HS2

[KingEdwardII]

On 17/11/2021 at 13:25, phil-b259 said:

at 200mph the time taken to go between London and Scotland still exceeds the magic 3hr

?!? As far as I can tell, London - Glasgow is 401 miles (Euston to Central).

 

At 186mph that would be 2.15 hours. OK, doing an average of 186 all the way would be unlikely, but it should be doable in under 3 hours. Boost the max speed to 200mph and it should be a doddle. Stops would add time, but why do more than 1 (e.g. Warrington or Preston), at least for the fastest services?

 

London - Paris is 2h 24min for 212 miles, with the major slowdown to 100mph in the Chunnel. That's still very acceptable and well competitive with flying. I've used it loads of times rather than fly, when visiting central Paris.

 

Yours, Mike.

[Edwin_m]

A short distance down the M42 is the bridge they put in last year, to carry the road that will be obliterated by the HS2 bridge.  I presume the "bridge to nowhere" on Ron's picture is the remains of this, apparently re-purposed to carry just a footpath.  This was also put in place by a transporter - not sure if this qualifies as the "hi-tech raft" - but if so the only major innovation seems to be that the abutments and pier are put in place in one piece with the bridge, instead of being built beforehand and the bridge placed on top of them.  

[Ron Ron Ron]

1 hour ago, Edwin_m said:

A short distance down the M42 is the bridge they put in last year, to carry the road that will be obliterated by the HS2 bridge.  I presume the "bridge to nowhere" on Ron's picture is the remains of this, apparently re-purposed to carry just a footpath......

 

No this is in a different location to the one you're talking about.

This bridge is just north of the "Delta Junction" at Water Orton, next to Junction 9 on the M42.

This stretch of HS2 is the section just after the junction with the Eastern leg, on the way towards Phase 2a and Crewe.

In other words, beyond London to Birmingham.

 

 

.

Edited November 29, 2021 by Ron Ron Ron

[Mike Storey]

I am sorry I have not been very well over the last week or two, so have not been monitoring this thread properly. However, I am glad it seems to have returned to its primary purpose.....

 

A few aspects concerning the Review that I may throw in for comment:

 

1. I have read nothing in the Review that reconciles the lack of platform space at St Pancras with the "benefits" of substituting HS2 Phase 2b north of Trent for MML electrification (to Sheffield or to Leeds???). Not that the MML electrification should not be completed, but as a long term substitute??

 

2. I have seen nothing that compensates for the lack of the inclusion of Bradford in the pared-back NPR proposals, other than electrification and the 22 minute journey to Leeds that delivers. That's broadly speaking around 1 million people (catchment) with next to all.

 

3. I have seen nothing to counter-act the decision that the original Leeds metro proposals were "uneconomic", let alone desired by the car and van driving population. If this is the primary means by which greater capacity will be unleashed west of Leeds, it could be a very costly and time consuming episode (yet again).

 

But of most import,

 

3. I have seen nothing in the document that counter-acts the suggestion in the cited review of 2019/20 that a failure to deliver Phase 2b in its entirety would negate the total cost benefit analysis of HS2. What on earth has changed since then? NPR in its TfN entirety might have, just, but not now. Just what on earth are these more local improvements, delivered earlier, meant to be?

 

I share the view of some that this decision is a combination of projects-passed-cancellation and projects-too-vague-to-worry-about, and will actually solve little outside of Tory-controlled West Midlands.

 

[Flittersnoop]

45 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

No this is in a different location to the one you're talking about.

This bridge is just north of the "Delta Junction" at Water Orton, next to Junction 9 on the M42.

This stretch of HS2 is the section leading on towards the junction with the Eastern leg and continues onto Phase 2a towards Crewe.

In other words, beyond London to Birmingham.

 

 

.

Yes - this will be the third crossing of the M42 by HS2 going north, after the branch to Curzon Street has diverged.

 

Edited November 29, 2021 by Flittersnoop

[Ron Ron Ron]

16 minutes ago, Flittersnoop said:

Yes - this will be the third crossing of the M42 by HS2 going north, after the branch to Curzon Street has diverged.

 

 

The branch to Curzon St. being accessed from both north and south, via what is being called the "Delta Junction".

After the northern curve of the Delta, comes the branch off to the eastern leg.

Immediately after this, the line crosses the M42 (again) about 1km east of the Belfry Golf Course, where Marston Lane currently crosses the motorway, heading north.

 

 

. 

[phil-b259]

4 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

I am sorry I have not been very well over the last week or two, so have not been monitoring this thread properly. However, I am glad it seems to have returned to its primary purpose.....

 

A few aspects concerning the Review that I may throw in for comment:

 

1. I have read nothing in the Review that reconciles the lack of platform space at St Pancras with the "benefits" of substituting HS2 Phase 2b north of Trent for MML electrification (to Sheffield or to Leeds???). Not that the MML electrification should not be completed, but as a long term substitute??

 

 

 

 

I believe the point is that under its original guise (with a Parkway station at Toton to serve both Derby and Nottingham), HS2s eastern leg didn't actually do much to help the fact St Pancras as the lack of city centre penetration meant there would still be considerable demand for services to London via the MML.

 

Under the revised plans Derby and Nottingham can have HS2 services right into the heart of their city centres which will remove far more of the loadings on the MML than the previous single Toton stop (which is very difficult to serve without making regional services in the areas significantly worse).

 

On balance therefore the revised plans are much better at serving the East Midlands region and dealing with the MML issues.

Edited November 29, 2021 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, Mike Storey said:

I am sorry I have not been very well over the last week or two, so have not been monitoring this thread properly. However, I am glad it seems to have returned to its primary purpose.....

 

A few aspects concerning the Review that I may throw in for comment:

 

3. I have seen nothing to counter-act the decision that the original Leeds metro proposals were "uneconomic", let alone desired by the car and van driving population. If this is the primary means by which greater capacity will be unleashed west of Leeds, it could be a very costly and time consuming episode (yet again).

 

 

 

 

The Leeds tramway proposal was most certainly not 'uneconomic' - it got binned by Alistair Darling (at the same time as Metrolink saw funding for its extensions to Ashton, East Disbury, Rochdale via Oldham and the airport cancelled) to save the Treasury cash at a time of significant crisis (the 2008 banking collapse) .

 

Nottingham was the lucky one - it managed to get approval just a few months before everything went pear shaped in the financial world - and has been very successful. There is absolutely no reason to believe the Leeds scheme would not have been the same.

 

Manchester eventually was successful in getting the funding reinstated while Nottingham also eventually got the system extended. Leeds meanwhile had to settle for a guided busway - which, as with all busyways, struggled to make much of an impact in reducing car travel - in stark contrast to the success of tram schemes.

 

 

[Ravenser]

4 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

I am sorry I have not been very well over the last week or two, so have not been monitoring this thread properly. However, I am glad it seems to have returned to its primary purpose.....

 

A few aspects concerning the Review that I may throw in for comment:

 

1. I have read nothing in the Review that reconciles the lack of platform space at St Pancras with the "benefits" of substituting HS2 Phase 2b north of Trent for MML electrification (to Sheffield or to Leeds???). Not that the MML electrification should not be completed, but as a long term substitute??

 

2. I have seen nothing that compensates for the lack of the inclusion of Bradford in the pared-back NPR proposals, other than electrification and the 22 minute journey to Leeds that delivers. That's broadly speaking around 1 million people (catchment) with next to all.

 

3. I have seen nothing to counter-act the decision that the original Leeds metro proposals were "uneconomic", let alone desired by the car and van driving population. If this is the primary means by which greater capacity will be unleashed west of Leeds, it could be a very costly and time consuming episode (yet again).

 

But of most import,

 

3. I have seen nothing in the document that counter-acts the suggestion in the cited review of 2019/20 that a failure to deliver Phase 2b in its entirety would negate the total cost benefit analysis of HS2. What on earth has changed since then? NPR in its TfN entirety might have, just, but not now. Just what on earth are these more local improvements, delivered earlier, meant to be?

 

I share the view of some that this decision is a combination of projects-passed-cancellation and projects-too-vague-to-worry-about, and will actually solve little outside of Tory-controlled West Midlands.

 

 

 

your 1. As others note , the revised proposal will replace an HS2 East that didn't actually go to anywhere south of Leeds with an HS2 East that will, once built,  replace the MML south of East Midlands Parkway. MML electrification  is needed long-term  to get HS2 East trains from E Midlands Parkway to Sheffield Midland

 

your 2 . Agreed, but there is to be a further follow-on review focused on Leeds and West Yorkshire. I strongly suspect the Bradford problem will be addressed as part of that.

 

your 3 - See others comments. We might perhaps wonder what lines could be removed from the western approach at Leeds. I suggest that the 2 main candidates are Leeds /Harrogate and Leeds - Castleford/Pontefract. I could also see the former 4 track formation from Leeds to Shipley used to add 2 Metro lines alongside the Network Rail lines, to serve new light rail stations between Leeds and Shipley - all the intermediate stations here closed n the early 1960s , and despite occasional talk of it none have been reopened

 

your 4 :  This review did not consider Phase 2a , its in the bag. I'm not sure that Oakervee really suggested that any reduction of  Phase 2b at all would collapse the entire HS2 cost/benefit ????  What is proposed is the whole of Phase 2b West (with possible enhancement in the form of a better route to Liverpool) , a better solution for the East Midlands and Sheffield, and an ambition to serve Leeds (al;most certainly by extension of MML services north to Leeds, providing a better regional connection between Leeds and Sheffield as a bonus).

 

Dropped is a dedicated high-speed route from E Midlands Parkway to north of Rotherham , which would have served no obvious purpose other than to bypass Sheffield, Derby and Nottingham. We already have a route like that (the Erewash Valley line + the Old Road)  and nobody has wanted to send expresses that way for a generation....

 

The  "more local improvements" are completion of MML electrification now, delivering a better Midland service during the interim period until HS2 East is built in 2035-42, and Transpennine electrification Manchester/Leeds/Colton Jnc , as an interim measure before construction of NPR in 2035-42. There is also anm intention to upgrade the ECML north of York to provide 8 fast paths an hour , at a line speed raise to 140 mph

 

Note that there was never any suggestion that work on Phase 2b would start before Phase 2a was done, and therefore - even before the pandemic - the dates for these lines would have been construction starting ealy 2030s, completion 2040 or later. That has now slipped a couple of years because Phase 1 is running a little late

Edited November 29, 2021 by Ravenser
Clarification of originally planned dates for Phase 2b

[Edwin_m]

9 hours ago, Ravenser said:

As others note , the revised proposal will replace an HS2 East that didn't actually go to anywhere south of Leeds with an HS2 East that will, once built,  replace the MML south of East Midlands Parkway. MML electrification  is needed long-term  to get HS2 East trains from E Midlands Parkway to Sheffield Midland.

It will only replace the MML in the sense that London-Derby/Nottingham/Sheffield passengers will have an alternative.  There will still need to be something very similar to the current timetable on the MML south of EM Parkway, because Leicester and the other intermediate stations don't benefit from HS2 and still need a service at least as good as they have today.  That includes fast services between Leicester and further north, which for passenger and operational convenience would probably still be continuations of London-Leicester trains.  

Edited November 30, 2021 by Edwin_m

[DY444]

15 hours ago, KingEdwardII said:

?!? As far as I can tell, London - Glasgow is 401 miles (Euston to Central).

 

At 186mph that would be 2.15 hours. OK, doing an average of 186 all the way would be unlikely, but it should be doable in under 3 hours. Boost the max speed to 200mph and it should be a doddle. Stops would add time, but why do more than 1 (e.g. Warrington or Preston), at least for the fastest services?

 

London - Paris is 2h 24min for 212 miles, with the major slowdown to 100mph in the Chunnel. That's still very acceptable and well competitive with flying. I've used it loads of times rather than fly, when visiting central Paris.

 

Yours, Mike.

 

London St. Pancras - Paris Nord via HS1, ET and LGV Nord is in fact 305 miles

[lmsforever]

The WCMLl south of Crewe  will need the same treatment as the MML  especaily from MK north as not everybody wants to travel into  London although some on here seem to think its mandaitory.

[Edwin_m]

38 minutes ago, lmsforever said:

The WCMLl south of Crewe  will need the same treatment as the MML  especaily from MK north as not everybody wants to travel into  London although some on here seem to think its mandaitory.

Not quite the same, because the fast trains from London, broadly the Avanti services today, will use HS2 instead.  So there is significant capacity released for services aimed more at intermediate journeys and freight.  This won't happen on MML, although there will be more seats for Leicester etc because London to Derby/Nottingham/Sheffield passengers won't be on those trains.  

[Mike Storey]

14 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

The Leeds tramway proposal was most certainly not 'uneconomic' - it got binned by Alistair Darling (at the same time as Metrolink saw funding for its extensions to Ashton, East Disbury, Rochdale via Oldham and the airport cancelled) to save the Treasury cash at a time of significant crisis (the 2008 banking collapse) .

 

Nottingham was the lucky one - it managed to get approval just a few months before everything went pear shaped in the financial world - and has been very successful. There is absolutely no reason to believe the Leeds scheme would not have been the same.

 

Manchester eventually was successful in getting the funding reinstated while Nottingham also eventually got the system extended. Leeds meanwhile had to settle for a guided busway - which, as with all busyways, struggled to make much of an impact in reducing car travel - in stark contrast to the success of tram schemes.

 

 

 

I am afraid your memory has the better of you. Leeds Supertram was cancelled in 2005 after a second attempt at funding, when the ultimate bill for the three lines was turning into £1 billion +, after they had been told £500m was the top budget.  The expected RoR was based on 27 years of operation (when major renewals could be expected), which would have turned into 70 years plus. Naff all to do with the banking crisis.

 

It would have also solved little for the existing rail network, contrary to the claims of others, primarily serving routes not served by rail at all (with the slight exception of Line 3, to the south). It was thus of little interest to us in Network Rail at the time.

 

So any new plan will either have to start again from scratch, meaning another ten years of planning, or will not do what many believe it would.

 

 

[ess1uk]

rolling stock

awaiting announcement

 

[Mike Storey]

15 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

I believe the point is that under its original guise (with a Parkway station at Toton to serve both Derby and Nottingham), HS2s eastern leg didn't actually do much to help the fact St Pancras as the lack of city centre penetration meant there would still be considerable demand for services to London via the MML.

 

Under the revised plans Derby and Nottingham can have HS2 services right into the heart of their city centres which will remove far more of the loadings on the MML than the previous single Toton stop (which is very difficult to serve without making regional services in the areas significantly worse).

 

On balance therefore the revised plans are much better at serving the East Midlands region and dealing with the MML issues.

 

Oakervee very clearly stated that HS2's business case was suspect without the full extent of Phases 1 and 2. The fact is that Leeds has a combined catchment (800,000 plus Bradford 600,000 plus surrounding towns) far in excess of Derby and Nottingham (600,000 plus surrounding towns), and Sheffield was to be served by a spur using the existing formation, so it is pointless to include that as new benefit in the revised proposals. The new plan does not even specifically electrify beyond Sheffield to Leeds (unless I have read it wrongly?) so I just wonder why they have ignored Oakervee, along with the vast bulk of HS2 and DfT data over the past ten years.

 

Toton was a compromise, following an earlier compromise, but the suggestion that Parkway stations do not work is not borne out by Bristol, for example. (I am aware some others have not worked, especially in Northern France). It may not have generated as much traffic as city centre stations, but from a smaller pot anyway.

 

As there will be nothing for Sheffield, Nottingham and Derby passengers to use on HS2 for about 15 years plus after electrification (and that assumes the curtailed Phase 2b does actually happen), one can only presume they intend to squeeze even more quarts into the pint pot that is St Pancras. Leeds will still be stuck with an increasingly full ECML, if the ambition is to run more trains north of Donny to Newcastle etc. and there are apparently no firm plans to increase capacity via Wakefield. Thus the case being made by HMG that these plans allow faster improvements is twaddle. They will be minor increments at best, barely noticed by many users.

 

What these plans do achieve is a saving in capital and operational costs, which is clearly their main intent, where a large dollop of lipstick has been used on the proverbial pig.

 

[phil-b259]

16 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

 

It would have also solved little for the existing rail network, contrary to the claims of others, primarily serving routes not served by rail at all (with the slight exception of Line 3, to the south). It was thus of little interest to us in Network Rail at the time.

 

So any new plan will either have to start again from scratch, meaning another ten years of planning, or will not do what many believe it would.

 

 

 

That is not surprising - if you are out for modal shift why go and replace trains as opposed to replacing buses given the research which shows car drivers are generally prepared to switch to rail based solutions but extremely reluctant to switch to busses.

 

Yes its true that in many cases tram systems have used railway alignments as an easy way to get up and running (which BR was quite keen on as it got rid of nuisance lines so to speak) but being able to do that isn't the show stopper you imply. It largely depends on what the tramway is trying to do - just provide city centre connectivity or reach markets unserved by rail.

 

Furthermore as has been demonstrated in several places if serving current rail corridors is needed then Tram-Train operations are a viable way forward. While we only have one example in the UK Sheffield - Rotherham, there are quite a few places elsewhere in Europe which have them. In that respect a Leeds system could actually be quite cheap with the minimum of new track in the centre linking to existing radial rail lines away from the pinch points thus freeing up paths for longer distance services.

[phil-b259]

5 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Toton was a compromise, following an earlier compromise, but the suggestion that Parkway stations do not work is not borne out by Bristol, for example. (I am aware some others have not worked, especially in Northern France). It may not have generated as much traffic as city centre stations, but from a smaller pot anyway.

 

 

And the existing East Midlands Parkway has been an outstanding success hasn't it..... NOT!

 

Building a station is no guarantee that it will be well used - the new Ivybridge in Devon for example was plonked outside of the village so it could act as a park and ride for Plymouth in spite of the fact that Plymouth has good road links via the A38. Net result it got dismal usage as it was inconvenient for the residents of Ivybridge and also unattractive as a Parkway station.

 

Similarly east Midlands Parkway was built with the intention it would become as well used as Bristol Parkway - events proved otherwise.

 

On the other hand Warrick Parkway has been very successful and usage has far exceeded projections - with large numbers having migrated over from Virgin Trains ironically even though the likes of Coventry are some distance away.

 

 

[Mike Storey]

12 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

 

your 1. As others note , the revised proposal will replace an HS2 East that didn't actually go to anywhere south of Leeds with an HS2 East that will, once built,  replace the MML south of East Midlands Parkway. MML electrification  is needed long-term  to get HS2 East trains from E Midlands Parkway to Sheffield Midland

 

your 2 . Agreed, but there is to be a further follow-on review focused on Leeds and West Yorkshire. I strongly suspect the Bradford problem will be addressed as part of that.

 

your 3 - See others comments. We might perhaps wonder what lines could be removed from the western approach at Leeds. I suggest that the 2 main candidates are Leeds /Harrogate and Leeds - Castleford/Pontefract. I could also see the former 4 track formation from Leeds to Shipley used to add 2 Metro lines alongside the Network Rail lines, to serve new light rail stations between Leeds and Shipley - all the intermediate stations here closed n the early 1960s , and despite occasional talk of it none have been reopened

 

your 4 :  This review did not consider Phase 2a , its in the bag. I'm not sure that Oakervee really suggested that any reduction of  Phase 2b at all would collapse the entire HS2 cost/benefit ????  What is proposed is the whole of Phase 2b West (with possible enhancement in the form of a better route to Liverpool) , a better solution for the East Midlands and Sheffield, and an ambition to serve Leeds (al;most certainly by extension of MML services north to Leeds, providing a better regional connection between Leeds and Sheffield as a bonus).

 

Dropped is a dedicated high-speed route from E Midlands Parkway to north of Rotherham , which would have served no obvious purpose other than to bypass Sheffield, Derby and Nottingham. We already have a route like that (the Erewash Valley line + the Old Road)  and nobody has wanted to send expresses that way for a generation....

 

The  "more local improvements" are completion of MML electrification now, delivering a better Midland service during the interim period until HS2 East is built in 2035-42, and Transpennine electrification Manchester/Leeds/Colton Jnc , as an interim measure before construction of NPR in 2035-42. There is also anm intention to upgrade the ECML north of York to provide 8 fast paths an hour , at a line speed raise to 140 mph

 

Note that there was never any suggestion that work on Phase 2b would start before Phase 2a was done, and therefore - even before the pandemic - the dates for these lines would have been construction starting ealy 2030s, completion 2040 or later. That has now slipped a couple of years because Phase 1 is running a little late

 

I think I have dealt with most of your responses in my last reply (to Phil), but the continuing insistence that Sheffield is now better served is inaccurate.

 

Likewise the insistence that the MML problem will be solved. No, it won't. In fact, the problems will increase if electrification encourages more business. It would have been far better to delay MML improvements until Phase 2b at least got to it. All they will have done is to allow the purchase of electric traction and not have another expensive, uniquely compliant diesel replacement train to buy in the future.

 

The complete electrification of Trans Pennine is about the only good news in this omnishambles, but that barely scratches the capacity problem. You could not close the main line to Harrogate by the way, for a metro system - it took the good Burghers of Harrogate many years to get their direct trains to London back!! Tram/train might be the solution, but it would mean some big gaps in the service.

 

ECML Upgrades were all planned anyway, just not fully funded, and they still have no apparent solution to the Wakefield route. That suggests they were relying on most Leeds' business to have transferred to HS2. Joined up thinking?......

 

[phil-b259]

13 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Oakervee very clearly stated that HS2's business case was suspect without the full extent of Phases 1 and 2. The fact is that Leeds has a combined catchment (800,000 plus Bradford 600,000 plus surrounding towns) far in excess of Derby and Nottingham (600,000 plus surrounding towns), and Sheffield was to be served by a spur using the existing formation, so it is pointless to include that as new benefit in the revised proposals. The new plan does not even specifically electrify beyond Sheffield to Leeds (unless I have read it wrongly?) so I just wonder why they have ignored Oakervee, along with the vast bulk of HS2 and DfT data over the past ten years.

 

 

 

The business case for taking HS2 to Leeds (as opposed to spending the money on removing ECML bottlenecks and upgrades to 140mph ECTS running) was always borderline - and required the use of energy sapping 200mph+ running.

 

I suspect that the passenger business lost by not taking HS2 to Leeds will be pretty much recouped by the ability to directly serve Derby and Nottingham City centres rather than a Parkway station between the two which required lots of money spent to improve public transport access and significantly delayed regional train services as they were diverted from more direct routes to make connections, plus the lower energy consumption by less ultra fast running.

 

The biggest loss with the revised plans is actually Leeds itself as HS2 would have provided significant capacity increases and had synergies with improved Trans-pennine services. However that could be reminded by building the Leeds - Sheffield bit of HS2 (which could also include a spur to the ECML south of Doncaster thus sucking up services from there too).

 

 

[woodenhead]

They haven't abandoned HS2 to Leeds they are just looking at it again, once option I imagine is to use the Manchester-Leeds fast route instead of a route up the middle, maybe a piece of new railway to take the HS2 service nearer to Bradford (for a parkway station) and then into Leeds alongside the Bradford to Leeds route.

 

With a proposal for a new route out of Manchester to Standedge and the route after Huddersfield subject to bottlenecks, somewhere between Hudderfield and Leeds there will need to be new line/tunnels so why not shared NPR and HS2 tracks

[Mike Storey]

20 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

And the existing East Midlands Parkway has been an outstanding success hasn't it..... NOT!

 

Building a station is no guarantee that it will be well used - the new Ivybridge in Devon for example was plonked outside of the village so it could act as a park and ride for Plymouth in spite of the fact that Plymouth has good road links via the A38. Net result it got dismal usage as it was inconvenient for the residents of Ivybridge and also unattractive as a Parkway station.

 

Similarly east Midlands Parkway was built with the intention it would become as well used as Bristol Parkway - events proved otherwise.

 

On the other hand Warrick Parkway has been very successful and usage has far exceeded projections - with large numbers having migrated over from Virgin Trains ironically even though the likes of Coventry are some distance away.

 

 

 

EM Parkway is hardly comparable, given it has a basically hourly service to London (two trains within ten minutes, then, nothing). The service is just as important as the location.

 

Bristol Parkway and Warwick Parkways both have at least half-hourly services to London.

 

So Parkways can work then? Not sure how the Toton model is disproved, let alone how the addition of HS2 services on to already crowded conventional routes, will serve any business case.

 

[Mike Storey]

18 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

The business case for taking HS2 to Leeds (as opposed to spending the money on removing ECML bottlenecks and upgrades to 140mph ECTS running) was always borderline - and required the use of energy sapping 200mph+ running.

 

I suspect that the passenger business lost by not taking HS2 to Leeds will be pretty much recouped by the ability to directly serve Derby and Nottingham City centres rather than a Parkway station between the two which required lots of money spent to improve public transport access and significantly delayed regional train services as they were diverted from more direct routes to make connections, plus the lower energy consumption by less ultra fast running.

 

The biggest loss with the revised plans is actually Leeds itself as HS2 would have provided significant capacity increases and had synergies with improved Trans-pennine services. However that could be reminded by building the Leeds - Sheffield bit of HS2 (which could also include a spur to the ECML south of Doncaster thus sucking up services from there too).

 

 

 

I think you are making stuff up as you go along Phil. None of what you say (apart from Leeds) makes any sense - the HS2 business case was marginal to begin with but Leeds helped carry it into positive territory.

 

[Mike Storey]

10 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

They haven't abandoned HS2 to Leeds they are just looking at it again, once option I imagine is to use the Manchester-Leeds fast route instead of a route up the middle, maybe a piece of new railway to take the HS2 service nearer to Bradford (for a parkway station) and then into Leeds alongside the Bradford to Leeds route.

 

With a proposal for a new route out of Manchester to Standedge and the route after Huddersfield subject to bottlenecks, somewhere between Hudderfield and Leeds there will need to be new line/tunnels so why not shared NPR and HS2 tracks

 

I am not sure where you get all that from? NPR, in its preferred form (by TfN and the rest of the Northern counties) has been been abandoned. The one they are going to use is part of Option G. The existing planned route for HS2 2b is being preserved in aspic.

 

I do so hope you are right in that someone will take a fresh look and find another way in, but somehow, I don't see it happening, not with this Chancellor anyway.

[woodenhead]

1 minute ago, Mike Storey said:

 

I am not sure where you get all that from? NPR, in its preferred form (by TfN and the rest of the Northern counties) has been been abandoned. The one they are going to use is part of Option G. The existing planned route for HS2 2b is being preserved in aspic.

 

I do so hope you are right in that someone will take a fresh look and find another way in, but somehow, I don't see it happening, not with this Chancellor anyway.

NPR or whatever they want to call it now,

• Liverpool to Lymm(or thereabouts) - upgraded line and new alignment to join with HS2b into the airport and Manchester
• Manchester to Standedge West portal - new alignment
• Standedge East portal - Leeds - upgrades and improvements, some four tracking

There is a plan to build a faster Leeds-Liverpool route, it may not be HS2 type speeds, but it will certainly be quicker than current lines and surely a clear option to let HS2 reach Leeds earlier than a route through the Midlands unless they simply upgrade the route through Toton, Chesterfield, Sheffield and on to Leeds that way instead.  I doubt at the moment they are about to announce a HS2c route.