New Stateman article: North TPE trains are like distracted ponies

[JohnB57]

If the 'agglomeration' theory is correct then it is a question of needing to create a linear city!

Can we call it "Livermanleedersfield"?

 

[Wavertreelad]

But it should have something to do with HS2. HS2 is supposedly going to be a part of the National Rail Network, with 'Network' being the operative term. Also, it's not as if the current trans-Pennine corridors couldn't do with some capacity relief. Many of the Northern Rail commuter lines could have service levels more akin to Merseyrail. Worse than a shot in the arm. Also, if it does happen, I envisage any new approach into Liverpool being shared with HS2, as per Greengauge21's proposals a few years ago, so they would be linked.

I tend to agree, the original route of HS2 to Manchester Airport and Manchester city centre provides little benefit for the rest of North West England as a whole. The Higgins proposal to build Phase 1 to Crewe delivers wider benefits because it means the North gets a once in century chance to propose probably what could be the biggest infrastructure project in the region since Victorian times.

I'm not sure a pure east west high speed route would need to achieve speeds of the North to South route as the four main centres are only 126 miles apart supposedly just over two hours by car, presumably outside peak. However, in order gain the maximum benefit of the line the number of stops would also need to increase, so I would suggest building additional stops at the junction of the M6 near Warrington, near the M62 at Huddersfield, and to the east of the A1(M) by Selby to avoid passengers having to travel into existing crowded city centre stations. To achieve a competitive time trains would have to achieve something like 180 mph which would give Liverpool to Manchester in under 30 minutes which would be considerably faster than the comparable car journey. On this basis sharing the line with HS2 on a brand new alignment to Liverpool city centre would increase the business case for the line, especially if it was designed to link to the HS2 north/south route running into Manchester and/or Manchester Airport. At the Liverpool end I doubt if Lime Street could be expanded to cater for these sort of services, (there is already a thread on Lime Street Station in these forums) so I would go for building a new station on the former Exchange Station site then using the lifted outer Liverpool loop which is largely intact as suggested by the 20 miles More report which also considers the options to connecting to HS2 phase 2 line and is also discussed in the HS2 threads. As for the line from the west of Manchester to Hull it would make sense to use as much of the HS2 line as possible, but invariably there is going to be a huge amount of tunnelling involved in order to build through urban Manchester as well as avoid steep gradients and curves. As such I couldn't see such a scheme being started much before 2035 by which time the North could look an entirely different place.

 

[northwichcat]

I tend to agree, the original route of HS2 to Manchester Airport and Manchester city centre provides little benefit for the rest of North West England as a whole.

There is a proposal to build a new line between the end of the current Airport spur and Mobberley, which would allow better connections to/from Manchester Airport e.g. Liverpool-Runcorn-Northwich-Manchester Airport and North Wales-Northwich-Manchester Airport. With that built as well as HS2 it could make Manchester Airport more of a rail interchange.

Network Rail seem reluctant to look at re-opening the freight line through Middlewich to passenger traffic, which would provide another local link in to HS2 (at Crewe) if it was re-opened.

 

[Emyr]

And faster trains to Knutsford?

 

[northwichcat]

And faster trains to Knutsford?

The cost of building a link between the Airport spur and the Mid-Cheshire line can't be justified just for the benefit of the Knutsford and Northwich areas so the proposal would make Mobberley-Mickle Trafford a regional route not just a local route. So it would be more like the Liverpool-Manchester lines where you have some trains stopping at all stations and others just serving the main stations.

Given Knutsford gets annual usage higher than Widnes and getting close to the levels at Birchwood with just an hourly stopping service I think there would be a strong business case for regional trains serving Knutsford if the new line gets built. So maybe there would be 1 or 2 fast trains an hour to Manchester Piccadilly with just one intermediate call at Manchester Airport.

 

[jimm]

The engineering problems aren't that hard to overcome are they? Admittedly hard to move platforms west of the Pennines but perhaps a dynamic loop to let stoppers past?
Standege east portal slew the tracks across the alignment, through lines at Marsden and Slaithwaite, a bit more slewing through Heaton Lodge perhaps to take both TPE tracks underneath. Move Ravensthorpe platforms onto a new slow line to the south, realign the platforms at Batley to create through lines. Tilting EMUs, mega scenery, could be a quick blast.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Slew the tracks across the alignment at the east end of the tunnel? Do you actually know the area? Here's a picture http://img.geocaching.com/cache/large/befc7193-9f44-49ef-a147-f53bbc4f4868.jpg showing a rather big obstacle, never mind the actual angle of approach to the tunnel mouth.

At Heaton Lodge you seem to be suggesting reverting to the situation that used to apply in the 1970s and 1980s, when lumbering coal trains were trundling up the Calder Valley, which are long gone. The alignment at Batley is dictated by the viaduct, so there's nothing to be done there.

Has anyone seen what speed improvements are planned for Manchester to Leeds with electrification? What has been done between Liverpool and Manchester seems rather disappointing and it would be a pity if as little was done further east.

The problem of the time lost with the very low speed layouts at Liverpool, Manchester, and Leeds will never now be solved, but surely more could be done to raise running speeds between Manchester and Leeds -- remember how the old Eastern Region got much of the Marsden to Huddersfield line up to 80/85 years ago and did quite a lot further east whilst the LMR did nothing west of the Pennines. And note how Stalybridge has just been re-designed for nice low speeds to and from Victoria just as the principal service is to be diverted to that station.

I did enjoy this. How did the Eastern Region get the speeds up between Huddersfield and Marsden? By slewing double track across a four-track formation. Where exactly is the four-track formation to do the same on the other side from Stalybridge to Diggle? That's right, there isn't one...

The Victoria line was laid out as the branch at Stalybridge long ago. Short of demolishing the existing station - buffet and all - and rebuilding the lot in a new position to improve the alignment, there's not a lot you can do to improve speeds and how much time would you save anyway?

Most of the line between Manchester and Leeds runs through challenging terrain, there are multiple junctions and stations and lots of built-up areas right up to the line. Even if you spend colossal sums of money on the existing route, any improvements to journey time would be marginal.

Electric traction and lighter trains with better acceleration will make a difference, even with existing speed limits, and frankly, I don't see what the big deal about current journey times is. As someone who remembers lumbering Class 40s, Peaks and 47s on the route when I was growing up, a 58-minute Manchester-Leeds time and 20 minutes Leeds-Huddersfield looks pretty good. The AA gives driving times of 58 minutes and 30 minutes for those runs by road in average traffic conditions, never mind the rush-hours.

 

[yorksrob]

'Creaking' would seem to be a popular current media term for 'old, tired and unable to keep up', which is simply incorrect here. Usual case of journalistic emebellishment (or 'bullsh*t') as most of us might call it.

Indeed. Seems to have taken over from the phrase "clapped out" which was popular in the nineties !

 

[Yew]

How would going the 'long' way round VIA HS2 work, ie; Manchester - Toton - Leeds? Could the high speeds give a good journey time? Or would there even be other benefits too?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Can we call it "Livermanleedersfield"?

This reminds me of the British Rail advertisement for the ferry services in the dim and distant past...
"StranHeyHolyFish"

Any other forum members recall that advertisement ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Manchester - Toton - Leeds?

This most certainly is one route that would not spring to mind readily.

 

[JohnB57]

How did the Eastern Region get the speeds up between Huddersfield and Marsden? By slewing double track across a four-track formation. Where exactly is the four-track formation to do the same on the other side from Stalybridge to Diggle? That's right, there isn't one...

But, getting into the spirit of the forum where anything is possible, nay easy and cost is irrelevant, here's the solution.

Rebuild the Micklehurst Loop as single line and then single the existing line, running Manchester bound over the rebuilt line, with Huddersfield bound as now. That would allow you to slew the line over the current formation and maybe gain a few precious miles per hour. The only minor obstacles to this are a couple of filled in tunnels, a missing viaduct, a handful of housing estates and some industrial units. Also, there'd be a massive opportunity for an additional "Greenfield Lower" station, Tyndrum style (Gangnam Style in kilts?), separated from "Upper Greenfield" by a short half kilometre walk. You could have a booking office in Tesco that would be conveniently located half way between the two. Minimal cost, and a massive time saving - possibly up to a minute or so - for rail travel o'er t' top.

Titter ye may, but there are plenty of dafter suggestions on here...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The only minor obstacles to this are a couple of filled in tunnels, a missing viaduct, a handful of housing estates and some industrial units....

It is always good to actually know of what matters are like "on the ground" are really like when "fantasy" projects are put forward...:roll:

 

[JohnB57]

It is always good to actually know of what matters are like "on the ground" are really like when "fantasy" projects are put forward...:roll:

I know you like your smilies Paul, but there isn't one for "tongue in cheek"! I'll try to be more obvious in future.

 

[Welshman]

But, getting into the spirit of the forum where anything is possible, nay easy and cost is irrelevant, here's the solution.

Rebuild the Micklehurst Loop as single line and then single the existing line, running Manchester bound over the rebuilt line, with Huddersfield bound as now. That would allow you to slew the line over the current formation and maybe gain a few precious miles per hour. The only minor obstacles to this are a couple of filled in tunnels, a missing viaduct, a handful of housing estates and some industrial units. Also, there'd be a massive opportunity for an additional "Greenfield Lower" station, Tyndrum style (Gangnam Style in kilts?), separated from "Upper Greenfield" by a short half kilometre walk. You could have a booking office in Tesco that would be conveniently located half way between the two. Minimal cost, and a massive time saving - possibly up to a minute or so - for rail travel o'er t' top.

Titter ye may, but there are plenty of dafter suggestions on here...

I must admit I was beginning to have serious doubts about your sanity...until I read your last sentence!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How would going the 'long' way round VIA HS2 work, ie; Manchester - Toton - Leeds? Could the high speeds give a good journey time? Or would there even be other benefits too?

At the very least, it would keep the experts in the Fares Advice and Policy thread occupied for a few years. :-

Is my "any permitted" off-peak single with Senior Railcard from Leeds to Manchester valid via Toton on a Wednesday in Whit Week?

 

[edwin_m]

Even at HS2 speeds Water Orton and Toton is not a sensible route for Manchester-Leeds.

I floated an idea on another topic, to a rather mixed reception, to use bits of HS2 for a higher-speed Transpennine route. This would comprise a Liverpool connection from Phase 2 (either new infrastructure or joining an existing line); Phase 2 Manchester branch; reversal somewhere near Piccadilly onto a reopened Woodhead line; new construction north-eastwards from near Penistone; and HS2 Phase 2 to Leeds and any northern extension to Tyneside.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

There must have been an outline construction plan linked to the "inverted L"-shaped cross-Pennine route for HS2 before they decided to go for the "Y" instead.
It would have meant some long tunnels plus destructive new open sections and viaducts.
Of the current lines I would guess that the L&Y Calder Valley route offers the best alignment.
George Stephenson built the Manchester & Leeds that way because it was lower and needed less tunnelling, and connected into the North Midland at Normanton. It's also much straighter.
The disadvantage is that it is shaped like a big reverse "S" via Hebden Bridge and Wakefield, but I would think the potential linespeed is higher than that via the twisty Standedge/Morley route.
It also misses out Huddersfield, and has been developed more as a regional/local route than inter-city, because of its longer journey time.

 

[edwin_m]

The Calder Valley is really needed to provide a decent service between Manchester and Bradford. This has to use the slow part of the route and reverse in Bradford so won't ever be a fast journey between Manchester and Leeds. While higher speeds may be possible via Mirfield, the section between Manchester and Sowerby Bridge would then have to accommodate three speeds of train: fast to Leeds, semi-fast to Bradford and local to serve the important communities along the route (plus the Tod Curve service and the Rochdale stoppers if these still run). This would be very difficult on a route which has no overtaking facilities today and as far as I recall only ever had one significant four-track section, which was right at the Sowerby Bridge end and therefore would not very useful for overtaking.

 

[JohnB57]

I must admit I was beginning to have serious doubts about your sanity...until I read your last sentence!

And I thought I had displayed as many flags as possible!

 

[Wavertreelad]

I floated an idea on another topic, to a rather mixed reception, to use bits of HS2 for a higher-speed Transpennine route. This would comprise a Liverpool connection from Phase 2 (either new infrastructure or joining an existing line); Phase 2 Manchester branch; reversal somewhere near Piccadilly onto a reopened Woodhead line; new construction north-eastwards from near Penistone; and HS2 Phase 2 to Leeds and any northern extension to Tyneside.

I like the idea of sharing the HS2 route from Liverpool but I would prefer the Manchester HS2 station to a through east west facing station to avoid reversals for Transpennine services. I also like the idea of at least using part of the Woodhead route especially if there was Y junction near Penistone to allow trains to run to north to Leeds etc., and south to Sheffield and beyond.

 

[edwin_m]

I like the idea of sharing the HS2 route from Liverpool but I would prefer the Manchester HS2 station to a through east west facing station to avoid reversals for Transpennine services. I also like the idea of at least using part of the Woodhead route especially if there was Y junction near Penistone to allow trains to run to north to Leeds etc., and south to Sheffield and beyond.

Unfortunately I can't see any way of doing a through station in Manchester without either another long tunnel under the city, this time from the west, or having the station a long way out of town. If the western approach was along classic lines than this would perpetuate the capacity problem and the slower running would probably cost more time than a reversal.

 

[Wavertreelad]

Unfortunately I can't see any way of doing a through station in Manchester without either another long tunnel under the city, this time from the west, or having the station a long way out of town. If the western approach was along classic lines than this would perpetuate the capacity problem and the slower running would probably cost more time than a reversal.

If the existing planned north/south route of HS2 via Manchester Airport to Piccadilly is constructed there is 10 mile tunnel involved anyway. With Phase 1 built as far as Crewe my thoughts would be to drop the plan to build a north/south HS2 line to Manchester Airport and move the original junction further north with a corresponding junction to the west to allow potential HS operations in all four directions. The route of the HS2 line into central Manchester could be planned to allow an east/west station in Manchester, perhaps not necessarily at Piccadilly site but still able to link to the Woodhead route proposed. Yes, it would require tunnelling but compared to the distances currently being tunnelled under London it could be argued why not. Alternatively, I can think of one or two places in Manchester that could be demolished, but that is a discussion not for this thread.

I'm not sure the loss to a direct HS link from the south would loose Manchester Airport too many passengers as these could easily be offset if it was possible to build a spur from the Piccadilly/Woodhead section of the line to the airport. This would allow compatible & HS trains from the both the north, east and west to reach the airport as the HS network is developed.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I'm not sure the loss to a direct HS link from the south would lose Manchester Airport too many passengers as these could easily be offset if it was possible to build a spur from the Piccadilly/Woodhead section of the line to the airport. This would allow compatible & HS trains from the both the north, east and west to reach the airport as the HS network is developed.

The reason for the HS2 Manchester Airport station will be to serve the future international business hub that will be within the environs of the airport, that even Chinese money is being drawn into, as much as any airline passenger usage.

If someone can post a link to this international business park project, I would be most grateful.

 

[edwin_m]

I don't think the Manchester Airport station is too important for the north-south HS2 route (as long as there is a decent park and ride interchange somewhere south/west of Manchester). However I suggest it is important for the east-west route, since the catchment for the airport is mainly across northern England and TPE provides frequent and well-used services today.

I think any airport link from the Woodhead route would just bring back the 10-mile tunnel with an additional delta junction, or introduce a new bottleneck on existing infrastructure.

 

[455driver]

Straighten this, slew that etc etc!

Of course when the line was built they put all the curves in because they had run out of straight track and only had curves availble otherwise it would have been a straight run across the Pennines, I cant think of any other reason for all those curves!

 

[Wavertreelad]

The reason for the HS2 Manchester Airport station will be to serve the future international business hub that will be within the environs of the airport, that even Chinese money is being drawn into, as much as any airline passenger usage.

If someone can post a link to this international business park project, I would be most grateful.

I'm not so sure, from my experience most of the freight in and out of Manchester Airport moves by road, the amount of freight moving in aircraft is relatively small and the maritime traffic is mainly groupage loads, as full container loads will move to and from directly from the ports. Yes there will be an increase in business users as a result of the business village, but if a new hub airport is built in the UK it will be in the south east and inevitably the airlines will opt to serve the new hub rather than Manchester. I'm sure Manchester will continue to enjoy good links to European and trans-Atlantic services and will remain a major player in the holiday market, but I just can't see it grabbing huge volumes of really long haul routes.

The Chinese money also does not mean that we will thousands of Chinese decending on south Manchester as first of all they would need to pass our immigration controls, and that same source of money is also due to be build our future nuclear power stations, but we are not building HS routes to Bristol and the south west where the first plant is due to constructed.

Paul - I think this is the link you were looking for.


http://www.airportcity.co.uk/

 

[Bevan Price]

One problem with the Trans Pennine route is that there are too many trains of different types to permit much acceleration. Fast trains catch up with slower trains, and so cannot be accelerated significantly.

Four "fast" services per hour, soon to be increased to five, and with a target of six per hour have to share the same tracks as local services. The latter are to be worsened, to allow for some improvements to the faster services, but the likely "skip-stop" arrangements may make some journeys almost impossible - for example, although current numbers are probably quite low, will it still be possible to travel between Mirfield & Batley, Greenfield & Mossley, etc ??

Without building a new route, the easiest way to get faster trains would be to have fewer, but much longer trains every hour. (e.g. Two 8 or 9 coach expresses at 30 minute intervals, most being immediately followed by "local" services. )

 

[edwin_m]

Wouldn't skip-stopping on Transpennine kill the Ale Trail?

Part of the problem with running fewer longer trains is the number of destinations on the east end - it wouldn't be possible to provide through trains to all of Newcastle, Middlesbrough, Scarborough and Hull without restoring to splitting and joining. However I agree going from four to five to six trains per hour doesn't help much in convenience terms, especially as I believe some of them will only serve Piccadilly and some only Victoria (plus some that serve both). Perhaps the answer is to lenghten whichever two of the four are busiest?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Paul - I think this is the link you were looking for.

http://www.airportcity.co.uk/

Indeed it is. Many thanks for your assistance in this matter.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Wouldn't skip-stopping on Transpennine kill the Ale Trail?

I feel that your mention of "The Ale Trail" is not one to have occupied the minds of those charged with delivering the benefits said to accrue from "The Northern Hub" and is something that I cannot trace in the documentation that has been published at this moment in time....

 

[Hebden Bridger]

.....

 

[34D]

Would non-stop Leeds to Manchester work?

I really don't see why every train needs to stop at Huddersfield

 

[Tetchytyke]

Wouldn't skip-stopping on Transpennine kill the Ale Trail?

The guards who work the stoppers will be gutted at the ale trail being killed

I don't see anything wrong with splitting and joining trains at York or Manchester, to allow for longer trains through the core. They do it at present and it seems to work well enough.

The main thing that slows the route down is the reverse curves at Guide Bridge. There's probably nowt that can be done about them, but going via Ashton into Victoria will be much quicker.