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

[chris2]

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.

Unless I’ve misunderstood, at Handsacre the fasts are in the middle of the layout but at Whitmore they’re on the east (sorry I don’t know proper railway terminology to describe this). The alternatives doc suggestion was that if HS2 were to have exclusive use of the fasts from Whitmore to Crewe, and this could be reasonable on the basis that HS2 would be replacing at least most of the intercity services, they could join the WCML there on a flat junction and run the distance to Crewe on the existing fasts. But happy to be put right if I’m misunderstanding.

 

[The Planner]

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?

With HS2 phase 2a to Whitmore, I can see:

• 6-8 tph HS2, which will go onto the fasts
• 2-4tph from the West-Midlands towards Liverpool and Preston, and 2tph from WCML Trent valley , which could merge onto the fasts at Whitmore, or run on the slows for a bit to a new flat crossover in the vicinity of Madeley, or go all the way to Crewe on the slows
• 2-5tph freights, which would run on the slows (i.e. twice as many freights as now)

A flat junction would need care to timetable, but surely no worse than Ledburn or Hanslope today.

Am I missing something? Most of the passenger traffic north from Stafford would head towards Stoke, via the Norton Bridge underpass.


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 2a

Ledburn has always been expected to get grade separated if HS2 never happened. Hanslope doesnt get a lot of crossing moves. If HS2 extends past Handsacre towards Crewe I wouldnt be surprised if its done on a shoe string and a flat junction is considered. It would be the wrong decision though IMO as it again fixes your timetable around HS2 trains, you would have more flexibility with a grade separation.

Unless I’ve misunderstood, at Handsacre the fasts are in the middle of the layout but at Whitmore they’re on the east (sorry I don’t know proper railway terminology to describe this). The alternatives doc suggestion was that if HS2 were to have exclusive use of the fasts from Whitmore to Crewe, and this could be reasonable on the basis that HS2 would be replacing at least most of the intercity services, they could join the WCML there on a flat junction and run the distance to Crewe on the existing fasts. But happy to be put right if I’m misunderstanding.

Bear in mind that depending on the signalling solution, a flat junction with 7 or 8 trains crossing the up fast every hour will need the best part of 40 minutes of the hour, so 66% of the capacity. Its a brave decision to say they are fast line exclusive. You effectively make the fast lines redundant south of the junction.

 

[Nottingham59]

Unless I’ve misunderstood, at Handsacre the fasts are in the middle of the layout but at Whitmore they’re on the east (sorry I don’t know proper railway terminology to describe this).

That's right. The layout at Whitmore is DS US DF UF, where Up is towards London.

The alternatives doc suggestion was that if HS2 were to have exclusive use of the fasts from Whitmore to Crewe, and this could be reasonable on the basis that HS2 would be replacing at least most of the intercity services, they could join the WCML there on a flat junction and run the distance to Crewe on the existing fasts. But happy to be put right if I’m misunderstanding.

The alternative says that, but it would make more sense to allow trains already on the Fast Lines from Stafford to be able to stay on the fast lines and merge with the HS2 traffic at a flat junction. But you would still need a crossover on the Stafford line south of Whitmore to allow some trains on the fasts to move over onto the slows to get out of the way of the HS2 traffic.

Hanslope doesnt get a lot of crossing moves. If HS2 extends past Handsacre towards Crewe I wouldnt be surprised if its done on a shoe string and a flat junction is considered.

The mayors need to keep the immediate costs to an absolute minimum to get any hope of getting this built.

It would be the wrong decision though IMO as it again fixes your timetable around HS2 trains, you would have more flexibility with a grade separation.

Agree. But it would be possible to add grade separation later at minimal cost, by allowing HS2 northbound to merge onto the Down Slow, as shown here:


I'd build a flat junction off the fasts (solid blue line), with passive provision for HS2 to continue north with grade separation at a later date.

When necessary (not in the first phase), I'd build a viaduct to take northbound HS2 trains over all four lines to merge onto the Down Slow just before Baldwin's Gate village (dotted blue line).

This layout would:

• minimise disruption to the WCML, keeping all tracks where they are today
• Put 110mph HS2 trains on the slows to Crewe, allowing 125mph Pendolinos from Birmingham to overtake them around the curves in Baldwin's Gate
• Reduce curvatures for northbound and southbound HS2 traffic
• Exploit the local topography to lift the HS2 chord over the WCML on a single bridge, with a short viaduct.

You'd need a double staircase crossover in the vicinity of Stableford to allow fast trains from Stafford to move across onto the slows, to get out of the way of the main HS2 traffic, and a (single?) staircase in the vicinity of Madeley, to allow HS2 trains and trains from Wolverhampton to get onto the fasts.

 

[The Planner]

That's right. The layout at Whitmore is DS US DF UF, where Up is towards London.


The alternative says that, but it would make more sense to allow trains already on the Fast Lines from Stafford to be able to stay on the fast lines and merge with the HS2 traffic at a flat junction. But you would still need a crossover on the Stafford line south of Whitmore to allow some trains on the fasts to move over onto the slows to get out of the way of the HS2 traffic.


The mayors need to keep the immediate costs to an absolute minimum to get any hope of getting this built.


Agree. But it would be possible to add grade separation later at minimal cost, by allowing HS2 northbound to merge onto the Down Slow, as shown here:
View attachment 154835

I'd build a flat junction off the fasts (solid blue line), with passive provision for HS2 to continue north with grade separation at a later date.

When necessary (not in the first phase), I'd build a viaduct to take northbound HS2 trains over all four lines to merge onto the Down Slow just before Baldwin's Gate village (dotted blue line).

This layout would:

• minimise disruption to the WCML, keeping all tracks where they are today
• Put 110mph HS2 trains on the slows to Crewe, allowing 125mph Pendolinos from Birmingham to overtake them around the curves in Baldwin's Gate
• Reduce curvatures for northbound and southbound HS2 traffic
• Exploit the local topography to lift the HS2 chord over the WCML on a single bridge, with a short viaduct.

You'd need a double staircase crossover in the vicinity of Stableford to allow fast trains from Stafford to move across onto the slows, to get out of the way of the main HS2 traffic, and a (single?) staircase in the vicinity of Madeley, to allow HS2 trains and trains from Wolverhampton to get onto the fasts.

That is assuming Crewe gets bypassed and you save no money by building grade separation on HS2, its effectively Basford Hall again further south. Just build the grade separation from the start and you dont need to put in a complex junction south of there to just constrain the slow lines even further.

 

[HSTEd]

This layout would:

• minimise disruption to the WCML, keeping all tracks where they are today
• Put 110mph HS2 trains on the slows to Crewe, allowing 125mph Pendolinos from Birmingham to overtake them around the curves in Baldwin's Gate
• Reduce curvatures for northbound and southbound HS2 traffic
• Exploit the local topography to lift the HS2 chord over the WCML on a single bridge, with a short viaduct.

You'd need a double staircase crossover in the vicinity of Stableford to allow fast trains from Stafford to move across onto the slows, to get out of the way of the main HS2 traffic, and a (single?) staircase in the vicinity of Madeley, to allow HS2 trains and trains from Wolverhampton to get onto the fasts.

If this is built, would there be 125mph Pendolinos from Birmingham?
Will the Pendo really beat HS2 trains to Birmingham?

Not sure Wolverhampton would be able to justify it by itself given the trains will be fighting HS2 trains for the paths north of there.

 

[Nottingham59]

If this is built, would there be 125mph Pendolinos from Birmingham?

Where else would they go? I understand Pendo's have 15-20 years life left in them. The only routes that would make sense to use them are Birmingham or Manchester or Liverpool to Scotland. (Pendos will be so much faster than HS2 trains to Scotland that it would be faster to curtail HS2 at Preston, and timetabling a 10-minute cross-platform change to Pendolinos for the rest of the journey).

Maybe the MML? or the Berks and Hants and/or Birmingham-Bristol-Exeter?

The ECML and GWML aren't curvy enough to justfify tilt; and I'd expect the WCML south of Crewe to become a 110mph railway (with maybe 1-2tph at 125mph north of Miton Keynes).

Will the Pendo really beat HS2 trains to Birmingham?

Don't know, I've not done the maths. I'm sure Pendo's from New St to Crewe via Stafford will beat HS2 from Curzon St to Crewe via Handsacre. If phase 2a gets built, then I'd expect it to be more equal. But if the HS2 route does win out, then there will be even fewer trains from Stafford to Crewe, making a flat junction at Whitmore even easier to justify.

Not sure Wolverhampton would be able to justify it by itself given the trains will be fighting HS2 trains for the paths north of there.

Agree. Same issue as Milton Keynes, which will have a very much reduced service northbound when HS2 opens.

 

[HSTEd]

Where else would they go? I understand Pendo's have 15-20 years life left in them. The only routes that would make sense to use them are Birmingham or Manchester or Liverpool to Scotland. (Pendos will be so much faster than HS2 trains to Scotland that it would be faster to curtail HS2 at Preston, and timetabling a 10-minute cross-platform change to Pendolinos for the rest of the journey).

Well whilst they might notionally have 15 years left in them, I don't think it would be particularly wasteful to send 30 year old trains for razorblades.
Their tilt systems would be an ongoing maintenance headache for anyone who got them, unless they were converted like the CrossCountry 221s and had the tilt functionality removed.

Maybe the MML? or the Berks and Hants and/or Birmingham-Bristol-Exeter?

Well there is no guarantee any of those lines will be electrified any time soon!
They might be a decent fit if there were, but they will be approaching end of life so I wouldn't expect a major career anywhere else.

Don't know, I've not done the maths. I'm sure Pendo's from New St to Crewe via Stafford will beat HS2 from Curzon St to Crewe via Handsacre.

Picking a random Euston-Birmingham-Glasgow train, I get ~1hr02 from Birmingham New Street to Crewe (times from OpenTrainTimes).
Picking a random Euston-Crewe-Manchester train, I get ~31 minutes from Crewe to Lichfield North Junction.
Lichfield North Junction is probably a conservative timing point for the Handsacre junction, but I can't think of a better one.

That would give the train something like half an hour to get from Handsacre to Curzon Street and still beat the conventional train.

Now the HS2 train might lose a few minutes due to not having tilt, but I doubt it will be particularly close!

If any extra track is built to eliminate the capacity constraints at Handsacre, the line through Wolverhampton is going to get absolutely thrashed.
The 60/75mph drag between New Street and Wolves just eats too much time.

 

[Nottingham59]

Well whilst they might notionally have 15 years left in them, I don't think it would be particularly wasteful to send 30 year old trains for razorblades.
Their tilt systems would be an ongoing maintenance headache for anyone who got them, unless they were converted like the CrossCountry 221s and had the tilt functionality removed.



Well there is no guarantee any of those lines will be electrified any time soon!
They might be a decent fit if there were, but they will be approaching end of life so I wouldn't expect a major career anywhere else.


Picking a random Euston-Birmingham-Glasgow train, I get ~1hr02 from Birmingham New Street to Crewe (times from OpenTrainTimes).
Picking a random Euston-Crewe-Manchester train, I get ~31 minutes to Lichfield North Junction.
Lichfield NOrth Junction is probably a conservative timing point for the Handsacre junction, but I can't think of a better one.

That would give the train something like half an hour to get from Handsacre to Curzon Street and still beat the conventional train.

Now the HS2 train might lose a few minutes due to not having tilt, but I doubt it will be particularly close!

If any extra track is built to eliminate the capacity constraints at Handsacre, the line through Wolverhampton is going to get absolutely thrashed.
The 60/75mph drag between New Street and Wolves just eats too much time.

Thank you. That's very helpful. So even with just HS2 phase 1, there is scope for 1-2 tph heading north from Curzon Street, presumably to Liverpool and to Preston. I assume that all Birmingham-Manchester traffic will still go via Stoke.

So I'll have to amend what I said in post #328.

With HS2 phase 2a to Whitmore, I'd now envisge the fast lines from Whitmore to Crewe being used exclusively by HS2 traffic, and the four tracks from Stafford combining to form a two track railway around Stableford, connecting with the slows to Crewe.

Frequencies might be:

• 8-10 tph HS2 (2 from Curzon St, 6-8 from Euston), which will go on the fast
• 1-2tph from the West-Midlands towards Liverpool and/or Preston, and 2tph from WCML Trent valley, which should run on the slows to Crewe
• 2-5tph freights, which would run on the slows (i.e. twice as many freights as now)

You could still have a flat junction at Whitmore, and'or a crossover at Madeley for flexibilty.

 

[MarkyT]

Where else would they go? I understand Pendo's have 15-20 years life left in them...Maybe the Berks and Hants or Birmingham-Bristol-Exeter?

B&H maybe, but it'd have to be electrified completely to the trains' eventual destination, Plymouth in most cases. Birmingham-Exeter is quite gently curved and already supports 125mph in many places without tilt. Across the Somerset levels the track is arrow straight for miles in many places but civil engineers have always objected to raising the current speed further due to poor ground conditions under the trackbed, so tilt couldn't make a difference in the former marshland.

The ECML and GWML aren't curvy enough to justfify tilt; and I'd expect the WCML south of Crewe to become a 110mph railway (with maybe 1-2tph at 125mph north of Miton Keynes).

The WCML isn't curvy everywhere. In many areas, especially further north, non-tilt trains could go faster theoretically if desired and appropriately signed. The West Coast Route Modernisation Enhanced Permissible Speed scheme didn't raise the non-tilt conventional speed where that was possible because at the time the only trains planned to exploit the higher speed were the Pendolinos and tilt-equipped Voyagers that had the TASS system onboard, permitting the higher speeds wherever possible, but not deploying tilt everywhere to achieve it. The Baldwins Gate ~1500m curves are one area where tilt gives an advantage but other curves north of there to Crewe are gentler, so might avoid tilt altogether.

 

[The Planner]

Thank you. That's very helpful. So even with just HS2 phase 1, there is scope for 1-2 tph heading north from Curzon Street, presumably to Liverpool and to Preston. I assume that all Birmingham-Manchester traffic will still go via Stoke.

So I'll have to amend what I said in post #328.

With HS2 phase 2a to Whitmore, I'd now envisge the fast lines from Whitmore to Crewe being used exclusively by HS2 traffic, and the four tracks from Stafford combining to form a two track railway around Stableford, connecting with the slows to Crewe.

Frequencies might be:

• 8-10 tph HS2 (2 from Curzon St, 6-8 from Euston), which will go on the fast
• 1-2tph from the West-Midlands towards Liverpool and/or Preston, and 2tph from WCML Trent valley, which should run on the slows to Crewe
• 2-5tph freights, which would run on the slows (i.e. twice as many freights as now)

You could still have a flat junction at Whitmore, and'or a crossover at Madeley for flexibilty.

I will bet serious money on a Curzon St Manchester service. There is no chance of the Stafford to Crewe section becoming two tracks.

 

[Nunners]

I will bet serious money on a Curzon St Manchester service. There is no chance of the Stafford to Crewe section becoming two tracks.

There was 2tph doing that in the original HS2 plans. Even with only Handsacre, you'd save loads of time either via Stafford/Stoke, Crewe or Colwich/Stoke.

 

[Nottingham59]

I will bet serious money on a Curzon St Manchester service. There is no chance of the Stafford to Crewe section becoming two tracks.

You're right of course. The plan is after all being hatched by the mayors of Manchester and the West Midlands.

 

[Verulamius]

Could some additional use be made of the Independent Lines junctions north of Crewe? Putting some platforms on those lines might help reduce conflicts?

 

[The Planner]

Could some additional use be made of the Independent Lines junctions north of Crewe? Putting some platforms on those lines might help reduce conflicts?

Was looked at during the very early days and discounted. The amount of work to get the Independants up to a suitable speed is substantial.

 

[Krokodil]

Was looked at during the very early days and discounted. The amount of work to get the Independants up to a suitable speed is substantial.

Pity, it would have avoided the Cardiff-Manchesters crossing the entire station at-grade.

 

[Nottingham59]

Was looked at during the very early days and discounted. The amount of work to get the Independants up to a suitable speed is substantial.

What speed are they now? And what speed would be appropriate for passenger trains stopping at the platform?

 

[The Planner]

What speed are they now? And what speed would be appropriate for passenger trains stopping at the platform?

10mph

 

[Nottingham59]

10mph

I see the problem. Thank you

AUTOMERGED:

If Phase 2a is built to Whitmore in the first instance, then the problem for the mayors becomes how to continue the HS2 line from Whitmore to the vicinity of Manchester Airport. It could go along the existing planned alignment, including a tunnel directly under Crewe station, or it could bypass Crewe to the East. A direct line from Whitmore to the Airport would be shorter than the planned route that zigzigs to the West of Knutsford, but I don't know if it would be any cheaper.

And with a spur onto the WCML Fasts at Whitmore, I don't see why HS2 needs to go to Crewe at all.

Apart from lengthening some platforms to 400m, what other work would be needed at Crewe? With an HS2 bypass (to the East or in a tunnel underneath), surely there will be fewer trains passing through Crewe station than now?

 

[Peter Sarf]

Here is an example of money that could presumably be saved elsewhere if HS2 got built to/beyond Crewe or if HS2 Phase1 got connected to NPR via Crewe.

Here is the more complex answer to the power supply issues from a good known source:

"The government's direct involvement has been a forced reduction in the scope of the power supply upgrades along the Crewe - Preston section, and that's in addition to the poor supply capacity north and south of Carlisle as others have mentioned. The "new" feeder at Willow Park (close to Newton-le-Willows, and replacing the old Parkside feeder) was supposed to support autotransformer feeding all the way to the neutral section at Crewe Coal Yard; work started, as evidenced by the newer added insulators at the top of the structures, but got stopped by the government as a cost saving measure. The result is that the section between the neutrals at Crewe Coal Yard and just north of Weaver Junction (both Runcorn and Warrington routes) is still being fed by an old arrangement of conductors and circuit breakers. This has always been a weak section, I'm sure that drivers of (class) 90- and 92-hauled trains along here can confirm that. One problem that it is fed through old oil-filled circuit breakers, which can only see a limited number of trips (30?) before the oil must be changed; clearly this is a maintenance cost that Network Rail could do without. A related problem is that the poor supply is distorted by pairs of 90s, particularly those accelerating along the Down Slow Line north from Crewe where much of the train is still on the climb out of Basford Hall yard; and this distortion can cause premature overload circuit trips (the "distance protection" on the feeder sees a waveform distortion and assumes it's a line fault, not a freight train).

Of course this whole area would have had its feeder arrangements altered when work on HS2 was carried out in the Crewe area, but we know what's happened to that....."

 

[Nottingham59]

Could some additional use be made of the Independent Lines junctions north of Crewe? Putting some platforms on those lines might help reduce conflicts?

These were still in the plans three years ago.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60253155e90e0705676ddb41/F1_Crewe_v1.2.pdf

HS2 PHASE 2a INFORMATION PAPER (Feb 2021)

a new platform at Crewe station on the ‘Manchester independent’ lines,
currently used for freight. This has been varied from an island platform on the
independents to that of a single facing platform on the Manchester
Independents with bi-directional track to allow passenger services, such as the
Cardiff-Manchester service, to approach from the west of Crewe and leave to
the east.

 

[The Ham]

Comparing the demand for public transport to travel into London and Manchester city centres is like comparing chalk and cheese. If there is additional capacity need for travelling by rail into central Manchester from local suburban stations, train length should first be increased from the existing 3-4 coaches per train. For Metrolink services such as that from Altrincham, it would be achieved by ensuring that each service is run by a double tram.

It provides virtually no justification for building HS2 phase 2b.

As others have said, where do those longer trains go?

Also, how about Basingstoke Reading, which sees 3tph with circa 3 coaches per train (the XC trains are longer, but have low capacity in the end coaches)? Both ends towns are fairly small (at least compared to Manchester) with small staitons between, and whilst some will be heading to/from London at each end which will increase demand unlikely by enough to offset the much smaller populations.

 

[ekm]

Well, even that could be redesigned to save money.
An underground section in the airport vicinity, a viaduct along the M56/Princess Parkway till a point south of Northenden Interchange on the M60, then tunnel. That would save several miles of tunneling.

The speculation and delay re a decision on the South Manchester Tunnel from Airport to new subterranean Piccadilly station is already causing blight. Am I right in reading that Parliament make a decision on funding HS2-2b leg before the 2024 summer recess?

I didn't think so. More platforms needed then, such as the ones that would have been built for HS2/NPR.

Burnham wants these subterranean

 

[AlastairFraser]

The speculation and delay re a decision on the South Manchester Tunnel from Airport to new subterranean Piccadilly station is already causing blight. Am I right in reading that Parliament make a decision on funding HS2-2b leg before the 2024 summer recess?

Parliament will not provide any funding AFAIK, down to regional govts and the private sector.

 

[hwl]

Parliament will not provide any funding AFAIK, down to regional govts and the private sector.

... but around Manchester airport is the part of 2B that is included in NPR.

 

[AlastairFraser]

... but around Manchester airport is the part of 2B that is included in NPR.

Indeed, has there been any actual commitments to funding NPR or just promises?

 

[Danfilm007]

Indeed, has there been any actual commitments to funding NPR or just promises?

My understanding that it and IRP was agreed in 2021/2022 but not much has happened since?

 

[AlastairFraser]

My understanding that it and IRP was agreed in 2021/2022 but not much has happened since?

Maybe I'm cynical but I think that's just another unfulfilled govt. promise in waiting, similar to the North Wales Main Line electrification.

 

[Danfilm007]

Maybe I'm cynical but I think that's just another unfulfilled govt. promise in waiting, similar to the North Wales Main Line electrification.

I'm hoping not for sure! Would be transformational and the fact they are still progressing the HS2 Phase 2b Bill in Parliament means it must still be open...

 

[AlastairFraser]

I'm hoping not for sure! Would be transformational and the fact they are still progressing the HS2 Phase 2b Bill in Parliament means it must still be open...

We all have to live in hope with the current shower...

 

[chris2]

A question about Euston future proofing - it's been suggested that a 6 platform Euston would hobble the HS2 network indefinitely. I'm not about to disagree with that suggestion, but the question is which land would it be built on and what be removed from future possibilities?

Below is a screen grab from the HS2 website showing the layout of tracks at the station. Whilst I understand this may be somewhat figurative and not necessarily completely accurate, it does seem reasonable in terms of which tracks occupy "new" station land adjacent to the current station and which tracks occupy land within the existing station footprint, in that Cobourg St appears to be the boundary of the site. I note that the "new" land occupation, according to this drawing at least, shows space for 6 tracks.

So, if a 6 platform Euston were built on the new land, wouldn't it be reasonable to say this isn't necessarily game over in terms of future expansion, in that the remaining 5 platforms would then be coming out of the existing station anyway?