HS2 future northern extensions

[HSTEd]

Non-stop from Leeds to Manchester at 300km/h would be plausible. (They do 30km in ten minutes in Japan).
40 miles would put a journey time at something like 18 minutes.
Could probably put an intermediate station in at some point and stop some trains there. (Run it like a short shinkansen since I doubt only having 9tph to play with would be a major impediment).

 

[Haydn1971]

What's the maximum climb of a modern train - could a new route parallel the existing TransPennine M62 corridor, avoiding any tunnelling, slotting a parkway style station near junctions 20 & 25 ?

 

[NotATrainspott]

What's the maximum climb of a modern train - could a new route parallel the existing TransPennine M62 corridor, avoiding any tunnelling, slotting a parkway style station near junctions 20 & 25 ?

HS2 is max 3.5% incline. It isn't as much the incline that is the problem as the vertical curvature as you don't want the train going airborne, which means that there will still be a need for embankments and cuttings.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

What's the maximum climb of a modern train - could a new route parallel the existing TransPennine M62 corridor, avoiding any tunnelling, slotting a parkway style station near junctions 20 & 25 ?

That would probably be whatever the maximum gradient is of the Lickey Incline

 

[Haydn1971]

The desirable max grade of a motorway is 3%, so fairly compatible, I'd imagine the horizontal curvature would be straighter than a motorway though

 

[HSTEd]

Or you could just tunnel direclty through the Pennines - would avoid NIMBYs complaining about the destruction of wildlife areas or whatever it is they like to moan about.

'Pennine Base Tunnel'.

 

[Haydn1971]

Nah, the Pennines aren't the Chilterns

 

[WatcherZero]

Is exactly the point, your going to have to tunnel at either end if you dont want to spend 30 minutes negotiating the approaches, line itself only needs to be 100mph and as long as its straight without tight curves and diversions off route to other towns you will get sub 30 minute journey times.

Look at how HS2 turned out, the point wasnt to have a tunneled route but now because of the modern obstacles and nimbys fully a third of the route will be in tunnel because thats whats cheaper and easier to do.

Tunneling nowadays is relatively cheap and easy, around £100m a mile. if nearly half the route was tunneled the line would still only cost around £2bn. Economically, if the case included services to Liverpool and Hull too you probably justify around £5bn to play with budget wise for a full 'integrated' transpennine network.

The HS2 approach to Manchester alone is nearly 10 miles of tunnel.

 

[Haydn1971]

To be fair, tunnelling is hugely dependant on what you are tunnelling through, the costs in Spons has a really wide range for estimating at feasibility stages, I'll take a look when I boot my work laptop up on tuesday

 

[edwin_m]

Would it be possible though for the Woodhead route to simultaneously become the main TransPennine artery at the same time as serving local places though? There is a need for some sort of dedicated infrastructure of similar dependability to a London Underground line or HS2 to be at the core of the new network. Enhanced and reinstated local services along the route of the former Woodhead line would be complementary to the rest of the investments being made and there would be great benefits from reopening the whole route as a local stopping one like Airdrie-Bathgate.

All the HS2 routes north of Phase 2 will have less frequent fast services than further south, so potentially capacity for other things. Hence why I think Transpennine high speed services could run on the section through Manchester Airport and towards Leeds.

For Woodhead the only significant intermedate calls would be between Guide Bridge (exclusive) and Hadfield, which would be served by suburban trains as today. Four tracks would be restored between Manchester and Hyde Junction with possibly some loops in the Hattersley area. The Glossop/Hadfield service could become fully self-contained, perhaps even using European gauge units, to minimise unreliability. This should fit between high speed services at say 15min intervals, especially as these would not be running at HS2 speeds.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So, whilst there's certainly justification for improving "trans pennine" routes, I don't think that's anything for HS2 to "solve" - by the time any HS2 service from London has come in to central Manchester, seen hundreds get off, see hundreds more board and set off again towards Leeds, the direct London - Leeds service will have travelled half the way from Meadowhall to Leeds, and therefore overtaken a "via Manchester" service.

That, to me, suggests a separate solution to the M62 corridor (would be nice to involve Sheffield, believe me, but we always seem to be the afterthought - not on that axis from Liverpool to Hull).

I don't think anybody is suggesting a London-Manchester-Leeds service. My proposal was for a separate Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds service that would use parts of HS2 where they follow a similar route and have capacity available. This service would use shorter trains and possibly high platforms like Javelins.

 

[po8crg]

I think that there is a case for a Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Hull/Newcastle route, but it can't use very much of HS2; the Manchester Western Approach joins HS2 too far south to be useful for Liverpool, and the Leeds approaches aren't useful either. Also, neither Piccadilly nor New Lane has room for more trains without adding platforms; and if you're going to redevelop, you might as well do it somewhere that doesn't require trains reversing and doesn't make the trains go a long way out of their way.

You'll need entirely new E-W paths through Manchester and Leeds. In Manchester, that probably means the option (from the original planning document) of demolishing the arena and building the HS2 station as an adjunct to Victoria; in Leeds that probably means expanding Leeds City, presumably to the South; incidentally that will make passenger connections to New Lane easier. This route would connect to HS2 to the east of Leeds to be able to run trains north to Newcastle (from York).

There would be three main services: Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-York-Newcastle (classic from York until/unless that is upgraded), Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Hull (classic compatible from Selby) and Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Meadowhall-Toton (captive). That last probably requires adding a couple of bay platforms at Toton.

The other through-use of the trans-pennine could be trains from Yorkshire to Scotland if HS2 is extended to Scotland (which I presume will be the western route). That would mean Toton-Meadowhall-Leeds-Manchester-Preston-Carlisle-Glasgow/Edinburgh. Those would be the only Manchester-Scotland services, ie there won't be one originating at Piccadilly. There might be a service originating in Hull, though I doubt the demand would be there. There certainly wouldn't be a service from Newcastle, as the ECML will be faster (it's only 1h30 to Edinburgh).

 

[Haydn1971]

I think that there is a case for a Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Hull/Newcastle route, but it can't use very much of HS2;

I may have confused the issue here by mentioning the Higgins Report - I don't think anyone is seriously proposing a HS2 style route between Leeds and Manchester, but the Higgins report does suggest linked services between and beyond to Liverpool and Hull.

You'll need entirely new E-W paths through Manchester and Leeds.

Again, I don't think the Higgins report explicitly mentions new infrastructure, but it does infer faster connections which "probably" will require new track/routes, which is what I've been talking about above in terms of a new 100mph+ route between Liverpool and Hull, which in reality would end up using lots of existing route corridor, perhaps track share in some places, but would hopefully include some exclusive track through the really congested area of Manchester and to a lesser degree Leeds to ensure journey time reliability - which may as some have suggested above end up being tunnelled or on new viaducts

 

[HSTEd]

If you are building a new route there is no point going for half measures like 100mph. Proceed from Picadilly approach (since I assume we would just put it into the HS2 platforms at Manchester for simplicity's sake) directly to Leeds, tunneling under any obstacles in the way.
You might have a station underground in the vicinity of Brighouse as a park and ride but that would be it.

18 minutes or so non stop, or 23 with the intermediate stop.

Going to high speed you can shave ten minutes off the journey, to the point where the leg from my Hall of Residence on Oxford Road to Picadilly would be longer than the subsequent journey to Leeds.

 

[Gareth]

The way to go would be a Liverpool HS2 branch that takes both HS2 and transPennine services. The transPennine traffic would rejoin the Chat Moss somewhere before Manchester and go through Victoria and eastwards. New stretches of track and upgrades of the existing right of way would then be an ongoing process.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The HS2 rule of thumb is for one platform face per two trains per hour - unfortunately I cannot remember the exact source but it might be one of the IET lectures. Piccadilly is planned to have three London trains, two Birmingham and one Heathrow/HS1 (whose path will likely be given to somewhere else in the NW post-Higgins) across four platform faces, so there is likely space for an extra 200m train an hour or so (I would imagine a Phase 3 service being an hourly alternating Glasgow/Edinburgh to Manchester stopping Carlisle, Preston and the Airport). The same applies to Leeds with its five platform faces and identical service pattern, but there wouldn't be as much use in a Newcastle to Leeds HS service on its own without going TransPennine.

 

[Haydn1971]

If you are building a new route there is no point going for half measures like 100mph. Proceed from Picadilly approach (since I assume we would just put it into the HS2 platforms at Manchester for simplicity's sake) directly to Leeds, tunneling under any obstacles in the way.

Good luck economically building a 200mph+ alignment across the Pennines and through Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire - I'd also expect a TransPennine higher speed service not to share terminus platforms with a north-south HS2 - you'd be wasting lots of time swapping drivers between ends of trains and introducing potential for delay contamination to HS2

 

[NotATrainspott]

Good luck economically building a 200mph+ alignment across the Pennines and through Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire - I'd also expect a TransPennine higher speed service not to share terminus platforms with a north-south HS2 - you'd be wasting lots of time swapping drivers between ends of trains and introducing potential for delay contamination to HS2

A 250km/h alignment is within the right ballpark and since curve radius increases polynomially to velocity it would be far easier to design the route without as many earth movements as HS2. If the EU regulations on interoperability are to be avoided then the maximum theoretical speed can be just be put at 249km/h.

 

[HSTEd]

Good luck economically building a 200mph+ alignment across the Pennines and through Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire

Its quite easily really.
You put the whole thing in a tunnel - tunnels are cheap now.
The only point intermediate the two stations which would not be in a tunnel would be the ~Stratford style box for the intermediate station somewhere in the vicinity of Brighouse on the motorway.

No NIMBYs, no concern with the weather, no theft of signalling and power equipment because there would no public access to the trackwork at all and the conditions that equipment has to handle become far nicer because the temperature remains constant year round and with modern tunnels it would always be dry.

- I'd also expect a TransPennine higher speed service not to share terminus platforms with a north-south HS2 - you'd be wasting lots of time swapping drivers between ends of trains and introducing potential for delay contamination to HS2

As opposed to building an all new station in a different location - which is sure to endear passengers to the service?
Unless someone has decided to penny pinch in the stupidest ways the demands of HS2 will not in any way stress the platforms at Picadilly, especially considering the conversion of platforms in the existing trainshed would be feasible at that point (they are not worked that hard even now and Northern Hub and HS2 will steal large amounts of traffic from them).
The only 'contamination' would be that they might have to switch platforms at short notice which is hardly catastrophic - indeed it is a less important effect than that caused by the CC services which are protected as a sacred cow.

'Wasting time' at the station by swapping ends is also unlikely to be a major issue consdiering the time saving of several minutes you pick up by running at the higher speed and the many billions in disruption and construction costs you save by not building some fancy through station in Manchester.

Passenger turnover at the manchester station is quite large as it is.

 

[Haydn1971]

Rolls eyes... You wouldn't choose to put an entire railway into tunnel, that's just economic waste and lowers the cost benefits. Tunnels are not "cheap now", they are just as costly as they have always been, similarly putting stations in Stratford style boxes isn't a great idea on cost grounds.

My point about Piccadilly is that through platforms onwards to Liverpool and Leeds would remove a 10 minute turnaround if you used the terminus platforms. Building a viaduct to the south of the current 13/14 (and proposed 15/16) with a skyway to the HS2 platforms could work, but there's a fair bit of work required to accommodate quad track west of there, due to buildings, going east is easier with a parallel viaduct then grade desperation to the eastern side of the mainline into Piccadilly. Not much point improving line speed if you waste it at the stations

 

[edwin_m]

With a the right layout and operational focus (driver step-back etc) you could probably reverse a train at Piccadilly in 2min.

 

[Emyr]

Throwing in another option, does Liverpool-Leeds have to go through Manchester at all? Run it west-east through Gatley, allowing easy access to MIA and MCZ.

I don't have suitable mapping to work out whether that section of the mid-cheshire line is straight enough but west of Timperley you've got a blank canvas with the freight line having retreated.

East of Gatley, don't bother with Stockport, join up with the (upgraded) Hope Valley line.

Edit: travelling east, there's a line which branches left after Gatley, stays north of the M60 at Cheadle then turns south for Hazel Grove. There seems to be space between the current alignment and the Mersey to increase the radius. I don't know whether this curve is currently used by freight, so for a given radius the line speed would be limited by the shallow cant required for freight.

Cheap and cheerful HSR?

 

[HSTEd]

Rolls eyes... You wouldn't choose to put an entire railway into tunnel, that's just economic waste and lowers the cost benefits.

Which is why the number and length of tunnels in High Speed Rail projects have been increasing year on year?
We now have projects in Japan where the majority of the route is in Tunnel (the Kagoshima branch of the Kyushu Shinkansen runs 88 of its 127km in tunnel, and the Maglev Chūō Shinkansen will do something similar).

Tunnels are not "cheap now", they are just as costly as they have always been, similarly putting stations in Stratford style boxes isn't a great idea on cost grounds.

Tunnels are getting cheaper, since these days the cost of making an existing TBM drive longer is marginal - the costs are primary procurement and setup of the machiens and arranging mechanisms for the removal of spoil.

Unless you think you can get under the Pennines without a tunnel of sufficient length to justify a TBM the cost of simply extending the tunnel is marginal.
Although I think the route would be too intensively used having such a long base tunnel would also provide a very low gradient route as there are no obstacles and the tunnel can proceed in a near straight line - good for freight.
38km between Manchester and Brighouse with a difference in height of only 30m, which makes it 0.1% gradient - flat enough to be used as a cycle path.
Its a freight operator's dream.

The cost of surface construction is escalating drastically thanks to increased NIMBY activity, the problems of arranging for mass purchases of property and the endless compensation payment demands.
It appears that tunnels are now not that much more expensive than surface construciton, especially in terrain where NIMBY activity will be strong (there is a national Park in the way).

My point about Piccadilly is that through platforms onwards to Liverpool and Leeds would remove a 10 minute turnaround if you used the terminus platforms.

You can turn a train around in 2 minutes, or even quicker as the LU do if you provide a second staff member to drive the central leg of the journey.

 

[NotATrainspott]

If it's a Northernland metro you want with a high-frequency regular stopping pattern then it would have to go through the centre of Manchester somehow. The key to this might well be when the Ordsall Chord is full - it's not grade-separated at either end and when the Northern Hub will prove to be a success there will be a need for something more drastic to allow passenger service to improve even more - i.e. the Picc-Vic tunnel. Making the Picc-Vicc have larger stations only at Picc and Vic would reduce the cost considerably over the earlier metro ideas with many more stations in areas now best served by further Metrolink expansion. More local stopping services can continue to use the Ordsall Chord and so can continue to serve Oxford Road, Deansgate and Salford Central with little or no extra investment needed.

The number of underground platforms might not have to be particularly high either. So long as there is level access provided (which can be done when the TSIs are ignored) and there are enough wide doors, it may well be feasible to get away with only two platforms at core through stations thus halving the cost of a bored station.

 

[MarkyT]

You can turn a train around in 2 minutes, or even quicker as the LU do if you provide a second staff member to drive the central leg of the journey.

Yes you can but would you want to rely on that extra driver always being available at exactly the right time? Great Western allow 7 minutes for HST reversals en route during diversions which allows the driver to walk the length of the train. With trains up to 400m, nearly twice as long, HS services could need up to 10 minutes. Theres also a risk in reversals in that a fault might be discovered on the other cab, which might stop the train or at least delay it. Also reversing implies a junction to continue en route and the extra turnouts add to performance risk.

 

[edwin_m]

East-west trains would not be 400m long, and if LU can make driver step-back work then so can a future operator on the national network. If there is a fault in the other cab then if it isn't discovered on reversal it will only be discovered at the next terminus anyway, which is nearly as bad.

While tunnels may be getting cheaper they are still much more expensive than surface infrastructure. Stations in tunnels are horrendously expensive.

 

[Wavertreelad]

Throwing in another option, does Liverpool-Leeds have to go through Manchester at all? Run it west-east through Gatley, allowing easy access to MIA and MCZ.

I don't have suitable mapping to work out whether that section of the mid-cheshire line is straight enough but west of Timperley you've got a blank canvas with the freight line having retreated.

East of Gatley, don't bother with Stockport, join up with the (upgraded) Hope Valley line.

Edit: travelling east, there's a line which branches left after Gatley, stays north of the M60 at Cheadle then turns south for Hazel Grove. There seems to be space between the current alignment and the Mersey to increase the radius. I don't know whether this curve is currently used by freight, so for a given radius the line speed would be limited by the shallow cant required for freight.

Cheap and cheerful HSR?

Assuming HS2 extends north beyond Crewe then it might be prudent to incorporate a Liverpool /Manchester/Leeds/Hull scheme into the design. On this basis I would move the HS2 line north to the west of Warrington before picking a way through to the WCML near the present proposed junction. A junction to the west north of Widnes would allow the construction of a branch to Liverpool whilst a branch to the south of the Mersey to the east would allow trains to continue to Manchester Airport. A junction on this route would also link the HS2 north south alignment, and avoid the need for a separate connection further to the south. From Manchester Airport the route would follow the existing proposed route to central Manchester from where it would run the selected route over the Pennines.

 

[Haydn1971]

Tunnels - cost of land in East Manchester and the urban sprawl of West Yorkshire is a world apart from the megatropolis that covers any flat surface in Japan - which is why tunnels are economic there.

Crossrail as a whole project is costing nearly £15Bn, that includes just 21km of tunnel, 9 new stations and "just" £1Bn on rolling stock... Piccadilly to Leeds is 65km - all in tunnel ? Really ?

Turning trains around - just because you can, doesn't mean you should by design - why on earth would you design a train reversal in on a new route, that's just silly !

 

[edwin_m]

Turning trains around - just because you can, doesn't mean you should by design - why on earth would you design a train reversal in on a new route, that's just silly !

You might choose to design in a reversal to avoid a long section of tunnel!

 

[Haydn1971]

You might choose to design in a reversal to avoid a long section of tunnel!

Come on Edwin, you are making design assumptions about a theoretical design problem for a scheme that's theoretical at best right now and hasn't got any thread of funding at this time - if you were designing from first principals, having a reverse halfway along a route that could possibly have 4-6 trains per hour, it would be designed out at feasibility, not accommodated :-/

 

[NotATrainspott]

I'm starting to think this discussion should be broken out into its own thread to keep it together. What would be the best name for the idea of this scheme? David Higgins mentioned the words 'TransPennine One' and 'Northern Hub Two'.