HS2 Crewe-Manchester Bill Published

[LNW-GW Joint]

Depends if you force a driver change at the reversal. The would reduce the time required as previously mentioned. Don't compare what happens now with one driver and agreements with what could be done with HS2.

Looking at places that do regular reversals of high speed trains, Milan Centrale does it in 10 minutes (FR and ITA, twice an hour on Turin-Rome services); Basel SBB manages it in 13 minutes (reversing an hourly cross-border ICE) - both older stations of course.
The few Turin-Venice through trains run through Milan underground via Garibaldi, bypassing Centrale.
Frankfurt is more complex as many through trains run via Ffm Flughafen instead of reversing at Hbf, where it is generally a slow operation.

I suppose GB's principal reversing station has been New St, where Voyagers have extended dwells for various reasons.
And not so many reversals these days with no Manchester-Bristol services, and they can use Camp Hill to avoid reversal anyway.

This far out, the future HS2/NPR operators are in no position to influence the high-speed parties - though Avanti's views on reversal would be interesting.
They may find their hands are tied if we close off all the other options too soon.

 

[Starmill]

Revsersing CrossCountry services at Reading didn't prevent them from taking up some journey time improvements in connection with the remodelling of the station.

 

[Bald Rick]

I just thought it would add extra time to the journey. I still think Calder Valley trains have a 5 to 7 minute time penalty for the reverse and dwell at Bradford Int- would Piccadilly HS2/NPR be similar ?

As I posted earlier (possibly this thread), the trains will be operating in ATO. Changing direction will not be the limiting factor - the station stop time will be determined by how long it takes to get passengers on and off the train, as it would be if it was an underground station. Three or four minutes is my estimate.

 

[Austriantrain]

Looking at places that do regular reversals of high speed trains, Milan Centrale does it in 10 minutes (FR and ITA, twice an hour on Turin-Rome services); Basel HBB manages it in 13 minutes (reversing an hourly cross-border ICE) - both older stations of course.
The few Turin-Venice through trains run through Milan underground via Garibaldi, bypassing Centrale.
Frankfurt is more complex as many through trains run via Ffm Flughafen instead of reversing at Hbf, where it is generally a slow operation.

Frankfurt Hbf actually sees plenty of reversals of ICE trains with station stops as short as 6 Minute (even 4 in the past). Of course, there is a driver change involved.

 

[Horizon22]

Or indeed, links of any kind for through trains to anywhere elsewhere on the network except for Old Oak Common and London Euston.

Old Oak Common will be a pretty substantial interchange once built though.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jan 2022 ==

As I posted earlier (possibly this thread), the trains will be operating in ATO. Changing direction will not be the limiting factor - the station stop time will be determined by how long it takes to get passengers on and off the train, as it would be if it was an underground station. Three or four minutes is my estimate.

Stepping back drivers and turning around in a short-time is indeed perfectly possible. You just need to employ some metro-style thinking at Birmingham & Manchester.

 

[Austriantrain]

Mannchester City Council seems to be basing its advocacy of an underground Piccadilly station on the report it commissioned from Bechtel back in 2019. That offered four concepts, on different alignments, for a through sub-surface or underground station with six 440m platforms, serving both HS2 and NPR. For example, the sub-surface option illustrated below would be constructed as an open box, but would require a major realignment of the tunnel from the Airport.
View attachment 109425

However, the report did not include full feasibility studies or detailed costings, and did not go so far as to recommend any of these options, merely:


Whether or not such crayonista concepts might merited further analysis two years ago, that bird has surely flown now the hybrid bill has been published.

I can’t see any advantage of such a Lay-out compared to a reversal with the projected number of trains and can’t see why Manchester would bother.

I always thought they were asking for something on a north-south or a northwest-south axis, but that would be completely different project and nothing to do with HS2/NPR.

 

[Watershed]

I just thought it would add extra time to the journey. I still think Calder Valley trains have a 5 to 7 minute time penalty for the reverse and dwell at Bradford Int- would Piccadilly HS2/NPR be similar ?

Most Calder Valley trains have a minimum 3 minute reversal at Interchange, almost always with the same crew as well.

Obviously with a 200m/400m HS2 train it's a little bit different, but if you have step back crew ready - like on the Underground - then it's perfectly doable in 3-4 mins.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Revsersing CrossCountry services at Reading didn't prevent them from taking up some journey time improvements in connection with the remodelling of the station.

Indeed so. Sometimes I know reversals are not ideal but if they save boatloads of money it is more likely it will get past the dead hand of Her Majesty’s Treasury.

 

[Bald Rick]

Indeed so. Sometimes I know reversals are not ideal but if they save boatloads of money it is more likely it will get past the dead hand of Her Majesty’s Treasury.

I’d phrase it slightly different.

If reversing a train can be done with no effect on journey time compared to a through station option, and saves a boatload of our (taxpayers) money, then it is surely the right thing to do?

 

[MattRat]

I’d phrase it slightly different.

If reversing a train can be done with no effect on journey time compared to a through station option, and saves a boatload of our (taxpayers) money, then it is surely the right thing to do?

If Manchester has to be a terminus, Birmingham trains should simply go another way to Leeds. There were even plans for such that were reasonable.

 

[Starmill]

If Manchester has to be a terminus, Birmingham trains should simply go another way to Leeds. There were even plans for such that were reasonable.

Why? If it is going to take longer then... why?

Not that this means in any way whatsoever that I acknowledge the cancellation of the Eastern Leg as either desirable or necccesary.

 

[MattRat]

Why? If it is going to take longer then... why?

Not that this means in any way whatsoever that I acknowledge the cancellation of the Eastern Leg as either desirable or necccesary.

Because why not? I'm sick and tired of the bare minimum, why our railways need investment now more than ever. And the options list I saw includes going from Birmingham to Leeds via the ECML, for not a lot of money in the grand scheme of things.

 

[edwin_m]

Because why not? I'm sick and tired of the bare minimum, why our railways need investment now more than ever. And the options list I saw includes going from Birmingham to Leeds via the ECML, for not a lot of money in the grand scheme of things.

But taking a lot more time than going via Manchester, unless the Eastern Leg is in fact built. So people will travel via Manchester anyway, even if no through service is provided.

 

[Glenn1969]

But taking a lot more time than going via Manchester, unless the Eastern Leg is in fact built. So people will travel via Manchester anyway, even if no through service is provided.

I disagree. Especially if the connection is lengthy or unreliable. My view is Leeds and Yorkshire get very little out of HS2 and the IRP, and despite Shapps' words the actual timescale for completion seems to be similar to if the Eastern Leg was built in full.

All this to save money with minimal thought of the social/wider economic benefit. At least that's what the DfT told Tracy Brablin last Monday

 

[JonathanH]

Because why not? I'm sick and tired of the bare minimum, why our railways need investment now more than ever.

There isn't any money. It has been spent on keeping the existing railway from going bankrupt and the Treasury has said what it is prepared to pay for future investment. The projects need to be managed in scope to fit the funding available or they won't happen at all.

 

[class26]

There isn't any money. It has been spent on keeping the existing railway from going bankrupt and the Treasury has said what it is prepared to pay for future investment. The projects need to be managed in scope to fit the funding available or they won't happen at all.

But if the money for HS2 is borrowed against future fares it will come back to the state and surely, as long as it is a profitable line we could, using the same criteria build any number of High Speed lines ort m i missing something ?

 

[edwin_m]

I disagree. Especially if the connection is lengthy or unreliable. My view is Leeds and Yorkshire get very little out of HS2 and the IRP, and despite Shapps' words the actual timescale for completion seems to be similar to if the Eastern Leg was built in full.

All this to save money with minimal thought of the social/wider economic benefit. At least that's what the DfT told Tracy Brablin last Monday

With 2TPH Birmingham to Manchester and 8TPH Manchester to Leeds it would be a pretty quick and easy connection, and would probably also be reliable as all services are on dedicated infrastructure except beyond Huddersfield. There would still be Birmingham-Leeds trains by the existing route, to provide a service to stations in between.

I come back to the question I've asked several times and none of those opposed to the reversal in Manchester have answered: would you be prepared to accept 5-10 years delay (my optimistic estimate) and the possibility of the government of the time cancelling the whole thing?

 

[Glenn1969]

With 2TPH Birmingham to Manchester and 8TPH Manchester to Leeds it would be a pretty quick and easy connection, and would probably also be reliable as all services are on dedicated infrastructure except beyond Huddersfield. There would still be Birmingham-Leeds trains by the existing route, to provide a service to stations in between.

I come back to the question I've asked several times and none of those opposed to the reversal in Manchester have answered: would you be prepared to accept 5-10 years delay (my optimistic estimate) and the possibility of the government of the time cancelling the whole thing?

I think that's a red herring because the small print in the IRP says the end timescale is pretty much the same

 

[edwin_m]

I think that's a red herring because the small print in the IRP says the end timescale is pretty much the same

For what? I was referring to the delay caused by making Manchester a through station. Sorry if you're referring to something else.

 

[Bald Rick]

But if the money for HS2 is borrowed against future fares it will come back to the state and surely, as long as it is a profitable line we could, using the same criteria build any number of High Speed lines ort m i missing something ?

You are missing something. That something being the profitability (or otherwise) of the original eastern leg.

 

[Glenn1969]

For what? I was referring to the delay caused by making Manchester a through station. Sorry if you're referring to something else.

completion of all phases of TRU/NPR including the new line

 

[edwin_m]

completion of all phases of TRU/NPR including the new line

The subject of this thread is the publication of the Parliamentary Bill for Crewe to Manchester. If Manchester was changed to a through station it would take 5-10 years to do all the work needed to change the design and prepare a revised Bill. So the through Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds route would be delayed by the same amount, as would HS2 to Manchester.

 

[Glenn1969]

The subject of this thread is the Parliamentary Bill for Crewe to Manchester. If Manchester was changed to a through station it would take 5-10 years to do all the work needed to get to a Bill including that instead. So the through Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds route would be delayed by the same amount, as would HS2 to Manchester.

Manchester has been waiting 20 years for decent infrastructure. I'm sure they could wait another 5 if they had to. Do minimum is a false economy because the extra work will just need doing at a later date

 

[Starmill]

I disagree. Especially if the connection is lengthy or unreliable.

Disagree with what? Some people will do it regardless of how reliable it is or how long they have, because that's what they will be shown. I don't think that's a prospect you can disagree with.

 

[Glenn1969]

Disagree with what? Some people will do it regardless of how reliable it is or how long they have, because that's what they will be shown. I don't think that's a prospect you can disagree with.

I'm disabled. I only change trains when I'm forced to and indeed was very slow to return to rail after the pandemic. Am I in a minority? I don't know?

 

[Starmill]

Do minimum is a false economy because the extra work will just need doing at a later date

Why would it? Wouldn't the extra work in this scenario, i.e. further enhancements in the 2040s and 2050s be to construct the Eastern Leg?

 

[Glenn1969]

Why would it? Wouldn't the extra work in this scenario, i.e. further enhancements in the 2040s and 2050s be to construct the Eastern Leg?

yes, but 20 years later than the original plan

 

[Starmill]

I'm disabled. I only change trains when I'm forced to and indeed was very slow to return to rail after the pandemic. Am I in a minority? I don't know?

Nobody here is criticising or questioning your own choices of trains or modes of transport. I think we're just pointing out that a faster journey with a change vs a slower journey which is direct is already occasionally a proposition for now. Some people will choose one, some another.

 

[CdBrux]

But if the money for HS2 is borrowed against future fares it will come back to the state and surely, as long as it is a profitable line we could, using the same criteria build any number of High Speed lines ort m i missing something ?

For underground through station in Manchester think also cashflow:
* you borrow 5bn to 10bn more
* you wait >5 years longer to start getting any money back on your whole phase 2b investment, not just the extra
* you wait a very long time to get the extra profit to make it the better profit generating option, if you ever make it so
Plus you have resources tied up in Manchester that could be building the link through Warrington to Liverpool and tunneling towards Marsden

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Jan 2022 ==

Manchester has been waiting 20 years for decent infrastructure. I'm sure they could wait another 5 if they had to. Do minimum is a false economy because the extra work will just need doing at a later date

I think it's 5 years (or more) redesign and consultation + 7 years more to build so they would wait at least 12 years. Then they gain (only those though passengers) a couple of minutes maybe. And the rail enthusiast is happy because they have what in their eyes is perfection vs more than good enough

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Jan 2022 ==

yes, but 20 years later than the original plan

it might be a better plan that actually went to some city centres?

 

[Bald Rick]

Then they gain (only those though passengers) a couple of minutes maybe.

this is the point…. They don’t gain a couple of minutes. AIUI there is no meaningful time difference between a through station and reversal.