The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 16,132
Considering the amount of permissive working at Picc, likely not.Is there enough platform capacity to do that?
Considering the amount of permissive working at Picc, likely not.Is there enough platform capacity to do that?
I didn't think so. More platforms needed then, such as the ones that would have been built for HS2/NPR.Considering the amount of permissive working at Picc, likely not.
Louise Haigh, the shadow transport secretary, and her team are said to have suggested they want to get spades back into the ground on the route between Birmingham and Crewe.
That is despite the fact that Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, has publicly said it is “not possible” to revive the project because the Government has “blown the budget”.
The Telegraph has been told that Haigh wants to resurrect phase 2a of the project, between Birmingham and Crewe, which would cost around £7 billion.
Bill Esterson, the shadow roads minister, also hinted at the ambition in a social media post after addressing an industry reception this month.
“HS2 was due to reduce the number of lorry movements by 500,000 a year. It was a project that was designed to increase capacity, not least for freight,” he wrote
Considering the amount of permissive working at Picc, likely not.
Might as well build them to 400m long while you're at it. And include provision for a connection to a new tunnel, just in caseIt wouldn't be hard to add platforms to the north side of Picc, it's a car park.
I like the optimism. Until someone finds out the car park isnt strong enough to put trains on, it triggers a resignaling and so on and so forth and it becomes unaffordable and we are back at 15 and 16 again and not a lot happens.It wouldn't be hard to add platforms to the north side of Picc, it's a car park.
Its only Sunak and his right wing cabal that don't think that.Seems Labours shadow Transport Minister has told Telegraph HS2-2a is going to be revived
Labour 'will resurrect northern leg of HS2' - reports
Louise Haigh, the shadow transport secretary, and her team are said to have suggested they want to resurrect phase 2a of the project.www.thelondoneconomic.com
All rather suggests the section from Hansacre to Crewe is seen as essential
My presumption is that it's just Handsacre to Whitmore which is essential.All rather suggests the section from Hansacre to Crewe is seen as essential
Ideally I'd have thought you'd want the six tracks at least as far as Basford Hall otherwise the capacity bottleneck is simply moving up to that position? All those freights...My presumption is that it's just Handsacre to Whitmore which is essential.
With the ongoing constraints at Crewe station, Wilmslow and Weaver, there doesn't seem any capacity benefit in having 6 tracks from Whitmore to Crewe and it saves having to tunnel under Whitmore Heath.
What freights?Ideally I'd have thought you'd want the six tracks at least as far as Basford Hall otherwise the capacity bottleneck is simply moving up to that position? All those freights...
The ones that use the WCML between Crewe and the south.What freights?
I bet it happens all the time - and I don't mean the saving money bit !.In all my time of building railways, i have never, ever, known a project where a complete redesign saved money.
Also worth noting that the Shadow Transport minister is not the person in Labour whos opinion matters.I'm assuming this commitment from labour to build HS2 to the north is referring to phase 2a to Crewe? There doesn't seem to be any explicit mention anywhere, and it also seems at-odds with the "privately funded" Burnham/Street model (you'd think Andy Turnham would have been informed if labour was committed to building it as is regardless?)
"commitment" is probably putting it a bit strong. They certainly won't be blocking a privately-backed scheme, that's the difference.I'm assuming this commitment from labour to build HS2 to the north is referring to phase 2a to Crewe? There doesn't seem to be any explicit mention anywhere, and it also seems at-odds with the "privately funded" Burnham/Street model (you'd think Andy Turnham would have been informed if labour was committed to building it as is regardless?)
So 5 per hour, which tallies up with the normal 90-100 over a 24 hour period.What freights?
In the past hour (11h-12h 22/3/24), there have been a grand total of 5 freight trains, one tamper and one mail train through Basford Hall Junction, as far as I can see. And that's in both directions together.
Realtime Trains | Departures from Crewe Basford Hall Jn between 1100 and 1200 on 22/03/2024
Train information at Crewe Basford Hall Jn between 1100 and 1200 on 22/03/2024. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.www.realtimetrains.co.uk
Maybe there's more freight traffic than that at other times of the day, but I've never seen it.
It would be expensive, but less expensive than tunnelling the whole way.Any new heavy rail route from Ringway/Hale Barns to Manchester city centre would be extremely expensive to construct. Unless it was tunnelled, it would be extremely disruptive to build. An elevated viaduct along the M56/A5103 as far as M60 junction 5 would cause increased noise to residents of Wythenshawe and destroy the ambience of Wythenshawe Park and what remains of Princess Parkway (which was quite pleasant to walk along before the M56 and M60 were built). It would be extremely challenging to construct because of the road flyovers at the Altrincham Road and Northenden Road/Sale Road junctions, and the need to tunnel deep under the River Mersey sited immediately north of M60 junction 5 without an excessive gradient from your suggested viaduct to the tunnelled section of the route.
This rail route isn't a sensible route for NPR if HS2 phase 2b isn't built. The likely demand for fast trains between Liverpool and Manchester can be provided by 2 non-stop tph of at least 8 carriages on the direct Chat Moss route, which wouldn't take any longer time than the proposed roundabout route via a station close to (but not at) Manchester Airport. At present, there is only 1 fast tph consisting of 5-6 carriages.
I doubt it would be less expensive.It would be expensive, but less expensive than tunnelling the whole way.
Let's address the points you've made.
No, you can just make all trains to the airport stop all stations.Same with Manchester Airport to the City Centre - you'd need a proper metro line to relieve the suburban lines of at the least the local airport traffic if you didn't build NPR, but again that wouldn't be cheap.
Tunneling costs are more expensive in urban areas though, especially if you need to demolish housing in some areas for ventilation towers.I doubt it would be less expensive.
I know tunneling costs have been used as a scapegoat for the problems on HS2 has had with regards cost growth, but tunneling isn't really that expensive.
There is no alignment here which will not require major reconstruction of a lot of major roads, which are extremely heavily trafficked.
The comparison with Hangar Lane Gyratory is most apt in my view.
There's not the capacity in Piccadilly to handle the passengers, it would bugger every path over Castlefield for all the trains continuing on from Picc, and it would mean the effective end of services from Wilmslow and Crewe to the airport. I cannot express how bad an idea that would be, unless you did some serious work with Castlefield (the additional tracks and platforms, Ox Rd rebuild etc.) and then added 2 grade separated tracks for the Styal Line from P13-P16 to Slade Lane.No, you can just make all trains to the airport stop all stations.
The airport passengers get their one seat ride to the airport and we get a metro line in South Manchester. Indeed the line would not be particularly full by metro standards.
Ventilation and access points are not that large, as site plans and pictures of HS2 ventilation and access points show. Here's an exampleTunneling costs are more expensive in urban areas though, especially if you need to demolish housing in some areas for ventilation towers.
Why would it end trains from Wilmslow and Crewe to the Airport?There's not the capacity in Piccadilly to handle the passengers, it would bugger every path over Castlefield for all the trains continuing on from Picc, and it would mean the effective end of services from Wilmslow and Crewe to the airport.
Not necessarily - the M56/Princess Parkway corridor is quite wide through Wythenshawe and land values are much lower than in Didsbury/Fallowfield/Withington/Rusholme.Ventilation and access points are not that large, as site plans and pictures of HS2 ventilation and access points show. Here's an example
Finding spaces for things that size in south manchester will be comparatively simple compared to tearing the M56 and various road junctions apart to get a viaduct in.
Because capacity on the spur into the airport would be taken up by the Picc - Manchester Airport services (which you'd need to increase frequency of to cater for demand).Why would it end trains from Wilmslow and Crewe to the Airport?
Meanwhile only part of the trains between Piccadilly and the Airport go through castlefield, a large portion of the passengers would arrive in the main trainshed at Piccadilly.
I doubt the line would be succesful enough, in any case, to materially change the number of passengers on platform 13 and 14.
Maybe because you've mostly worked on railway projects in London and the SE, where land costs are generally consistently high, unlike land costs here in the North West.In all my time of building railways, i have never, ever, known a project where a complete redesign saved money.
Or at least to open concurrent with delta -> Handsacre, which will open a couple of years after captive service OOC -> Curzon St.That's my thinking too, might be planning 70 miles, but I too agree likely to be around 30 miles from Hansacre to south of Crewe, possibly built fairly quickly (even to be ready same date as phase 1)
Then a phase 2 towards Manchester later.
If there are no complicated viaducts, bored tunnels, and minimal green tunnels (more like wide bridges), and no stations, then later start should still allow same completion date in 6 or 7 years
My presumption is that it's just Handsacre to Whitmore which is essential.
With the ongoing constraints at Crewe station, Wilmslow and Weaver, there doesn't seem any capacity benefit in having 6 tracks from Whitmore to Crewe and it saves having to tunnel under Whitmore Heath.
My bold. So potentially a better arrangement at Crewe than 2a would have been, but worse for adding more local capacity in future.3.5.1. High Cost Option
Atkins’ recommended design for the high cost option involves running HS2 services on the WCML fast lines between Baldwin’s Gate and Crewe, and running all remaining services on the slow lines. Such an arrangement would provide a two track railway used exclusively by HS2 services all the way from Streethay Junction to Crewe, which would be operating at well below its maximum capacity.
As with Phase 2a, such a configuration would mean that under normal operation high speed services are entirely segregated from the classic line services, and there would therefore be no opportunity for delays on the classic network to impact HS2 services or vice versa.
The high cost option requires running on 18km of the existing WCML infrastructure. The historic nature of this infrastructure means the track, power supply and signalling could be less reliable than new infrastructure built to modern standards. However, the long term reliability of this section of infrastructure compared to new infrastructure over a 60 year appraisal period is difficult to assess and would be highly dependent on the long term renewals and maintenance polices, which themselves are related to issues around ownership and accountability outside of the remit of this work.
With appropriate maintenance, Atkins do not consider the impact of running for 18km on the WCML to provide significant performance disbenefits to Phase 2a. Nevertheless the appraisal of the high cost option presented in section 3.3 adjusts the performance benefits of Phase 2a in proportion to the distance travelled on the existing network.
Between 2027 and 2033, the high cost option could offer some performance benefits to Phase 2a in respect to the way it connects the high speed alignment directly into the fast lines of the WCML well south of Crewe, whereas Phase 2a connects to the slow lines at Crewe. Having a connection to the WCML fast lines could avoid the need for high speed trains towards Manchester to cross the whole of the WCML at Crewe. From 2033 with the opening of the Full Y, Crewe is removed as an operational constraint on high speed services, and the performance benefits of joining the fast lines south of Crewe no longer apply.
Although Atkins consider that under normal operation the performance of high speed services under the high cost option is likely to be very similar to Phase 2a, the performance for the remaining classic line residual services operating on the slow lines is likely to be worse than under Phase 2a. With a mix of different passenger and freight services, the slow lines would be operating at close to the route capacity. This is likely to result in the residual services suffering a lower operational performance than will be the case under Phase 2a, where the same number of services would be able to operate over both the fast and slow lines.
Compared to Phase 2a, the option also offers less overall network resilience during periods of major disruption or maintenance, as a result of there being fewer alternative routes to divert services onto.
One significant alteration on the map of the proposed route as compared to the former HS2 Phase 2 route is that it shows the line bypassing Crewe on the east, rather than in a tunnel on the west.
“I have difficulty seeing where an eastern bypass would run,” Barter said. “But my view is that if we get Crewe right, there is no bypass needed anyway.”
In Barter’s view, “right” means “feeding HS2 into the fast lines through Crewe, with turnouts to access the platforms, with a connection back onto new infrastructure north of the station”.
I'm not sure it would. Basford Hall was a pretty big build which you would have to replicate somewhere for HS2 to land on the fasts. Its certainly going to need some sort of realignment of the slows, probably in a very similar way as the original Handsacre design where the up lines were shifted.Also, I've certainly read - though not sure where - that the Crewe approaches were the most ££ part of 2a. So if you lose them, you must save some money on the £6-7billion. Burnham's comment about reducing the tunnelling might well refer to the Whitmore tunnel, which is just north of the point where a connection could be built.
Could you explain this in a bit more detail please?I'm not sure it would. Basford Hall was a pretty big build which you would have to replicate somewhere for HS2 to land on the fasts. Its certainly going to need some sort of realignment of the slows, probably in a very similar way as the original Handsacre design where the up lines were shifted.
If you need HS2 to land on the fast lines on a grade separated junction south of Crewe, you end with this layout at the junction nominally. DS US DF HS2 HS2 UF. Depending on how you decide to build it, you are either leaving the UF where it is and need to shift the slows way off onto new alignments, or you slew the UF as well to reduce the realignment of the slows.Could you explain this in a bit more detail please?
As it stands now, nothing get done to Crewe.I am very surprised at the assertion that there is no need to upgrade the southern approaches to Crewe. Even if most of the freight diverts through Basford Hall there are still times when trains wait at both the north and south ends of the station to get in.
Traksy shows the missing link in the layout adjacent to the access to "South Yard CS" which definitely has an effect, as does the single-lead access to platforms 1 to 4.
I would love to see the ststion adapted a la Antwerp, with deep-level platforms (and through lines?) for HS2 - keeping the nice light relatively open-air station we have now. We also need to get rid of the diesel traction which fills the overbridge with stink, which could be done a lot sooner...
I was afraid of that. I don't see how the additional trains coming off HS2 can be handled - unless they use the through lines, which doesn't do much for the connectivity of the N Midlands. We need an extra additional hourly Brum to Preston service as it is.As it stands now, nothing get done to Crewe.
Thank you. I see what you mean now. Will there be so much traffic on the Stafford-Crewe fasts that it need a grade separated junction at Whitmore?If you need HS2 to land on the fast lines on a grade separated junction south of Crewe, you end with this layout at the junction nominally. DS US DF HS2 HS2 UF. Depending on how you decide to build it, you are either leaving the UF where it is and need to shift the slows way off onto new alignments, or you slew the UF as well to reduce the realignment of the slows.
The Handsacre proposal was slightly different due to the line pairing being different. That was DS DF HS2 HS2 UF US. The up lines being significantly realigned.
Will the HS2 trains be additional, though? Most HS2 trains will replace services to Euston. The more detail I see, the more it seems that capacity at Crewe and Weaver are the constraints to HS2 phase 1, rather than Colwich. The northern mayors should be prioritising a Crewe bypass rather than Phase 2aI was afraid of that. I don't see how the additional trains coming off HS2 can be handled - unless they use the through lines, which doesn't do much for the connectivity of the N Midlands. We need an extra additional hourly Brum to Preston service as it is.
No they shouldn't. (Or the only bypass should be additional platforms on the HS2 lines.) This is about improving the UK connectivity outside London. It's not just about faster or more trains direct from a few places to London, shoudn't be at all, in my opinion. Salop and Stoke (and all the places served through them) need better connections and more services to the wider "north." We also need to free up capacity at Crewe for more NE-SW and NW-SE services - and not by taking out the trains which do call at Crewe! The "fast" Euston-Glasgows already skip the station, with a serious adverse effect for many journeys down the WCML where a connection at Crewe would make a big difference to the attractiveness of a rail journey.The northern mayors should be prioritising a Crewe bypass rather than Phase 2a