Strategic Alternatives to High Speed 2 Phase 2b

[Xavi]

Some of the detail that was missing from IRP.....

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... ase-2b.pdf

Goosehill junction (flyover) to be reinstated? Newark / Doncaster ECML bypass, or Erewash / Old Road?

The best value Rotherham to Goosehill North Midland option is missing. Choosing this missing option rather than the new M18 HS2 alignment would save an estimated £5bn and deliver a 15-minute interval Leeds - Sheffield service of approximately 30 minutes journey time within 5 years. Combined with the Erewash / Old Road upgrade, Leeds - London would benefit from circa 30-minute saving over today's 2 hr 13 min. Delivery using Project Speed (Okehampton) would bring very quick benefits (to Leeds - Sheffield and associated routes) even without the new Leeds station. Cost would be similar to the Adwick - Hunslet upgrades in the report, and viable unlike the very disruptive proposal that Adwick Junction to Hare Park could be four tracked.

A 1-2 mile tunnel would be required in the Wath area to reinstate the North Midland because of development; this is relatively cheap infrastructure today. North of Cudworth a single line is still in place serving Ardagh Glass, this would assist with the reinstatement of a 2-track formation. The North Midland is a 4-track formation which will make a 100-115mph relatively straightforward and excellent value. BR had plans for 125mph sections before closure. Managing the mining subsidence, which was the excuse for the route closure (Inter-City having to pick up the cost of route was the truth), will be straightforward with modern survey and engineering systems. Yes, Okehampton was 75mph for a Sprinter, but £40m for 14 miles... If we allow £2-3bn for the 20-miles or so from Goosehill to Swinton that's £5bn+ saved over M18 option.

Meets the requirements of Northern Powerhouse Rail too. A quick political win waiting for the right time (for an announcement of a study at least). Watch this space.

 

[Senex]

We really do now see the utter folly of allowing this development in the Wath area. If you tunnelled under, it looks as if about a mile and a quarter underground would be needed, along with ramps in cuttings at either end. But given that the buildings look to be entirely light industrial, might not compulsory purchase and relocation be a cheaper option? There was a continuous four-track formation from Masborough to Oakenshaw North Jn paired by use and then I think enough space for four tracks on to Altofts Jn, so using the four-track formation for a two-track railway ought to allow improvement on what was already a very good alignment — this would certainly be a very fast railway. As for the subsidence, the problems were over except for the short stretch just north of Royston (Chevet), and a way of dealing with this had been worked out even when the line was closed and would surely present no problems now. If the Leeds leg of HS2 is not to be built, this could be part of the way to get a largely 125-mph line to Leeds (if coupled with upgrading of the rest of the North Midland line south from Masborough via the Old Road to Chesterfield and then on to Clay Cross and upgrading where possible of the Erewash Valley line onwards to Trent).

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Great thread but I strongly suggest it needs to be moved to speculative ideas

 

[Nottingham59]

The best value Rotherham to Goosehill North Midland option is missing.

Is that the route that goes all the way through Chesterfield, Treeton, Masborough, Swinton, Darfield, Cudworth, Normanton, Woodlesford, Leeds? I can't see "Goosehill" on any maps.

How would you approach Leeds station? Building south-facing platforms as per the full HS2 plan? Or would you join the ECML between Sandal Magna and Walton?

 

[Xavi]

Is that the route that goes all the way through Chesterfield, Treeton, Masborough, Swinton, Darfield, Cudworth, Normanton, Woodlesford, Leeds? I can't see "Goosehill" on any maps.

How would you approach Leeds station? Building south-facing platforms as per the full HS2 plan? Or would you join the ECML between Sandal Magna and Walton?

Yes, that's correct. Hopefully, you can see the outline of Goosehill Junction using the link I have posted below. Travelling south west from Normanton towards Wakefield Kirkgate, the site of Goosehill junction is adjacent to Goosehill Boarding Cattery.

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.co.uk

The DfT Mott Macdonald report has an option to build the Leeds HS2 station, but initially the existing Leeds station could be used for a reopened North Midland route bringing quick benefits to the Leeds - Sheffield corridor and the wider NE/SW route. The Motts proposal uses the existing route north from Normanton (no separate HS route as proposed by HS2) with the four-track formation reinstated to separate fast and slow lines. The current Doncaster to Leeds route would be widened between Adwick Junction and Hare Park Lane with a new curve to reach the North Midland route south of Goosehill Junction near Hell Lane, this would include a flyover just to the west of the Bombardier Crofton depot. The reopened fast lines towards Normanton and Leeds would be accessed by a flyover at the site of Goosehill junction. The better value option would continue south on the North Midland rather than the new Crofton curve / flyover. Another map link below may help.

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.co.uk

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jan 2022 ==

We really do now see the utter folly of allowing this development in the Wath area. If you tunnelled under, it looks as if about a mile and a quarter underground would be needed, along with ramps in cuttings at either end. But given that the buildings look to be entirely light industrial, might not compulsory purchase and relocation be a cheaper option? There was a continuous four-track formation from Masborough to Oakenshaw North Jn paired by use and then I think enough space for four tracks on to Altofts Jn, so using the four-track formation for a two-track railway ought to allow improvement on what was already a very good alignment — this would certainly be a very fast railway. As for the subsidence, the problems were over except for the short stretch just north of Royston (Chevet), and a way of dealing with this had been worked out even when the line was closed and would surely present no problems now. If the Leeds leg of HS2 is not to be built, this could be part of the way to get a largely 125-mph line to Leeds (if coupled with upgrading of the rest of the North Midland line south from Masborough via the Old Road to Chesterfield and then on to Clay Cross and upgrading where possible of the Erewash Valley line onwards to Trent).

Totally agree, it's difficult to comprehend that the Motts report has not considered this option, particularly since much of the route is operational (albeit a single track) and reopening a short section south of Goosehill is part of the Motts 'Newark' proposal. The rail industry and Northern Powerhouse Rail needs to get behind this obvious and cost-effective option.

The 'Newark' proposal involves building a new high-speed line from Nottingham to Newark to north of Doncaster with a link to the Stainforth to Adwick junction route. Really?! The same report has an upgraded Erewash - Clay Cross - Old Road - Masborough proposal but from there a very expensive new high speed 'M18' route to Leeds is apparently needed. Are they blind?!

The link below will help others visualise the light industrial development in the Wath area which, I agree, would be best relocated.

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.co.uk

 

[Nottingham59]

Hopefully, you can see the outline of Goosehill Junction using the link I have posted below.

Thanks, that's good to know.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

I hope at least one of the railway professionals who post regularly in this forum will confirm or deny the feasibility of this idea. There are on YouTube a few videos with very poor quality images of part of this route, and they confirm that much of the route was four track wide, mostly straight with easy curves.

 

[Senex]

As the line was originally laid out as a two-track railway it seems there was no curve of under a mile radius between Derby and Hunslet and very few locations where there might be problems with transitions from an 80-chain curve one way to the same in the other. The way widening was done—sometimes on one side, sometimes on the other, sometimes on both, and often with changes of sections from pairing by direction to pairing by use—may have worsened things in some places, but having the four-track alignment to re-create a new two-track railway ought to allow problems to be corrected (although that might involve replacing underbridges in some places). The original alignment can certainly be criticised on commercial grounds—it left Sheffield, Barnsley, and Wakefield all off the direct route—but Stephenson did produce a railway well-suited to future high speeds (if only people hadn't taken to digging the coal from under it).

 

[Xavi]

I have tendered and won some of the largest civil engineering design, project management, and environmental contracts in the UK over the past 30 years across rail, roads, ports, and aviation sectors. This is as feasible as it gets for reopening a partly closed rail route. Similar to East West Rail that’s in delivery now.

 

[HS2isgood]

I personally think that the best solution is a phased, HS2 east route serving Sheffield Midland. That way the biggest problem in the original plan can be solved. Note that there won't be paths for independent Sheffield services in HS2 because they have been taken up by the Nottingham/Derby trains.

 

[Xavi]

I personally think that the best solution is a phased, HS2 east route serving Sheffield Midland. That way the biggest problem in the original plan can be solved. Note that there won't be paths for independent Sheffield services in HS2 because they have been taken up by the Nottingham/Derby trains.

Indicative service plan for the Erewash / M18 option from the Motts report. For M18 substitute NM.....