity of Manchester Airport which would be able to serve the Airport, Stockport and the southern suburbs of Manchester.

As for going up the WCML to Scotland, yes the trains won't tilt but I think there would be some line speed improvements on the Northern end of the WCML to allow them run as close to the EPS speeds as is possible. Personally I think for serving Edinburgh from London going via the WCML makes the most sense as you can run the Glasgow and Edinburgh trains in double formations (as the service pattern suggests), giving both places a fast half hourly service to London.

Thanks to the rather high non tilt line speeds on the ECML the train running via Leeds could end up being around ~35m faster to EDB than the train running via Manchester if neither set of trains can tilt (not quite that much as I was using a 100mph unit on the WCML to derive the timings but still, the ECML timings were Voyagers that stop rather more frequently than a fast train would, just like said units). Essentially this takes us largely back to a time before the WCML Upgrade programme.
The money you would spend on linespeed improvements on the northern end of the WCML could be spent during the next resignalling project on the northern ECML to allow trains running on things like Northallerton-York to run at 140mph or to provide linespeed improvements on whatever route between Glasgow and edinburgh was chosen.

This means a train running via the ECML to Glasgow would probably come close to matching a train on the WCML via HS2 in terms of travel time, and would provide an effective 4 sets an hour to Newcastle and two to both Glasgow and Edinburgh using only two paths on the core.
Ofcourse this all hinges on how much Leeds-York journey times can be reduced as a result of the impending electrification, and either way the travel time gains arent even that great.

 

[Martin222002]

According to the current information regarding HS2 once stage 2 of HS2 is completed with the Y network to Manchester and Leeds, the proposed HS2 journey time to via the WCML to Glasgow is 3 hours 37 minutes and for Edinburgh is 3 hours 39 minutes.

Given that the proposed journey time to Newcastle is 2 hours 18 minutes and that Newcastle to Edinburgh takes around an 1 hour 30 minutes to 1 hour 22 minutes for the 5:40 Edinburgh-London to get to Newcastle non-stop it would take a fraction longer to go via the ECML is it current form. However, HSTEd very right in saying that any potential line speed upgrades on the ECML north of York would bring the journey time below that of going via the WCML.

 

[The Planner]

The M48 runs most of the time as D1W and is currently only D2W at maximum, and no traffic is sent that way other than Chepstow traffic.

What about when the new crossing is closed, which does occur, where does the traffic go ?? I don't think the M5/M50/A449 is a signed diversion now.

And this would also be reason for keeping the tunnel open as an alternative route. But the M48 isn't in too badder state other than the road platform, it would take some work to bring up to standard, but structurally, it should be OK for heavy rail.

Has a suspension bridge ever been used for rail traffic ?? Surely there is some element of movement/oscillation that wouldn't be good for rails.

 

[Stats]

As for going up the WCML to Scotland, yes the trains won't tilt but I think there would be some line speed improvements on the Northern end of the WCML to allow them run as close to the EPS speeds as is possible.

Current estimates are that non-tilting specification would be 11 minutes slower than current pendolino trains to Glasgow. DfT say that with Network Rail they have identified "a number of limited adjustments to the WCML infrastructure which with appropriate speed signage" would reduce that down to 4 minutes.

The money you would spend on linespeed improvements on the northern end of the WCML could be spent during the next resignalling project on the northern ECML to allow trains running on things like Northallerton-York to run at 140mph or to provide linespeed improvements on whatever route between Glasgow and edinburgh was chosen.

I do hope that DfT recognise there are some benefits to be had from improving existing infrastructure, especially on lines where HS2 trains will run. Improving linespeed between York and Northallerton to 140mph is an obvious and relatively easy gain that can be made. I'd like to see short sections of line built that could bypass some of the sharper curves, but I don't know if this would be cost effective. I think that when the East Coast franchise goes out to tender DfT should say that any proposals submitted to improve sections of line north of York [and thus benefit HS2] would score highly.

 

[Nym]

What about when the new crossing is closed, which does occur, where does the traffic go ?? I don't think the M5/M50/A449 is a signed diversion now.



Has a suspension bridge ever been used for rail traffic ?? Surely there is some element of movement/oscillation that wouldn't be good for rails.

No worse than a long prasmatically supported bridge or something like the Forth Rail Bridge...

 

[LE Greys]

They'll still be Scotland - York services whatever happens, but whether it is operated by HS2 or a "classic" franchise is an entirely different question.

Yes, but will there be King's Cross-Scotland services, or with the ECML be taken over by HS2 north of York? I'm concerned that the ECML might be cut back at the point where HS2 services join it because of lack of capacity. As a result, I would no longer be able to do Stevenage-Edinburgh without changing.

 

[Nym]

Yes, but will there be King's Cross-Scotland services, or with the ECML be taken over by HS2 north of York? I'm concerned that the ECML might be cut back at the point where HS2 services join it because of lack of capacity. As a result, I would no longer be able to do Stevenage-Edinburgh without changing.

And that kind of thinking is one that contributes to the current state of our railways!

 

[LE Greys]

Has a suspension bridge ever been used for rail traffic ?? Surely there is some element of movement/oscillation that wouldn't be good for rails.

This is a suspension bridge (of sorts).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And that kind of thinking is one that contributes to the current state of our railways!

That, I'll admit, is a very good point. Maybe I'm just too used to having such a good service, with trains that run regularly to places hundreds of miles from where I live at remarkably fast speeds. Perhaps I should be prepared to give all that up for the sake of a bunch of people I've never met in a part of the country I don't like who have just had billions of pounds spent on their railway, some of that money taken from mine when it could have gone back into building a second Welwyn Viaduct. Well, if I should, please don't expect me to like it. :roll:

 

[Nym]

Or maybe get over it and realise that a hell of a lot of other people have to change at London, Peterbrough or York, so why not you?

 

[LE Greys]

Or maybe get over it and realise that a hell of a lot of other people have to change at London, Peterbrough or York, so why not you?

What I'm really saying is "How come the West Midlands gets all the investment and we don't?"! An entire WCML upgrade part-funded by premiums paid by GNER. AIUI, the ECML will effectively be cut in half by this. Everything north of York will run via Leeds and HS2, while everything south of York will terminate there. Result, not just Stevenage, but Peterborough, Grantham, Newark and Retford will lose out. Why do you think I keep calling for an eastern route via Peterborough and Stansted?

 

[Nym]

That also won't call at stevenage?

So if the Southern ECML moves over to a standardised 4tph pattern where 2tph call at Stevenage with 1tph to Leeds and 1tph to York, with additional local services to Peterbrough and Cambridge using the paths freed up by LDPE services so you actually have more chances to get where you want to be going is a bad thing?

 

[LE Greys]

That also won't call at stevenage?

So if the Southern ECML moves over to a standardised 4tph pattern where 2tph call at Stevenage with 1tph to Leeds and 1tph to York, with additional local services to Peterbrough and Cambridge using the paths freed up by LDPE services so you actually have more chances to get where you want to be going is a bad thing?

It's a nuisence, but I can live with it. What I don't want to have to live with is standing at King's Cross looking up at a board showing no destinations north of York. Nor do I want to see a world where I can only do Norwich-Newcastle via London, or Doncaster-Darlington without changing. Losing the through Nottingham-Carlisle services was bad enough, cutting the ECML in half is a mistake.

 

[Nym]

Oh I think it's a mistake to cut the ECML in half too, I'd have 4tph between York and Newcastle with 2tph proceeding on to Edinbrugh, 1tph from KX and 1tph from Euston via HS2...

I've not looked in detail at stopping patterns on the East Side, but I wouldn't cut any destinations off from the traditional routes.

 

[LE Greys]

Oh I think it's a mistake to cut the ECML in half too, I'd have 4tph between York and Newcastle with 2tph proceeding on to Edinbrugh, 1tph from KX and 1tph from Euston via HS2...

I've not looked in detail at stopping patterns on the East Side, but I wouldn't cut any destinations off from the traditional routes.

Now that makes a lot more sense. I just hope that the DafT planners agree.

Incidentally the Peterborough-Stansted option would run as close as possible to the ECML, with 'slip roads' at Grantham, Newark, Retford and Doncaster and access to York at Colton Junction. Lincoln then Doncaster would be another option, but would serve fewer people and need a new station (which is why I rejected it). I haven't quite worked out the service patterns, but the intention would be to retain 2 tph to King's Cross to cover Stevenage while running the rest (8 tph ??) via Stansted, evenly split between St Pancras and Paris. Part of the idea is to jack the Towns Line service up a bit (making Retford hourly for a start) as well as saving time and providing an easier route to the Chunnel.

 

[Waverley125]

I think that the case for extending the eastern arm of the Y is pretty good as long as the station in central Leeds is a through station, and the line bypasses York, as you then get big savings not only on Newcastle-London but Sheffield & Leeds-Newcastle, which you'd cut from 2hr10/1hr30 to 35 mins/50 mins. Even if there wasn't a HS EDB-Newcastle line, you'd still cut Yorkshire-Scotland down to 2.5 hours as opposed to 3.5/4 hours as at the moment.

As for the classic/HS2 balance, I think you'd see something like

Edinburgh-Newcastle-Leeds-Euston
Edinburgh-Newcastle-Leeds-Birmingham

every hour. Meaning that you can include more stops on the existing LKX-EDB stoppers & XC Yorkshire-Scotland services, so something like

Kings X
Stevenage
Peterborough
Grantham
Newark
Retford
Doncaster
York
Northallerton
Darlington
Durham
Chester le Street
Newcastle
Morpeth
Alnmouth
Berwick
Dunbar
Edinburgh

and the same on a stopping EC Leeds-Scotland via the classic lines.

You can then also add new services like the proposed Edinburgh-Newcastle stopper, which would call at:

Newcastle
Cramlington
Morpeth
Alnmouth
Berwick
Ayton*
East Linton*
Drem
Longniddry
Prestonpans
Musselburgh
Edinburgh

and a Berwick-Newcastle stopper, calling at:

Cramlington
Morpeth
Pegswood
Widdrington
Acklington
Alnmouth
Chathill
Belford*
Beal*
Berwick upon Tweed

 

[Zoe]

and a Berwick-Newcastle stopper, calling at:

Cramlington
Morpeth
Pegswood
Widdrington
Acklington
Alnmouth
Chathill
Belford*
Beal*
Berwick upon Tweed

No stop at Manors? I doubt there would be justification for a separate Newcastle to Morpeth service if the above stopper did run so you'd leave Manors without a service.

 

[LE Greys]

I think that the case for extending the eastern arm of the Y is pretty good as long as the station in central Leeds is a through station, and the line bypasses York, as you then get big savings not only on Newcastle-London but Sheffield & Leeds-Newcastle, which you'd cut from 2hr10/1hr30 to 35 mins/50 mins. Even if there wasn't a HS EDB-Newcastle line, you'd still cut Yorkshire-Scotland down to 2.5 hours as opposed to 3.5/4 hours as at the moment.

As for the classic/HS2 balance, I think you'd see something like

Edinburgh-Newcastle-Leeds-Euston
Edinburgh-Newcastle-Leeds-Birmingham

every hour. Meaning that you can include more stops on the existing LKX-EDB stoppers & XC Yorkshire-Scotland services, so something like

Kings X
Stevenage
Peterborough
Grantham
Newark
Retford
Doncaster
York
Northallerton
Darlington
Durham
Chester le Street
Newcastle
Morpeth
Alnmouth
Berwick
Dunbar
Edinburgh

and the same on a stopping EC Leeds-Scotland via the classic lines.

You can then also add new services like the proposed Edinburgh-Newcastle stopper, which would call at:

Newcastle
Cramlington
Morpeth
Alnmouth
Berwick
Ayton*
East Linton*
Drem
Longniddry
Prestonpans
Musselburgh
Edinburgh

and a Berwick-Newcastle stopper, calling at:

Cramlington
Morpeth
Pegswood
Widdrington
Acklington
Alnmouth
Chathill
Belford*
Beal*
Berwick upon Tweed

Now this makes some sense. I still think that running the line through York and Darlington is more likely (York to speed up connections from the south, Darlington to serve Teesside) but the Ripon route is almost an equal possibility. Either way, I would forsee effectively this. The Edinburgh/Aberdeen/Inverness fast trains get diverted via HS2. The Edinburgh semi-fasts continue to use the old route, with the Newcastle trains extending to Edinburgh if there is a new route. The York semi-fasts extend to Newcastle, with spare capacity used up south of there with new services to Lincoln and Cleethorpes or additional suburban runs. I can live with that, the ECML survives as a useful line and does not get cut in half to become another MML.

Whatever happens, the problem is still Newcastle, or to be precise the KEVII Bridge. That bridge is full, and there is nowhere really to put a new one. It might be possible to sort some of it out by grade-separating some of the junctions at the south end, but how do you do that? We already have one diveunder, but that doesn't help much. Other than a bypass with a station somewhere at the airport (which will negate the time-savings by forcing a Metro journey on most passengers) then the best option I can see is to run the new line around to the west of Tyne Yard, past Low Fell and putting in a new bridge on a steep incline underneath the A189 Redheugh Bridge (carving through houses to do so - no choice). Otherwise, an improved High Level Bridge to the east is possible, but that requires the Leamside to be reopened to allow greater use of it. It's complicated.