HS3 - Proposed Liverpool to Hull improvements

[flypie]

Ed Balls and Osbourne have both made comments about HS3 and both seem to back it but when you actually crunch the numbers the biggest improvement is Liverpool to Manchester, which looks to be very ambitious, while the Leeds Hull section seems be no more than the currently proposed electrification and the Man Leeds bit the electrification plus ETRMS which is scheduled anyway.

It seems like a lot of repackaging.

Is 20 minutes Liverpool to Man possible without a new line?

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ile/414815/the-northern-powerhouse-tagged.pdf

Quote of last paragraph of last paragraph of page 20 of The Northern Powerhouse: One Agenda, One Economy, One North

Liverpool to Manchester Airport /
Manchester – Work by Network Rail
has shown that journey times between
Liverpool and Manchester of 20 minutes
are possible, including a connection onto
the HS2 network. We will now carry out
further work to produce detailed options to
move towards the journey time ambition.
hThis will include the option for a new
high speed line between Liverpool and
Manchester with a connection to the
proposed HS2 network

More detail breakdown here. http://peterirate.blogspot.com/2015/03/trans-northhs3.html

 

[mike57]

And bearing in mind May 7th - I suspect after this date HS3 will be quietly forgotten, or repackaged yet again to look like the current plans for transpennine routes, as unless a lot of extra revenue can be found it will not be possible to deliver a proper HS3. I dont think it will matter what flavour of goverment we have after May 7th, as the economic situation wont change quickly post 7th May.

Remember in the run up to the election all politicians want to sound like they are going to give us something better than their opponents.

As for 140mph trains they will probably be like the ones we currently have running on both East and West Coast routes, i.e. never actually running at 140mph.

Sorry to be cynical but I have watched politicians from all sides imply that they will deliver improvements/change to what ever the public are concerned about, but as always they deliberatley leave out the detail so that they cant be accused of outright lies

 

[flypie]

The plan for in cab signalling by 2029 should allow 140 running, as all that holding it back is the lack of in cab signalling. That already planned for.
In this case I think the reason they are not giving the details is that what they are adding over what is already planned is quiet minimal.

 

[Voglitz]

And bearing in mind May 7th - I suspect after this date HS3 will be quietly forgotten, or repackaged yet again to look like the current plans for transpennine routes, as unless a lot of extra revenue can be found it will not be possible to deliver a proper HS3.

That's a highly likely outcome.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The plan for in cab signalling by 2029 should allow 140 running, as all that holding it back is the lack of in cab signalling. That already planned for.
In this case I think the reason they are not giving the details is that what they are adding over what is already planned is quiet minimal.

Read the April Modern Railways.
For 140mph the ECML needs new contact wire on the fast lines, level crossings removed and bridges altered to give a constant wire height.
As well as ERTMS, which is only planned as far as Doncaster at the moment.
Not trivial at all.

 

[glbotu]

So, I can't see HS3 using anything other than existing corridors, namely because anything else would require extensive digging through the Pennines. I went up and down North Transpennine (York - Manchester) this weekend and had a quick look at Google Maps and came up with the following.

Assuming Hull/York - Leeds simply uses existing lines, upgraded (as seems to be the case), this looks feasible.

Looking at Leeds - Manchester needs chopping up. The problem is that if there's a real intention to run a frequent "high speed" service along these lines, the stoppers will have to get out of the way. This will, I assume, require reasonably extensive 4 tracking. I have assumed that the service frequency of stoppers would remain the same (although the trends would suggest an increase in their frequencies).

Leeds - Ravensthorpe is probably the most difficult of this section. Neither routing via Dewsbury (main constraints are Morely Tunnely and the town of Dewsbury itself) or Wakefield seems particularly feasible. This sees 2 stoppers per hour, which would almost certainly get in the way of "HS3" services.

There seems to be space for 4 tracks around Mirfield, so whatever configuration existed there could be used reasonably effectively although the flying junction would probably need sorting out. This handles 3 stoppers per hour.

From there to Huddersfield also doesn't look impossible and the alignments around there do look like they were designed for 4 tracks. Handling 2 stoppers per hour seems sensible.

Huddersfield - Stalybridge actually looks pretty great, it appears to have been a 4 tracked mainline at one point. Lots of space for moving the current 1 stopper per hour. This could even (maybe), be handled by a single track with passing loops.

Stalybridge - Manchester Victoria (assuming this is the preferred corridor), also seems to have lots of space, although going towards Piccadilly via Guide Bridge seems easier (assuming that HS3 gets exclusive use of Stalybridge - Guide Bridge), although that prevents continuation towards Liverpool, without the existing "crossing all of Piccadilly" issue. My understanding is that with Electrification, Victoria - Stalybridge will have a greater frequency (current 2 stoppers/hour).

I've never been on any of the lines from Liverpool - Manchester, so don't feel particularly well placed to comment.

I have a couple of gaps in my knowledge of loadings and frequency requirements for the stoppers, so it may be that some of them could be made less frequent/provide a different service pattern. These are just a few observations. If I've missed anything out, post away.

I'm interested in what solutions could be found, especially in terms of getting from Ravensthorpe - Leeds without eliminating all stopping services.

Any thoughts?

 

[kjhskj75]

I don't believe it's possible to upgrade the Standedge route to High-speed standard. A whole new line - with a 10-mile long tunnel - will be required.

The line is too twisty, and adding extra tracks for local services will make it worse. (places that used to have four tracks have had the curves smoothed out on the wider formation - putting tracks back will force tighter curves and slower speeds.)

Originally there were effectively 4 tracks all the way from Stalybridge to Leeds, using different alignments for the slow lines from Stalybridge to Diggle and from Deighton to Farnley. These alignments have been built over since they were closed.

 

[WatcherZero]

Its also cheaper to build a brand new line than to upgrade an existing line due to the cost and complexity of altering existing structures and compensation for disruption that has to be paid to operators unable to operate while the work is carried out. Also properties tend to encroach close to lines and would require much demolition while creating a wholly new route allows the ability for landtake to require minimal demolition.

 

[The Ham]

The problem is that if there's a real intention to run a frequent "high speed" service along these lines, the stoppers will have to get out of the way. This will, I assume, require reasonably extensive 4 tracking. I have assumed that the service frequency of stoppers would remain the same (although the trends would suggest an increase in their frequencies).

...

Any thoughts?

There are three other options:
- provide 3 tracks
- loop(s) at stations
- bi-directional signalling on existing tracks

For instance a slow train is heading west bound quite some distance from another train heading east, the fast train behind moves across (either to the middle track of three or onto the opposite track where only two tracks exist) to pass the slow train ad then moves back onto the normal west bound track before it causes an obstruction.

Alternatively, the slow train heading west stops at a station where there is another line which takes the fast train past it. Depending on station spacing such a feature could result in fairly limited delays if an express misses the time tabled passing place and has to use the next one.

Extra track at stations could be quite costly given that it is often more built up, however the length of such track can be much shorter as the stopping train is going much slower or is stopped.

I would argue that 3 stoppers and hour in each direction would not really need the expense of four tracks to cope with express trains as well. Yes, it would be nice to have, but if you look at some the lines of outer limits of where there are four tracks for much of the time there aren't even 2 trains in close proximity to each other, let alone 3 and virtually never 4 (with the possible exception at junction stations).

 

[flypie]

There have been some other comments that could be fed into this. One was a suggestion of using the HS3 would use the same stations as HS2, in Manchester. All of the HS2 spurs put forward for Liverpool, whether new build or reuse would join North of the Manchester spur. Forming a portion of HS3 using both spurs. Quading the line between the 2 spurs would alleviate any problems with capacity. If burrowing or flying junctions where used.

There have then been various PiC-Vic tunnel suggestions with could link the two. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picc-Vic_tunnel though by using the through platforms at Picaddily and the Ordsall Chord would be possible, It looks from http://www.ordsallchord.co.uk that some of the stated benefits of the Chord are those in the TransNorth suggestion.
Loots of this is a replacing exercise, spelling out the benefits of the North/Manchester hub, whose name cause a bit of rancour.

The IIPR report http://www.ippr.org/assets/media/publications/pdf/great-north-plan_Nov2014.pdf predate the government report and include my http://peterirate.blogspot.com/2013/10/a-pan-northern-railway-or-trans-pennine.html
it makes a few comments which could be relivent. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ile/414815/the-northern-powerhouse-tagged.pdf

The Manchester - Leeds portion represents a 15 minute speed up with a mean speed of 85 mph, which isn't in itself unreasonable. It is removing the contention with stopping trains that is the problem. In one interview the word tunnelisation was used more then once, on this part of the route.

One alternative would be to go to Oldham and then reinstate the line between Oldham and the Lydgate Tunnel http://www.28dayslater.co.uk/lydgate-tunnel-saddleworth-oldham-march-2013.t79369 though bits of that may be Metrolink now. If that the case then heading out of Manchester to Rochdale and then reinstating the line from Middleton junction to Featherstall might be possible.

What about the Calder valley line via the Todmorden tunnel, that way Bradford could be on the route. alternating expresses between the 2 routes would reduce load.

 

[edwin_m]

The link between Oldham and Grotton has been obliterated nearly as comprehensively as the Micklehurst Loop between Stalybridge and Diggle. And between Lydgate Tunnel and Greenfield is a housing estate.

I still think reopening Woodhead and linking it to HS2 towards Leeds (and possibly towards Sheffield) is the way to go.

 

[flypie]

With the exception of the Lydgate Greenfield section the rest seem to be undeveloped land, so most of the corridor is still open.

 

[edwin_m]

With the exception of the Lydgate Greenfield section the rest seem to be undeveloped land, so most of the corridor is still open.

Apart from the landfilling of a mile or so of cutting at the Oldham end. Complete with methane vents so probably fairly nasty stuff.

 

[Haydn1971]

Why are people so adverse to spending Crossrail type sums in the north - upgrading existing lines will not provide the step change in travel speed or capacity. HS3 will need to be a new segregated alignment free from the clutter of existing trains, but integrated with existing lines via station transfers. It may use parts of HS2, but I'm not convinced that running 125/140mph stock on a 250mph capable line will be acceptable (unlike HS1) due to capacity constraints. Anything less than segregated will cost as much as upgrades and be another west coast mainline upgrade fiasco.

 

[Voglitz]

Why are people so adverse to spending Crossrail type sums in the north - upgrading existing lines will not provide the step change in travel speed or capacity. HS3 will need to be a new segregated alignment free from the clutter of existing trains, but integrated with existing lines via station transfers. It may use parts of HS2, but I'm not convinced that running 125/140mph stock on a 250mph capable line will be acceptable (unlike HS1) due to capacity constraints. Anything less than segregated will cost as much as upgrades and be another west coast mainline upgrade fiasco.

There's no information as to what form HS3 would take, or what route it would use.

The demand for intercity transpennine rail travel is extremely low, compared to Crossrail.

 

[Haydn1971]

No information in the public domain...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
There's limited demand at the moment, however the point of HS3 is to improve connectivity between the northern city regions - Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds should be 20 minutes apart to allow easy travel between, each has its own strengths, each hindered by painful travel options.

 

[Voglitz]

No information in the public domain...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
There's limited demand at the moment, however the point of HS3 is to improve connectivity between the northern city regions - Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds should be 20 minutes apart to allow easy travel between, each has its own strengths, each hindered by painful travel options.

I don't think there's any likelihood of railways being built to link Manchester with Sheffield and Leeds in 20 minutes, or Manchester and Liverpool in 20 minutes. It's a fantasy.

 

[Haydn1971]

Fine, that's your opinion

 

[Ironside]

No information in the public domain...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
There's limited demand at the moment, however the point of HS3 is to improve connectivity between the northern city regions - Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds should be 20 minutes apart to allow easy travel between, each has its own strengths, each hindered by painful travel options.

So that's about 40 miles apart each so 80 mph average speed which would need a top speed of 125 or would it need to be as much as 155mph? Either way it seems a pretty good idea which would get used enough to justify its construction.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Probably the most important part is that there would be fast tracks all the way into the centres of Manchester and Leeds, which would be very difficult to achieve if there are to be more local stopping services along the same routes unless entirely new pairs of tracks are built. If you can accelerate to 230km/h within minutes of leaving the main stations then the need for higher speeds in the centre is somewhat diminished; if you have to remain at classic speeds until you reach green countryside you're going to need a more expensive higher speed route in the middle.

 

[flypie]

Another thing that hasn't been mentioned is loading gauge. It wouldn't improve times but it could increase capacity by allowing double deck trains.
The Leeds Hull section is the section with the most rural route but the one with the smallest improvement.
I wonder if you could improve the speed in the urban areas by covering the line, in a similar way to the Gerrards cross? Would work on anything that wasn't an embankment.
Also are there any level crossings on the routes?

 

[Voglitz]

So that's about 40 miles apart each so 80 mph average speed which would need a top speed of 125 or would it need to be as much as 155mph?

If the straight-line distance Leeds to Manchester is 35.5 miles, a train would need to average 106.5 mph to achieve a 20-minute journey on ideal track.

Either way it seems a pretty good idea which would get used enough to justify its construction.

Based on what evidence?

 

[Haydn1971]

Out of pure curiosity - what's your objection to rail investment McCoy ?

 

[Bevan Price]

Ed Balls and Osbourne have both made comments about HS3 and both seem to back it but when you actually crunch the numbers the biggest improvement is Liverpool to Manchester, which looks to be very ambitious, while the Leeds Hull section seems be no more than the currently proposed electrification and the Man Leeds bit the electrification plus ETRMS which is scheduled anyway.

It seems like a lot of repackaging.

Is 20 minutes Liverpool to Man possible without a new line?

No chance unless they get rid of all the local services. Or make it 4 track throughout, which would be almost impossible at some locations.

 

[edwin_m]

Probably the most important part is that there would be fast tracks all the way into the centres of Manchester and Leeds, which would be very difficult to achieve if there are to be more local stopping services along the same routes unless entirely new pairs of tracks are built. If you can accelerate to 230km/h within minutes of leaving the main stations then the need for higher speeds in the centre is somewhat diminished; if you have to remain at classic speeds until you reach green countryside you're going to need a more expensive higher speed route in the middle.

I'd turn that on its head and say if you can use enough of the HS2 Leeds leg then it is cheaper to build the trains for near-HS2 speeds and access Manchester relatively slowly via the mostly disused Woodhead trackbed, rather than getting a similar journey time by building a new alignment into Manchester and with 200-250km/h trains instead. It would also reduce capacity issues on any shared HS2 sections.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Another thing that hasn't been mentioned is loading gauge. It wouldn't improve times but it could increase capacity by allowing double deck trains.

Enlarging the gauge is horribly expensive so although new infrastructure would be to European gauge it's most likely that any re-used sections of existing network would remain as they are, which would also allow through workings to off-route places like Chester or Sunderland. A shortened version of the HS2 classic compatible train would fit the bill (and the tunnels).

With demand likely to be lower than on the London routes, I doubt double deck would be necessary. The only reason to have it in this case is probably if there is a really serious platform length restriction, but that would almost certainly be an existing station and therefore only accessible to UK gauge trains.

I wonder if you could improve the speed in the urban areas by covering the line, in a similar way to the Gerrards cross? Would work on anything that wasn't an embankment.

Gerrards Cross isn't a great precedent!

I've wondered about elevating above an existing railway, but the problem is that most cuttings and at-grade sections have overbridges. If the new line is raised above them then it becomes more obtrusive and noisy in a built-up area, and if the overbridges are raised then the roads would have to ramp up for 100m or so either side and any crossing railways much further. This problem wouldn't exist on embankments, but people with the railway at the bottom of their garden wouldn't want another railway being added on stilts on top of it! None of this would be popular or cheap in an urban area, so realistically any significant area of housing would need to be tunneled under if it can't be avoided.

 

[flypie]

I wasn't suggesting the Gerrards cross solution to elevate a new railway but to allow speed increases on an old with increased sound proofing and far less access.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I'd turn that on its head and say if you can use enough of the HS2 Leeds leg then it is cheaper to build the trains for near-HS2 speeds and access Manchester relatively slowly via the mostly disused Woodhead trackbed, rather than getting a similar journey time by building a new alignment into Manchester and with 200-250km/h trains instead. It would also reduce capacity issues on any shared HS2 sections.

However, you then run into issues with just how slow the section into Manchester could be. If the Hadfield/Glossop line is handed over to tram-trains, at higher frequencies than today, then the former Woodhead route would be a real crawl. It would be less than sensible to spend all that money and still be severely limited in both speed and capacity for the sake of sharing an old alignment into the city centre.

 

[edwin_m]

However, you then run into issues with just how slow the section into Manchester could be. If the Hadfield/Glossop line is handed over to tram-trains, at higher frequencies than today, then the former Woodhead route would be a real crawl. It would be less than sensible to spend all that money and still be severely limited in both speed and capacity for the sake of sharing an old alignment into the city centre.

Yes, re-opening Woodhead is incompatible with tram-train operation to Glossop and Hadfield. However the tram-train conversion process wouldn't be too drastic and could easily be reversed if Woodhead was needed at a later date. As this would be the only capacity constraint (and it could be reduced by restoring former four-tracking and loops) it's actually a very cheap way of getting into Manchester compared to any alternative which would involve a lot of tunnelling.

 

[glbotu]

I don't believe it's possible to upgrade the Standedge route to High-speed standard. A whole new line - with a 10-mile long tunnel - will be required.

The line is too twisty, and adding extra tracks for local services will make it worse. (places that used to have four tracks have had the curves smoothed out on the wider formation - putting tracks back will force tighter curves and slower speeds.)

Originally there were effectively 4 tracks all the way from Stalybridge to Leeds, using different alignments for the slow lines from Stalybridge to Diggle and from Deighton to Farnley. These alignments have been built over since they were closed.

Thanks for the info. I was kind of working on the principle that the higher line speeds would be achieved by some form of tilting train.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There are three other options:
- provide 3 tracks
- loop(s) at stations
- bi-directional signalling on existing tracks

For instance a slow train is heading west bound quite some distance from another train heading east, the fast train behind moves across (either to the middle track of three or onto the opposite track where only two tracks exist) to pass the slow train ad then moves back onto the normal west bound track before it causes an obstruction.

Alternatively, the slow train heading west stops at a station where there is another line which takes the fast train past it. Depending on station spacing such a feature could result in fairly limited delays if an express misses the time tabled passing place and has to use the next one.

Extra track at stations could be quite costly given that it is often more built up, however the length of such track can be much shorter as the stopping train is going much slower or is stopped.

I would argue that 3 stoppers and hour in each direction would not really need the expense of four tracks to cope with express trains as well. Yes, it would be nice to have, but if you look at some the lines of outer limits of where there are four tracks for much of the time there aren't even 2 trains in close proximity to each other, let alone 3 and virtually never 4 (with the possible exception at junction stations).

This seems possible, except for Leeds - Ravensthorpe.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why are people so adverse to spending Crossrail type sums in the north - upgrading existing lines will not provide the step change in travel speed or capacity. HS3 will need to be a new segregated alignment free from the clutter of existing trains, but integrated with existing lines via station transfers. It may use parts of HS2, but I'm not convinced that running 125/140mph stock on a 250mph capable line will be acceptable (unlike HS1) due to capacity constraints. Anything less than segregated will cost as much as upgrades and be another west coast mainline upgrade fiasco.

I'm not averse to it, the government on the other hand..........

I mean, that's generally the issue, I was looking at potentials for a cheap upgrade in the manner that the government will probably propose, as opposed to coming up with a £££Billions scheme involving new tunnels, embankments, bridges etc.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes, re-opening Woodhead is incompatible with tram-train operation to Glossop and Hadfield. However the tram-train conversion process wouldn't be too drastic and could easily be reversed if Woodhead was needed at a later date. As this would be the only capacity constraint (and it could be reduced by restoring former four-tracking and loops) it's actually a very cheap way of getting into Manchester compared to any alternative which would involve a lot of tunnelling.

I think it's been made pretty clear that Woodhead will never re-open. It was recently brought before parliament and completely shot down, due to the large cost. One of the tunnels isn't structurally sound any more and one of them is full of electric cables.

 

[Blamethrower]

Interesting proposal.

I would like us to discount cost at present though, for some people yes "it's reality", but it does nothing to the debate apart from attempt to close it with the last word. No-one knows any of the costs so lets move on and think about how HS3 can be achieved.

I like the OP's initial proposal, however with some amendments.

From Stalybridge - Manchester, go via Ashton Under Lyne and then turn towards Picc, past Etihad and rebuild the old viaduct to link line into new HS2 station. Trains from Picc HS2 would have 2 options, turn left and over the old viaduct via Etihad and Ashton to Stalybridge or head down towards Brum

From Stalybridge I would consider shadowing the current line but cutting short tunnels to miss the curves. Something like the Frankfurt-Koeln Neubaustrecke.

Coming into Hudders, there's room for 4 tracks and down towards deighton jnc. From Ravensthorpe, it looks tricky, my proposal is thus:

Share tracks through Dewsbury (add an extra bi-di line as mentioned earlier in the thread) then just as you come over the old Central tunnel, quad track from batley carr through batley to Lower Soothill (like there used to be, but raise the trackbed + rebuild the viaduct + station)

Then north of Batley, take it up and over the line to Morley and follow the old route to Gildersome tunnel.

Rebore Gildersome tunnel, join at Farnley as full 4 track, then vere off to the old holbeck viaduct and into an extended west side of leeds station.

Thereafter, you'll have to 4 track through Leeds CC which will be difficult, but not impossible, just see the Borough market viaduct on how to thread 2 tracks through a built up area. It can be done in London so why not Leeds?

Then it's 4 track all the way to Hull, improving bridges and line speeds all the way.