HS2 Manchester leg scrapped: what should happen now?

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It might not be edorsed by considering a new facility could allow the closure of Trafford park which would work well with United plans to build a new stadium!

For those on this website who live many miles away from the Trafford Park area, what have been the most recent complaints raised by the suggestion of the small site size and associated rail facilities there that would suggest that there is not enough room around the existing rail fright/container traffic and that expansion there was not possible. Does anyone know how much has been spent on the existing rail site there since it was constructed. There is nearby motorway connections and good quality roads leading to it away from the general housing stock, being situate in the area of a large industrial estate.

Perhaps I have mis-read recent comments made by the new Manchester United board member about actually relocating the club away from the existing site to another location away from the Trafford Park area in order to build a "new stadium for the North".

 

[SJL2020]

Brexit Jim wants to build it next to the existing stadium, but apparently expects the taxpayer to pay for some it.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Brexit Jim wants to build it next to the existing stadium, but apparently expects the taxpayer to pay for some it.

Even the Manchester City supporting taxpayers.....surely not....

 

[Exilem]

Even the Manchester City supporting taxpayers.....surely not....

Well the taxpayer did pay for Manchester City's home.

The International Freight facility next to Old Trafford does appear to be owned by MUFC https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/property/united-scoring-in-property-market-918142 with a few early (speculative) non-official drawings indicating using at least part of the terminal land to build a potential second stadium.

Burnham made the point at the recent press conference that all recent new stadiums had required some public money for local infrastructure to support them.

So perhaps some governement/regional funds would actually be appropriate although we could debate on how much there should be.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Well the taxpayer did pay for Manchester City's home.

The International Freight facility next to Old Trafford does appear to be owned by MUFC https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/property/united-scoring-in-property-market-918142 with a few early (speculative) non-official drawings indicating using at least part of the terminal land to build a potential second stadium.

Burnham made the point at the recent press conference that all recent new stadiums had required some public money for local infrastructure to support them.

So perhaps some governement/regional funds would actually be appropriate although we could debate on how much there should be.

What was the total amount paid by the taxpayer that you state above? Has the club any repayment schedule of those incurred costs. Did the football club receive any money from their Maine Road stadium site when they relocated to the new stadium?

 

[Exilem]

What was the total amount paid by the taxpayer that you state above? Has the club any repayment schedule of those incurred costs. Did the football club receive any money from their Maine Road stadium site when they relocated to the new stadium?

City of Manchester Stadium (now called The Etihad) was built using taxpayer money for the Commonwealth games. MCFC lease the stadium from Manchester Council.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

City of Manchester Stadium (now called The Etihad) was built using taxpayer money for the Commonwealth games. MCFC lease the stadium from Manchester Council.

That explanation makes your previous posting somewhat clearer, as at first glance it could have appeared that taxpayers money specifically was used for the football club's stadium itself.

But let us not either of stray off topic with such a debate.

 

[FlyingPotato]

I have a question regarding HS2 to Manchester

So currently there is going to be 2 trains under HS2 but people are upset as that's less than now


In theory could you instead extend the Macclesfield train (if it's running) to Manchester to provide a slower but third train to Manchester to make people happy

 

[Nottingham59]

I have a question regarding HS2 to Manchester

So currently there is going to be 2 trains under HS2 but people are upset as that's less than now


In theory could you instead extend the Macclesfield train (if it's running) to Manchester to provide a slower but third train to Manchester to make people happy

According to the HS2 Phase One full business case, the Train Service Specification (TSS) had 3tph to Manchester and 1tph to Macclesfield. Whether that will be possible with just 6 platfroms at Euston, I don't know.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5fc51d7b8fa8f54755392863/full-business-case-hs2-phase-one.pdf

Image shows Full Phase1 TSS with 3tph to Curzon St and 7tph through Handsacre.

 

[Greybeard33]

According to the HS2 Phase One full business case, the Train Service Specification (TSS) had 3tph to Manchester and 1tph to Macclesfield. Whether that will be possible with just 6 platfroms at Euston, I don't know.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5fc51d7b8fa8f54755392863/full-business-case-hs2-phase-one.pdf

View attachment 154217
Image shows Full Phase1 TSS with 3tph to Curzon St and 7tph through Handsacre.

That "Statement of Intent" TSS was for Phase 1 PLUS Phase 2a (the "intent" at that time was to accelerate 2a construction for delivery before Euston opened). The same document had a "Statutory Powers" TSS for Phase 1 alone (finishing at Handsacre). This did not have a Macclesfield service, nor splitting and joining of Liverpool and Lancaster services at Crewe.

In any case that 2020 Business Case document has been overtaken by events.

 

[350401]

I have a question regarding HS2 to Manchester

So currently there is going to be 2 trains under HS2 but people are upset as that's less than now


In theory could you instead extend the Macclesfield train (if it's running) to Manchester to provide a slower but third train to Manchester to make people happy

The current plan I’ve seen is to still run 3tph from Manchester to London via HS2; and keeping 1/hour classic service via WCML Trent valley stations. The big issue is that the trains are currently planned as 200m 528 seat trains, which are shorter and lower capacity than the current 11 car pendolinos.

Currently, when the timetable works as planned without cancellations, there are 2x11 car and 1x9 car trains per hour - a total of 1683 seats an hour. 3 x 528 seats gives only 1584 seats an hour. However, adding on a 607 seat 11 car Pendolino via the Trent Valley bumps capacity up to 2191 seats an hour. Ministers will probably try and use that to claim a 30% capacity increase on the WCML, despite actual “fast” capacity going down.

 

[Peter Sarf]

The current plan I’ve seen is to still run 3tph from Manchester to London via HS2; and keeping 1/hour classic service via WCML Trent valley stations. The big issue is that the trains are currently planned as 200m 528 seat trains, which are shorter and lower capacity than the current 11 car pendolinos.

Currently, when the timetable works as planned without cancellations, there are 2x11 car and 1x9 car trains per hour - a total of 1683 seats an hour. 3 x 528 seats gives only 1584 seats an hour. However, adding on a 607 seat 11 car Pendolino via the Trent Valley bumps capacity up to 2191 seats an hour. Ministers will probably try and use that to claim a 30% capacity increase on the WCML, despite actual “fast” capacity going down.

I am left wondering if using 390s in place of new 200m HS2 classic compatible sets would be good enough ?.

We would have some 390s freed up by the use of pure HS2 sets to Birmingham.

 

[Energy]

I am left wondering if using 390s in place of new 200m HS2 classic compatible sets would be good enough ?.

We would have some 390s freed up by the use of pure HS2 sets to Birmingham.

You'd need to fit the 390s with ETCS, and they'd be getting fairly old by then.

I'd expect either 400m platforms at Manchester Picadilly (extending 4 and 5 was mapped in a previous thread) or a seperate order of extra intermediate cars.

 

[class26]

I am left wondering if using 390s in place of new 200m HS2 classic compatible sets would be good enough ?.

We would have some 390s freed up by the use of pure HS2 sets to Birmingham.

Roger Ford reckons a pendolino running at 140 mph on HS2 would save 15 minutes to Handsacre and could then tilt onwards on the WCML so not loosing any time.

 

[The Planner]

Roger Ford reckons a pendolino running at 140 mph on HS2 would save 15 minutes to Handsacre and could then tilt onwards on the WCML so not loosing any time.

Really? Its 68 minutes non stop to Rugeley at a significant majority of 125mph. 140mph is 3 seconds a mile faster so 20 miles for a minute. 15 minutes would need 300 miles, the 15 minutes cannot be Handsacre on its own, it doesnt make sense.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Whilst noting that this thread in one on the "Speculation" forum for obvious reasons, with certain Birmingham and Manchester mayoral recent inputs, can anyone at this moment in time say which matters of high-level meetings with a number of bodies can actually be recognised as a tentative first-step forward and also which private companies have expressed an interest into a new Birmingham to Manchester line to which they may contribute private financial backing.

I have enjoyed reading the postings that have discussed the rolling stock that could be used on such a line when it is fully operational.

 

[class26]

Really? Its 68 minutes non stop to Rugeley at a significant majority of 125mph. 140mph is 3 seconds a mile faster so 20 miles for a minute. 15 minutes would need 300 miles, the 15 minutes cannot be Handsacre on its own, it doesnt make sense.

Page 31, March edition of Modern Railways. Actually he says it would save "nearly" 15 minutes

 

[Nottingham59]

Really? Its 68 minutes non stop to Rugeley at a significant majority of 125mph. 140mph is 3 seconds a mile faster so 20 miles for a minute. 15 minutes would need 300 miles, the 15 minutes cannot be Handsacre on its own, it doesnt make sense.

How many sections are slower than 125mph? And where are they? Even a single km of 100mph running would have a significant impact given braking and re-acceleration times.

 

[philosopher]

Really? Its 68 minutes non stop to Rugeley at a significant majority of 125mph. 140mph is 3 seconds a mile faster so 20 miles for a minute. 15 minutes would need 300 miles, the 15 minutes cannot be Handsacre on its own, it doesnt make sense.

HS2 does look like it is a more a direct route than the WCML, so that has to be a factor as well. I am not sure of the exact comparison in distance though.

 

[Mountain Man]

Well the taxpayer did pay for Manchester City's home.

And public money was also spent on Old Trafford.

 

[The Planner]

How many sections are slower than 125mph? And where are they? Even a single km of 100mph running would have a significant impact given braking and re-acceleration times.

100mph starts at 3m 60ch, 120mph at 5m 53ch, 125mph at 7m 60ch. 110mph for 4 miles at Watford. 110mph through Kilsby Tunnel. Its 125mph everywhere else to Handsacre. Braking and acceleration in a 390 to those differences past the 125 at Wembley is minuscule. The 4 miles at Watford accounts for 20 seconds.

HS2 does look like it is a more a direct route than the WCML, so that has to be a factor as well. I am not sure of the exact comparison in distance though.

HS2 maps show Handsacre at 192km, so 119 miles. Handsacre on the WCML is pretty much the same distance, but it looks like it is correct 119 miles at 140mph (ignoring acceleration) is 51 minutes. Genuinely surprised at the difference between a fast Glasgow and that time.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Really? Its 68 minutes non stop to Rugeley at a significant majority of 125mph. 140mph is 3 seconds a mile faster so 20 miles for a minute. 15 minutes would need 300 miles, the 15 minutes cannot be Handsacre on its own, it doesnt make sense.

Scratches head. The above makes sense but you have then blown away the argument for HS2 !.

100mph starts at 3m 60ch, 120mph at 5m 53ch, 125mph at 7m 60ch. 110mph for 4 miles at Watford. 110mph through Kilsby Tunnel. Its 125mph everywhere else to Handsacre. Braking and acceleration in a 390 to those differences past the 125 at Wembley is minuscule. The 4 miles at Watford accounts for 20 seconds.


HS2 maps show Handsacre at 192km, so 119 miles. Handsacre on the WCML is pretty much the same distance, but it looks like it is correct 119 miles at 140mph (ignoring acceleration) is 51 minutes. Genuinely surprised at the difference between a fast Glasgow and that time.

Therefore has to make sense that the WCML is a lot slower on AVERAGE than 125mph.

Thinking out loud.
So 68 minutes to cover 119 miles to Handsacre on WCML is an average of 105mph.
Plausible. And I recall being told smoothing out variations in speed is worth more than big increases next to slow parts.
The first three miles from Euston must be quite slow and then after 5 miles its all above that average of 105 mph !.
But then what will the actual average speed on HS2 be ?.
OK an intermediate stop at Old Oak Common but then a simple blast up HS2 to Handsacre. I can believe the exit from Euston on HS2 will be very swift.

Makes one think a lot MORE time could be saved getting HS2 past the awkward parts at Shugborough and Colwich to Crewe.
Doesn't it ?.
Here we go again - if only !.

 

[Greybeard33]

Roger Ford reckons a pendolino running at 140 mph on HS2 would save 15 minutes to Handsacre and could then tilt onwards on the WCML so not loosing any time.

Whatever the timings, it is surely unlikely that money will be spent to make 30 year old 390s compatible with the HS2 infrastructure, while the new HS2 trains (already ordered) are left languishing in sidings.

 

[350401]

Whatever the timings, it is surely unlikely that money will be spent to make 30 year old 390s compatible with the HS2 infrastructure, while the new HS2 trains (already ordered) are left languishing in sidings.

It was looked at, and discounted - the BCR is too low. By 2030, the units will be 30 years old and in theory only have 10-15 years left. It’s better to have new high speed capable stock, that also works well on the conventional network. The (too) short length aside, that’s what the new rolling stock will do.

 

[class26]

Whatever the timings, it is surely unlikely that money will be spent to make 30 year old 390s compatible with the HS2 infrastructure, while the new HS2 trains (already ordered) are left languishing in sidings.

He did say that this was "a bit of fun"

 

[Peter Sarf]

Whatever the timings, it is surely unlikely that money will be spent to make 30 year old 390s compatible with the HS2 infrastructure, while the new HS2 trains (already ordered) are left languishing in sidings.

+

It was looked at, and discounted - the BCR is too low. By 2030, the units will be 30 years old and in theory only have 10-15 years left. It’s better to have new high speed capable stock, that also works well on the conventional network. The (too) short length aside, that’s what the new rolling stock will do.

I would be tempted by continuing to use the 390s and take the cost of adding ETCS. Advantage is that will be less risk compared to new build trains. Further more hopefully we will have a complete HS2 route to Manchester (and Liverpool) before the 390s are completely past it so full size HS2 trains can be ordered not classic compatible ones.

If we have too many classic compatible HS2 trains then that puts off the need to finish the route to Manchester and Liverpool.

In reality we will go for a fleet of 200m classic compatible HS2 trains and add underfloor diesel engines. My irony is not unfounded - based on history with GWEP .

 

[The Planner]

+

I would be tempted by continuing to use the 390s and take the cost of adding ETCS. Advantage is that will be less risk compared to new build trains. Further more hopefully we will have a complete HS2 route to Manchester (and Liverpool) before the 390s are completely past it so full size HS2 trains can be ordered not classic compatible ones.

If we have too many classic compatible HS2 trains then that puts off the need to finish the route to Manchester and Liverpool.

In reality we will go for a fleet of 200m classic compatible HS2 trains and add underfloor diesel engines. My irony is not unfounded - based on history with GWEP .

390s will need to be ETCS fitted anyway if the WCML north resignalling plans come to fruition.

 

[Peter Sarf]

390s will need to be ETCS fitted anyway if the WCML north resignalling plans come to fruition.

Ah thanks that is good to know. Fingers crossed they can save on re-signalling anywhere South of - CREWE !.

 

[The Planner]

Ah thanks that is good to know. Fingers crossed they can save on re-signalling anywhere South of - CREWE !.

Crewe doesnt get resignalled to ETCS in any current plans. Stafford will be 20 years away at a minimum even if nothing is altered north of Handsacre.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

From what I have read so far, this has the makings of the longest-ever running thread on this website.