UK Connectivity Review

[Watershed]

Compares to 33.5 mins from Piccadilly to Preston now with a clean path, calling Oxford Rd only.

32.5 mins, assuming a 1.5 min stop at Oxford Rd. But yes, it's unlikely to be substantially slower.

 

[The Ham]

That’s right. Piccadilly to the junction at Rostherne is ‘only’ 230km/h max; Were there a junction to head north, that would most likely be the same, and there is then only 5k at 320km/h before the 230 / 210 / 200 limits to the end of the line at Bamfurlong. Including the stop at the airport, Piccadilly to Bamfurlong would be in the region of 17 minutes. The current time from Bamfurlong to Preston is 15 minutes including the Wigan stop, so 32 minute Piccadilly to Preston. Compares to 33.5 mins from Piccadilly to Preston now with a clean path, calling Oxford Rd only.

Whilst timings are almost the same, might there be a capacity reason why you would opt to run services the long way around? For instance freeing up a path (or more) for local services.

Obviously that would require quite a significant amount of cost for a few extra local services an hour, so probably wouldn't be viable.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

230km/h would seem to be the ideal target ruling speed for NPR new construction, then, much like a German/Austrian ABS route.
We might need an NPR train depot and route maintenance site too, if Crewe and Stone are considered too far.

 

[Bald Rick]

230km/h would seem to be the ideal target ruling speed for NPR new construction, then, much like a German/Austrian ABS route.

I can’t see it being any higher than that. Possibly lower.

 

[Austriantrain]

230km/h would seem to be the ideal target ruling speed for NPR new construction, then, much like a German/Austrian ABS route.

I am being pedantic here - still would like to point out that 230 km/h in Austria are almost exclusively on new lines, not ABS (it might seem the other way because some major projects were sold as four-tracking, but it is really newly built.) Design speed mostly 250 BTW, albeit not used at the moment

 

[Roast Veg]

I can’t see it being any higher than that. Possibly lower.

Hopefully above 200kmh at least in some stretches...

 

[Bald Rick]

Hopefully above 200kmh at least in some stretches...

Well, the issue here is that the distance between stops is relatively small, and therefore the opportunity to reach speeds over 200kmh equally small. As mentioned on other threads, the benefit of, say, 225km/h over 200km/h is 2 seconds a km. A train leaving Piccadilly, next stop Huddersfield, will have at most 20km where it could be above 200km/h, allowing for acceleration and braking for the line speed where it rejoins the existing line at Marsden. So even if that stretch of new line has an alignment suitable for above 200km/h, the gain would be about 40 seconds. If there is an extra cost for buying a train that is cable of speeds above 200km/h, that might be seen as being profligate.

 

[Roast Veg]

Well, the issue here is that the distance between stops is relatively small, and therefore the opportunity to reach speeds over 200kmh equally small. As mentioned on other threads, the benefit of, say, 225km/h over 200km/h is 2 seconds a km. A train leaving Piccadilly, next stop Huddersfield, will have at most 20km where it could be above 200km/h, allowing for acceleration and braking for the line speed where it rejoins the existing line at Marsden. So even if that stretch of new line has an alignment suitable for above 200km/h, the gain would be about 40 seconds. If there is an extra cost for buying a train that is cable of speeds above 200km/h, that might be seen as being profligate.

What about capacity between Rostherne and Manchester Picc? What about Rostherne to Fiddler's Ferry, which will already be fast at the Rostherne end? We already purchase 140mph stock for 125mph lines, and the 395s seem pretty fit for purpose over their short stretch on HS1.

 

[BrianW]

I must be missing something here.
The 'Integrated Rail Plan' gave some emphasis on time savings between significant cities in the North and Midlands of England and between them and London.
What are the comparative times anticipated into the future between those same provincial cities and the cities of Scotland and Wales (and NI??)?

 

[tomuk]

230km/h would seem to be the ideal target ruling speed for NPR new construction, then, much like a German/Austrian ABS route.
We might need an NPR train depot and route maintenance site too, if Crewe and Stone are considered too far.

More Hitachi 80x based at a depot on the old Fiddler's Ferry Power Station site maybe?

 

[Noddy]

Indeed. There was a northern junction in the plans very early on, but that was for trains from Manchester to access the depot, which was going to be at Golborne until moved to north of Crewe.

I did some very early work on the idea of Manchester to Scotland trains, and it seemed the journey time going nearly three quarters of the way round Manchester, even on high speed, wasn't much different from going via Bolton.

As far as I am ware there are no Northbound junctions to allow HS2/NPR services to run from Manchester or Liverpool to Glasgow or Edinburgh. Only Birmingham with the delta junction.

Erm, I (we) were talking about a hypothetical extension to HS2 from north to Scotland which would bring the London-Glasgow/Edinburgh journey times down to 2hrs 30 min. See post #50. I was not discussing any of the existing HS2/NPR schemes.

 

[edwin_m]

Erm, I (we) were talking about a hypothetical extension to HS2 from north to Scotland which would bring the London-Glasgow/Edinburgh journey times down to 2hrs 30 min. See post #50. I was not discussing any of the existing HS2/NPR schemes.

You may have been talking about that, but someone else raised the point about whether it could be used for Manchester trains as well.

 

[Noddy]

You may have been talking about that, but someone else raised the point about whether it could be used for Manchester trains as well.

Yes that was me! But given we are talking about something that is only slightly beyond the crayon stage it doesn’t seem like rocket science to suggest that it could be used by Manchester/Liverpool trains with the addition of a relatively small junction or two somewhere!

 

[WesternS]

A view from the other side..... https://tyronetribulations.com/2021...o-potholes-already-appearing-on-final-drafts/

As the female owner of a lighting shop in Larne said to me a month or so ago "Larne loves a bargain".

 

[edwin_m]

Yes that was me! But given we are talking about something that is only slightly beyond the crayon stage it doesn’t seem like rocket science to suggest that it could be used by Manchester/Liverpool trains with the addition of a relatively small junction or two somewhere!

Posts by @Bald Rick and me suggested that there would be no significant time saving between Manchester and Preston, or a very small one if the HS infrastructure went all the way to Preston. That would be the same whether the line beyond was high speed or conventional.

 

[Bald Rick]

What about capacity between Rostherne and Manchester Picc? What about Rostherne to Fiddler's Ferry, which will already be fast at the Rostherne end? We already purchase 140mph stock for 125mph lines, and the 395s seem pretty fit for purpose over their short stretch on HS1.

Capacity won’t be an issue - it’s just over 28 km from the junction to the bufferstops at Piccadilly, at a linespeed of 220/230 with the airport roughly halfway. A train limited to 200km/h will lose perhaps 30 seconds compared to a train operating at linespeed. Essentially it will use the same path.

At the Rostherne end it will be 230km/h - that is the top speed of the entire Manchester branch.

Yes, we already have bought 140mph stock for 125mph lines, albeit that was based on the expectation of sustained running at the higher speeds on those routes at some point. That wouldn’t be the case on NPR routes. I agree that it would seem sensible to do so here, but only if the cost of that extra speed (that would be used relatively little) is a minor increment.

 

[Roast Veg]

Capacity won’t be an issue - it’s just over 28 km from the junction to the bufferstops at Piccadilly, at a linespeed of 220/230 with the airport roughly halfway. A train limited to 200km/h will lose perhaps 30 seconds compared to a train operating at linespeed. Essentially it will use the same path.

At the Rostherne end it will be 230km/h - that is the top speed of the entire Manchester branch.

Yes, we already have bought 140mph stock for 125mph lines, albeit that was based on the expectation of sustained running at the higher speeds on those routes at some point. That wouldn’t be the case on NPR routes. I agree that it would seem sensible to do so here, but only if the cost of that extra speed (that would be used relatively little) is a minor increment.

Fair points, understood. Given the products on offer from manufacturers I'd be very surprised if a 230km/h product is any more expensive.

 

[Greybeard33]

Posts by @Bald Rick and me suggested that there would be no significant time saving between Manchester and Preston, or a very small one if the HS infrastructure went all the way to Preston. That would be the same whether the line beyond was high speed or conventional.

Although capacity would be released for local services on the Styal line, the Bolton line and through the Castlefield corridor. And there would be a substantial time saving between Manchester Airport and Preston....

 

[Purple Orange]

Although capacity would be released for local services on the Styal line, the Bolton line and through the Castlefield corridor. And there would be a substantial time saving between Manchester Airport and Preston....

And for that reason, a north facing junction might be worth it. The NPR journey time between Manchester Piccadilly & Liverpool is not going to be drastically different to the time between Manchester Victoria & Liverpool, but it releases more capacity.

 

[AngusH]

Concerning bridge or tunnel, see the separate document

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1035650/a-fixed-link-between-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-technical-feasibility.pdf

This can be summarised as it is, just about, technically feasible to build a fixed link (at about £335bn for a bridge and about £209bn for a rail-only tunnel). The report does not address economic viability. It concludes:

Having read this though, it seems the estimates are very uncertain?

The figures quoted seem to be £80 Billion for a bridge and all the works, with a 320% optimism bias added on.

So 4 times the quoted base estimate to account for optimistic estimates?

The tunnel likewise £50 billion with a 320% add on to give £209 billion.

All on page 37 of the report.


edit: slight change in wording


Also since I'm editing anyway,
the estimates also involve extensive rail and road upgrades, upwards of 120 km in length in Scotland (cost: £12-£56 billion)
and major road way connections of 184 km for the bridge option. (Cost £5-£20 billion)

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

More Hitachi 80x based at a depot on the old Fiddler's Ferry Power Station site maybe?

Well, it's a long time yet before NPR trains are needed, and TPE's 140mph-capable Nova 1 stock is practically new.
We'll soon know what stock HS2 will get, which might be a pointer (and dictate depot arrangements).
Either way, I'm sure any new trains required will go out to tender.

 

[Purple Orange]

Well, it's a long time yet before NPR trains are needed, and TPE's 140mph-capable Nova 1 stock is practically new.
We'll soon know what stock HS2 will get, which might be a pointer (and dictate depot arrangements).
Either way, I'm sure any new trains required will go out to tender.

In some ways I hope the NPR fleet is different slightly to the HS2 fleet. My personal preference would be a fleet of uniform classic compatible 200m HS2 trains (I’ve liked the look of Siemen’s trains), plus a fleet of 200m high speed trains with doors at 3rds for Liverpool-York NPR services.