"HS2 Back on Track" - front page of Sunday Express - private sector plan to build Birmingham to Manchester

[Sir Felix Pole]

The nearest settlement that I know of with an almost very similar spelling is that of High Legh, which is the extreme right-hand location of the Stockport part of Greater Manchester,

That'll be High Lane near Disley. I wonder if a journalist got mixed it up with High Legh when we got the puzzling initial reports that the alternative line would run to 'near Stockport?

 

[NotATrainspott]

Isn't it a shock that two city mayors aren't able to come up with an option any meaningfully different than hundreds of civil engineers at Mott MacDonald Scott Wilson Grimshaw were more than a decade ago? The real world of geology and geography and railway engineering doesn't care about the political complexion of central and local government. The sooner that people learn this, the better, and we can start actually making up long term plans even if we aren't going to be funding it all immediately.

Phase 2a to Crewe is essentially obvious. What we do north of there is up for a bit more debate. I actually think we should re-evaluate everything north of Crewe from scratch, explicitly including outline plans for NPR and getting journey times to Scotland below 3 hours. So long as there's a new route from Crewe to some new 400m platforms at Piccadilly via the Airport, it isn't the end of the world if it gets tweaked to better suit NPR at the expense of journey times to London.

 

[HSTEd]

Phase 2a to Crewe is essentially obvious. What we do north of there is up for a bit more debate. I actually think we should re-evaluate everything north of Crewe from scratch, explicitly including outline plans for NPR and getting journey times to Scotland below 3 hours. So long as there's a new route from Crewe to some new 400m platforms at Piccadilly via the Airport, it isn't the end of the world if it gets tweaked to better suit NPR at the expense of journey times to London.

Phase 2a to Crewe is not obvious if you are planning major construction for Northern Powerhouse Rail.

If there is going to be a new fast line from Liverpool to Manchester, which wasn't even proposed until long after HS2's proposed line routing was developed, then the rationale for going to Crewe is substantially weakened.

Liverpool services would be faster going north to the airport and then across, services to the North of Manchester would be faster going north to the airport, across and then joining the WCML where the new line crosses it.
At that point, why bother with Crewe? Going there slows down journeys for everyone by ~4 minutes for little gain, it only existed in the first place for lack of any other way to serve Liverpool.

Phase 2A to crewe effectively commits the UK to the original plan, which was proposed in a wildly different economic and railway environment.

EDIT:
The NPR journey time projection for Manchester to Liverpool is 26 minutes with a stop at Manchester Airport and Warrington, 21 minutes non stop.
So probably about 20 minutes or so from the Airport to Liverpool.

A direct routing to the airport gets you there about 3-4 minutes after the train would have arrived at Crewe. Which is about 25 minutes of effective journey time from Crewe to compete. The fastest train Crewe-Liverpool is 35 minutes and many are slower than that. At which point you have to wonder what the 20km extra kilometres going via Crewe gets you.

Whilst Phase 2A is notionally "shovel ready" in terms of act of Parliament, there is no delivery body in a position to do anything about it. The project is now years away from starting construction even if some private consortium manages to get the government to PFI the line.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

That'll be High Lane near Disley. I wonder if a journalist got mixed it up with High Legh when we got the puzzling initial reports that the alternative line would run to 'near Stockport?

The High Legh is one that I should be aware of as we used to regularly visit the garden centre there many years ago when doing the rounds of Great Budworth et al visiting friends living there.

 

[The Planner]

Phase 2a to Crewe is not obvious if you are planning major construction for Northern Powerhouse Rail.

If there is going to be a new fast line from Liverpool to Manchester, which wasn't even proposed until long after HS2's proposed line routing was developed, then the rationale for going to Crewe is substantially weakened.

Liverpool services would be faster going north to the airport and then across, services to the North of Manchester would be faster going north to the airport, across and then joining the WCML where the new line crosses it.
At that point, why bother with Crewe? Going there slows down journeys for everyone by ~4 minutes for little gain, it only existed in the first place for lack of any other way to serve Liverpool.

Phase 2A to crewe effectively commits the UK to the original plan, which was proposed in a wildly different economic and railway environment.

EDIT:
The NPR journey time projection for Manchester to Liverpool is 26 minutes with a stop at Manchester Airport and Warrington, 21 minutes non stop.
So probably about 20 minutes or so from the Airport to Liverpool.

A direct routing to the airport gets you there about 3-4 minutes after the train would have arrived at Crewe. Which is about 25 minutes of effective journey time from Crewe to compete. The fastest train Crewe-Liverpool is 35 minutes and many are slower than that. At which point you have to wonder what the 20km extra kilometres going via Crewe gets you.

Whilst Phase 2A is notionally "shovel ready" in terms of act of Parliament, there is no delivery body in a position to do anything about it. The project is now years away from starting construction even if some private consortium manages to get the government to PFI the line.

You willfully ignore the connectivity of Crewe as speed is always in the forefront of your mind, as well as the fact that they will need to find a new rolling stock depot as the Phase 2 one was at Crewe North. Is there a proposed connection for the NPR line to the WCML? if its using Fiddlers Ferry at Warrington then you are demolishing half the town to do it at any speed as well as the dog-leg via High Legh.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Phase 2a to Crewe is not obvious if you are planning major construction for Northern Powerhouse Rail.

If there is going to be a new fast line from Liverpool to Manchester, which wasn't even proposed until long after HS2's proposed line routing was developed, then the rationale for going to Crewe is substantially weakened.

Liverpool services would be faster going north to the airport and then across, services to the North of Manchester would be faster going north to the airport, across and then joining the WCML where the new line crosses it.
At that point, why bother with Crewe? Going there slows down journeys for everyone by ~4 minutes for little gain, it only existed in the first place for lack of any other way to serve Liverpool.

Phase 2A to crewe effectively commits the UK to the original plan, which was proposed in a wildly different economic and railway environment.

EDIT:
The NPR journey time projection for Manchester to Liverpool is 26 minutes with a stop at Manchester Airport and Warrington, 21 minutes non stop.
So probably about 20 minutes or so from the Airport to Liverpool.

A direct routing to the airport gets you there about 3-4 minutes after the train would have arrived at Crewe. Which is about 25 minutes of effective journey time from Crewe to compete. The fastest train Crewe-Liverpool is 35 minutes and many are slower than that. At which point you have to wonder what the 20km extra kilometres going via Crewe gets you.

Whilst Phase 2A is notionally "shovel ready" in terms of act of Parliament, there is no delivery body in a position to do anything about it. The project is now years away from starting construction even if some private consortium manages to get the government to PFI the line.

You have ignored the other requirement: thinking about how you get journey times to Scotland under 3 hours, or even just under 4 hours. It might not be politically salient today but the requirement for services to run to Glasgow (and given the eastern leg issues, Edinburgh too) has not and will not go away. These services will not call at Manchester Airport, and running them on the WCML north of Crewe means a fairly major capacity crunch as they will end up running non-stop. Running residual ICWC and HS2 services for Lancashire isn't as much of a problem as they will probably stop at all of the principal stations, but the Scottish expresses won't and indeed can't if they'll be made of 400m double sets.

We need a plan for what to do with these services, which will likely never call anywhere between Crewe and Preston. Building a line purely to serve Manchester, and maybe other NPR destinations, isn't the overall most optimal solution. The politics will come and go but the reality that whatever HS2 builds will be around for the next century will not. There is a long term need for an express line to link Crewe and Preston, bypassing all of the existing WCML and its junctions, and the only real question is how best to combine that requirement with the requirement to link Crewe/Handsacre to Manchester Airport and other NPR destinations.

 

[HSTEd]

You willfully ignore the connectivity of Crewe as speed is always in the forefront of your mind, as well as the fact that they will need to find a new rolling stock depot as the Phase 2 one was at Crewe North. Is there a proposed connection for the NPR line to the WCML? if its using Fiddlers Ferry at Warrington then you are demolishing half the town to do it at any speed as well as the dog-leg via High Legh.

Connectivity to where?

The major destinations served by the rail lines from Crewe would all already be served bya faster route (with more available capacity) via HS2/NPR. The only possible exception is North Wales, and North Wales is by far the least important of them.
At Warrington, does it need to be done at speed given the trains are likely to be calling at Warrington anyway, do many ICWC trains today skip Warrington?
However, assuming you can't get a minimum radius curve in, it is only ten kilometres or so from the Fiddlers Ferry alignment east of Warrington to the Chat Moss line near Culcheth. Once you are on the Chat Moss line you can access the WCML North through Newton Le Willows, especially as there will be much less traffic on the Chat Moss line after NPR is built.
Even doing that still leeaves you up on route length compared to going to Crewe.

Ofcourse, building what I propose also allows NPR trains to head north from Manchester, which is useful in terms of capacity on Castlefield corridor.

We need a plan for what to do with these services, which will likely never call anywhere between Crewe and Preston. Building a line purely to serve Manchester, and maybe other NPR destinations, isn't the overall most optimal solution. The politics will come and go but the reality that whatever HS2 builds will be around for the next century will not. There is a long term need for an express line to link Crewe and Preston, bypassing all of the existing WCML and its junctions, and the only real question is how best to combine that requirement with the requirement to link Crewe/Handsacre to Manchester Airport and other NPR destinations.

THe same distance that gets you from Handsacre to the Airport via Crewe gets you to almost Golborne on the direct alignment via the airport.
Would you prefer Scottish expresses to be running on the WCML north of Crewe or north of Golborne?

 

[The Planner]

Connectivity to where?

North Wales and Mid Wales as well as Stoke for anyone going north.

The major destinations served by the rail lines from Crewe would all already be served bya faster route (with more available capacity) via HS2/NPR. The only possible exception is North Wales, and North Wales is by far the least important of them.
At Warrington, does it need to be done at speed given the trains are likely to be calling at Warrington anyway, do many ICWC trains today skip Warrington?
However, assuming you can't get a minimum radius curve in, it is only ten kilometres or so from the Fiddlers Ferry alignment east of Warrington to the Chat Moss line near Culcheth. Once you are on the Chat Moss line you can access the WCML North through Newton Le Willows, especially as there will be much less traffic on the Chat Moss line after NPR is built.
Even doing that still leeaves you up on route length compared to going to Crewe.

Ofcourse, building what I propose also allows NPR trains to head north from Manchester, which is useful in terms of capacity on Castlefield corridor.

How are they stopping at Warrington when going north/south? the line goes under Bank Quay, so any chord is going to be to the West of the WCML. Why are you assuming the Chat Moss won't be back filled with local traffic or freight which you want rid of anyway? Going up to Culceth is effectively building the 2B Golborne link unless you are advocating HS2 trains going around Parkside at 20mph via the Chat Moss.

 

[HSTEd]

North Wales and Mid Wales as well as Stoke for anyone going north.

Is stoke really going to be much better off going to Crewe to change onto the northbound train than going to Manchester.
25 minutes to Crewe vs about 40 minutes to Manchester Piccadilly.
Likely to be a lot more options at Manchester Piccadilly given NPR.

How are they stopping at Warrington when going north/south? the line goes under Bank Quay, so any chord is going to be to the West of the WCML.

Well if its west of the WCML then wouldn't the trains have to go through the low level station to get there? Obviously early days on that but isn't the only really feasible place for a low level station east of the WCML?
I was suggesting a loop south onto the railway land south of the station and then north to join the platforms at the high level station, but I now realise that going under the station and turning north to emerge on the west side is probably the better solution.

Why are you assuming the Chat Moss won't be back filled with local traffic or freight which you want rid of anyway? Going up to Culceth is effectively building the 2B Golborne link unless you are advocating HS2 trains going around Parkside at 20mph via the Chat Moss.

Where will the paths come from to fill the Chat Moss with freight?
We are already running out of paths in central Manchester, any freed by the construction of NPR are likely to be eaten up all the other lines out of West Manchester that want more.
The balance is probably going to be that the line gets quieter overall, because not all of the freed paths will be spent on the Chat Moss.

And if we have to build the Golborne Link, sure, let's do that.
Still a better use of distance than duplicating capabilities we already have at the cost of billions of pounds of railway, which is going to Crewe gets us.

 

[NotATrainspott]

There are only really two options to get from Handsacre to the Cheshire-Lancashire area. Either you go via Crewe, or you go via a midpoint between Crewe and Stoke-on-Trent. We aren't going to be building this route in tunnels, so the geography that influenced the Victorians building the railways in the first place (and thus the cities and towns which fill them up) will affect our decisions too.

Going via Crewe appears to be worthwhile. The benefit of shaving off a bit by tacking east doesn't seem to outweigh the loss of planned and potential connectivity at Crewe. If you're planning for a hundred years, then going via Crewe and making it possible for trains to call there and rejoin HS2 going north gives you the most options. Redeveloping and densifying Crewe into a city that can justify more HS2 calls is more economically worthwhile than building new around any sort of parkway station we could build instead.

 

[Xavi]

Whilst Phase 2A is notionally "shovel ready" in terms of act of Parliament, there is no delivery body in a position to do anything about it.

That’s not strictly true. Some contracts (that would have seen plant on site) were already signed and the delivery partner was about to appointed until Sunak’s hotel moment.

 

[The Planner]

Where will the paths come from to fill the Chat Moss with freight?
We are already running out of paths in central Manchester, any freed by the construction of NPR are likely to be eaten up all the other lines out of West Manchester that want more.
The balance is probably going to be that the line gets quieter overall, because not all of the freed paths will be spent on the Chat Moss.

Port Salford and Parkside will require freight paths to/from the WCML, neither of which are in central Manchester.

 

[Arkeeos]

If you're planning for a hundred years, then going via Crewe and making it possible for trains to call there and rejoin HS2 going north gives you the most options. Redeveloping and densifying Crewe into a city that can justify more HS2 calls is more economically worthwhile than building new around any sort of parkway station we could build instead.

Based on that picture, even accounting for NPR, the current route appears to still be the best, unless you want to dramatically increase the budget.

The approach via the M602 (which would be preferable for NPR) doesn't connect to Piccadilly, so you would dramatically reduce connectivity and the approach that still goes to Piccadilly, avoids the airport, which still reduces the connectivity.

So even though "NPR is tacked onto HS2, not designed in tandem" is true, I don't think it significantly changes anything, (Unless you want to dramatically increase the budget of course)

 

[NotATrainspott]

Based on that picture, even accounting for NPR, the current route appears to still be the best, unless you want to dramatically increase the budget.

The approach via the M602 doesn't connect to Piccadilly, so you would dramatically reduce connectivity and the approach that still goes to Piccadilly, avoids the airport, which still reduces the connectivity.

So even though "NPR is tacked onto HS2, not designed in tandem" is true, I don't think it significantly changes anything, (Unless you want to dramatically increase the budget of course)

Yes. If there were a direct Handsacre to Manchester Airport routing that was viable in principle, then MSG would have found it back in 2012. There isn't one.

If people are new to this, you can see the original report at https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ng-options-report-west-midlands-to-manchester. There's a similar report for the eastern arm. These reports were the first time that specific routes and station options were made public for Phase 2. Over time the routes did get tweaked slightly, e.g. shifting it by a few hundred metres one way or another, or moving it up into viaduct/embankment or down into cuttings or tunnels, but the general principle of the routes stayed the same. The eastern arm did get redone when the Sheffield plan changed, but that was largely it.

For someone to suggest a new route now, they need to be able to explain why it wasn't raised as an option back then. It's not like this report is the final word on high speed rail options, but it does very much narrow down the set of possibilities. The brief was:

The scope of work as set out in remits from HS2 Ltd to MSG for the Manchester leg included consideration of the following core elements:
 provision of a route from the tie-in point near Lichfield on the London-West Midlands route to a station within Manchester. The station within Manchester is to have four platform faces, each suitable for a 400 metre long train;
 provision of one connection onto the existing West Coast Main Line (WCML) railway;
 provision of one infrastructure maintenance depot, ideally to be located towards the centre of the West Midlands to Manchester route; and
 provision of one rolling stock depot, ideally to be located towards Manchester.

The scope of work also included the following optional elements:
 interchange stations within and on the edge of the Manchester conurbation;
 intermediate stations south of the Manchester conurbation;
 additional connections onto the existing WCML;
 high speed route from the route into Manchester to the north of Preston;
 high speed connection to Liverpool; and
 ‘delta’ connection to allow services from the Manchester city centre station to route to the north onto the West Coast Main Line connection and vice versa

For that penultimate point, they've even produced a map which includes a general indication of a viable high speed route along the M62, plus options for linking the HS2 line onto the various existing classic lines into the city centre.



As far as I understand it, none of the NPR work published since has ever been as detailed as this. With the politics behind it being so uncertain, the government hasn't ever given the green light to spend money actually developing proper options. If we pay civil engineers to do a job, then they will do it.

I think this is the big problem. We need to go back and redo what MSG did but considering the real different requirements that are all in play at the same time:

* London-Manchester services, 400m long and at 3tph, serving the city centre and the Airport/motorway network but running non-stop(-ish) to London.
* London-Liverpool 200m services that will call at Crewe
* London-Scotland 400m services that won't stop below Preston; separate projects further north will reduce journey time to 3 hours.
* London-WCML classic services (Warrington, Wigan, etc)
* Manchester/Liverpool/Scotland-Birmingham services that call at Crewe and possibly other major stations if available.
* Liverpool-Manchester-TransPennine services
* Liverpool/Manchester-Scotland services
* General Manchester rail capacity problems

If you start with HS2 and a Manchester focus then you'll end up with the ever-shrinking Phase 2 west project. If we start by looking at each of these requirements in turn and then working out where they overlap, then we can work out what network we really want to build. It's fine for us to come up with a big menu of improvements that can build upon each other. If we do the sensible work of planning them all together, then we can work out the most efficient way to build them. Maybe we can build certain parts first to deliver a bit more capacity or speed in the short term before the rest of it could be ready.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

This bit on Liverpool option C is intreresting... isn't that basically re-instating the original route of the line? I thought it was closed and diverted through what is now Warrington Central because either something was built in the way of the original alignment or there was some problem with it? I'm sure there's something about that in one of Don Coffey's cab ride videos from Liverpool to Manchester but I can't remember exactly what.

Looking at Google Earth, half the trace is still visible but the other half now appears to be extremely heavily developed.

 

[Benjwri]

I thought it was closed and diverted through what is now Warrington Central because either something was built in the way of the original alignment or there was some problem with it?

It was closed by the Beeching Report. I assume just not many trains used it.

Looking at Google Earth, half the trace is still visible but the other half now appears to be extremely heavily developed

In reality they’d probably have tunnelled the section you’re referring to. The map above is a selection of options, so the expense won’t have been considered so much at that stage.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The thread title refers to "a private sector plan" in the stated project. Which private companies have officially confirmed their intention to play a key role in the planning?

 

[Snow1964]

That’s not strictly true. Some contracts (that would have seen plant on site) were already signed and the delivery partner was about to appointed until Sunak’s hotel moment.

2A could be started fairly quickly in theory (by anyone with the funds). It might move faster by local negotiation than some corporate Goliath dotting the I and crossing Ts before putting spade in ground.

With the Act of Parliament in the background the local land owners are faced with blunt choice, wait years trying to get their land back at price they want with unknown negotiating success or say build the bit of trackbed that is on my land and give me the surplus land take not needed, back as quick as possible.

Ultimately there are 2 ways of building, the messy big way with temporary haul roads and compounds, the small local way where all done without excess disruption and using smaller equipment (regular tipper lorries) that is entitled to use public roads.

Of course option of getting on with it locally quickly means those nearby don't have years of disruption hanging over them, and can move on with their lives. Even if they basically have a dead trackbed sitting there for few years. At least they won't have muddy mess for ages. This was how first section of M1 ended up so straight and built so quick, literally sent people to each householder and over cup of tea agreed the work and compensation and minimised disruption time.

The section north of Crewe is nowhere near as ready for any work

 

[Energy]

With the Act of Parliament in the background the local land owners are faced with blunt choice, wait years trying to get their land back at price they want with unknown negotiating success or say build the bit of trackbed that is on my land and give me the surplus land take not needed, back as quick as possible.

No the don't. Under compulsory purchase rules the land should be offered to them first in the event of a sale.

Land owners can't just tell the government to build HS2.

Ultimately there are 2 ways of building, the messy big way with temporary haul roads and compounds, the small local way where all done without excess disruption and using smaller equipment (regular tipper lorries) that is entitled to use public roads.

HS2 already gets criticised for construction taking too long, it shouldn't go much slower than its current pace.

This was how first section of M1 ended up so straight and built so quick, literally sent people to each householder and over cup of tea agreed the work and compensation and minimised disruption time.

I agree, with the stories of property being undervalued, that HS2s rather aggressive method if compulsory purchase is poor.

 

[MTR380A]

Going via Crewe appears to be worthwhile. The benefit of shaving off a bit by tacking east doesn't seem to outweigh the loss of planned and potential connectivity at Crewe. If you're planning for a hundred years, then going via Crewe and making it possible for trains to call there and rejoin HS2 going north gives you the most options. Redeveloping and densifying Crewe into a city that can justify more HS2 calls is more economically worthwhile than building new around any sort of parkway station we could build instead.

Perhaps the plan is to go between Crewe and Stoke, find somewhere relatively empty and build a giant station cum shopping mall cum office towers. Also auction off lands in vicinity to the highest bidders. This the model Japan and Hong Kong has been using for decades.

 

[HSTEd]

There are only really two options to get from Handsacre to the Cheshire-Lancashire area. Either you go via Crewe, or you go via a midpoint between Crewe and Stoke-on-Trent. We aren't going to be building this route in tunnels, so the geography that influenced the Victorians building the railways in the first place (and thus the cities and towns which fill them up) will affect our decisions too.

The same geographic limitations don't really apply any more, because our trains can climb 4% gradients without major loss of speed should we want.

There does appear to be a feasibler route east of Stoke when using modern rail systems. It would possibly require tunnels in some short sections, but tunnels are a substantial feature of the existing proposed alignment anyway. Especially near Crewe but also south of there.

 

[daodao]

The geography limitations don't really apply any more, because our trains can climb 4% gradients without major loss of speed should we want.
There does appear to be a feasible route east of Stoke when using modern rail systems.

I presume you are joking. Stoke and the area east of it are fairly hilly. Such a route also eliminates the possibility of fast services to most of NW England outside the Manchester conurbation, North Wales and Scotland. Any new high speed route has to be via or close to Crewe, on flatter and lower level land, and to make use of the existing 4 routes northwards out of Crewe. Greater Manchester's population is only about a quarter of the population of North West England, North Wales and the West of Scotland combined.

There is also no affordable way to build additional capacity through the south side of Greater Manchester, so any high speed service would have to make use of existing tracks through the South Manchester suburbs, thus restricting the frequencies of any high speed trains into Manchester from London (and Birmingham).

 

[NotATrainspott]

https://en-gb.topographic-map.com/map-kb57/England/?center=53.02852,-1.91484&zoom=9



Yes, we are more able to deal with gradients than the Victorians were. But, all that does is open up more options. It might mean, for instance, that a straighter route is possible without requiring curves to lengthen out the climb and descent over a set of hills. It doesn't mean that a flat and straight-ish route becomes less useful when it's generally just about as direct. Even if the trains could now storm up and down 4% gradients it doesn't mean that the earthworks and other civil engineering has become easier and cheaper to build.

The MSG report was done in 2012 and there has been no real change in rail system capability since then. If they didn't identify a viable route east of Stoke-on-Trent back then, then that's a pretty good indication that there is still no route option for it today.

The reason the route via Crewe was chosen is, as I said, because it's actually helpful to route a railway via important junctions and where people actually live and work. Crewe is an example of a relatively permeable town for high speed rail to run through (well, under), because the entire place was built around the railway and there's plenty of land for big interchange stations and tunnel portals. A relatively short bypass tunnel under the station and centre is all you need to maintain a full high speed alignment for non-stop trains, and that tunnel can easily be phased separately from the rest of the project. Indeed, it's the sort of thing you could even build first and use for existing non-stop services.

 

[The Planner]

Also means you have more trains using Handsacre than envisaged as you will likely still send a HS2 train to Crewe alongside the Macclesfield service, which means losing a path on the mainline.

The same geographic limitations don't really apply any more, because our trains can climb 4% gradients without major loss of speed should we want.

There does appear to be a feasibler route east of Stoke when using modern rail systems. It would possibly require tunnels in some short sections, but tunnels are a substantial feature of the existing proposed alignment anyway. Especially near Crewe but also south of there.

Substantial? There are two tunnels on Phase 2A, Whitmore Heath tunnel which is a mile long and Madeley which is 900m long.

 

[GJMarshy]

I suspect the outcome of Jürgen Maier's review will be "Build 2a to Crewe as planned" (since Kier Starmer only ruled out "HS2 going to Manchester" then to prioritise East-West transpennine links with a phased approach resulting in a new Liverpool-Manchester Piccadilly line that will eventually accommodate HS2 trains bringing that much needed extra N-S capacity that 2b west would provide.

That should appease Mr Burnham's desire for an underground station also, although it'll be significantly shorter with less platforms than the six platform combined NPR/HS2 option explored. That'll be a way off, but I fully expect Labour to commit to building 2a to Crewe. That will likely remain the full extent of HS2 for a couple of decades at least, however at least it'll be functional with a half decent BCR that Handsacre doesn't provide.

 

[BrianW]

Perhaps the plan is to go between Crewe and Stoke, find somewhere relatively empty and build a giant station cum shopping mall cum office towers. Also auction off lands in vicinity to the highest bidders. This the model Japan and Hong Kong has been using for decades.

IF it were not for all the financial and emotional investments and disengagements in getting to wherever it is we've not got to, or not yet ...
there would be, and still is, much to recommend the development of a 'new town' (whether or not so designated) at Crewe and/or a 'mid-Cheshire' location- a sort of Liverpool-Manchester crossing a newly aligned WCML somewhere between the current WCML and Manchester, perhaps a Manchester Parkway? There must be much market that could be served by such an accessible station even without a 'new town'. People need to live and work somewhere. Runcorn and Skem were part of a previous 'generation' of new towns. It's much the same as East-West rail Oxford-Cambridge NEEDS new-townish developments developments in between to support it and bring 'new' traffic for a 4tph 'turn up and go service'.
Maybe a Crewe New Town AND a Mid-Cheshire New Town (maybe a 7th town of Stoke-on-Trent?) could gain support?

Additionally (?) perhaps one could imagine a new Piccadilly Line, Victoria Line and Central Line(etc?) for 'Network North'?

 

[Nottingham59]

It's much the same as East-West rail Oxford-Cambridge NEEDS new-townish developments developments in between to support it and bring 'new' traffic for a 4tph 'turn up and go service'.

Far better to build the new housing near to existing stations, or existing lines where a new station could be built. For the Cambrige biomedical campus that means places like Shepreth, Whittlesford Parkway, Shelford, Fulbourn rather than Cambourne.

 

[Meerkat]

Is there capacity for 3tph HS2 from Crewe to Manchester, in the gap between 2a finishing and (not to be called) 2b finishing?

 

[HSTEd]

I presume you are joking. Stoke and the area east of it are fairly hilly. Such a route also eliminates the possibility of fast services to most of NW England outside the Manchester conurbation, North Wales and Scotland. Any new high speed route has to be via or close to Crewe, on flatter and lower level land, and to make use of the existing 4 routes northwards out of Crewe. Greater Manchester's population is only about a quarter of the population of North West England, North Wales and the West of Scotland combined.

The fastest way to Liverpool will be via Manchester Airport, therefore the fastest route to Manchester Airport is also the fastest route to Liverpool. NPR has made sure of that.
Ditto, the distance you save by not going over to Crewe almost gets you to Golborne or similar near Wigan access point to the WCML Northbound.

There is also no affordable way to build additional capacity through the south side of Greater Manchester, so any high speed service would have to make use of existing tracks through the South Manchester suburbs, thus restricting the frequencies of any high speed trains into Manchester from London (and Birmingham).

Since I'm proposing to use the same track the project is proposing to build from the airport to Manchester city centre I'm not sure why this is an argument against what I am proposing?

Also means you have more trains using Handsacre than envisaged as you will likely still send a HS2 train to Crewe alongside the Macclesfield service, which means losing a path on the mainline.

Macclesfield (57,000) gets a train because Stoke (258,000) and Stafford (71,000) both need trains and its a simple extension of the Stoke service.
In the absence of North Wales Main Line electrification, what larger settlements will Crewe (76,000) be piggy backing on?

There will be no through seats on HS2 to North Wales, Wilmslow traffic will defect to the airport, Runcorn traffic will defect to Warrington. The list of other plausible destinations is not extensive.

https://en-gb.topographic-map.com/map-kb57/England/?center=53.02852,-1.91484&zoom=9

The MSG report was done in 2012 and there has been no real change in rail system capability since then. If they didn't identify a viable route east of Stoke-on-Trent back then, then that's a pretty good indication that there is still no route option for it today.

The reason the route via Crewe was chosen is, as I said, because it's actually helpful to route a railway via important junctions and where people actually live and work. Crewe is an example of a relatively permeable town for high speed rail to run through (well, under), because the entire place was built around the railway and there's plenty of land for big interchange stations and tunnel portals. A relatively short bypass tunnel under the station and centre is all you need to maintain a full high speed alignment for non-stop trains, and that tunnel can easily be phased separately from the rest of the project. Indeed, it's the sort of thing you could even build first and use for existing non-stop services.

In 2012 NPR had not been developed yet, there was not going to be any fast line between Manchester and Liverpool.
Without such a line, going to Crewe is the best available way to serve Liverpool which would otherwise be stuck with the slow crawl from Handsacre in perpetuity.

Now we apparently will have such a line, which will shift Liverpool-London/South traffic over to the route via Manchester airport, both for capacity and travel time reasons.
At that point, Crewe becomes a vestigial station in a relatively small town that isn't even near the optimum line of route. It won't be an important junction any more.
It has little remaining utility as an access point to the classic rail network since there are few or no destinations reachable by HS2 trains that aren't going to be served by faster routes (either via a slow curve at Warrington or by reviving the Golborne or similar link, which we probably need to finally eliminate Castlefield bottleneck anyway).

EDIT:

For avoidance of doubt, in this case I am using "Manchester Airport" to refer to the mass of converging tracks that is apparently going to develop near the airport and/or at High Legh.
Where HS2, NPR and such are going to meet, not necessarily to the Airport railway station itself which will probably end up stuck out on a leg.

 

[The Planner]

The fastest way to Liverpool will be via Manchester Airport, therefore the fastest route to Manchester Airport is also the fastest route to Liverpool. NPR has made sure of that.
Ditto, the distance you save by not going over to Crewe almost gets you to Golborne or similar near Wigan access point to the WCML Northbound.


Since I'm proposing to use the same track the project is proposing to build from the airport to Manchester city centre I'm not sure why this is an attack against what I am proposing?

Macclesfield (57,000) gets a train because Stoke (258,000) and Stafford (71,000) both need trains and its a simple extension of the Stoke service.
In the absence of North Wales Main Line electrification, what larger settlements will Crewe (76,000) be piggy backing on?

There will be no through seats on HS2 to North Wales, Wilmslow traffic will defect to the airport, Runcorn traffic will defect to Warrington. The list of other plausible destinations is not extensive.


In 2012 NPR had not been developed yet, there was not going to be any fast line between Manchester and Liverpool.
Without such a line, going to Crewe is the best available way to serve Liverpool which would otherwise be stuck with the slow crawl from Handsacre in perpetuity.

Now we apparently will have such a line, which will shift Liverpool-London/South traffic over to the route via Manchester airport, both for capacity and travel time reasons.
At that point, Crewe becomes a vestigial station in a relatively small town that isn't even near the optimum line of route. It won't be an important junction any more.
It has little remaining utility as an access point to the classic rail network since there are few or no destinations reachable by HS2 trains that aren't going to be served by faster routes (either via a slow curve at Warrington or by reviving the Golborne or similar link, which we probably need to finally eliminate Castlefield bottleneck anyway).

Why do you consistently ignore connectivity? Macclesfield gets a train in the dead time of the Stoke turnaround, not because it was ever proposed. If you want to play the numbers game, Chester 80,000 and Shrewsbury 77,000. Why will Runcorn go to Warrington? its 19 minutes by train to Crewe now, the same journey time you need to make by car to Warrington Bank Quay.