Shapps "promised to scrap HS2 Golborne spur"

[snowball]

The Guardian website is claiming that Grant Shapps, the transport secretary, has privately promised to drop the Golborne spur.

Senior Tory says Shapps privately assured him £3bn HS2 branch will be scrapped

Exclusive: Assurances offered to Graham Brady may raise questions about why decision has not been made public

www.theguardian.com

Exclusive: Assurances offered to Graham Brady may raise questions about why decision has not been made public

Grant Shapps has privately promised to scrap a controversial £3bn branch of the HS2 train line that carves through the constituency of the 1922 Committee chair, Sir Graham Brady, and two other Tory MPs, the Guardian understands.

The link, known as the Golborne spur, would connect the main Crewe-Manchester HS2 line to the west coast mainline just south of Wigan.

Brady, the Tory MP for Altrincham and Sale West, which would be affected by the spur, wrote to a constituent last week saying Shapps had given him “categorical verbal assurances” that it would be removed from the HS2 bill currently going through parliament.

The link has been the subject of heated lobbying by MPs in the Warrington, Wigan and Trafford areas where their constituencies would be affected. But the private assurances from Shapps to Brady, who runs the powerful 1922 Committee of backbenchers, may raise questions about why the transport secretary has not made public any decision.

Unique event?: at this moment the top two threads in "Infrastructure and Stations" are both about Golborne, but possibly unrelated to each other.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

The Guardian website is claiming that Grant Shapps, the transport secretary, has privately promised to drop the Golborne spur.

Senior Tory says Shapps privately assured him £3bn HS2 branch will be scrapped

Exclusive: Assurances offered to Graham Brady may raise questions about why decision has not been made public

www.theguardian.com

Unique event?: at this moment the top two threads in "Infrastructure and Stations" are both about Golborne, but possibly unrelated to each other.

In the union connectivity review it was proposed to be scrapped in favour of a connection South of Preston

 

[snowball]

In the union connectivity review it was proposed to be scrapped in favour of a connection South of Preston

It was a bit more vaguely worded than that:

The UK Government has already acknowledged
some of the issues identified by the Review. The
‘Golborne Link’—the current proposed connection
between HS2 and the WCML—is expected to deliver
quicker journey times and more capacity between
England and Scotland and resolve some of the
constraints between Crewe and Preston.
However, the ‘Golborne Link’ does not resolve all of
the identified issues. The suitability of alternative
connections between HS2 and the WCML have
been considered by the Review. The emerging
evidence suggests that an alternative connection
to the WCML, for example at some point south
of Preston, could offer more benefits and an
opportunity to reduce journey times by two to three
minutes more than the ‘Golborne Link’. However,
more work is required to better understand the
case for and against such options.
These benefits could also include additional
operational flexibility when timing freight services
and less disruption to the WCML than major
upgrades as most construction could take place
away from the railway. Further work is needed to
determine the comparative user and wider benefits,
costs and deliverability of an alternative connection
alongside the interventions set out below.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

In the union connectivity review it was proposed to be scrapped in favour of a connection South of Preston

Not scrapped, but extended. It's also the main line, not a branch!
Without it, everything for Preston/Scotland will trundle through Warrington as now.
It is expensive, however, with the various structures needed over the waterways and mosses, notably the viaduct over the Manchester Ship Canal/River Mersey.

 

[The Ham]

In the union connectivity review it was proposed to be scrapped in favour of a connection South of Preston

Further in within the article it says:

In his letter, Brady said: “I have received categorical, verbal assurances from the secretary of state that the government will table an amendment as part of the second reading of the bill. This will remove the Golborne spur from the legislation. This is expected to take place in the summertime. The only reason that the bill was introduced with the spur still in place is that a revised environmental impact assessment would have delayed the introduction of legislation.”
The bill is likely to be carried over into the next session of parliament after the Queen’s speech in May, with its second reading in the summer. Alternative routes are being considered but one proposed in the union connectivity review drew criticism from Wigan council, which supports the Golborne link, for bypassing the town, meaning it would lose benefits.
Brady told the Guardian: “Local Conservative MPs Andy Carter, James Grundy and I have been campaigning for years to make the case for this £4bn white elephant to be dropped. A new environmental impact assessment would have delayed the introduction of the bill for months so the Golborne spur is in the bill as published but I am delighted that the government has accepted our commonsense argument.

Why would doing nothing require an update to the Environmental Impact Assessment? As such it is likely that an alternative is being put forwards, as otherwise the improvements to journey times to Scotland would be very limited.

 

[tomuk]

It is expensive, however, with the various structures needed over the waterways and mosses, notably the viaduct over the Manchester Ship Canal/River Mersey.

Like the equally expensive structures need to get the parallel Liverpool NPR line from High Leigh to WBQ low level.

 

[stuu]

The plans for NPR depend on at least some of it being built. Have they been abandoned within 6 months of launch?

 

[tspaul26]

Why would doing nothing require an update to the Environmental Impact Assessment?

The project has been revised which means the assessment has to be updated to reflect that. It is fairly routine since EIA is an iterative process.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Like the equally expensive structures need to get the parallel Liverpool NPR line from High Legh to WBQ low level.

Indeed, but not through Graham Brady's constituency...

 

[Purple Orange]

The plans for NPR depend on at least some of it being built. Have they been abandoned within 6 months of launch?

NPR only relies on the line to Manchester, and not the Golborne Spur.

 

[Watershed]

Of course this will be of benefit to longer distance WCML passengers (provided the Preston link actually happens!) but I can't help feeling that the Wigan MPs are 'doing a Northampton' here, with NIMBYism resigning the town to slower services forevermore.

No doubt if the forum is still around in 20 years' time we will have a thread entitled "Proposals to build the Golborne Spur"!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Of course this will be of benefit to longer distance WCML passengers (provided the Preston link actually happens!) but I can't help feeling that the Wigan MPs are 'doing a Northampton' here, with NIMBYism resigning the town to slower services forevermore.

That's already a done deal, because the 400m Edinburgh/Glasgow services won't stop at Warrington/Wigan anyway due to platform lengths, with those two being served by a Lancaster terminator (classic WCML from Crewe for reasons of connectivity) and the Birmingham-Scotland services (all 200m). Golborne (or Preston) would just speed up the Scottish service a bit and free up a couple of paths.

HS2 is being built with so little slack that that service pattern won't change within 20+ years, I reckon. Amazing when you consider how much slack was put into Euston when that was built - enough for it to go from 5tph IC and 2tph local to about 9 of each.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The Golborne link for HS2 is also the point where Edinburgh services are supposed to transfer to the WCML from the ECML.
Without it, the services are just the existing WCML services, so it's not just a local debate between NW politicians.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Golborne link for HS2 is also the point where Edinburgh services are supposed to transfer to the WCML from the ECML.
Without it, the services are just the existing WCML services, so it's not just a local debate between NW politicians.

No, it's not. The Scottish services will be fully WCML and split/join at I think Carlisle. HS2 Scottish services even on the original proposal would not go ECML, the eastern leg services were to Newcastle only and not beyond.

The WCML is actually slightly more direct because of the shape of the UK.

 

[snowball]

No, it's not. The Scottish services will be fully WCML and split/join at I think Carlisle. HS2 Scottish services even on the original proposal would not go ECML, the eastern leg services were to Newcastle only and not beyond.

The WCML is actually slightly more direct because of the shape of the UK.

I was a bit puzzled at first by LNW-GW Joint's post, but I eventually decided he meant that the opening of the Golborne Spur would be the point in time at which it was proposed to switch London-Edinburgh services from the ECML to be portions of HS2/WCML trains to Glasgow.

In other words, when HS2 extends only to Crewe, London-Edinburgh services will remain on the ECML.

Therefore if Golborne is dropped the plan becomes unknown.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was a bit puzzled at first by LNW-GW Joint's post, but I eventually decided he meant that the opening of the Golborne Spur would be the point in time at which it was proposed to switch London-Edinburgh services from the ECML to be portions of HS2/WCML trains to Glasgow.

In other words, when HS2 extends only to Crewe, London-Edinburgh services will remain on th ECML.

There may still be London-Edinburgh services on the classic ECML just as there'll be London-Manchester services on the classic WCML (if for no other reason than that not everybody lives in, nor is going to, London), but part of the core HS2 service is 2tph 400m (2x200m) from Euston to Edinburgh/Glasgow splitting or joining at Carlisle, whether Golborne/Preston is built or not.

The path is effectively free, because you might as well run the second portion, and 400m won't fit in Glasgow Central. There are no circumstances under which Euston-Glasgow services would not run on HS2 other than its outright cancellation.

 

[SargeNpton]

Of course this will be of benefit to longer distance WCML passengers (provided the Preston link actually happens!) but I can't help feeling that the Wigan MPs are 'doing a Northampton' here, with NIMBYism resigning the town to slower services forevermore.

No doubt if the forum is still around in 20 years' time we will have a thread entitled "Proposals to build the Golborne Spur"!

Northampton not being on the main line was not so much to do with landowners not wanting the line running through their land as to do with geography.

The gradient required being too steep for the locomotives of the time to cope with. Much the same reason as for the Grand Junction Canal not running through the town.

 

[Mollman]

NPR only relies on the line to Manchester, and not the Golborne Spur.

There is a planned interaction with the north of Crewe WCML section of HS2 to allow Liverpool trains to use more of HS2

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I was a bit puzzled at first by LNW-GW Joint's post, but I eventually decided he meant that the opening of the Golborne Spur would be the point in time at which it was proposed to switch London-Edinburgh services from the ECML to be portions of HS2/WCML trains to Glasgow.
In other words, when HS2 extends only to Crewe, London-Edinburgh services will remain on the ECML.
Therefore if Golborne is dropped the plan becomes unknown.

That was indeed what I meant.
The theory was I think that before the Crewe-Golborne link was open, there was insufficient capacity via Warrington and journey times would be longer.
The ECML upgrade now in prospect (replacing HS2's Yorkshire branch) makes life harder for the Golborne business case.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The theory was I think that before the Crewe-Golborne link was open, there was insufficient capacity via Warrington and journey times would be longer.

There isn't insufficient capacity, because the HS2 Glasgow just replaces the existing WCML one. Golborne might be needed to go to 2tph, but the path for an hourly Edinburgh is free because it's the other 200m of the Glasgow.

The only other way to use that path efficiently would I guess be to run the Edinburgh as the Lancaster stopper instead splitting at Crewe, but that would only free up a path on HS2, not the WCML.

 

[snowball]

There is a planned interaction with the north of Crewe WCML section of HS2 to allow Liverpool trains to use more of HS2

The originally proposed two-way split (near the crossing under the A50 at Hoo Green) would become a 3-way split in the current plans (as e.g. in the Bill). If the Golborne link is dropped, my best guess is that the structures there would remain as in the current plans. Alternatively they might be simplified back to a 2-way split.

A couple of miles further north, after the separation of the 3 routes from the south to Golborne, Manchester and Liverpool, the current plans include a bridge over the Golborne route that would remain unused until the building of the Liverpool-Manchester route. If the Golborne route is dropped, there will be no need to build that bridge.

There is no aspect of serving Liverpool that would be made harder or more expensive by the dropping of the Golborne arm.

 

[Purple Orange]

The originally proposed two-way split (near the crossing under the A50 at Hoo Green) would become a 3-way split in the current plans (as e.g. in the Bill). If the Golborne link is dropped, my best guess is that the structures there would remain as in the current plans.

A couple of miles further north, after the separation of the 3 routes from the south to Golborne, Manchester and Liverpool, the current plans include a bridge over the Golborne route that would remain unused until the building of the Liverpool-Manchester route. If the Golborne route is dropped, there will be no need to build that bridge.

So it would effectively be like a t-junction?

 

[snowball]

So it would effectively be like a t-junction?

If I'm understanding you correctly, yes, but extending over a considerable distance with fields, houses and roads in between.

Originally there was a north-south route (Crewe to Golborne) with a south-to-east curve (Crewe to Manchester Airport and Piccadilly) and a lower-speed east-to-north to curve for ECS movements. The Crewe-Manchester route turns through 90 degrees to avoid such features as Rostherne Mere.

Then the east-to-north curve was dropped following the relocation of the proposed coaching stock depot from Golborne to Crewe. Since then there have been no proposed northward curves in the area.

Then the proposal was modified a year or two ago to add provision for a future east-west route (Manchester-Liverpool) and a future south-to-west curve (Crewe-Liverpool), giving the proposals in the Bill, which include a 3-level junction at the southern corner.

If the Golborne arm is dropped, the north-south route will be cut back to the southern junction.

No route has yet been published for the east-west route or the south-to-west curve. They would be published as part of NPR.

 

[The Ham]

The BBC have now picked up this story:

Senior MP 'assured' HS2 link line will not happen - BBC News

Sir Graham Brady confirms the transport secretary told him the Golborne Link would be scrapped.

www.bbc.co.uk

Much of it covers what the Guardian had said, although does say:

Andy Carter, the Conservative MP for Warrington South, said he, Sir Graham and Leigh MP James Grundy had repeatedly argued for route changes.

He said there were "better ways to connect Manchester with the North and Scotland than via the Golborne Spur".

"I understand work is under way to publish an alternative route and I will certainly be supportive of any Government amendments," he added.

 

[TheGrew]

As someone who lives in the area (and within 5 miles of the proposed route though with the M6 in-between), my preference would be either for the HS2 branch to join south of Warrington or to join it somewhere north of Wigan. If the aim is for the fastest London-Scotland times then having the first stop at Preston seems to make most sense to me. If the aim is to relieve the Crewe-Weaver Junction corridor then build it further south.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As someone who lives in the area (and within 5 miles of the proposed route though with the M6 in-between), my preference would be either for the HS2 branch to join south of Warrington or to join it somewhere north of Wigan. If the aim is for the fastest London-Scotland times then having the first stop at Preston seems to make most sense to me. If the aim is to relieve the Crewe-Weaver Junction corridor then build it further south.

London-Scotland is going to be non-stop between Birmingham and Preston anyway because it will be a 400m train with a Glasgow and Edinburgh portion. Wigan/Warrington will be served by the Lancaster service which leaves HS2 at Crewe.

 

[507020]

London-Scotland is going to be non-stop between Birmingham and Preston anyway because it will be a 400m train with a Glasgow and Edinburgh portion. Wigan/Warrington will be served by the Lancaster service which leaves HS2 at Crewe.

But that is a question of whether this 400m train will run fast through Wigan North Western on the 2 track WCML, (whether this section will be quadrupled) or whether it will be able to bypass this section on a new line to create capacity for a new Coppull station. Geographically the Golborne link makes sense as the northern extent of HS2 until the high speed tracks are extended to Scotland in about 300 years, but I’ve got no idea how or where you would build a connection further north. With no certainty on this, HS2 trains will end up joining the WCML at Crewe and stay on it with no other connection to HS2 available further north.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

London-Scotland is going to be non-stop between Birmingham and Preston anyway because it will be a 400m train with a Glasgow and Edinburgh portion. Wigan/Warrington will be served by the Lancaster service which leaves HS2 at Crewe.

The most recent version of the service pattern diagrams I can find is in the Okervee Review in 2020, p120-122 (Annex 2, figures A6/7/8).
The diagrams are headed: Do Minimum; Do Something; and Do Something Without a link to the WCML north of Crewe.
With no Golborne link we are looking at the last one.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/870092/oakervee-review.pdf

Only the second diagram (with the Golborne link) has a half-hourly Euston-Glasgow/Edinburgh service (and one from Birmingham non-stop to Wigan).
The third diagram (no Golborne link) shows only a single Glasgow HS2 service, the implication being that the Edinburgh service is retained on the ECML.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is that the right link? I can't find what you refer to, and the Annexes are lettered, not numbered.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Is that the right link? I can't find what you refer to, and the Annexes are lettered, not numbered.

You're quite right, it wasn't in he Okervee Review.
The document I was quoting from was the DfT Update on the HS2b Western Leg: Crewe-Manchester Strategic Outline Business Case (Jan 22).
So very recent (went with the start of the western leg Bill submission).

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1051208/hs2-phase-2b-western-leg-crewe-to-manchester-an-update-on-the-strategic-outline-business-case-executive-summary.pdf