Crewe versus Stoke - who will win?

[HowardGWR]

Hi, I am local and, however hard I try, I cannot disabuse you of your very accurate observations.

Kind of you not to point out I can't spell Hanley though.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If we're not going to build more motorways or airports, what else are we going to invest in?

Dedicated cycleways and footpaths? Bus shelters?

 

[HSTEd]

Cycleways would require comparable engineering work to railways simply because you have to keep the gradients down.

They would end up very very twisty if you want to do it at a reasonable cost, which means it will take too long to get anywhere.

 

[pablo]

The contour hugging canal paths are already there.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Thinking of the line taken by part of the original Manchester and Bolton Railway as an historical example, would any proposal to convert the beds of now-disused canals into light or heavy-rail railway lines now not be viewed as being possible ?

 

[HSTEd]

The contour hugging canal paths are already there.

Even at the top speed a normal person can maintain on level ground they would take too long to get anywhere, they just curve around too much.

Cycleways that are actually useful for transport (as opposed to leisure) would require significant engineering works.

And probably things like the California Cycleway

As an example: the Grantham Canal takes ~53km to cover the distance between its terminus at the Trent and where it becomes a culvert within about half a mile of Grantham station.

Those two points are 33km apart.
And even if it were a straight line that was nearly flat (as the total average gradient over that route would be far less than 1%) even a fit person would only be able to maintain roughly 10-15 miles per hour, putting transit time at something on order of 1-2hrs.

 

[HowardGWR]

Even at the top speed a normal person can maintain on level ground they would take too long to get anywhere, they just curve around too much.

Cycleways that are actually useful for transport (as opposed to leisure) would require significant engineering works.

And probably things like the California Cycleway

As an example: the Grantham Canal takes ~53km to cover the distance between its terminus at the Trent and where it becomes a culvert within about half a mile of Grantham station.

Those two points are 33km apart.

I am afraid you did not understand my point, although my reference to bus shelters may have provided some guidance. I am referring to local transport which comprises the vast number of trips that people make. Opponents of HS2 think that money should be spent on where the most people benefit and the environment too. So my reply to the earlier poster was in the vein of what Ed Balls might have replied to @NotaTrainspotter and I am afraid was not understood.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I am afraid you did not understand my point, although my reference to bus shelters may have provided some guidance. I am referring to local transport which comprises the vast number of trips that people make. Opponents of HS2 think that money should be spent on where the most people benefit and the environment too. So my reply to the earlier poster was in the vein of what Ed Balls might have replied to @NotaTrainspotter and I am afraid was not understood.

Oh, I was suggesting that we invest in the railways and public transport in general. Once the post-HS2 WCML fills up again because of the passengers going to Milton Keynes and other regional places like that, the same reasoning behind HS2 will apply and it will be easier to just build another new line with more intermediate stations. This would be several decades in the future, mind. There'll be plenty of bus shelters being built in the meantime, but they're not really as interesting to talk about.

 

[HowardGWR]

There'll be plenty of bus shelters being built in the meantime, but they're not really as interesting to talk about.

I think that is indeed the environmentalist's view of those who promote 'boys' toys'. One of the interesting, not to say surprising, developments recently, has been the construction industry's enthusiasm for rail. Previously the H.A. was the client who was going to give them the goodie projects but now it's NR (and HS2).

Great for we enthusiasts, mainly male, but we should perhaps quietly concede to each other that building safe routes to school would get the ladies' vote over 'wow, doesn't she go, Top Gear' mentality every time. Segregated Cycle and Pedestrian systems would actually save little and aged lives. Perhaps Ed Balls has discovered his feminine side?

 

[NotATrainspott]

I think that is indeed the environmentalist's view of those who promote 'boys' toys'. One of the interesting, not to say surprising, developments recently, has been the construction industry's enthusiasm for rail. Previously the H.A. was the client who was going to give them the goodie projects but now it's NR (and HS2).

Great for we enthusiasts, mainly male, but we should perhaps quietly concede to each other that building safe routes to school would get the ladies' vote over 'wow, doesn't she go, Top Gear' mentality every time. Segregated Cycle and Pedestrian systems would actually save little and aged lives. Perhaps Ed Balls has discovered his feminine side?

These schemes do not cost £50bn or take a Hybrid bill and twenty years of construction to come to fruition, though. There's so much fuss about HS2 because it's a single, large project which will be only a few kilometres from the majority of the population of Britain. It affects the majority of the UK far more than any single airport or the replacement of our nuclear deterrent. The Government can make funding available to local authorities for these politically-advantageous small schemes without a fuss being made - the reason so many people don't understand the capacity benefits of HS2 is that they don't understand how much money is spent and is going to be spent on the rail network as a whole. I've seen a Network Rail advert at a popular commuter station saying that they build the equivalent of 12 or 20 or some number of Olympic stadiums every year. The public transport industry really needs to make a bigger fuss about what they're doing.

 

[Morgsie]

Can someone explain the plans?
The only thing I got was the WCML Branch would be upgraded

 

[pablo]

You know, HS2 Phase 2 does precious little for the towns and cities north of Lichfield, until you get to Preston, except Manchester of course, which was defined originally as an objective. It's as though HS2 Ltd chose the least controversial route possible. Green fields all the way! Not that Lowton agrees with that.

Stoke and Liverpool's contribution to the 'Phase 2 Consultation' together with March's relauch may trigger a re-think on just how HS2 can serve directly, Stoke, Crewe, Warrington, Liverpool, mid-Lancs and any other significant centres of population that I've overlooked. And, why terminate in Manchester? Shutting off future options; Leeds?
So much more added value could be obtained from a more versatile scheme.

The more you get further north, HSTEd's Shinkansen philosophy starts to look rosy.

 

[NotATrainspott]

You know, HS2 Phase 2 does precious little for the towns and cities north of Lichfield, until you get to Preston, except Manchester of course, which was defined originally as an objective. It's as though HS2 Ltd chose the least controversial route possible. Green fields all the way! Not that Lowton agrees with that.

Stoke and Liverpool's contribution to the 'Phase 2 Consultation' together with March's relauch may trigger a re-think on just how HS2 can serve directly, Stoke, Crewe, Warrington, Liverpool, mid-Lancs and any other significant centres of population that I've overlooked. And, why terminate in Manchester? Shutting off future options; Leeds?
So much more added value could be obtained from a more versatile scheme.

The more you get further north, HSTEd's Shinkansen philosophy starts to look rosy.

Additional routes can be added once the legislative force behind HS2 is in place as they wouldn't run the risk of derailing the whole scheme. It is possible to add junctions to the route afterward where it isn't in tunnel or viaduct and they would have daily night-time possessions of the entire route to make it happen. If the passenger numbers justify an extension then it can happen, but until that point the money would be better spent on other schemes.

Somewhere in the hundreds of documents about HS2 on the DfT website, in the one where the Y network was announced as the optimal solution for Britain, it actually has an inverse A as a kind of 'endgame' for HS2. This inverse A is the Y network, with extensions to Glasgow/Edinburgh via an interchange at Preston (which was even suggested to be built in Phase 2, but wouldn't provide enough benefit for the cost when the HSR line runs out only a few kilometres north), Newcastle via a Tees Valley interchange and a TransPennine line running from Liverpool to Leeds via Manchester. These places are 'significant centres of population', something which many of your suggestions (other than Liverpool) really are not. Even an hourly captive service to Stoke would have the capacity to move 4.8% of the population over the day each way (captive set is max 1100, Stoke is around 300k, ergo captive set is 0.3% of Stoke and there would be 16 trains per day). Once you remove Manchester passengers from the current trains, are there really going to be enough left to justify putting on their own captive service?

 

[Philip Elliott]

The population of Manchester is circa 550,000 with nearly 48 trains per day...

 

[6Gman]

You know, HS2 Phase 2 does precious little for the towns and cities north of Lichfield, until you get to Preston, except Manchester of course,

Stoke and Liverpool's contribution to the 'Phase 2 Consultation' together with March's relauch may trigger a re-think on just how HS2 can serve directly, Stoke, Crewe, Warrington, Liverpool, mid-Lancs and any other significant centres of population that I've overlooked.

But HS2 will serve Crewe directly (58 minutes) and cut c.30 minutes off the journey times for Liverpool, Runcorn, Warrington, Wigan, Preston!

 

[The Planner]

The population of Manchester is circa 550,000 with nearly 48 trains per day...

That is a truly fantastic piece of selective statistics! lets ignore Salford and areas around it then....

Any chance of a bit of comparison with other cities? Leicester with 330,000 has more than 48 a day?

 

[Philip Elliott]

That is a truly fantastic piece of selective statistics! lets ignore Salford and areas around it then....

Any chance of a bit of comparison with other cities? Leicester with 330,000 has more than 48 a day?

The point I was making that dividing population by number of trains is too simplistic in assessing demand. Salford is a about 240,000 which still won't get you anywhere the figure of 2.5 million some like to claim.

 

[edwin_m]

Manchester Piccadilly has connecting services to most parts of Greater Manchester (pop 2.68m).

 

[Philip Elliott]

Manchester Piccadilly has connecting services to most parts of Greater Manchester (pop 2.68m).

Greater Manchester includes Wigan and Stockport which have their own IC services so Piccadilly does not serve them. All large stations have a large catchment area outside of the named settlement boundary - Stoke serves the Staffordshire Moorlands - plenty of wealthy businessmen there aswell as parts of Cheshire.

Also, the larger the city, the less likely people will travel away from it - the big flows are from smaller places to larger places.

 

[thenorthern]

If this new station is built in Stoke will they close the existing Stoke station or are they planning to have two (which Stoke does need). Also don't get the Stoke-on-Trent International name that the council are proposing as its not an International station.

 

[tbtc]

Greater Manchester includes Wigan and Stockport which have their own IC services so Piccadilly does not serve them. All large stations have a large catchment area outside of the named settlement boundary - Stoke serves the Staffordshire Moorlands - plenty of wealthy businessmen there aswell as parts of Cheshire.

Also, the larger the city, the less likely people will travel away from it - the big flows are from smaller places to larger places.

For those fond of quoting misleading statistics, the population of "Manchester" is quite low, just like the population of "Nottingham" - local government boundaries are a terrible way of judging the population that would use a railhead.

However you count the people of Stoke, there's a lot of wide open space around the Potteries on the road to Leek etc. A lovely part of the country, but not a very populated area.

 

[The Planner]

Stoke council are being a bit naive if they really think they will get a station and the route moved at this stage. They should have lobbied right from the start.

 

[HowardGWR]

Surely it's the potential or need of a city to develop that decides policy for growth, not mere population. I don't see anyone claiming a need for an HS2 route to Bradford (but I expect we will now I've written that!).

 

[pablo]

But HS2 will serve Crewe directly (58 minutes) and cut c.30 minutes off the journey times for Liverpool, Runcorn, Warrington, Wigan, Preston!

Crewe is served only by Classic Compatibles and the Liverpool 'Contribution' highlights the poor value for money of CC services compared to Captive services, except for Crewe, because it's reached straight off the HSL.

Apart from some comparative whinging of 'us' versus 'them' in the early pages, that Liverpool report actually goes on to make a critical inditment of HS2 Ltd's current proposals for Phase 2.

Hopefully, they will take note and set about extracting better value for money for the north-west.

 

[joeykins82]

NR's stated vision is to reorganise local and regional services around the HS2 hub stations, and Crewe is a much more suitable station for this to take place than Stoke on Trent is.

 

[edwin_m]

Greater Manchester includes Wigan and Stockport which have their own IC services so Piccadilly does not serve them. All large stations have a large catchment area outside of the named settlement boundary - Stoke serves the Staffordshire Moorlands - plenty of wealthy businessmen there aswell as parts of Cheshire.

Also, the larger the city, the less likely people will travel away from it - the big flows are from smaller places to larger places.

Staffordshire and Stoke have about a million people between them. And for many in Staffordshire Crewe would be a better railhead. Crewe or Manchester Airport would be better for much of Cheshire as well. So I'd suggest the catchment of Stoke is a good deal less than Crewe or the Manchester stations.

Neither Crewe nor Manchester has a large walk-up residential catchment. However at both places HS2 would have good interchange to a good range of feeder services giving scope for people to access HS2 by public transport. For someone in Rochdale or Sandbach travelling to London, interchange at Piccadillly or Crewe respectively should be reasonably attractive. Stoke has very few local train services, and since a Stoke HS2 station would be a long way from any existing station and probably not even on a decent bus route, most of the HS2 patronage there would be drive-up.

 

[Philip Elliott]

Staffordshire and Stoke have about a million people between them. And for many in Staffordshire Crewe would be a better railhead. Crewe or Manchester Airport would be better for much of Cheshire as well. So I'd suggest the catchment of Stoke is a good deal less than Crewe or the Manchester stations.

Neither Crewe nor Manchester has a large walk-up residential catchment. However at both places HS2 would have good interchange to a good range of feeder services giving scope for people to access HS2 by public transport. For someone in Rochdale or Sandbach travelling to London, interchange at Piccadillly or Crewe respectively should be reasonably attractive. Stoke has very few local train services, and since a Stoke HS2 station would be a long way from any existing station and probably not even on a decent bus route, most of the HS2 patronage there would be drive-up.

The catchment area of Crewe is very small and certainly not useful for Staffordshire unless Tamworth, Burton, Stafford suddenly moved 20 miles further north. Crewe is not a great interchange either as most surrounding towns (Warrington, Runcorn, Chester etc.) have their own direct London trains and there is no possibility heading north from Crewe on a HS service.

The Manchester & Birmingham airport stations are based almost entirely on drive up - HS2 is so expensive as we are easily spending in excess of a billion on road alterations (jusy on phase 1 nevermind phase 2).

A station at Stoke on the 'mainline' opens up connections to the north & Glasgow from Derby, Nottingham, South Staffordshire & Warwickshire providing competition with the M6.

 

[pablo]

Funnily, I interchange at Crewe frequently.

 

[edwin_m]

The Manchester & Birmingham airport stations are based almost entirely on drive up - HS2 is so expensive as we are easily spending in excess of a billion on road alterations (jusy on phase 1 nevermind phase 2).

A station at Stoke on the 'mainline' opens up connections to the north & Glasgow from Derby, Nottingham, South Staffordshire & Warwickshire providing competition with the M6.

I agree the two airport stations are mainly for drive-up catchment, though Manchester could get some useful Metrolink connections too. But both of these have alternatives with good public transport access in the form of the central Manchester and Birmingham stations.

Unless it can similarly act as a local transport hub (and I struggle to see how) Stoke will simply be another drive-up station wihose catchment overlaps with Manchester Airport, Crewe, Birmingham Airport and even Toton (which I think will be quite useful for northward journeys despite no though service beyond Newcastle).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If "Stoke-on-Trent" wants any line improvements north of Macclesfield en route to Manchester, there is the not inconsiderable matter of a tunnel in Prestbury and a smaller tunnel at Hibel Road in Macclesfield to be brought into the equation. What would be the proposals for the larger tunnel in Prestbury noting what type and height of terrain is in the area of that particular tunnel.

 

[pablo]

Well Paul, you can read the report as well as anyone. It airily infers that the line to Manchester will be converted to GC+ gauge, and become the main route northwards, without defining any solutions to such problems or where the branch occurs, IINM. The very thing that HS2 sets out not to do! All seems a bit half-baked and naive to me.