HS2 Northern Branches Discussion

[Xenophon PCDGS]

as the Hamilton's will testify.

They all thought that the "Man in the White Suit" was indeed someone akin to "The Promised One" at that time..

 

[brianthegiant]

The access in and out of Toton from the south is quite limited. The route through Long Eaton town station only has access to Derby - the east chord has been built on. The goods line has access to Nottingham and Leicester via the High Level goods line.

There are 2 double track lines into Toton from the south:
The west of the 2 has access only from the West, I guess that will be used for HS2 -straightest option.

The Easterly line has Chords to the east and west. At present I think it can access Leicester and Nottingham but not Derby. I think this would remain the freight/Pax access to Toton. Access towards Derby would be added with additional flying junctions where the 'Leicester/power station' chord reaches Trent Junction

Running Derby/Leicester to Nottingham via the Trowell-Radford line is just insane - a very slow journey for what benefit?

fair point, do you think it would be quicker for drivers to change cabs & reverse at Toton, continuing to Nottingham via Beeston?

Presumably for 'Toton International' to avoid causing local road congestion, there will be at least some local services stopping there? More likely the Matlock & Leicester services rather than the Birmingham. I cant see any merit in STP-DBY/NOT services being routed via Toton.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Do you think it would be quicker for drivers to change cabs & reverse at Toton, continuing to Nottingham via Beeston?

Considering that we are on a HS2 thread, the matter of drivers changing cabs and reversing would indeed be one to cause concern to those who see High Speed routes as a modern and fast railway method of transportation.

Is it worth checking if this novel idea had ever been considered by the operators of the Japanese Shinkansen rail services...:roll:

 

[nerd]

For those looking the quote in question is on Page 40, not 41.

At a quick glance I couldn't see a date of publication for the plan but I suppose things could have moved on as far as HS2 is concerned. Given that the intended route has been with various Ministers for the last year or so and they'd have fiddled with it to suit their political ends no doubt.

HS2 has to join WCML somewhere up near Manchester and maybe Golborne is sensible, although I didn't envisage it going quite that far north on this phase.

It's interesting that whilst the mention of Manchester could cover links to both the airport and central, there is no mention of Crewe or anywhere else as a link point.

Absolutely right on the last point; if the WCML link is at Golborne, there would be little point in having another link further south at Crewe; and contrariwise, if the link is at Crewe, there would be no point of Golborne. Notwithstanding the CP5 publication, I strongly suspect that the Golborne link is the former plan (reflecting planning up to around April last year), while the 'south of Crewe' link is the one that will be found in the forthcoming announcement.

A possible Golborne link only made business sense as providing classic-compatible services from Euston to Glasgow north of Phase 2. Former Secretaries of State ensiaged that Phase 2 would represent the full extent of the system for a number of years, and hence tried to maximise the apparent benefit that could be demonstrated on the Scots services following Phase 2 by configuring the WCML link as far north as possible. But it turns out the Scots weren't interested; what they wanted was Phase 3 (within Scotland) as soon as possible - indeed if possible concurrently or in advance of Phase 2.

At the same time; the Chancellor has announced (in the autumn statement) that he envisages trimming £1.5 bn from the Phase 2 costs. The easiest way to achieve this would be to cut the proposed northwestwards extension of Phase 2 into Lancashire, so that, at Phase 2, the line will stop at the Manchester city centre terminus. If there is then a link from Phase 2 onto the Northern Hub within Manchester, that would allow some Scots classic compatible services to join temporarily at Manc. Others would have to carry along the WCML all the way south to Crewe; which is where the Liverpool classic-compatibles will join.

Of course. once the Scots have decided which side of the country (west or east) they intend to link Phase 3 to Phase 2, then it could become necessary to revive the northwestwards extension. But, if the Phase 2 link to Liverpool is at Crewe, a Golborne link onto the WCML would be largely redundent - the prioirty would be for a link onto the Liverpool-Leeds line around Culcheth. If there is to be another HS2/WCML link north of Manchester, I would expect it to be some way north of Preston.

 

[Philip Elliott]

There are 2 double track lines into Toton from the south:
The west of the 2 has access only from the West, I guess that will be used for HS2 -straightest option.

The Easterly line has Chords to the east and west. At present I think it can access Leicester and Nottingham but not Derby. I think this would remain the freight/Pax access to Toton. Access towards Derby would be added with additional flying junctions where the 'Leicester/power station' chord reaches Trent Junction
.

That's exactly what I said:roll: The westerly route is the Erewash Valley line and where Long Eaton town station was. The easterly route is the (high level) goods line.

The Erewash line is actually still single track at the junction and it certainly isn't straight. Additional flying junctions would be hugely controversial.

Frankly a better location would be Ilkeston with a tram line built based on the former GNR route.

 

[tbtc]

Considering that we are on a HS2 thread, the matter of drivers changing cabs and reversing would indeed be one to cause concern to those who see High Speed routes as a modern and fast railway method of transportation.

Is it worth checking if this novel idea had ever been considered by the operators of the Japanese Shinkansen rail services...:roll:

I think that the post you are quoting relates to the possibility of drivers changing ends on local services between Derby and Nottingham (which may have to reverse at Toton), rather than drivers changing ends on 400m long HS2 trains.

That's how I read it anyhow.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

At the same time; the Chancellor has announced (in the autumn statement) that he envisages trimming £1.5 bn from the Phase 2 costs. The easiest way to achieve this would be to cut the proposed northwestwards extension of Phase 2 into Lancashire, so that, at Phase 2, the line will stop at the Manchester city centre terminus.

Thank you for making this posting, as it had seemed at one time, that having been aware of "The Autumn Statement" to which you allude in your own posting, I was in a minority of one on this thread to assume a Phase 2 line stopping at the Manchester city centre terminus as being a possibility as a result of financial strictures being so applied by Government decree. These are very early days in looking at the lines that so bifurcate to both the Manchester and the Leeds areas and speculation will remain rife on internet-based transport forums, until plans are put forward stage by stage, to be then subject to refinements by subsequent policy decisions, until a clearer provisional route then begins to be formulated.

 

[WatcherZero]

Absolutely right on the last point; if the WCML link is at Golborne, there would be little point in having another link further south at Crewe; and contrariwise, if the link is at Crewe, there would be no point of Golborne. Notwithstanding the CP5 publication, I strongly suspect that the Golborne link is the former plan (reflecting planning up to around April last year), while the 'south of Crewe' link is the one that will be found in the forthcoming announcement.

A possible Golborne link only made business sense as providing classic-compatible services from Euston to Glasgow north of Phase 2. Former Secretaries of State ensiaged that Phase 2 would represent the full extent of the system for a number of years, and hence tried to maximise the apparent benefit that could be demonstrated on the Scots services following Phase 2 by configuring the WCML link as far north as possible. But it turns out the Scots weren't interested; what they wanted was Phase 3 (within Scotland) as soon as possible - indeed if possible concurrently or in advance of Phase 2.

At the same time; the Chancellor has announced (in the autumn statement) that he envisages trimming £1.5 bn from the Phase 2 costs. The easiest way to achieve this would be to cut the proposed northwestwards extension of Phase 2 into Lancashire, so that, at Phase 2, the line will stop at the Manchester city centre terminus. If there is then a link from Phase 2 onto the Northern Hub within Manchester, that would allow some Scots classic compatible services to join temporarily at Manc. Others would have to carry along the WCML all the way south to Crewe; which is where the Liverpool classic-compatibles will join.

Of course. once the Scots have decided which side of the country (west or east) they intend to link Phase 3 to Phase 2, then it could become necessary to revive the northwestwards extension. But, if the Phase 2 link to Liverpool is at Crewe, a Golborne link onto the WCML would be largely redundent - the prioirty would be for a link onto the Liverpool-Leeds line around Culcheth. If there is to be another HS2/WCML link north of Manchester, I would expect it to be some way north of Preston.

I disagree, the issue at hand was the time penalty of classic compatible services running at 110mph rather than 125mph tilting to Scotland, from what ive heard they were at one point considering taking the line all the way to Preston to address this time penalty with the plan always as a base for a connection somewhere between Warrington and Wigan. The outcry from the Mersey late in the process when they realised they would still be using lichfield caused them to rethink but ultimately push on. The rumour is there has been one late change after the Government recieved the final route selection with Osborne sucessfully pushing for the line to skirt rather than plough through the centre of his constituency but requiring an extra £1.2bn cost for the inferior route and extra noise mitigation measures required for travelling nearer population centres.

 

[33Hz]

Given that HS2 will need to pass through/over Trent Junction, that would be a potential junction on HS2, however there isn't unlimited space at Trent Jn, you have housing to the North, Trent Lock to the south West. It's also in the Trent flood plain, so anything new will be viaducts rather than tunnels, so noise levels become an issue for nearby housing.

Although this hasn't stopped the Dutch...

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I disagree, the issue at hand was the time penalty of classic compatible services running at 110mph rather than 125mph tilting to Scotland

What's to stop the classic compatibles tilting? The French have shown high speed and tilt can be done.

 

[PR1Berske]

Although this hasn't stopped the Dutch...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


What's to stop the classic compatibles tilting? The French have shown high speed and tilt can be done.

Yes but you're using the Netherlands and France as examples, which only goes to underline ever more boldly we do things in this country

Due to numerous factors, but predominately due to the deadly tag-team of NIMBYs and the Unions, this country has not got the infrastructure it deserves. Other European countries are far, far, far more advanced because they don't have the same handicaps as we do.

As any wise man will tell you - in the time it takes us to build a new station, China builds an entirely new city. It shouldn't be this way.

 

[snail]

As any wise man will tell you - in the time it takes us to build a new station, China builds an entirely new city. It shouldn't be this way.

I agree. Communist dictatorships are not the way forward.

 

[Chris125]

What's to stop the classic compatibles tilting? The French have shown high speed and tilt can be done.

Have they? Im sure i remember HS2 Ltd responding to a question about tilt by replying that there are no high speed (186mph+) trainsets with active tilt and no plans by any manufacturer to produce any - i think due to the weight penalty. They've also said that cost effective upgrades have been identified which would minimse the time lost by lack of tilt on the northern WCML.

Chris

 

[nick.c]

Probably just a crazy thought - but could Manchester be in line for 3 HS2 stations?

The Phase 2 map published in the Sunday Times showed a short spur to the airport with the line into Manchester going a little further to the west. Some people think this could be a miss-print - and that could well be the case.

The "obvious" route to serve Manchester would be a line going through the airport and upto Man Picc. Although ideal it would be hugely expensive requiring either major tunnelling or a massive upgrade (4-track) to the existing infrastructure. However there is an alternative.

Perhaps half of the services could be sent to the Airport and then on the existing line to Picc. It might just be possible to fit this volume (2tph from London plus 1tph from Birm) onto the existing route with minimal changes required except for lengthening some platforms at Picc. The other 3tph (from London & Birm) would use a new / upgraded line on the surface and terminate at a new HS2 station at Salford Quays. This station would also serve all Man to Scot services.

Further, I agree with Nerd that if a connection is made with the WCML at Crewe then there is no need for a second link near Warrington. My guess is that if the eastern branch is chosen to link to Scotland then the north-western branch will be no more extensive than suggested by the Sunday Times. However if the western branch is to go to Scotland, then the continuation will start from near Manchester, skirt round the outskirts and head towards Preston broadly following the M61, i.e. going nowhere near Golborne Junction.

 

[tbtc]

Yes but you're using the Netherlands and France as examples, which only goes to underline ever more boldly we do things in this country

Due to numerous factors, but predominately due to the deadly tag-team of NIMBYs and the Unions, this country has not got the infrastructure it deserves. Other European countries are far, far, far more advanced because they don't have the same handicaps as we do.

As any wise man will tell you - in the time it takes us to build a new station, China builds an entirely new city. It shouldn't be this way.

Be careful what you wish for - in a Chinese regime, you'd have no chance of protesting about Preston Bus Station - it'd have been knocked down in under a day with no chance of petitioning any councillors

 

[steamdrivenand]

Well I don't know what's going on (not for the first time of course).

Last weekend a flurry of newspaper articles about HS2 Northern Routes and how they were due for publication shortly, having been delayed from December etc, etc.

Well here we are, it's Friday and nothing has appeared and the last newspaper flurry was way back on Monday morning. So will the papers re-run all the articles this weekend, given that nothing has happened?

Has the Government chickened out of publishing yet again? Has Mr Osborne instructed that HS2 go back and look at bringing the Manchester line in from Huddersfield and the Leeds line from Scunthorpe and what have the Lone Rangers best mate, the Yellow Brick Road and an old Haitian militia got to do with railways?

 

[Chris125]

I gather the coalition review was expected to reveal more detail than it actually did, not just on HS2 but other policies too. Bit of a damp squib really.

Chris

 

[6Gman]

Be careful what you wish for - in a Chinese regime, you'd have no chance of protesting about Preston Bus Station - it'd have been knocked down in under a day with no chance of petitioning any councillors

Indeed. They'd probably demolish it with the passengers still inside.

 

[D365]

Indeed. They'd probably demolish it with the passengers still inside.

Oh god...

 

[33Hz]

Have they? Im sure i remember HS2 Ltd responding to a question about tilt by replying that there are no high speed (186mph+) trainsets with active tilt and no plans by any manufacturer to produce any - i think due to the weight penalty. They've also said that cost effective upgrades have been identified which would minimse the time lost by lack of tilt on the northern WCML.

Chris

Here - http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/p01.html

I recall reading that the AGV could be offered with tilt.

 

[WatcherZero]

Indeed and look at the result, they couldnt tilt the power cars, it was underpowered to make room for the tilt meaning it was incapable of reaching High Speed unless working in multiple and even then its in continental gauge, there wouldnt be enough room underneath for the equipment they used in our gauge.

 

[33Hz]

Did you read the article properly?

1) They decided not to tilt powered bogies due to time and budget for the experiment. TGVs have traction motors mounted under the car body so this would have complicated the drive shaft arrangement.

2) They used a TGV PSE for the experiment, which uniquely (except Eurostar) has powered bogies under the front and rear coaches. These had to be removed to satisfy 1 and resulted in the loss of power and speed. It would not have been an issue in any other model of TGV.

With the AGV they have moved the traction motors back into the bogies, hence removing the drive shaft problem altogether. The tilt system tried was the same as that on the Pendolino, which you may have noticed seems to fit ok on British gauge.

 

[WatcherZero]

Firstly they didnt develop the technology only tested the tilt equipment and track wear of it fitted on a TGV unit without any motors other than power cars.

The power cars would not tilt, because that would entail developing a whole new powered and tilting bogie

The end trailers (adjacent to the power cars) would have their motors removed to make room for the tilt system

This testing cycle was repeated after the Fiat hydraulic tilt system was replaced by the Alstom-designed electromechanical system which was expected to provide higher reliability, lower mass, lower volume and lower cost.

Secondly ALSTOM suspended development on the TGV NG in 1999 and the P-01 experiment research produced the expected result, axle loads well in excess of even the 17 metric tonnes of the TGV (one of the aims of the project was to reduce it to 16 tonnes) even without motors fitted and excessive track wear and so was cancelled in 2000.

 

[WatcherZero]

Additionally the Fiat tilt system used on the Class 390 has a maximum axle weight of 15t (which its already using to the max), it couldnt carry the extra weight.

 

[Haydn1971]

As an aside, I was at a talk tonight, the current line from officers involved in discussions with HS2 Ltd are that HS2 Ph2 will be published within 2 weeks, that a city centre station could cost a "£1Bn" more (although it sounded plucked from thin air), that a sub-optimal Sheffield City Centre station (Victoria) would be worse than a parkway station, that Meadowhall is favoured by Rotherham, Barnsley and Doncaster and a non official snippet suggested the line would pass not far from my house which is near Crystal Peaks and alludes to an alignment that favours the Meadowhall Station location.

 

[WatcherZero]

its been pretty much confirmed as Meadowhall for about six months since disgruntled councillors leaked it last summer.

 

[WatcherZero]

NCE is saying that Council Leaders are meeting McLoughlin this week to be briefed on the full route.

 

[steamdrivenand]

It's very odd that when you look at the DfT website under 'Our announcements' there's a heading - 'High Speed Rail - Statement for Parliament' dated 17th Jan 2013 i.e. today.
When you click on it you get a page about a written statement from Justine Greening given on 27th March 2012. Then it says the page was updated today.
So why should a page written in Spring 2012 be changed 9 months later or is someone at the DfT manipulating the record?

 

[nerd]

It's very odd that when you look at the DfT website under 'Our announcements' there's a heading - 'High Speed Rail - Statement for Parliament' dated 17th Jan 2013 i.e. today.
When you click on it you get a page about a written statement from Justine Greening given on 27th March 2012. Then it says the page was updated today.
So why should a page written in Spring 2012 be changed 9 months later or is someone at the DfT manipulating the record?

what Greening said in March

I would like to hope that todays update implies that we may expect all this as and when the current publication happens - i.e. not only the recommended route, but also the HS2 submissions of 10 months ago.

At the end of this month I will receive HS2 Ltd’s route and station advice for high speed rail lines to Leeds, Manchester and Heathrow. This is an important next step in our aspiration for a truly national high speed network, as set out in our programme for government. Phase 2 of High Speed Two will spread the benefits of high speed rail further across the country, increasing capacity and enhancing connectivity by extending high speed rail lines to Leeds and Manchester and connecting other major conurbations in the North and in Scotland through seamless transition onto the existing network.

In fulfilment of its remit, HS2 Ltd’s advice will include options for stations in Manchester, Leeds, South Yorkshire, the East Midlands and at Heathrow Airport, as well as advice on the case and potential locations for additional stations. It will also cover the impact of Phase 2 of the network in releasing capacity on the Midland and East Coast main lines, as well as further extending the benefits of released capacity within the west coast corridor.

I will consider this advice objectively and in detail over the coming months, and I intend to publish it in the autumn together with a government response setting out initial preferred route and station options. An important part of this process will be to consider the views of delivery partners in the cities where HS2 stations may be located, including any underpinning evidence which they have identified. Understanding local desires and plans for development will be crucial in helping me reach initial preferences for station locations. I am particularly keen to ensure that the network best supports the economic potential of the cities and regions it serves, through well-integrated station locations that build on local and regional plans.

Minimising the risk of blight is a serious consideration, and it is for this reason that I expect to publish HS2 Ltd’s advice once I have reached a view on routes and station options. Publishing a detailed range of possible options without an indication of the government’s preferences would generate unnecessary and harmful blight across areas that ultimately might never be affected by the lines. I will be working with national environmental stakeholders to discuss key sustainability issues and how best to consult on lines of route going forward to help meet the needs of different stakeholders and the public.

Following publication, the input of interested parties, including MPs and their constituents, will be valuable to help further develop the proposals that will go forward for subsequent formal public consultation. Only once a full public consultation has been launched and completed will any decisions be reached.

When preferred route options are published in the autumn we will consult on and introduce an exceptional hardship scheme to assist property owners impacted by the proposals. Further, in order to reduce uncertainty for those affected by the proposals, and to ensure that the benefits for passengers and business of a national high speed rail network are realised as soon as possible, I have asked my officials to explore options for bringing forward formal public consultation on Phase 2 of High Speed 2 to 2013, and I will set out my proposed timetable later this year.

 

[WatcherZero]

It's very odd that when you look at the DfT website under 'Our announcements' there's a heading - 'High Speed Rail - Statement for Parliament' dated 17th Jan 2013 i.e. today.
When you click on it you get a page about a written statement from Justine Greening given on 27th March 2012. Then it says the page was updated today.
So why should a page written in Spring 2012 be changed 9 months later or is someone at the DfT manipulating the record?

The Coalition Government in its infinite wisdom decided that instead of each department having its own website (roughly 24) they would move to a single website for the entirety of Government, so far theyve moved 6 and its a total mess, to be honest it was a total mess when they just moved Dft and DCLG, they also designed a website with what looks like early 2000's mobile phone internet in mind.

But back to your question its a repost as its a new website and the original was on the old website.

 

[steamdrivenand]

The Coalition Government in its infinite wisdom decided that instead of each department having its own website (roughly 24) they would move to a single website for the entirety of Government, so far theyve moved 6 and its a total mess, to be honest it was a total mess when they just moved Dft and DCLG, they also designed a website with what looks like early 2000's mobile phone internet in mind.

But back to your question its a repost as its a new website and the original was on the old website.

Ah! That makes some sense and doesn't look so sinister, but I wonder why a page like that wasn't moved when the rest was?