I think your summary of the history is correct. Advocating for a wholly or partially underground station is guaranteed to be unsuccessful with the DfT/NPR/HS2. Perhaps it's a wider strategy of fully expecting to get knocked back on this issue, so using it as leverage elsewhere.
It's crazy that Whitehall isn't taking the underground option seriously. If it's possible for Brussels, Antwerp and Rotterdam, it should work for Manchester.
Leverage seems to be the key, I reckon. The question is for what? Perhaps investment in an underground metrolink line or simply as a tool to ensure what is planned comes to fruition.
It could easily backfire - if the government gets cold feet about the cost they could just tell Manchester they'll put it on the back burner for a decade while they design an underground station. Look what happened to Sheffield when they insisted on a service to the city centre.
They'd need to get cold feet for the whole of the phase 2b West project in that case, but in doing so it makes a white elephant of the whole of HS2.
It's in part being used to say to northern voters that if it was in the south it would be done no question and it's proof the government don't like northerners and the self styled 'King of the North' is on their side...
That too. Maybe moreso that perhaps, given the lack of similar noise from a Conservative mayor in the West Midlands. Nobody there is shouting about land take on what is a larger station.
Isn't it more about the double height viaduct that will be needed to the East of Piccadilly that will cut off great areas of East Manchester from each other? When you consider how much care was taken not build such a barrier in London, North of Euston, I think he's got a point
In the early days of the HS2 project, they discarded certain station layouts (such as a two level station, AIUI) at Euston because the resulting viaduct would bisect Camden.
The station will be at the same height as the current station, so I’m unsure how it can be considered to be double height. And it won’t cut off huge areas of east Manchester from each other - where has this fallacy really come from? Viaducts are still permeable too.
This. I find getting advocates for an underground station to identify the benefits to be almost as hard as getting someone to tell me the benefits of brexit.
Delete "in the middle of" from your description.
Thank you for that. That's really helpful to understand what's going on. I had understood that the line towards Leeds was going to occupy a bigger structure than that.
Perfect, thank you. I didn't bother reading the environmental statements as I would never expect them to contain this sort of information!
I think they risk alienating people unnecessarily by using exaggerated names for things. When I saw “box” I immediately thought Stratford International, or Old Oak Common. Why not just say flyover?
I believe its because 'box' refers to two different types of structures. One is a station box, which creates a box-shaped underground structure for a station, whereas the box that's being referred to here is a way of building bridges that are very skewed, like here. The beams are placed at a right angle to the thing being crossed and that ends up creating effectively a box shaped tunnel, like the replacement for the flyover at Bletchley.
It's more akin to the Bermondsey or Werrington dive-unders surely?
So's the Bletchley flyover
Yes but that got its name before it was a box.So's the Bletchley flyover