HS2 Manchester leg scrapped: what should happen now?

[Starmill]

Thats not the general view of the proposers, hence them being put in by the end of 2025.

I'm not saying they won't be used or useful, clearly they would support performance. But the Northern business plan is utterly hopeless. TfGM and the others have no route to raise revenue to contribute to the operating costs themselves.

 

[Speed43125]

HS2: The secret files that expose a multibillion-pound cover-up

The company in charge of constructing the HS2 railway has been accused of deliberately covering up its escalating costs to ensure politicians would keep spending billions of pounds of public money on the project. Whistleblowers from HS2 Ltd have described how senior managers instructed staff to keep

www.thetimes.co.uk

I'm afraid it's paywalled so there's little that can be quoted

The article can be viewed behind it's paywall at this link if anyone's interested.

https://archive.li/zO1CU

 

[Halifaxlad]

Exactly.

Tunnelling through Manchester is unaffordable and unnecessary. The limited traffic (3 tph) that would have used HS2 between Crewe and Manchester can be accommodated on existing lines. The ex-LNW route from Liverpool Lime Street via Chat Moss and Standedge to Leeds is adequate for likely future traffic for the NPR north Transpennine route, with electrification and some re-alignment east of Stalybridge, with a call at Victoria, 1 of Manchester's 2 existing principal stations, which is more than adequate for this purpose.

The current Conservative administration was right to cancel HS2 north of Crewe.

Except to achieve a Leeds to Manchester journey time in half an hour or less, tunneling without a doubt will be neccessary! If we are going to tunnel from Marsden it might as well just stay in a tunnel until it reaches the West side of Manchester as they're is little point coming to the surface just to head through Platforms 15/16s and the congested Castlefield Corridor.

Personally I would rather HS2 reached Crewe before it was cancelled, the Manchester leg was ridiculous considering it was initially drawn up for 3/4 services per hour before NPR was bolted on to help justify it!

There's been multiple suggestions that by going larger with the diameter of the boring machine to facilitate platform space within the tunnel rather than building an expensive station box.

Whilst that's less likely to work for metro services, so may not be ideal for a HS2 line, could it be possible to have the first and last 75m (three coaches) of the platform in the "tunnel" but then for the rest of the station (250m long) put it in a box.

This would mean a maximum of 240 passengers in the first/last coaches which were in the narrow platform in the tunnels, however it's unlikely that the majority of those passengers would be changing.

It would likely reduce the cost of construction over building a full station box, although there would then be a need a box for merging/diverging/crossovers.

What's the point of putting 400m long services in a tunnel/underground if they are only going to reverse out anyway ?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Looking at the geology of the Pennine area between Manchester and Leeds, are there any still-active fault lines that could cause problems with areas suggested for tunnelling?

 

[AndrewE]

Looking at the geology of the Pennine area between Manchester and Leeds, are there any still-active fault lines that could cause problems with areas suggested for tunnelling?

Given that we are not used to earthquakes in the S Pennine area I would say almost certainly no "still-active fault lines." However I bet there are still loads of still-subsiding abandoned collieries under Manchester, around Oldham and down the other side in W Yorkshire.
Dealt with by lots of grouting and maybe even a stronger tunnel structure.

 

[GJMarshy]

I'm doubtful even those in their 30s will see a new build trans-pennine route in their lifetimes, especially after the huge sums spent on TRU. There's a good chance of at least a partially new line toward Liverpool though, especially if we end up in a situation where HS2 (rebadged as NPR or something) accesses Manchester from the west with less tunnelling.

Other than the moss, the route is fairly simple. A new line could follow the M62 almost all the way as shown in (10 year+ old?) ARUP studies.

 

[Nottingham59]

There's a good chance of at least a partially new line toward Liverpool though, especially if we end up in a situation where HS2 (rebadged as NPR or something) accesses Manchester from the west with less tunnelling.

Other than the moss, the route is fairly simple. A new line could follow the M62 almost all the way as shown in (10 year+ old?) ARUP studies.

I agree. Unfortunately, I don't think there is space to four-track the Chat Moss line all the way from the M60 to the City Centre, so I think it would need a 8km single-bore twin-track tunnel from the M60 Eccles Interchange to Salford. One key question is where to add more (and longer) platforms in Central Liverpool?

 

[Peter Sarf]

I agree. Unfortunately, I don't think there is space to four-track the Chat Moss line all the way from the M60 to the City Centre, so I think it would need a 8km single-bore twin-track tunnel from the M60 Eccles Interchange to Salford. One key question is where to add more (and longer) platforms in Central Liverpool?

Answer is in the Wirral !.
No seriously I would have a through station for Liverpool with a multiple platform terminus somewhere conveniently spacious on the Wirral.
Likewise for Leeds I would consider York or maybe further North. Probably classic compatible stock until NPR reached Edinburgh.
Not in my lifetime I acknowledge.

 

[Nottingham59]

Answer is in the Wirral !.
No seriously I would have a through station for Liverpool with a multiple platform terminus somewhere conveniently spacious on the Wirral.
Likewise for Leeds I would consider York or maybe further North. Probably classic compatible stock until NPR reached Edinburgh.
Not in my lifetime I acknowledge.

I do agree that idea for Manchester. Twin platforms near Piccadilly on an East West alignment. Terminating station at Guide Bridge with direct access off the M60. Carriage sidings just round the corner where the Freightliner terminal is now.

 

[Exilem]

Exactly.

Tunnelling through Manchester is unaffordable and unnecessary. The limited traffic (3 tph) that would have used HS2 between Crewe and Manchester can be accommodated on existing lines. The ex-LNW route from Liverpool Lime Street via Chat Moss and Standedge to Leeds is adequate for likely future traffic for the NPR north Transpennine route, with electrification and some re-alignment east of Stalybridge, with a call at Victoria, 1 of Manchester's 2 existing principal stations, which is more than adequate for this purpose.

The current Conservative administration was right to cancel HS2 north of Crewe.

But tunneling under the Chilterns was affordable and necessary??

 

[AndrewE]

I do agree that idea for Manchester. Twin platforms near Piccadilly on an East West alignment. Terminating station at Guide Bridge with direct access off the M60. Carriage sidings just round the corner where the Freightliner terminal is now.

@HSTEd says upthread that a small station in Manc would be far too small - which I am pleased to read, so let's hope that others rrecognise it and we get some proper investment in our infrastructure to do it right. But why waste money on a terminating station, when you are already on the way to Yorkshire?
If it's worth running Eus Bhm trains through to Glasgow and Edinburgh now, why terminate future Euston trains at Manc when you could run on to Leeds and York?

Answer is in the Wirral !.
No seriously I would have a through station for Liverpool with a multiple platform terminus somewhere conveniently spacious on the Wirral.
Likewise for Leeds I would consider York or maybe further North. Probably classic compatible stock until NPR reached Edinburgh.
Not in my lifetime I acknowledge.

which is very like my thoughts (a decade or 2 ago) on the original plan for HS2: I thought it should have run through a smaller station at OOC and on to Brighton. It would have relieved the current Brighton Main line, reduced land-take and cost in London, put (servicing) work into a coastal community - and would have dramatically improved connectivity between the South coast and the midlands and the N

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Which is very like my thoughts (a decade or 2 ago) on the original plan for HS2: I thought it should have run through a smaller station at OOC and on to Brighton. It would have relieved the current Brighton Main line, reduced land-take and cost in London, put (servicing) work into a coastal community - and would have dramatically improved connectivity between the South coast and the midlands and the N

HS1 already connects London with the south of the country. It seems a tad strange to talk about the South Coast on a thread concerning itself with post-scrapping of the HS2 Manchester leg.

 

[nr758123]

Given that we are not used to earthquakes in the S Pennine area I would say almost certainly no "still-active fault lines." However I bet there are still loads of still-subsiding abandoned collieries under Manchester, around Oldham and down the other side in W Yorkshire.
Dealt with by lots of grouting and maybe even a stronger tunnel structure.

Ashton is peat bogs and shallow mine workings. I don't know whether ground conditions would be better with a more northerly route under Oldham or Royton.
It's all a bit academic, as the announcement of a high speed line emerging at Marsden was made so that Grant Shapps could claim, on the day he cancelled the eastern leg to Leeds, that high speed rail was still coming to Yorkshire. It's wrong to assume, just because this government announced it, that there was ever the slightest intention of doing it.

 

[Peter Sarf]

@HSTEd says upthread that a small station in Manc would be far too small - which I am pleased to read, so let's hope that others rrecognise it and we get some proper investment in our infrastructure to do it right. But why waste money on a terminating station, when you are already on the way to Yorkshire?
If it's worth running Eus Bhm trains through to Glasgow and Edinburgh now, why terminate future Euston trains at Manc when you could run on to Leeds and York?

which is very like my thoughts (a decade or 2 ago) on the original plan for HS2: I thought it should have run through a smaller station at OOC and on to Brighton. It would have relieved the current Brighton Main line, reduced land-take and cost in London, put (servicing) work into a coastal community - and would have dramatically improved connectivity between the South coast and the midlands and the N

If not somewhere as far out as Brighton then perhaps somewhere on the M25 to the South of London ?. Oh Gatwick !. The main point is to keep the inner city station as small as possible by not terminating there. A terminus where there is plenty of space beyond the important inner city station needs less justification in itself as part of its purpose is saving the cost of a larger inner city terminus.

Lets hope there will be joined up thinking for NPR.

 

[daodao]

But tunnelling under the Chilterns was affordable and necessary??

Yes - HS2 phase 1 was designed to accommodate up to 18 tph, through a hilly area.

Tunnelling under Manchester is not warranted by the frequency of the trains that could use such expensive infrastructure, certainly not by NPR which can be accommodated using the existing line via Victoria.

North of Crewe, no service has a frequency that warrants existing rail infrastructure to be supplemented by a separate high speed line.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes - HS2 phase 1 was designed to accommodate up to 18 tph, through a hilly area.

Tunnelling under Manchester is not warranted by the frequency of the trains that could use such expensive infrastructure, certainly not by NPR which can be accommodated using the existing line via Victoria.

North of Crewe, no service has a frequency that warrants existing rail infrastructure to be supplemented by a separate high speed line.

You don't understand HS2, then. Do you not want to see an upgrade of your local service?

 

[daodao]

You don't understand HS2, then. Do you not want to see an upgrade of your local service?

HS2's principal aim was to relieve congestion on the southern part of the WCML from London to Crewe, with the secondary aim of speeding up journeys from London to the Midlands and Northern England (and Scotland). It does not require any new line north of Crewe.

Manchester's rail problems can be solved by:

• better use of existing infrastructure by redesigning services so as to reduce crossing moves on the flat (e.g. all Southport services should go to Victoria platforms 5 and 6)
• reducing use of the Castlefield line and Piccadilly platforms 13/14, focussing on Victoria for the majority of services from the west, north and east; some sidings need to be built close to Victoria to allow terminating trains to wait outside the station itself
• mothballing the Ordsall curve for regular passenger trains
• conversion of some more local lines (e.g. to Marple Rose Hill) to Metrolink
• running services to Manchester Airport only to/from places in historic Cheshire and Lancashire, i.e. not very long distance
• abandoning the previous aim for all long distance services to call at Piccadilly

 

[Peter Sarf]

HS2's principal aim was to relieve congestion on the southern part of the WCML from London to Crewe, with the secondary aim of speeding up journeys from London to the Midlands and Northern England (and Scotland). It does not require any new line north of Crewe.

Manchester's rail problems can be solved by:

• better use of existing infrastructure by redesigning services so as to reduce crossing moves on the flat (e.g. all Southport services should go to Victoria platforms 5 and 6)
• reducing use of the Castlefield line and Piccadilly platforms 13/14, focussing on Victoria for the majority of services from the west, north and east; some sidings need to be built close to Victoria to allow terminating trains to wait outside the station itself
• mothballing the Ordsall curve for regular passenger trains
• conversion of some more local lines (e.g. to Marple Rose Hill) to Metrolink
• running services to Manchester Airport only to/from places in historic Cheshire and Lancashire, i.e. not very long distance
• abandoning the previous aim for all long distance services to call at Piccadilly

There is a point there I suppose. As far as longer distance services go Manchester Piccadilly is only essential for the current London service. Nearly everything else long distance can be routed (subject to capacity ?) via Manchester Victoria. Loose definition of long distance mind.

 

[Killingworth]

Yes - HS2 phase 1 was designed to accommodate up to 18 tph, through a hilly area.

Tunnelling under Manchester is not warranted by the frequency of the trains that could use such expensive infrastructure, certainly not by NPR which can be accommodated using the existing line via Victoria.

North of Crewe, no service has a frequency that warrants existing rail infrastructure to be supplemented by a separate high speed line.

The success of Thameslink, Crossrail and the M25 in different ways rather suggest that if you build better infrastruture it creates even greater demand.

The motorways around Manchester have certainly done that. Thamelink and CrossMan would do that for rail too.

Will it happen? No.

I'll soon be flying into Oslo. I won't see much of the city from the train. The whole central area is tunnelled, major roads and rail. Other major international cities are now similar, starting afresh rather than making do and patching up old layouts because they're there.

We can do it. The Elizabeth Line proves it. HS2 has not.

 

[Greybeard33]

HS2's principal aim was to relieve congestion on the southern part of the WCML from London to Crewe, with the secondary aim of speeding up journeys from London to the Midlands and Northern England (and Scotland). It does not require any new line north of Crewe.

Manchester's rail problems can be solved by:

• better use of existing infrastructure by redesigning services so as to reduce crossing moves on the flat (e.g. all Southport services should go to Victoria platforms 5 and 6)
• reducing use of the Castlefield line and Piccadilly platforms 13/14, focussing on Victoria for the majority of services from the west, north and east; some sidings need to be built close to Victoria to allow terminating trains to wait outside the station itself
• mothballing the Ordsall curve for regular passenger trains
• conversion of some more local lines (e.g. to Marple Rose Hill) to Metrolink
• running services to Manchester Airport only to/from places in historic Cheshire and Lancashire, i.e. not very long distance
• abandoning the previous aim for all long distance services to call at Piccadilly

None of these suggestions increase capacity for local and regional services between Piccadilly and Stockport; or enable 400m long HS2 trains to serve Manchester; or reduce journey time between Manchester and Birmingham.

Those are the benefits HS2 Phase 2 would have brought to Greater Manchester and East Cheshire.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There is a point there I suppose. As far as longer distance services go Manchester Piccadilly is only essential for the current London service. Nearly everything else long distance can be routed (subject to capacity ?) via Manchester Victoria. Loose definition of long distance mind.

Would the current four through platforms at Manchester Victoria railway station be able to handle all these newer stated services on top of what now is handled there?

 

[Peter Sarf]

Would the current four through platforms at Manchester Victoria railway station be able to handle all these newer stated services on top of what now is handled there?

Probably not tbh. I am not sure but were there more through platforms at Manchester Victoria before its redevelopment ?.

I suppose a tunnel becomes required so then that leads to the question - should a subterranean NPR + HS2 station be under/near Manchester Piccadilly or under/near Manchester Victoria ?.

Looking at Birmingham we ended up recreating the Victorian terminus at Curzon Street that is not really close to the existing station and town centre. Que comments about how its done in Europe.

 

[Starmill]

HS2's principal aim was to relieve congestion on the southern part of the WCML from London to Crewe, with the secondary aim of speeding up journeys from London to the Midlands and Northern England (and Scotland). It does not require any new line north of Crewe.

Manchester's rail problems can be solved by:

• better use of existing infrastructure by redesigning services so as to reduce crossing moves on the flat (e.g. all Southport services should go to Victoria platforms 5 and 6)
• reducing use of the Castlefield line and Piccadilly platforms 13/14, focussing on Victoria for the majority of services from the west, north and east; some sidings need to be built close to Victoria to allow terminating trains to wait outside the station itself
• mothballing the Ordsall curve for regular passenger trains
• conversion of some more local lines (e.g. to Marple Rose Hill) to Metrolink
• running services to Manchester Airport only to/from places in historic Cheshire and Lancashire, i.e. not very long distance
• abandoning the previous aim for all long distance services to call at Piccadilly

This has been explained to you so many times. None of this makes any capacity available between Manchester and Cheadle Hulme.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Probably not tbh. I am not sure but were there more through platforms at Manchester Victoria before its redevelopment

There were six through platforms there prior to the redevelopment (platforms 11 to 16).

 

[Peter Sarf]

There were six through platforms there prior to the redevelopment (platforms 11 to 16).

Thanks, I thought there had been shrinkage. Why oh why throw away capacity so recently.

 

[daodao]

None of these suggestions increase capacity for local and regional services between Piccadilly and Stockport

None of this makes any capacity available between Manchester and Cheadle Hulme.

Reducing the number of trains between Manchester Airport and Central Manchester would enable 2 tph from London to Manchester to be diverted via the Styal line, thus relieving Stockport; this was the original purpose of the Styal line.

Manchester is not sufficently important to justify building extra rail infrastructure to relieve the current lines from Manchester Piccadilly to Cheadle Hulme.

 

[AndrewE]

HS1 already connects London with the south of the country. It seems a tad strange to talk about the South Coast on a thread concerning itself with post-scrapping of the HS2 Manchester leg.

If you thing Margate and Folkestone are the south of the country you either have a very warped perspective or an even stranger idea of our geography.

 

[Grimsby town]

HS2's principal aim was to relieve congestion on the southern part of the WCML from London to Crewe, with the secondary aim of speeding up journeys from London to the Midlands and Northern England (and Scotland). It does not require any new line north of Crewe.

Manchester's rail problems can be solved by:

• better use of existing infrastructure by redesigning services so as to reduce crossing moves on the flat (e.g. all Southport services should go to Victoria platforms 5 and 6)
• reducing use of the Castlefield line and Piccadilly platforms 13/14, focussing on Victoria for the majority of services from the west, north and east; some sidings need to be built close to Victoria to allow terminating trains to wait outside the station itself
• mothballing the Ordsall curve for regular passenger trains
• conversion of some more local lines (e.g. to Marple Rose Hill) to Metrolink
• running services to Manchester Airport only to/from places in historic Cheshire and Lancashire, i.e. not very long distance
• abandoning the previous aim for all long distance services to call at Piccadilly

You're not achieving anything. It doesn't add any additional services anywhere and just makes connectivity more difficult.

You've freed up capacity on Castlefield corridor but what new services can use that capacity? Nothing from the CLC line because that line is capacity constrained by the mix of stopping and fast trains. You could potentially remove the fast services or convert them to stoppers and add more services but then you are significantly worsening east west connectivity for Liverpool and Sheffield.

You're removing Chester, Barrow, Southport, and Glasgow/Edinburgh from Castlefield. That's potentially an additional 5 trains per hour into Victoria (in each direction)

I've counted ~18tph using the through platforms currently. You'd take that up to possibly 28tph. Realistically, with the mixture of long distance and local services, that isn't going to work. It would fall to pieces at the first sign of trouble and you've provided zero additional services.

 

[daodao]

You're removing Chester, Barrow, Southport, and Glasgow/Edinburgh from Castlefield. That's potentially an additional 5 trains per hour into Victoria (in each direction)

I've counted ~18tph using the through platforms currently. You'd take that up to possibly 28tph. Realistically, with the mixture of long distance and local services, that isn't going to work. It would fall to pieces at the first sign of trouble and you've provided zero additional services.

Victoria has 4 through tracks and platforms (3-6), unlike the Castlefield line which only has 2 lines, so 28 tph is only 7 tph per thorugh platform, which isn't excessive; 2 local stopping tph from the east could terminate in platforms 1/2.

 

[Grimsby town]

Victoria has 4 through tracks and platforms (3-6), unlike the Castlefield line which only has 2 lines, so 28 tph is only 7 tph per thorugh platform, which isn't excessive; 2 local stopping tph from the east could terminate in platforms 1/2.

The issue is that Castlefield has trains stopping at multiple stations which spreads the boardings and alightings and reduces dwell times. Concentrating all long distance services on one station is going to mean longer dwell times. Have you ever been to Victoria when there's disruption. The service pattern quickly falls to pieces as it is.

1 train per hour already terminates from the east and terminating trains from the east in those platforms wouldn't reduce services using 3-6 because the Western portion would still have to run. 28 trains may be doable but its certainly pushing things to breaking point for close to zero benefit.