Potential options for the proposed high speed line from Manchester towards Leeds

[fishwomp]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-rail-plan-for-the-north-and-midlands.224967/

e[.]
I don't believe they have found a surface route all the way to Marsden.

Isn't the IPR basically saying "this is the kind of connectivity we need, go and find how it could be done and what it costs" - much of the IPR isn't costed and designed to the extent that you could start safeguarding land yet..

I bet we see two options emerging for Marsden:

Option 1: [ £x billion - let's say £1bn]
- Marsden to Huddersfield: 4 tracked again.
- Reopen the old bores
- Reopen the old route (name forgotten) from the unused bores to just outside Stalybridge (currently mostly a foot/cyclepath, easily visible on google maps)
- From this point, straight line to Guide Bridge (there's a lot of commercials yards, a few buildings, and a local Stalybridge Conservative Club)
- 4 track Guide Bridge to Ashburys

Option 2: [£10x billion - let's say £10bn
- Dig tunnel from Ashburys to Diggle
- As above from Diggle to Huddersfield

At this point - bearing in mind this doesn't need to be decided until after the 2024 election, if not 2028.. - it'll probably take 3 years to come up with the two options above..

Government of the day (2024-2028) will say "we can save £9bn and deliver quicker, less disruptively, fewer people thrown out of their houses" etc.., so we end up with Option 1 as the only realistic outcome, but feel free to imagine a different outcome, I just think option 1 is most likely to pass a value for money test and it'd be good enough.

 

[Ianno87]

Isn't the IPR basically saying "this is the kind of connectivity we need, go and find how it could be done and what it costs" - much of the IPR isn't costed and designed to the extent that you could start safeguarding land yet..

I bet we see two options emerging for Marsden:

Option 1: [ £x billion - let's say £1bn]
- Marsden to Huddersfield: 4 tracked again.
- Reopen the old bores
- Reopen the old route (name forgotten) from the unused bores to just outside Stalybridge (currently mostly a foot/cyclepath, easily visible on google maps)
- From this point, straight line to Guide Bridge (there's a lot of commercials yards, a few buildings, and a local Stalybridge Conservative Club)
- 4 track Guide Bridge to Ashburys

Option 2: [£10x billion - let's say £10bn
- Dig tunnel from Ashburys to Diggle
- As above from Diggle to Huddersfield

At this point - bearing in mind this doesn't need to be decided until after the 2024 election, if not 2028.. - it'll probably take 3 years to come up with the two options above..

Government of the day (2024-2028) will say "we can save £9bn and deliver quicker, less disruptively, fewer people thrown out of their houses" etc.., so we end up with Option 1 as the only realistic outcome, but feel free to imagine a different outcome, I just think option 1 is most likely to pass a value for money test and it'd be good enough.

Why would Option 1 be chosen? It doesn't make sense.

Once you work everything out, no doubt it won't be much cheaper than Option 2, and only offer tiny journey time savings in comparison as you'll just be bypassing a sinuous surface route with another sinuous surface route.

Option 1 would also likely be the one resulting in people being thrown out of houses etc as a surface route.

 

[MattRat]

Because Piccadilly is actually on the edge of the core of the city. The area just to the east of the present station / approach tracks is very much not "city centre" - which is why the HS2 station is planned to go there as developable space.

Except the train is coming from Manchester Airport, so the line will inevitably end up in the core to get to Piccadilly. If they really wanted to cost cut, they could build a station in Ashton near the tram stop, which could also then be a through station to Leeds rather than the ludicrous 'turn back' idea.

And yes I know it isn't great, I'm just pointing out that they are even bad at their own goal of cost cutting.

 

[Ianno87]

Except the train is coming from Manchester Airport, so the line will inevitably end up in the core to get to Piccadilly. If they really wanted to cost cut, they could build a station in Ashton near the tram stop, which could also then be a through station to Leeds rather than the ludicrous 'turn back' idea.

And yes I know it isn't great, I'm just pointing out that they are even bad at their own goal of cost cutting.

There's cost cutting and keeping the outputs as high as possible, and then there's cost cutting and obliterating most of the outputs/benefits you're trying to achieve.

An Ashton station very much falls into the latter category.

Why is a turnback station 'ludicrous' out of interest? Trains reverse direction in service routinely all around the world.

 

[MattRat]

There's cost cutting and keeping the outputs as high as possible, and then there's cost cutting and obliterating most of the outputs/benefits you're trying to achieve.

An Ashton station very much falls into the latter category.

Why is a turnback station 'ludicrous' out of interest? Trains reverse direction in service routinely all around the world.

You just explained yourself. It obliterates the output. 'Ro-ro' stations are inherently more efficient than terminus at handling traffic. Just play Open TTD if you don't believe me. And since you are also going on to Leeds anyway, why can't the train have a path straight there?

 

[Ianno87]

You just explained yourself. It obliterates the output. 'Ro-ro' stations are inherently more efficient than terminus at handling traffic. Just play Open TTD if you don't believe me. And since you are also going on to Leeds anyway, why can't the train have a path straight there?

I'm going to politely suggest that there are more nuances to Operations and Timetabling than can be experienced/understood in OpenTTD.

Remember, this isn't a game of "chuck as many trains through Manchester as you can" - the objective is about 8 through trains per direction per hour and having enough capability in the station, track and platform layout to do that.

 

[Starmill]

You just explained yourself. It obliterates the output. 'Ro-ro' stations are inherently more efficient than terminus at handling traffic. Just play Open TTD if you don't believe me. And since you are also going on to Leeds anyway, why can't the train have a path straight there?

We've been over this so many times. A dwell time below 90 seconds wouldn't be achievable in central Manchester. Four minutes is easily achievable for a reversing train. Potentially less if a crew are always in place. It's really not that difficult.

The disadvantage of a through station would also be needing to find space for sidings for trains terminating and originating to reverse into. And then passengers wouldn't be able to board in advance of departure.

 

[geoffk]

I don't believe they have found a surface route all the way to Marsden.

The Micklehurst loop?

 

[MattRat]

I'm going to politely suggest that there are more nuances to Operations and Timetabling than can be experienced/understood in OpenTTD.

Remember, this isn't a game of "chuck as many trains through Manchester as you can" - the objective is about 8 through trains per direction per hour and having enough capability in the station, track and platform layout to do that.

Again you undo your own argument. You just admitted a through station has more capacity. And why can't a station have more capacity han it needs right now. It makes it future proof when you end up needing more capacity.

 

[Ianno87]

The Micklehurst loop?

Will that knock 10 minutes off the Huddersfield-Manchester journey time compared to the present route? I'd suggest 'unlikely'.

Again you undo your own argument. You just admitted a through station has more capacity. And why can't a station have more capacity han it needs right now. It makes it future proof when you end up needing more capacity.

Because:
1) From the IRP, the Underground station takes about 7 years longer to bring into operation, so *no* benefits *at all* for best part of 2 decades from now. The North can't wait that long.

2) To realise that "future proof" capacity would exceed the realistic capacity that will ever be available in other areas. Specifically, what would happen to all these trains once you hit Leeds? The IRP document also notes that the maximum practical capacity on HS2 through Manchester Airport is about 14tph anyway, so no point gold-plating Piccadilly station when the next hard constraint is right next door.

3) Also from IRP, this "future proofing" (which may not be realisable as per point (2) comes at a cost of £4-5bn (as well as loss of potential benefits for 7 additional years as per point (1)... for something that may never even be realisable in practice.

Capacity is about the whole system, not one node in isolation.

 

[fishwomp]

Why would Option 1 be chosen? It doesn't make sense.

Once you work everything out, no doubt it won't be much cheaper than Option 2, and only offer tiny journey time savings in comparison as you'll just be bypassing a sinuous surface route with another sinuous surface route.

Option 1 would also likely be the one resulting in people being thrown out of houses etc as a surface route.

If you look at the map you'll see how little option 1 disturbs, it's a footpath.. It isn't very sinusoidal either, https://www.railmaponline.com/UKIEMap.php shows the old line btw.

Sure, go tunnel from Stalybridge to Guide Bridge but it isn't housing there..

As I said, I predict they come up with a couple options, pick the cheapest because of value. Guess we have to see how it goes and discuss again in 2025!

 

[fishwomp]

Will that [Micklehurst loop] knock 10 minutes off the Huddersfield-Manchester journey time compared to the present route? I'd suggest 'unlikely'.

It would be impossible to do that: Stalybridge to Diggle is only 7mins. However, by extending that to GB they avoiding the curving viaduct to Stalybridge to Guide B itself would be 4 mins, and a proper 100mph segregated line without the congestion into Ashburys will get the other 6.

 

[WatcherZero]

The Victorians managed it even doing it by hand. All the deep underground stations were built by digging big shafts from above through which to remove the spoil and then when they were done they became the stairwells and lift shafts.

Nowadays we would go beyond the shaft and exacavate almost the entire station box from above, you build the platforms then above that you build the concourse then you back fill leaving room for the escalators, lifts and air vent shafts. An underground Piccadilly would only be tens of meters deep due to the geology being rock rather than clay, shallower than a lot of underground lines.

 

[MattRat]

Because:
1) From the IRP, the Underground station takes about 7 years longer to bring into operation, so *no* benefits *at all* for best part of 2 decades from now. The North can't wait that long.

2) To realise that "future proof" capacity would exceed the realistic capacity that will ever be available in other areas. Specifically, what would happen to all these trains once you hit Leeds? The IRP document also notes that the maximum practical capacity on HS2 through Manchester Airport is about 14tph anyway, so no point gold-plating Piccadilly station when the next hard constraint is right next door.

3) Also from IRP, this "future proofing" (which may not be realisable as per point (2) comes at a cost of £4-5bn (as well as loss of potential benefits for 7 additional years as per point (1)... for something that may never even be realisable in practice.

Capacity is about the whole system, not one node in isolation.

1&3) So there is no way to provide a cheap and quick to build through station anywhere in Manchester? Say by a different placement or different station like Manchester Oxford Road or Manchester Victoria?

2) 14 is bigger than the 8 you mentioned before....

 

[Purple Orange]

Will that knock 10 minutes off the Huddersfield-Manchester journey time compared to the present route? I'd suggest 'unlikely'.



Because:
1) From the IRP, the Underground station takes about 7 years longer to bring into operation, so *no* benefits *at all* for best part of 2 decades from now. The North can't wait that long.

2) To realise that "future proof" capacity would exceed the realistic capacity that will ever be available in other areas. Specifically, what would happen to all these trains once you hit Leeds? The IRP document also notes that the maximum practical capacity on HS2 through Manchester Airport is about 14tph anyway, so no point gold-plating Piccadilly station when the next hard constraint is right next door.

3) Also from IRP, this "future proofing" (which may not be realisable as per point (2) comes at a cost of £4-5bn (as well as loss of potential benefits for 7 additional years as per point (1)... for something that may never even be realisable in practice.

Capacity is about the whole system, not one node in isolation.

Precisely this. I fail to see why Leeds-Manc needs more than 6 fast tph anyway. This thirst from people advocating a through station seem to want a metro system for an Intercity network.

 

[21C101]

1&3) So there is no way to provide a cheap and quick to build through station anywhere in Manchester? Say by a different placement or different station like Manchester Oxford Road or Manchester Victoria?

If an add on to Manchester Piccadilly can be done it would be folly to build it anywhere else and lose the interchange.

 

[JonathanH]

If an add on to Manchester Piccadilly can be done it would be folly to build it anywhere else and lose the interchange.

On the other hand, there isn't then an interchange at Piccadilly to destinations north east from Manchester - not that I think it appropriate to look at other sites when there is space at Piccadilly.

 

[21C101]

On the other hand, there isn't then an interchange at Piccadilly to destinations north east from Manchester

There is via the castlefield Chord or via Guide Bridge plus Bury and Oldham have direct trams

 

[Purple Orange]

Are we honestly at thinking of running HS2/NPR trains through Castlefield?!

 

[MattRat]

Are we honestly at thinking of running HS2/NPR trains through Castlefield?!

Some people seem to be. I for one disagree and hope an alternative is found (and soon).

 

[JonathanH]

Are we honestly at thinking of running HS2/NPR trains through Castlefield?!

No, where does that impression come from? The discussion was about connections to Rochdale.

 

[Purple Orange]

No, where does that impression come from? The discussion was about connections to Rochdale.

Clearly I misinterpreted things on the IRP thread here!

Some people seem to be. I for one disagree and hope an alternative is found (and soon).

What alternative would you want?

 

[Bald Rick]

You have an out of date map there, here's the new alignment

I was using the official maps from HS2; if you have a better official source I stand corrected.

To say nothing of the rather large number of km north of the border that will be in scope in that time.

I suspect that most of that will, ahem, not be in scope.

Isn't that exactly what was done in Berlin?

No, not remotely.

If you look at the map you'll see how little option 1 disturbs, it's a footpath.. It isn't very sinusoidal either, https://www.railmaponline.com/UKIEMap.php shows the old line btw.

Ah. Super crayons.

Are we honestly at thinking of running HS2/NPR trains through Castlefield?!

No.

 

[Austriantrain]

DB is investigating the provision of through underground platforms at Frankfurt Hbf for ICE services because of the hassle of reversing them in the main shed. Is Germany mistaken? Have they not thought about supposed dwell time problems? Stuttgart Hbf is also to become a through station, although admittedly implementation has been a long-drawn out fiasco. Madrid Atocha will also eventually have low-level through platforms for AVE services between Northern and Southern Spain.

In Frankfurt‘s case, it’s not really about the dwell - DB turns around ICE trains there in 4 or 5 minutes - but about the time saving by continuing directly to the East instead of going out again towards the West and then around the city. It being built for a Takt timetable, it means every minute can count - 33 Minutes like Manchester to Leeds would never do.

in the case of Frankfurt, also, since all trains will run through and none will end in the new underground station (except probably at start or end of day), the four-track through station will indeed have a higher capacity than if it were a same-sized terminal. However, I haven’t done the math to see whether the proposed timetable on these platforms could also have been run with a terminal.

 

[MattRat]

What alternative would you want?

A through station anywhere it will fit.

 

[Bald Rick]

A through station anywhere it will fit.

But that’s the point. The laws of physics intervene, and it doesn’t fit.

 

[Purple Orange]

A through station anywhere it will fit.

In that case it would need to be outside the city centre.

 

[Bevan Price]

At the Leeds end, how are they going to fit 8 fast trains per hour between Ravensthorpe & Leeds without wrecking the local services at Dewsbury, Batley, etc.?

Yes, they might be able to reinstate 4 tracks through Dewsbury station. They might also be able to reinstate the ex-LNWR viaduct from Farnley Jn into Leeds - but will that be enough ??

 

[MattRat]

At the Leeds end, how are they going to fit 8 fast trains per hour between Ravensthorpe & Leeds without wrecking the local services at Dewsbury, Batley, etc.?

Yes, they might be able to reinstate 4 tracks through Dewsbury station. They might also be able to reinstate the ex-LNWR viaduct from Farnley Jn into Leeds - but will that be enough ??

Well the current fast trains would be accounted for (TPE trains), so all that's needed is space for HS2 trains. Although that doesn't account for when more capacity is inevitably needed in the future.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The Micklehurst loop?

It will depend on the line speed adopted for NPR.
The Micklehurst loop was not remotely built for fast running, being engineered for trans-Pennine freight.
It has also been built on in places.
I imagine something like a 125mph speed profile is desired (or the same as whatever maximum is engineered in the upgrade east of Huddersfield).
Without a new Standedge tunnel you are stuck with the severe curve at the eastern end of the old tunnels, and I imagine the Mardsen location is where the new line will meet the straighter classic alignment towards Huddersfield.

I was talking about Liverpool. Generally at, or just above, sea level. And not provisioned with a long and wide area of open space as a result of a 3 decades of division between very different political systems. Although Liverpool and Everton could perhaps contest that.

If I believe a mapping web site, Lime St station has an elevation of 28m.
With two climbs from the Pier Head it's not really close to sea level.
Tackling that Mersey red sandstone might be a challenge though, although there's fairly recent experience from the Loop/Link construction.