If underground through stations can be provided in recent times in Antwerp and Leipzig, why can't they be provided in Birmingham or Manchester? It's not a question of our not having the technology or even the money — just look at the scale and lavishness of Crossrail.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
HS2 Manchester leg scrapped: what should happen now?
- Thread starter matacaster
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
we spent all the money on unnecessary 10-mile tunnels to appease the NIMBYs in the Chilterns, but it would probably have paid for a through deep-level station linked to Bham New St...
(I think Antwerp is fantastic, and ought to be visited by every rail and transport planner /architect)
Absolutely! Funny how Little Belgium can have a clear plan for its high-speed network and get on and steadily deliver it, isn't it?
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,755
The scale and "lavishness" of Crossrail is still small compared to that required for underground high speed rail stations.
All the platforms would be almost double the length, and we would not be able to operate them at 20+ trains per hour each.
We'd be looking at five or six 400m platforms at minimum.
It'd cost billions and take years. It would make the billion pound Crossrail stations look like a bargain.
The cheap solution is a surface station and leverage ATO and autoreverse to cut reversing times to the time imposed for passenger loading/unloading - which was what was proposed at Manchester.
Last edited:
I disagree. A through station doesn't need all the platforms that a terminus does, maybe 2 per direction, if most trains run through or just out to a reversing siding for the terminators. It's only 1 station per conurbation (rather than the 1 per suburb or Council, or whatever it was that Crossrail put in to buy them off.) No need for platform screens and doors, just a part of the InterCity network.
We built a good new underground in Liverpool 40 years ago, why can't we do 2 stations in Brum and Manc now? Tunnels are cheap compared to surface lines in urban areas...
p.s if OOC only needs 6 high-speed platforms (https://www.hs2.org.uk/building-hs2/stations/old-oak-common/) and northbound services are going alternately(?) to Brum and everywhere else in the N how on earth can HS2 Brum and Manc possibly need "five or six 400m platforms at minimum?"
Sounds like "not invented here" / the establishment closing ranks to me...
Last edited:
GJMarshy
Member
Maybe the argument for a through station in Manchester would be different if a through station suitable for 400m trains was also proposed at Leeds, but that’s not the case.
By having an HS2 through station in Manchester, only 200m NPR & HS2 trains would have been able to pass through. The 400m sets would need to be turned around somewhere, or with additional platforms (hence the 6 platform sub-surface option explored by HS2)
It just doesn’t make sense to build a through station with a size appropriate for 400m trains if you’re only going to run 200m ones through it.
E.g. if you had 4 platform through stations in Manchester & Leeds capable of supporting 400m sets, and a turnback facility east of leads, it might work. But that’s hindsight now unfortunately!
By having an HS2 through station in Manchester, only 200m NPR & HS2 trains would have been able to pass through. The 400m sets would need to be turned around somewhere, or with additional platforms (hence the 6 platform sub-surface option explored by HS2)
It just doesn’t make sense to build a through station with a size appropriate for 400m trains if you’re only going to run 200m ones through it.
E.g. if you had 4 platform through stations in Manchester & Leeds capable of supporting 400m sets, and a turnback facility east of leads, it might work. But that’s hindsight now unfortunately!
Here are some very crayola plans, though it gives some idea about distance.
A complete tunnel via Birmingham Airport would look something like this, approx 13.3mi
You'd end up in a nature reserve so it'll be very unpopular unless done in cuttings with the occasional green bridge for wildlife.
Going into Sandwell Valley Country Park and following the M5 for a bit only saves 1.5 miles of tunelling for quite a bit of unpopular above ground work (in red).
A straight North-South tunnel through Birmingham isn't impossible but its still 11 miles, you'd loose Birmingham Airport and would have to significantly change the route of HS2.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Whatever the countries you name wish to approve such underground through stations, that is a matter for them to decide. The problem on website discussions is that opinions on rail are seen as akin to being sacrosanct by some thread contributors who have a blinkered vision where rail is concerned to the detriment of other projects.. If you want to see the ultimate reverse prospective, Britain is a country with nuclear weapons, but that does not follow that other countries can then have them.
daodao
Established Member
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.
Sure but the claim in government is that the £17 billion is earmarked for that.
Are you reading the posts? There will continue to be at minimum Birmingham - Scotland, London - Warrington (etc), and two stopping services through Hartford, in addition to any HS2 services from Handsacre towards Scotland. Clearly there's no capacity there for everything even if the Crewe North Connection and Golborne link were added back in without 2a.
Hasn't been cancelled though.
stephen rp
Member
- Joined
- 25 Jun 2016
- Messages
- 191
They've cancelled HS2 south of Crewe.
You can't cancel something that was not planned (unless you mean tunnelling under south Manchester, which isn't cancelled but is unlikely to make a business case without HS2).
Arkeeos
Member
It was 5 tph that used that section. 3tph to Euston and 2 tph to curzon street. With NPR that would probably go up to 8tph.
They also haven’t really cancelled hs2 north of Crewe because the tunnel is still *supposedly* being constructed.
They have cancelled HS2 north from Crewe to the point where the Liverpool line would meet it near Rostherne and High Legh. That section was under parliamentary examination (along with the continuation to Manchester) but won't be proceeded with.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,755
Two per direction would still be four, you'd be looking at something like quadrouple the station volume of a Crossrail station to do that.
Platform screens aren't going to significantly add to the cost and would provide major improvements in reliability and passenger control. I doubt you would eliminate them from the design unless you were truly desperate.
The total volume of the new construction underground railway in Liverpool in the 1970s probably adds up to less than the volume required for one of these proposed stations! It's a really small scale system compared to what would be needed to make an underground HS2/NPR station work.
Well if we are building a high speed transpennine line you will be running quite a lot of trains through it.
I don't think it would end up much quieter than the Core section
The original Y-scheme plan is 3 trains per hour each to Manchester and Leeds, then something like two more London-North East (beyond Leeds). All those trains will be routing via this underground station. So that's 8. Although those trains will all be calling at the same stations in this scheme you will need that many for capacity anyway.
Add in the proposed 4 trains per hour Liverpool-Leeds/North East, which takes us to twelve.
Then two more trains from Birmingham-North East to relieve XC etc.
We've reached 14, which isn't that far from OOC's 18.
Certainly I would be nervous about going below 5 platforms (2 each direction with one in reserve).
Not immediately, but Leeds can and has absorbed 312m long trains before (GNER 'White Rose' services using the North of London Eurostar sets). It is certainly capable of handling trains much longer than 200m as it does it every day!
Just because Leeds will not be receiving 400m platforms immediately does not make it a good idea to permanently limit trains over the Transpennine line (which would defacto become the main London-Leeds line) to 200m trains. That would be a terrible plan and squander capacity worth tens of billions of pounds!
Last edited:
GJMarshy
Member
It's a good point if it were a new-build line, but it's mostly using TRU which we know runs mixed traffic including freight, with some very short block sections and frequent intermediate stations. If there was ever a properly designed and government supported new line between the new lines I'd be in fun support, but TRU becoming the de-facto Leeds-London route doesn't sit right with me at all personally! It'd be like running HS2 onto the overground in London.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,755
Well if we are spending billions on this huge underground station in Manchester we are probably going to get a new line at least as far as Marsden.
At which point the journey time advantages LonOn-Leeds will be too big to ignore. It would even be competitive with most journeys London-York (and north), at which point the Southern ECML capacity crunch will drive that traffic to swap over too.
GJMarshy
Member
Oh it’d be great if it works! Te issue is that a line as far as Marsden still runs onto the congested TRU route which will still have a mix of freight, stopper, semi-fast, fast and intercity “NPR” services *as well as* HS2 London-Leeds & beyond services.
I just can’t see the capacity being there for that, or if by some miracle we just about managed to timetable them together, one hiccup and the entire network would fall apart.
A faster journey time isn’t faster if there isn’t a train to get on! (Or if it is significantly delayed)
Never mind north of Crewe, they cancelled it south of Crewe too!
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Having been reading some of the very recently-made postings on this thread, there is a very wide divergence of speculative views on matters that have eye-watering financial implications that have been accentuated by the Governmental statement of intent to divest themselves of the HS2 line north of Birmingham. It had made quite interesting reading, although at the age of 78, I very much doubt that I will still be around to see whatsoever finally transpires. I am reminded of the words of a song that was popular many years ago...."Que sera, sera...Whatever will be, will be, the future's not ours to see".
Last edited:
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 15,994
So adequate that reversing sidings either side are having to be built as you can't leave trains in Vic due to the amount TRU are throwing at it.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Could the former junction line to the former Red Bank carriage sidings have been put into use again as eastern facing reversing sides at Manchester Victoria or is there now new planned usage for that viaduct line?
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 15,994
Where was that? the new sidings will be up near Miles Platting and at Hope St.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
As you pull out of the current platforms 4-6 (the former platforms 11-16), going under the Cheetham Hill Road overbridge, the junction turned sharp left and there was the junction line taken by the services which obviated the climb up Miles Platting Bank. As well as the Red Bank carriage sidings on that line, I recall the long wheelbase newspaper vans being parked there. At present, such is the tree and shrub growth on it, that one wag christened it the Collyhurst Overhead Arterial Forest. Further along that line, the line usage is now taken by the Queens Road Manchester Metrolink tram depot.
daodao
Established Member
Thanks for this additional comment, with which I agree. However, these extra sidings are all that is essential; no expensive tunnelling is needed.
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 15,994
Then no, that isn't being used. That will never come back.
They were a complete afterthought when someone found out "****, where are these trains going at Victoria"
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.
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.
It's plain that's what @daodao was referring to. The fact it's unlikely to happen in reality is part of the point, they were saying the government has the policy right, I'm saying they're incompetent and corrupt.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Can you give some examples of the corruption you cite above that would have occurred in the project.
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.
From July 2017 supports the culture of cover-up:
High Speed 2 Limited Annual Report and Accounts inquiry - Committees - UK Parliament
High Speed 2 Ltd (HS2) is a company owned by the Government that is tasked with delivering a high-speed rail link from London to Birmingham, Manchester, and potentially beyond.The National Audit Office (NAO) published its audit of HS2's 2016–17 accounts in July. It found that HS2 was making...
And if anyone thinks HS2 management are to blame in some way independent of Ministers I'd point out there's essentially zero independence. What conclusions might this lead us to?
Every time a project like HS2 becomes a costly fiasco, we wonder why. So let me tell you: it’s clientelism
The relationship between those profiting from these big projects and those in power is such that no one truly costs or controls them, says Guardian columnist George Monbiot
Some further thoughts are also set out here:
Honestly I'm surprised that all of this has apparently passed you by?
I don't think there's much need to be worried. The way we're going at the moment none of the major TRU uplifts are deliverable this side of 2030. Might be some increases over today but they would have fit without the turnbacks.
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 15,994
Thats not the general view of the proposers, hence them being put in by the end of 2025.