HS2 Manchester leg scrapped: what should happen now?

[Starmill]

Reducing the number of trains between Manchester Airport and Central Manchester would enable 2 tph from London to Manchester to be diverted via the Styal line, thus relieving Stockport; this was the original purpose of the Styal line.

Manchester is not sufficently important to justify building extra rail infrastructure to relieve the current lines from Manchester Piccadilly to Cheadle Hulme.

So you just move the conflicts from Cheadle Hulme to Wilmslow. This has been explained previously, it's not going to bring the benefits you claim.

 

[The Planner]

Reducing the number of trains between Manchester Airport and Central Manchester would enable 2 tph from London to Manchester to be diverted via the Styal line, thus relieving Stockport; this was the original purpose of the Styal line.

Manchester is not sufficently important to justify building extra rail infrastructure to relieve the current lines from Manchester Piccadilly to Cheadle Hulme.

Wilmslow and Slade Lane say hello. How many trains do you need off the Styals to reliably get 2tph that way? Bearing in mind you only have 1tph London Manchester via Crewe anyway. If Manchester isnt important enough for new rail infrastructure, why are we building TRU?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If you thing Margate and Folkestone are the south of the country you either have a very warped perspective or an even stranger idea of our geography.

Where do you think those two coastal resorts are situated if not on the south coast. It's not me with the very warped perspective or a strange geographic bent. Have you been looking at a map of the British Isles upside down?

Wilmslow and Slade Lane say hello. How many trains do you need off the Styals to reliably get 2tph that way? Bearing in mind you only have 1tph London Manchester via Crewe anyway. If Manchester isnt important enough for new rail infrastructure, why are we building TRU?

Let us not also forget the freight services that use the Styal line.

 

[daodao]

How many trains do you need off the Styals to reliably get 2tph that way? Bearing in mind you only have 1tph London Manchester via Crewe anyway.

2 tph could run from London to Manchester via Crewe and the Styal loop, with just 1 tph from London to Manchester via the slower North Staffs line. 2 tph would need to be removed from the Manchester Airport to Central Manchester service.

If Manchester isnt important enough for new rail infrastructure, why are we building TRU?

By new rail infrastructure, I meant a new line, not an upgrade of existing infrastructure, which is all that TRU is.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

2 tph would need to be removed from the Manchester Airport to Central Manchester service.

I am sure that the operators of Manchester Airport would raise matters of disquiet, if such a matter as that would not fit in their plans for airline passenger access to the airport

 

[The Planner]

2 tph could run from London to Manchester via Crewe and the Styal loop, with just 1 tph from London to Manchester via the slower North Staffs line. 2 tph would need to be removed from the Manchester Airport to Central Manchester service.


By new rail infrastructure, I meant a new line, not an upgrade of existing infrastructure, which is all that TRU is.

Its not a straight swap. You will need to take more than 2tph off the Styals to keep journey times as well as the junction margins at Heald Green. Why does Stockport have to have its services to London reduced by 66%? Its quicker via Stoke by 7-8 minutes.

Let us not also forget the freight services that use the Styal line.

I have assumed you don't touch those.

 

[GJMarshy]

After a fair bit of reflection, this is what I think the end-state of HS2 will be as of 2050-2055:

It seems likely Labour's review will conclude that at a minimum HS2 2a is necessary, although I suspect that will be the last project associated with "HS2" as a brand. It is a brand which has unfortunately become toxic at this point.

The next bit of infrastructure we'll likely see will be a solution to the Castlefield issue (This likely in the form of a simple point-point bypass tunnel), followed by a new line to Liverpool roughly following the M60, making it fairly simple and cheap to construct compared to the route via the airport that added significantly to the cost of NPR, so much so the economics don't stack up without HS2 following it also.

The last piece in the jigsaw will likely be essentially the same route from Crewe as far as Tatton, only connecting with the east-west NPR line near Cadishead (instead of running via Mcr Airport)

I'd also hazard as guess trains will be limited to a more standard 260m in length, which should make constructing an underground through station in manchester for example, much cheaper. The side effect of this however is we';; need ore trains to compensate. Swings and roundabouts much?

In terms of links to Leeds, I can't see anything more than TRU being delivered pre-2055, mostly due to just how expensive such a line would be. Using known nodes and the rough TfN alignment, I've found roughly 50% of the line would be in tunnel. If it were built, I'd suspect two stages: Mcr to east of Marsden, and north of Huddersfield to Leeds.

In terms of Golborne link to Scotland, in my view, get it built! Only there just doesn't seem political appetite for it, and with a purpose-built link into Liverpool, and more trains using the line from those cities (shorter train sets) it should use up HS2's capacity, thereby not hitting the BCR so hard by missing the link.

Marshy.

 

[eldomtom2]

It seems likely Labour's review will conclude that at a minimum HS2 2a is necessary,

What review by Labour? IIRC they haven't said anything about doing a review.

 

[HSTEd]

I'd also hazard as guess trains will be limited to a more standard 260m in length, which should make constructing an underground through station in manchester for example, much cheaper. The side effect of this however is we';; need ore trains to compensate. Swings and roundabouts much?

Assuming you have the same number of platforms, I doubt building a station for 400m trains will really be that much more expensive (as part of the entire scheme) than one for 260m trains, and by doing the later you will be permanently reducing the capacity of the route by 35%.

 

[GJMarshy]

What review by Labour? IIRC they haven't said anything about doing a review.

This review was commissioned by Labour. (FT article may be behind a paywall for some, however a quick google should bring up the same story in other news outlets)

Jurgen is a clever fella, I'm confident he will push Labour to deliver 2a at a minimum, even I=f it mean re-badging it as a "relief line" etc to gain public support.

 

[eldomtom2]

Former Siemens chief to lead new Labour rail review

Jürgen Maier to oversee report on UK railway and transport infrastructure delivery ahead of general election

www.ft.com

Jurgen is a clever fella, I'm confident he will push Labour to deliver 2a at a minimum, even I=f it mean re-badging it as a "relief line" etc to gain public support.

From that article the review isn't about what projects to do though.

 

[Class15]

Former Siemens chief to lead new Labour rail review

Jürgen Maier to oversee report on UK railway and transport infrastructure delivery ahead of general election

www.ft.com

Jurgen is a clever fella, I'm confident he will push Labour to deliver 2a at a minimum, even I=f it mean re-badging it as a "relief line" etc to gain public support.

Under a paywall, could you please attach text?

 

[AndrewE]

Where do you think those two coastal resorts are situated if not on the south coast. It's not me with the very warped perspective or a strange geographic bent. Have you been looking at a map of the British Isles upside down?

Actually Margate faces north - but maybe not in your world!
and how on earth do you think that HS1 could in any way "dramatically improve connectivity between the South coast and the midlands and the N"

I think that the citizens of Brighton, Southampton, Portsmouth (and at least half a dozen other significant places) will be in stitches at your assertion that HS1 serves the "south coast." At least some of us in the North of the UK have an idea of geography - and I thought it was just the people in the London bubble that knew nothing about the rest of the country...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Actually Margate faces north - but maybe not in your world!
and how on earth do you think that HS1 could in any way "dramatically improve connectivity between the South coast and the midlands and the N"

Is Ashford International railway station not a station in the south of England served by HS1? Margate also faces both land and sea areas in its coastal location and one has to travel in a southerly direction from London to reach it, despite what you might think to the otherwise. Wilmslow, in my local area, faces north, east, south and west, but it does not alter the actual geographical location in where it is so situate.

Perhaps my advanced age of 78 and living in the better part of Cheshire East for most of my life is now telling its toll on my cognitive ability, geography-wise. Nonetheless, this thread has nothing whatsoever to do with any south coast area.

 

[AndrewE]

Is Ashford International railway station not a station in the south of England served by HS1? Margate also faces both land and sea areas in its coastal location and one has to travel in a southerly direction from London to reach it, despite what you might think to the otherwise. Wilmslow, in my local area, faces north, east, south and west, but it does not alter the actual geographical location in where it is so situate.

Asford, population 83,213 (and definitely not on the south coast.)
Compared with how many millions living in the towns along the coast from, say, Weymouth to Hastings?
I talked about the South Coast. You introduced the south of the country to justify your ludicrous assertion that HS1 serves the south, which it clearly doesn't, much.

 

[Mag_seven]

Can we get back to looking at the HS2 Manchester leg which is very much a Northern scheme.

Thanks

 

[Mgameing123]

They should just reinstate the entire thing. HS2 right now is exactly what its said to be for many. A scheme that only benefits London meanwhile the entire scheme as a whole would make Birmingham a much more important city and especially connect the north!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

They should just reinstate the entire thing. HS2 right now is exactly what its said to be for many. A scheme that only benefits London meanwhile the entire scheme as a whole would make Birmingham a much more important city and especially connect the north!

Birmingham, being the second city of England, already has no need for more importance.

 

[may032]

After a fair bit of reflection, this is what I think the end-state of HS2 will be as of 2050-2055:

I agree we will see some kind of 2a for all the reasons previously discussed in this thread. However, unfortunately, I think what NPR ends up being is anyone’s guess at this point.

I’m not convinced the currently earmarked £17bn for Liverpool to Manchester is going to cover anything close to a new line AND tunnel across Manchester.

 

[may032]

Birmingham, being the second city of England, already has no need for more importance.

I would argue that in many people’s view Manchester is the UK’s second city from a cultural and business standpoint nowadays, and Birmingham being the centre of a full HS2 network could certainly have changed that!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I would argue that in many people’s view Manchester is the UK’s second city from a cultural and business standpoint nowadays, and Birmingham being the centre of a full HS2 network could certainly have changed that!

You may very well think that, I couldn't possibly comment.....

 

[Krokodil]

I would argue that in many people’s view Manchester is the UK’s second city from a cultural and business standpoint nowadays, and Birmingham being the centre of a full HS2 network could certainly have changed that!

Manchester being the crossroads between HS2 and NPR on the other hand...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There is far more to major city status than just railways.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

After a fair bit of reflection, this is what I think the end-state of HS2 will be as of 2050-2055:

It seems likely Labour's review will conclude that at a minimum HS2 2a is necessary, although I suspect that will be the last project associated with "HS2" as a brand. It is a brand which has unfortunately become toxic at this point.

The next bit of infrastructure we'll likely see will be a solution to the Castlefield issue (This likely in the form of a simple point-point bypass tunnel), followed by a new line to Liverpool roughly following the M60, making it fairly simple and cheap to construct compared to the route via the airport that added significantly to the cost of NPR, so much so the economics don't stack up without HS2 following it also.

The last piece in the jigsaw will likely be essentially the same route from Crewe as far as Tatton, only connecting with the east-west NPR line near Cadishead (instead of running via Mcr Airport)

I'd also hazard as guess trains will be limited to a more standard 260m in length, which should make constructing an underground through station in manchester for example, much cheaper. The side effect of this however is we';; need ore trains to compensate. Swings and roundabouts much?

In terms of links to Leeds, I can't see anything more than TRU being delivered pre-2055, mostly due to just how expensive such a line would be. Using known nodes and the rough TfN alignment, I've found roughly 50% of the line would be in tunnel. If it were built, I'd suspect two stages: Mcr to east of Marsden, and north of Huddersfield to Leeds.

In terms of Golborne link to Scotland, in my view, get it built! Only there just doesn't seem political appetite for it, and with a purpose-built link into Liverpool, and more trains using the line from those cities (shorter train sets) it should use up HS2's capacity, thereby not hitting the BCR so hard by missing the link.

Marshy.

Wishful thinking I'm afraid - Labour has not even committed to safeguarding the Phase 2a land.

I assume you mean the M62 / M602 corridor for a new NPR route. Worsley to Broad Green might be relatively straightforward - but you still have the issue of getting into Liverpool and Manchester. You would require equally long tunnels as Phase 2b unless you use the existing L & M tracks.

 

[class26]

I would argue that in many people’s view Manchester is the UK’s second city from a cultural and business standpoint nowadays, and Birmingham being the centre of a full HS2 network could certainly have changed that!

mostly those that live in the north near manchester and whilst this has been argued many times on here birmingham is way larger than manchester who only achieves its population and size by counting all surrounding towns and conurbations. If Birmingham did the same and counted Dudley , Walsall, Wolverhampton, Coventry, Redditch, Sandwell, Coventry etc brum would turn the tables

 

[Grimsby town]

mostly those that live in the north near manchester and whilst this has been argued many times on here birmingham is way larger than manchester who only achieves its population and size by counting all surrounding towns and conurbations. If Birmingham did the same and counted Dudley , Walsall, Wolverhampton, Coventry, Redditch, Sandwell, Coventry etc brum would turn the tables

But if the surrounding towns are fairly reliant on Manchester, then it makes sense to include that population. I've always thought the best way to express the population of city is it's Travel to Work Area. Manchester is 2nd by some way on this count with a population of 2.6 million. Birmingham is 3rd with a population of 1.7 million. While Manchester has separate towns, these are generally quite small so everything is concentrated in central Manchester. In the West Midlands, Wolverhampton and Coventry are decent sized centres that compete more against Birmingham.

To bring it back to the original topic, Manchester has far worse local rail services than Birmingham. The closest thing it has to high frequency local services like the Cross city or Snow Hill lines, is the Stockport corridor which has two stations. Outside of Bolton, Stockport, and Rochdale pretty much every station has 1 or 2 trains per hour. More rail capacity is needed to rectify that.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

To bring it back to the original topic, Manchester has far worse local rail services than Birmingham. The closest thing it has to high frequency local services like the Cross city or Snow Hill lines, is the Stockport corridor which has two stations. Outside of Bolton, Stockport, and Rochdale pretty much every station has 1 or 2 trains per hour. More rail capacity is needed to rectify that.

Which of those lines in particular in the Greater Manchester area are currently carrying 100% capacity and are in need of extra services as a result? I understand Mayor Burnham has plans for the rail network in that region, so perhaps he is the one to approach over that matter.

 

[eldomtom2]

Which of those lines in particular in the Greater Manchester area are currently carrying 100% capacity and are in need of extra services as a result?

If you're at one or two trains per hour, you're definitely not at the point where the only reason to add frequency is to increase capacity...

 

[Grimsby town]

If you're at one or two trains per hour, you're definitely not at the point where the only reason to add frequency is to increase capacity...

Exactly! The key to attracting shorter intra-city journeys to rail is frequency. Ideally every 15 minutes. TfGMs 2040 transport vision and rail vision include a minimum frequency of 4 trains per hour at all stations. TfN have a less ambitious target of 2 trains per hour. If the railway can't offer that mimum frequency to nearly all stations in Manchester, we might as well give up on Northern leveling up.

 

[Starmill]

What review by Labour? IIRC they haven't said anything about doing a review.

They've not, but it's highly likely they would do if they were to form a government.