HS2 to Merseyside

[MidlandMainlie]

A campaign group called 20 Miles More has been launched to give Liverpool a dedicated spur off HS2, branching off from near Warrington. They claim that a dedicated link would cost an extra £1.5 billion, but would generate benefits of £2.70 for every £1 invested and generate an £8 billion boost to Liverpool's economy over 20 years.

The high speed railway line should be extended to Liverpool and would give the project as well as the city an economic boost, campaigners claim.
The 20 Miles More campaign argues that Liverpool will be disadvantaged if it is not linked to the northern part of the line.

An open letter to the Government signed by business leaders and policy experts including Lord Derby and Sir Peter Hall says extending HS2 to Liverpool would add just £1.5 billion to the overall £50 billion cost of the project, which they call a "vital piece of national infrastructure."
They also claim for every £1 invested there would be a return of £2.70.

Andrew Morris, director of 20 Miles More, said: “An HS2 link to Liverpool will ensure that the economic growth that is very much in evidence in the city will not be jeopardized.
No mention of where HS2 trains would terminate and I can't find a link to their report.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn.../Extend-HS2-to-Liverpool-campaigners-say.html

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/liverpool-strangled-unless-gets-hs2-6656424

 

[NotATrainspott]

Here's their report. It includes some maps of various proposals they have, including shifting all of HS2 to the west of Warrington/Wigan/Preston. Some of the options aren't as ridiculous though, which is encouraging.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Here's their report. It includes some maps of various proposals they have, including shifting all of HS2 to the west of Warrington/Wigan/Preston. Some of the options aren't as ridiculous though, which is encouraging.

Thanks looks interesting reading

 

[WatcherZero]

Mmm, the report basically concludes its impractical to have a captive 400m HS2 station in central Liverpool due to cost of excavation/demolition required, also wouldnt be worthwhile to gauge clear HS2 captive on classic lines. It does consider moving the entire HS2 route closer to liverpool, west of Warrington, ie. that 30 minutes saving for Liverpool is worth 30 minutes longer journey for Warrington, Wigan, Preston, Edinburgh and Glasgow. Naturally that isnt favoured as HS2 Ltd reccomended against it to Parliament, saying it estimated it would increase HS2 costs by £2bn.

So after examining a dozen options it has two main contenders, keep the existing route and build a new line from Liverpool to Culceth near Wigan following the M62 with a parkway stop at Warrington. This also offers the possibility of high speed Liverpool-Manchester services and is relatively cheap.

Option 2 is the Halton direct route, build a spur from Northwich through the centre of Daresbury with a P&R station where it rises to a bridge over the Mersey and then continues westwards to Liverpool on viaduct. Then two route options, the northern route runs to Bowring before continuing into Liverpool on the existing lines. The southern option briefly uses existing lines to pass through Runcorn without stopping then joins existing lines on approach to the loop line tunnel portal.

Also noteworthy they find the financial benefit of faster services between Liverpool and Manchester (2.71) is higher than the benefit of faster Liverpool direct links to Birmingham (2.28) and London (2.08).

So therefore the best option according to the report is the existing HS2 proposal and rather than having a direct Southernly (Halton) liverpool spur have a slower (for London services) Easterly one to Wigan which can also be used for high speed Liverpool-Manchester services.

The cost of a captive HS2 route is estimated at £1.7bn vs around £400-450m for a new classic compatible line using existing tunnels under Liverpool which would share the majority of the £5.7bn benefits it estimates for the Culceth route, report estimates it could save £190m by ordering more HS2 captive sets but there would be around £600m saving in recycling the unused classic compatible sets making a classic compatible line using existing Liverpool terminals (since they dont plan an additional frequency, saying 2 services in the future replacing 2 today) pretty much pay for itself versus costing more than a billion more for not much extra benefit of tunneling 14km of new lines and demolishing a large section of Liverpool to build a more than 200m long station box down to tunnels deeper than the existing cutting then filling it in again.

Sadly despite the authors objectives to first prove a economic demand then prove the business case for tunneling a new line into Liverpool, the reports contents instead make the case for a cheaper classic compatible line achieving the majority of benefits.

 

[pablo]

Here's their report. It includes some maps of various proposals they have, including shifting all of HS2 to the west of Warrington/Wigan/Preston. Some of the options aren't as ridiculous though, which is encouraging.

WatcherZero;1696277] Mmm, the report basically concludes it's impractical to have a captive 400m HS2 station in central Liverpool due to cost of excavation/demolition required, (Does it?) also wouldnt be worthwhile to gauge clear HS2 captive on classic lines. (Does it?)
It does consider moving the entire HS2 route closer to liverpool, west of Warrington, ie. that 30 minutes saving for Liverpool is worth 30 minutes longer journey for Warrington, Wigan, Preston, Edinburgh and Glasgow. (Where did you get those dis-benefits from?)
Naturally that isnt favoured as HS2 Ltd reccomended against it to Parliament, saying it estimated it would increase HS2 costs by £2bn.

So after examining a dozen options it has two main contenders, keep the existing route and build a new line from Liverpool to Culceth near Wigan following the M62 with a parkway stop at Warrington. This also offers the possibility of high speed Liverpool-Manchester services and is relatively cheap.

Option 2 is the Halton direct route, build a spur from Northwich through the centre of Daresbury with a P&R station where it rises to a bridge over the Mersey and then continues westwards to Liverpool on viaduct. Then two route options, the northern route runs to Bowring before continuing into Liverpool on the existing lines. The southern option briefly uses existing lines to pass through Runcorn without stopping then joins existing lines on approach to the loop line tunnel portal.

Also noteworthy they find the financial benefit of faster services between Liverpool and Manchester (2.71) is higher than the benefit of faster Liverpool direct links to Birmingham (2.28) and London (2.08).

So therefore the best option according to the report is the existing HS2 proposal and rather than having a direct Southernly (Halton) liverpool spur have a slower (for London services) Easterly one to Wigan which can also be used for high speed Liverpool-Manchester services. (The Halton route is also 230km/hr. The speed differences 360 mainline/230 spur make the two journey times equate. Both proposals neatly overcome the Weaver viaduct bottleneck.)

The cost of a captive HS2 route is estimated at £1.7bn vs around £400-450m for a new classic compatible line using existing tunnels under Liverpool (source?) which would share the majority of the £5.7bn benefits it estimates for the Culceth route, report estimates it could save £190m by ordering more HS2 captive sets but there would be around £600m saving in recycling the unused classic compatible sets making a classic compatible line using existing Liverpool terminals (since they dont plan an additional frequency, saying 2 services in the future replacing 2 today) pretty much pay for itself versus costing more than a billion more for not much extra benefit of tunneling 14km of new lines and demolishing a large section of Liverpool to build a more than 200m long station box down to tunnels deeper than the existing cutting then filling it in again. (14km? The track is proposed to pass over the existing cutting as it leaves LS HL not under it.)

Sadly despite the author's objectives to first prove a economic demand then prove the business case for tunneling a new line into Liverpool, the report's contents instead, make the case for a cheaper classic compatible line achieving the majority of benefits. (Does it?)
(Have you read the same report as me?)

Better job than the Stoke effort, I'd say. It looks like the author reads RailUK.

 

[WatcherZero]

(14km? The track is proposed to pass over the existing cutting as it leaves LS HL not under it.

That would be impossible and where the report lacks reason, requiring the demolition of vast tracts of Liverpool and severing many roads for a new surface line? If you look at the diagram in the report (page 69) its labelled 'two single track tunnels' which supposedly pass under the University where one tunnel merges with the 'Victoria tunnel' and another single track tunnel continues. The report says the track would be '6m above the existing lines' however there would be no possible way to have a track 6m above the cutting height (where it would be plowing through all the bridges) and still deep enough for safely tunneling under all the existing buildings as it suggests. The tunnels would be so shallow they would be in the buildings foundations.

Theyve totally failed to take into account track gradient.

 

[HowardGWR]

Just a technical question. When possible use of and access to, old tunnel routes into Liverpool are discussed here, people say, oh, pity that the Wavertree technical college has now blocked some possibilities. As a stranger, looking at the site from above, it seems possible to me that the thing could be reversed. yes there would be a cost, but surely that is just 'domage' as our french neighbours would say, especially when you are talking billions.

 

[pablo]

That would be impossible and where the report lacks reason, requiring the demolition of vast tracts of Liverpool and severing many roads for a new surface line? If you look at the diagram in the report (page 69) its labelled 'two single track tunnels' which supposedly pass under the University where one tunnel merges with the 'Victoria tunnel' and another single track tunnel continues. The report says the track would be '6m above the existing lines' however there would be no possible way to have a track 6m above the cutting height (where it would be plowing through all the bridges) and still deep enough for safely tunneling under all the existing buildings as it suggests. The tunnels would be so shallow they would be in the buildings foundations.

Theyve totally failed to take into account track gradient.

You can't possibly reach this conclusion without a detailed survey.

And I think is says, " 6m above the exy lines." not, "6m above the exy cutting."

Why be so negative about a proposal that states that it all needs to be checked against possibility?

HowGWR: As for Wavertree Tech Park, I ask the same Q. Wavertreelad prob knows the answer.

 

[po8crg]

Liverpool-Manchester makes far more sense. It's a terrible journey at the moment, and the electrification will only help so much (319s, really?).

If there's a through-line at 300kph+ to Leeds as well - and there will surely be a new trans-pennine HS route at some point, if for no other reason than so they only have to build one HS line to Scotland - then Liverpool-Leeds in 45mins or so will be a very attractive option.

 

[eps200]

And this is where the Manchester HS station shows it's stupidity it cant interchange with any future line.

 

[8J]

How about building a station in the horrible brownfield areas of north Liverpool that are due for regeneration? Could use the Bootle Branch line for part of the project to serve the stadiums. How hard would it be for trains to reach a site near the old exchange station?

 

[po8crg]

And this is where the Manchester HS station shows it's stupidity it cant interchange with any future line.

I thought there was just about enough room between the tunnel exit and the station to squeeze in a triangle and run a line out east.

Trains stopping in Manchester would turn around, obviously - but you could get the train out and run it to Leeds.

Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds should be no more than an hour at HS speeds, which would be a dramatic improvement over the crap TPE service at the moment.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How about building a station in the horrible brownfield areas of north Liverpool that are due for regeneration? Could use the Bootle Branch line for part of the project to serve the stadiums. How hard would it be for trains to reach a site near the old exchange station?

Bah, build the station at the airport and make people get on a train from South Parkway to wherever they're trying to get to. Build it as a through station with a crossing loop out the back, and Merseytravel can pay for the link into the city later if they can ever afford it.

 

[eps200]

I thought there was just about enough room between the tunnel exit and the station to squeeze in a triangle and run a line out east.

Trains stopping in Manchester would turn around, obviously - but you could get the train out and run it to Leeds.

Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds should be no more than an hour at HS speeds, which would be a dramatic improvement over the crap TPE service at the moment.

Ok that makes a lot more sense, in that case the, Liverpool exchange > warington > man airport > man picadily > 'he wild lands to 'he east seems the best option they have.

Anyone see any gaping holes in their exchange station > outer loop idea?

 

[HowardGWR]

How about building a station in the horrible brownfield areas of north Liverpool that are due for regeneration? Could use the Bootle Branch line for part of the project to serve the stadiums. How hard would it be for trains to reach a site near the old exchange station?

If one can reach *near* the Exchange station one can reach the old Exchange Station, surely. It's only a frontage with nothing behind it except a car park?

 

[fowler9]

If one can reach *near* the Exchange station one can reach the old Exchange Station, surely. It's only a frontage with nothing behind it except a car park?

Indeed, I used to work in that area for many years and there isn't that much behind it other than a small park and car parks to be honest.The small park is used as the fire muster point for some very large offices in the area although Exchange Flags has also been used over the years so that might not be too much of an issue, I think some of the business may complain about the increased time to get there and back and crossing slightly busier roads. There may be one or two smallish new build offices that have gone up as well.

 

[eps200]

I was a bit sentimentally attached to lime street but the exchange site is very good. not quite long enough but cross the road and your golden. The box I've drawn is 60 meters wide and 405 meters long so it would fit.
The platform section at Leeds new lane is 400m by 40-45m. There is even space all down the east side for development/ parking (a nice big multi story or two to replace the lost spaces).
An exit at the north end would be neat too help regenerate that area/ connect to potential overspill car parks.
The other key feature would be pedestrian tunnels and associated lifts into moorfeilds. (renamed exchange?)

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?m...&ll=53.412026,-2.992423&spn=0.003939,0.009892

The more I read the exchange > Warrington > rest of HS2 version the more i like it, the other advantage is that it doesn't eat any extra paths.

What does greatly concern me is fitting in the station throat can that work on an incline? I assume gradients are okay because the northern line does it just fine in a slightly smaller distance right there abliet it has no OHL GC gauge to deal with. That is assuming captive stock can do the same gradients as a 508, moving chadwick street is unlikely to be a too big a deal if it comes to that.

EDIT: though there surely is a small advantage to a slope up into the station in acceleration deceleration.

 

[HSTEd]

How about building a station in the horrible brownfield areas of north Liverpool that are due for regeneration? Could use the Bootle Branch line for part of the project to serve the stadiums. How hard would it be for trains to reach a site near the old exchange station?

I laid such a route out but it diverged from HS2 at its Northern terminus near Wigan.

It might be too much of GWR for Liverpool even though it would still beat the classic compatibles easily.

 

[po8crg]

I like the Culcheth route. The central Warrington route looks awfully expensive for relatively little gain.

That Warrington Parkway station (labelled "Winwick") is pretty well connected. It's right next to J9 M62 and has space for plenty of parking.

It can be rail-connected by a WCML station which would pick up existing 2tph connections to WBQ, (one on an LIV-WBQ service, the other MAN-LLD). I have no idea what express service on WCML will look like post-HS2, but there really should be at least one more tph available (an all-major-stops BHM-GLC, for instance).

 

[eps200]

I like the Culcheth route. The central Warrington route looks awfully expensive for relatively little gain.

That Warrington Parkway station (labelled "Winwick") is pretty well connected. It's right next to J9 M62 and has space for plenty of parking.

It can be rail-connected by a WCML station which would pick up existing 2tph connections to WBQ, (one on an LIV-WBQ service, the other MAN-LLD). I have no idea what express service on WCML will look like post-HS2, but there really should be at least one more tph available (an all-major-stops BHM-GLC, for instance).

Can you drop a pin on a map I'm struggling to locate the parkway station. i'd hate to see HS2 stations that don't interchange.

That would be impossible and where the report lacks reason, requiring the demolition of vast tracts of Liverpool and severing many roads for a new surface line? If you look at the diagram in the report (page 69) its labelled 'two single track tunnels' which supposedly pass under the University where one tunnel merges with the 'Victoria tunnel' and another single track tunnel continues. The report says the track would be '6m above the existing lines' however there would be no possible way to have a track 6m above the cutting height (where it would be plowing through all the bridges) and still deep enough for safely tunneling under all the existing buildings as it suggests. The tunnels would be so shallow they would be in the buildings foundations.

They've totally failed to take into account track gradient.

I was sceptical too but not so it seems look how high the cutting reaches over the OHLL gear

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=li...F-8&ei=1E32UsnaPMOrhQfQ34DQCw&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ

and the land to the north continues to slope upwards the track can slope downwards so it will get underground more quickly than it apears. it's also not all that heavily built up there.

 

[po8crg]

Can you drop a pin on a map I'm struggling to locate the parkway station. i'd hate to see HS2 stations that don't interchange.

Their map and description doesn't let me pinpoint it that exactly (somewhere in the area bounded by the WCML, M62 and M6 near Winwick is as close as you could get) but just north of Hollins Park Hospital (easy to find on Google Maps) looks like the right sort of spot - the Winwick/M6/M62 link roads would give it good road connections and you could put in platforms on the WCML pretty easily.

There isn't room to fit between Winwick and the M62, so you put it north of the town, but as close as you can get.

Try this link

 

[edwin_m]

What does greatly concern me is fitting in the station throat can that work on an incline? I assume gradients are okay because the northern line does it just fine in a slightly smaller distance right there abliet it has no OHL GC gauge to deal with. That is assuming captive stock can do the same gradients as a 508, moving chadwick street is unlikely to be a too big a deal if it comes to that.

EDIT: though there surely is a small advantage to a slope up into the station in acceleration deceleration.

Should be possible to engineer the throat on an incline, as long as the incline doesn't change in the length of the throat. And HS2 trains should cope with gradients at least as well as most EMUs.

 

[NotATrainspott]

HS2 phase two engineering options report West Midlands to Manchester part 2 [PDF Page 171, document page 329]

The currently planned route is not any of the lines on the map, but it isn't far off the westernmost lime green line.

What intrigues me the most is that elusive orange line that seems to go well beyond any of the options for the Scotland route.

Two studies were undertaken to consider the provision of a chord line from HS2 routes to existing railway lines to Liverpool and the associated infrastructure changes.
The first study was completed during the development of the route options in the short list. Chord lines were identified to connect HS2 routes to the existing railway lines to Liverpool together with the infrastructure alterations that would be required to run a standard, GC compliant HS2 train to Liverpool.
A dedicated HS2 route to Liverpool was also developed to provide a comparative assessment with the gauge cleared existing network routes.
The second study was completed during the development of route options selected for refinement. Chord lines (spurs) only were identified to connect HS2 routes to the existing railway for use by classic compatible trains. This avoided the cost implications associated with gauge clearance of the existing rail network to Liverpool.
10.3.1
Development of route options in the short list – chord lines and infrastructure changes for HS2 trains to run to Liverpool
The four existing routes that give access to Liverpool from the HS2 route options are shown in Figure 10.2:

Preston to Liverpool via St Helens (Route A on Figure 10.2)

Manchester to Liverpool via Newton-le-Willows (Route B)

Manchester to Liverpool via Warrington Central (Route C)

Warrington to Liverpool via Ditton (Route D)
The existing lines are shown in hatched black, the various HS2 routes in red, green and blue, the chord lines in purple and the dedicated HS2 route in orange.
A route via Runcorn was also considered but not taken forward in detail as the 140 year old grade II listed Runcorn Viaduct over the River Mersey cannot accommodate high speed trains without very significant engineering works (possibly replacement) and disruption to the main Liverpool to London line.
A line speed enhancement exercise was undertaken to understand and estimate the journey time potential of the existing routes if enhancement works were carried out. These options were not progressed due to the capital costs of the infrastructure works and operational impacts to the existing rail network.

To accommodate the wider GC trains on the routes to Liverpool all of the options would require extensive engineering works which would include:

Reconstruction of all stations

Installation of loop lines at all stations to allow existing trains to continue to serve them.

Major modifications to or reconstructions of the majority of bridge structures.

Widening of embankments and cuttings.

Major works to the part tunnelled section between Edge Hill and Liverpool Lime Street.

Complete replacement of the existing signalling and telecommunications equipment.

Installation (where overhead electrification already exists) of new high speed and conventional compatible electrification equipment

Provision of electrification where not currently provided (the majority of the routes are not electrified.
At Liverpool Lime Street station only platforms 6 to 9 would be long enough for 200m long HS2 trains. They would require to be reconstructed for the HS2 wider trains, thus rendering them unsuitable for classic rail services and affecting the capacity of the station.
The original line between Liverpool and Manchester (via Newton-le-Willows) engineered by George Stephenson and opened on 1834 has 16 listed structures and buildings, the majority of which would be impacted by works to accommodate the wider HS2 trains.
10.3.2
Development of route options in the short list – dedicated HS2 route to Liverpool
A dedicated HS2 route was developed to provide a comparative assessment with the work required to allow HS2 trains to reach Liverpool using the existing routes.
The route would diverge from the main HS2 routes to the north, using 225kph junctions, and generally follow the M62 corridor. The route would be predominantly at ground level with a tunnelled section to access Liverpool city centre at a location adjacent to Lime Street station. This new station would likely be underground to mitigate impacts in the city centre.
This option was not progressed due to the capital costs and the difficulty of siting a station in the city centre.

10.3.3
Development of options for refinement – chord lines
During the development of HS2 route options selected for refinement chord lines were again identified to connect HS2 routes to the existing railway for use by classic compatible trains to access Liverpool. Ten chords were developed six connecting HS2 routes to the Liverpool to Manchester via Huyton line and four connecting to the Liverpool to Manchester via Hunts Cross line. These chords are shown Figure 10.3 in blue, with the HS2 routes shown in red. All of the chords would have a design speed of 160kph.
The chords connecting to the Liverpool to Manchester via Huyton line (DSE) were:

LC-502 – a connection near Old Moss Lane south east of Glazebury. This chord would require extensive embankment works and two high skew rail brdges. Up to 2km of highway diversions would be required.

LC-505 – a connection from an HS2 route close to junction 11 of the M62, passing south of Culcheth and joining the existing railway south of Lowton. Eight bridges would be required with embankment works and 3km of highway diversions

LC-506 – a connection from an HS2 route that would run east of Culcheth joining the existing railway north west of Culcheth. Embankment works and 9 bridges would be required.

LC-509 – a connection from an HS2 route south of Culcheth joining the existing railway south of Lowton. Eight bridges, 3.5km of highway alterations and extensive embankment works would be required.

LC-510 – this connection joins the existing railway near Broseley Lane north of Culcheth from an HS2 route that runs east of Culcheth. Extensive embankment works and seventeen bridges would be required, including one over the M62, with 2km of highway diversions.

LC-511 – a connection from an HS2 route east of Culcheth joining the existing railway near Broseley Lane north of Culcheth. Extensive embankment works and ten bridges would be required.
The chords connecting to the Liverpool to Manchester via Hunts Cross line (MAJ) were:

LC-501 - a connection from an HS2 route east of Hollinfare joining the existing railway west of Glazebrook. Extensive embankment works, eight bridges and road diversions would be required. Two of the bridges would be 100m span structures over the A57.

LC-504 – a connection from an HS2 route west of Hollinfare joining the existing railway west of Birchwood. Embankment works and seven bridges would be required.

LC-507 - a connection from an HS2 route west of Hollinfare joining the existing railway west of Birchwood. Embankment works and six bridges would be required, with up to 1km of highway diversions.

LC-508 - a connection from an HS2 route east of Hollinfare joining the existing railway west of Glazebrook. Extensive embankment works, six bridges and road diversions would be required. Two of the bridges would be 100m span structures over the A57 and a watercourse.
In all cases signalling alterations to the existing railways would be required. The Liverpool to Manchester via Huyton line is to be electrified by Network Rail. The Liverpool to Manchester via Hunts Cross line would require to be electrified from the junction with HS2.
In addition to the chord lines the following infrastructure modifications were also investigated:

Alterations to allow electrification of the Liverpool to Manchester via Hunts Cross line.

Reconfiguration of existing railway junctions ay Huyton, Allerton and Edge Hill to eliminate capacity constraints.
Potential for line speed increases on the existing railways
The options for chords connecting to the Liverpool to Manchester via Huyton line were not progressed following consideration of the following:

to the limits on operational capacity on the line following the introduction of additional traffic associated with electrification

proposed Northern Hub works

that the route does not provide a Warrington station

analysis of demand

alternative services offering preferable value for money and demand

sustainability impacts
The options for chords connecting to the Liverpool to Manchester via Hunts Cross line were also not progressed due to the capital cost (including electrification of the part of the route) and analysis of demand. Alternative service options and sustainability impacts also influenced the decision to park these route options.

 

[eps200]

Their map and description doesn't let me pinpoint it that exactly (somewhere in the area bounded by the WCML, M62 and M6 near Winwick is as close as you could get) but just north of Hollins Park Hospital (easy to find on Google Maps) looks like the right sort of spot - the Winwick/M6/M62 link roads would give it good road connections and you could put in platforms on the WCML pretty easily.

There isn't room to fit between Winwick and the M62, so you put it north of the town, but as close as you can get.

Try this link

Ah interesting, that could even catylise expansion of the town by the looks of it.

Should be possible to engineer the throat on an incline, as long as the incline doesn't change in the length of the throat. And HS2 trains should cope with gradients at least as well as most EMUs.

That should be a non issue then, 508s don't even struggle there.


I've been looking more closely at their HS2 lime street idea, not as whacky as i first thought it would be nice to keep the station tight into the centre, just not sure what height it would be.

 

[pablo]

[/QUOTE]HS2 phase two engineering options report West Midlands to Manchester part 2 [PDF Page 171, document page 329]

The currently planned route is not any of the lines on the map, but it isn't far off the westernmost lime green line. What intrigues me the most is that elusive orange line that seems to go well beyond any of the options for the Scotland route.[/QUOTE]

The orange route looks to me like the preferred route north.
Also, I see a yellow east-west route that looks like a vestigal trans-pennine HSL.

I downloaded all these Engineering Option Reports back then but lacked the will to read them. Now, I've read through the ones you've drawn attention to. How anyone can evaluate sensibly that plethora of options beats me.

If you believe it, it seems like a dedicated HS2 spur to Liverpool is the only realistic improvement over CCs via Runcorn from Crewe. But, on the options, MSG seems to have been dazzled by the headlights and given up. Seemingly, nothing can be done, so silence.

Indicated on page 329, fig. 10.2 is an impractical approach to Liverpool. They haven't given it any deep thought. Just drawn in a line. In this respect '20 Mile More' does a lot better, utilising tunnels to Olive Mount cutting, Waterloo tunnel and twin bores into an elevated station on the alignment of Coppras Hill; part on stilts; part in cutting. I was involved in a refurb of one of those buildings fifty years ago. I'm surprised it's still standing. Nothing there that can't be sacrificed.

MSG dismisses 200m Captive sets into Lime Street as impractical. All you have to do is cut back the platforms 250mm (!) and lay interlaced trackwork with points. That will take both sizes. But forget it, It's too difficult.

All this is not helped by the eastward bias of the main route towards Manchester. There is no need for it. The Grand Junction Railway didn't think so and '20 Mile More' doesn't either.

Phase 1 should go to Crewe and terminate there temporily! That'd sort out the options for Phase 2.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The orange route looks to me like the preferred route north.
Also, I see a yellow east-west route that looks like a vestigal trans-pennine HSL.

I downloaded all these Engineering Option Reports back then but lacked the will to read them. Now, I've read through the ones you've drawn attention to. How anyone can evaluate sensibly that plethora of options beats me.

If you believe it, it seems like a dedicated HS2 spur to Liverpool is the only realistic improvement over CCs via Runcorn from Crewe. But, on the options, MSG seems to have been dazzled by the headlights and given up. Seemingly, nothing can be done, so silence.

Indicated on page 329, fig. 10.2 is an impractical approach to Liverpool. They haven't given it any deep thought. Just drawn in a line. In this respect '20 Mile More' does a lot better, utilising tunnels to Olive Mount cutting, Waterloo tunnel and twin bores into an elevated station on the alignment of Coppras Hill; part on stilts; part in cutting. I was involved in a refurb of one of those buildings fifty years ago. I'm surprised it's still standing. Nothing there that can't be sacrificed.

MSG dismisses 200m Captive sets into Lime Street as impractical. All you have to do is cut back the platforms 250mm (!) and lay interlaced trackwork with points. That will take both sizes. But forget it, It's too difficult.

All this is not helped by the eastward bias of the main route towards Manchester. There is no need for it. The Grand Junction Railway didn't think so and '20 Mile More' doesn't either.

Phase 1 should go to Crewe and terminate there temporily! That'd sort out the options for Phase 2.

Your 'yellow' east-west route is the orange one I'm talking about. The north-south routes are only purple, green and blue so I don't know what you're on about here.

I think the reasoning behind MSG being 'dazzled by the headlights and [giving] up' is because there is simply no outstanding route which delivers massively more benefits than any other. Once the ideas of Euston and Old Oak, the Airport/NEC and Curzon Street or the Airport and Piccadilly are sorted the routes are more or less obvious in London, Birmingham and Manchester. Unless there were some outstanding choice of an intermediate station the route into Merseyside is always going to be a difficult call which will upset many people. The fact that the passenger numbers don't yet show that a captive link is required, and that a dedicated link with an intermediate stop would not decrease journey times that much more over a classic-compatible connection, compound this problem even more. If the current reports are true, at the very least I can see the Crewe connection being built as part of Phase 1 which would give Liverpool its Phase 2 journey time reduction many years ahead of schedule. If this makes passenger numbers jump, it won't take that many years to add on a captive spur eventually.

I think you also may be underestimating how difficult it is to re-use existing, in-use tracks and features for a captive line. TBMs aren't really that expensive in the grand scheme of things compared to the cost of diversions and massive reconstruction work on existing lines. Waterloo tunnel would need rebuilt to take the taller HS2 trains, which would probably cost more than just building a new tunnel completely with a TBM, and would prevent it being used by Merseyrail trains which wouldn't require it to be rebored at all. If there is land available in the city for a cut-and-cover station box, and a clear route for TBMs from the east to get to it, then that's where the station would likely end up. If it's a cut-and-cover box, they can put a park or other buildings back on top of it once they've finished, so it wouldn't necessarily reduce the amount of available space in the city upon completion.

You are also underestimating how much difficulty there is in captive-clearing the station platforms. Not only are captive trains wider but they are taller by around a metre, and they are designed for platforms at the EU standard height of 760mm as well. This would create an enormous vertical gap between train and platform even if the extreme complexity of platform gauntlet track were put in place. There's little point spending that money on a half-baked solution because it would be immediately worthless once the extra investment is later made and a captive route is finally built. Waterloo International was only ever going to have trains which went to the Continent, either the Eurostars or possibly the Nightstars as well, so it could possibly have been built with European-sized platforms. However, BR/the Govt/the powers that be knew that the station would still be a temporary solution before the CTRL was built so they knew that it would not be a good use of resources to build the station that way. Because of this foresight, the platforms at Waterloo International are capable of being added to the standard station for extra capacity once the necessary station throat works are completed.

The 'bias' of the route is such because 1. there are more passenger journeys to Manchester than there are to Liverpool and 2. you need a captive station at every end of the line so that you can use captive trains rather than more expensive and bespoke classic-compatibles for the bulk of passenger journeys. There is no personal vendetta against Liverpool by the DfT or by HS2 Ltd; they are simply following the statistics and realities of the limited resources they have for Phase 2. Once more resources become available, they can then look at the various possible extensions of HS2.

 

[MarkyT]

. . .The 'bias' of the route is such because 1. there are more passenger journeys to Manchester than there are to Liverpool and 2. you need a captive station at every end of the line so that you can use captive trains rather than more expensive and bespoke classic-compatibles for the bulk of passenger journeys. There is no personal vendetta against Liverpool by the DfT or by HS2 Ltd; they are simply following the statistics and realities of the limited resources they have for Phase 2. Once more resources become available, they can then look at the various possible extensions of HS2.

There seems to be some kind of popular bias against the poor old classic compatible train. There's no reason why such a conveyance will not be just as fast on the high speed line itself and equally just as comfortable as a captive unit, probably more roomy than a double decker in economy. I don't think there's such a stigma over routes and stations not directly on the High Speed network in continental Europe, as with the exception of Spain the trains there generally don't have to be specially configured, historic track and loading gauge being the same as HS infrastructure. Indeed such European networks often developed gradually over many years with the new trains running over significant lengths of classic routes and already creating publicity and building business pending the next HS extension.

From a passenger convenience point of view the more limited demand in Liverpool might be better served by two 200m CC trains an hour rather than one 400m captive, even if a larger loading gauge route was available.

Whilst single deck CC sets will never be as efficient a use of a path as double deck captive units, as long as they can be paired up to 400m at a suitable hub before joining the HS route they can provide a useful long term compromise to serve a broader range of destinations, just as full size units can and do in Europe.

 

[po8crg]

I like the suggestion of paired CC paths from Liverpool and Blackpool, combining at Crewe before transferring onto HS2. It would give a service to Warrington and Blackpool (neither of which is served on current proposals), as well as an additional train to Wigan and Preston without using an HS2 path, as there's a train to Liverpool on the plans anyway.

 

[eps200]

Your 'yellow' east-west route is the orange one I'm talking about. The north-south routes are only purple, green and blue so I don't know what you're on about here.

I think the reasoning behind MSG being 'dazzled by the headlights and [giving] up' is because there is simply no outstanding route which delivers massively more benefits than any other. Once the ideas of Euston and Old Oak, the Airport/NEC and Curzon Street or the Airport and Piccadilly are sorted the routes are more or less obvious in London, Birmingham and Manchester. Unless there were some outstanding choice of an intermediate station the route into Merseyside is always going to be a difficult call which will upset many people. The fact that the passenger numbers don't yet show that a captive link is required, and that a dedicated link with an intermediate stop would not decrease journey times that much more over a classic-compatible connection, compound this problem even more. If the current reports are true, at the very least I can see the Crewe connection being built as part of Phase 1 which would give Liverpool its Phase 2 journey time reduction many years ahead of schedule. If this makes passenger numbers jump, it won't take that many years to add on a captive spur eventually.

I think you also may be underestimating how difficult it is to re-use existing, in-use tracks and features for a captive line. TBMs aren't really that expensive in the grand scheme of things compared to the cost of diversions and massive reconstruction work on existing lines. Waterloo tunnel would need rebuilt to take the taller HS2 trains, which would probably cost more than just building a new tunnel completely with a TBM, and would prevent it being used by Merseyrail trains which wouldn't require it to be rebored at all. If there is land available in the city for a cut-and-cover station box, and a clear route for TBMs from the east to get to it, then that's where the station would likely end up. If it's a cut-and-cover box, they can put a park or other buildings back on top of it once they've finished, so it wouldn't necessarily reduce the amount of available space in the city upon completion.

You are also underestimating how much difficulty there is in captive-clearing the station platforms. Not only are captive trains wider but they are taller by around a metre, and they are designed for platforms at the EU standard height of 760mm as well. This would create an enormous vertical gap between train and platform even if the extreme complexity of platform gauntlet track were put in place. There's little point spending that money on a half-baked solution because it would be immediately worthless once the extra investment is later made and a captive route is finally built. Waterloo International was only ever going to have trains which went to the Continent, either the Eurostars or possibly the Nightstars as well, so it could possibly have been built with European-sized platforms. However, BR/the Govt/the powers that be knew that the station would still be a temporary solution before the CTRL was built so they knew that it would not be a good use of resources to build the station that way. Because of this foresight, the platforms at Waterloo International are capable of being added to the standard station for extra capacity once the necessary station throat works are completed.

The 'bias' of the route is such because 1. there are more passenger journeys to Manchester than there are to Liverpool and 2. you need a captive station at every end of the line so that you can use captive trains rather than more expensive and bespoke classic-compatibles for the bulk of passenger journeys. There is no personal vendetta against Liverpool by the DfT or by HS2 Ltd; they are simply following the statistics and realities of the limited resources they have for Phase 2. Once more resources become available, they can then look at the various possible extensions of HS2.

The Waterloo tunnel was double track so a single GC gauge shouldn't be an issue.

This all shows the London centric problem, the Warrington parkway route also adds a Liverpool, Manchester javelin service starting the case for a HS trans Pennine, this isn't even considered by the DFT.

The other thing they ignore is the demand suppression that Chester causes and the lack of a Birmingham service..

 

[NotATrainspott]

The Waterloo tunnel was double track so a single GC gauge shouldn't be an issue.

This all shows the London centric problem, the Warrington parkway route also adds a Liverpool, Manchester javelin service starting the case for a HS trans Pennine, this isn't even considered by the DFT.

The other thing they ignore is the demand suppression that Chester causes and the lack of a Birmingham service..

A single-track Waterloo tunnel would be a bottleneck too far for an efficient HSR operation. UIC GC gauge is 4650mm tall by 3150mm wide and is almost completely rectangular in cross-section and you would need electrification clearance on top of that, so you would at the very least have to completely rebuild the floor of the tunnel several metres lower. Massive modifications to the long length of Victorian tunnel with Liverpool on top of it is going to be at the very least difficult and most certainly not as economical as you think so. As I said, the cost of TBM works isn't that high in the grand scheme of things and it provides not only a two-track, completely standardised tunnel setup but it would leave the Victoria tunnel for an expanded Merseyrail network.

It's painful to deal with but the rail demand is not projected to exist for the projects you want HS2 Ltd to accommodate right now. Forcing HS2 to accommodate such non-existent journeys right now would make the current solution less optimal and increase costs above what politics can bear. As I seem to have to repeat a lot, the plans for HS2 can change in the meantime even after the hybrid bill is passed as that's what how Stratford International came about. If demand for Liverpool travel increases exponentially, well above the current projections, to the level where a dedicated link makes sense it can be added to the scheme later. When it's added, it won't have to go through years of political deliberation that the concept of HSR as a whole would have then gone through. A Liverpool-Manchester Javelin service serving only captive stations isn't enough to currently, or for the HS2 opening date, shift the balance towards a Liverpool captive spur being built.

 

[tbtc]

I think the reasoning behind MSG being 'dazzled by the headlights and [giving] up' is because there is simply no outstanding route which delivers massively more benefits than any other. Once the ideas of Euston and Old Oak, the Airport/NEC and Curzon Street or the Airport and Piccadilly are sorted the routes are more or less obvious in London, Birmingham and Manchester. Unless there were some outstanding choice of an intermediate station the route into Merseyside is always going to be a difficult call which will upset many people.

...

The 'bias' of the route is such because 1. there are more passenger journeys to Manchester than there are to Liverpool and 2. you need a captive station at every end of the line so that you can use captive trains rather than more expensive and bespoke classic-compatibles for the bulk of passenger journeys. There is no personal vendetta against Liverpool by the DfT or by HS2 Ltd; they are simply following the statistics and realities of the limited resources they have for Phase 2. Once more resources become available, they can then look at the various possible extensions of HS2.

Agreed

This all shows the London centric problem, the Warrington parkway route also adds a Liverpool, Manchester javelin service starting the case for a HS trans Pennine, this isn't even considered by the DFT

I think it's more a case of Hs2 being a big enough project (and expensive enough one) that the Government are keeping it fairly simple and not seeing "mission creep".

There's certainly a case for an improved railway along the M62 corridor (which is seeing a few quid being spent on it through electrification etc over the short/medium term), but I think that there are a lot of "follow on" projects to consider planning for once HS2 stage one is built (i.e. what do we do after stage 2 - Yorkshire to Newcastle? Curzon Street to New Street? Proper HS2 into Liverpool?). We'll have enough on our plate just delivering the first two stages for now though.