HS2

[Edwin_m]

8 hours ago, black and decker boy said:

As HS2 phase 2a & 2b haven't got parliamentary approval yet, there is plenty of time for changes to be made especially if it delivers a cheaper & more integrated NPR

Not what I hear.  The government is pressing forward with Phase 2a to Crewe with the intention of opening at the same time as Phase 1 (it doesn't have any time-consuming works like Euston or big tunnels so should be able to "catch up").  Revising Piccadilly means going back to where we were in 2010 with Phase 1, and construction didn't start until nine years later.  Even without the political hiatuses Phase 1 has had, I reckon that could put five years delay into either HS2 or NPR reaching Manchester.  

Edited June 30, 2020 by Edwin_m

[Mike Storey]

8 hours ago, black and decker boy said:

This was published in part yesterday in the MEN (I think) as it was driven by the tunnel under Man Picc instead of a surface station which then linked back to the east and could be used by Yorks to MIA trains. Its a submission by an defendant set of architects & engineers and not a formal HS2 proposal. that isn't to say that TfN wont get behind the idea.

 

As HS2 phase 2a & 2b haven't got parliamentary approval yet, there is plenty of time for changes to be made especially if it delivers a cheaper & more integrated NPR

 

Useful to know - thanks.

 

But the fact that Phase 2b has not yet received parliamentary assent does not mean there is plenty of time for changes to be made. 7 years have passed since planning started in earnest on 2b, and in that time many changes have been made, particularly around Sheffield and the siting of the East Midlands parkway station. The design is now quite advanced, GRIP Stage 4 at least.

 

If it has to start again from scratch (practically - as the NPR route has never yet been developed beyond basically GRIP Stage 2), then it is going to be rather more than 5 years' delay, more like 10. That could mean 2b or its new iteration, may not see daylight until the mid-2040's. Whatever the merits of such a combination of aspirations may be, and I do not think they are merited, because the demand profile of each is quite different, the inherent delay in one, to satisfy the other, is, to be scientific, bo!!ocks.

[black and decker boy]

IIRC the government split phase 2 away from HS2Ltd as promoter to ensure that it complimented and interfaced fully with NPR with redesign as necessary.

 

Opening date for phase 2 (Crewe is now 1b isn’t it) is currently 2040

[Edwin_m]

9 minutes ago, black and decker boy said:

IIRC the government split phase 2 away from HS2Ltd as promoter to ensure that it complimented and interfaced fully with NPR with redesign as necessary.

 

Opening date for phase 2 (Crewe is now 1b isn’t it) is currently 2040

There is no phase 1b.  Phase 2a from Lichfield area ending just south of Crewe is intended to be opened with phase 1 assuming it catches up by having shorter construction time.  All the rest (Crewe to Manchester and Golborne and the entire eastern leg) is currently phase 2b but is likely to be sub-divided further with some of the eastern leg potentially deferred or cancelled.  

[black and decker boy]

18 minutes ago, Edwin_m said:

There is no phase 1b.  Phase 2a from Lichfield area ending just south of Crewe is intended to be opened with phase 1 assuming it catches up by having shorter construction time.  All the rest (Crewe to Manchester and Golborne and the entire eastern leg) is currently phase 2b but is likely to be sub-divided further with some of the eastern leg potentially deferred or cancelled.  

Thanks, hard to keep up with all of the sectional renaming. So it’s 2b that hasn’t made it to parliament yet then, 2a did start the hybrid bill process pre-election didn’t it?

[Mike Storey]

9 hours ago, Edwin_m said:

There is no phase 1b.  Phase 2a from Lichfield area ending just south of Crewe is intended to be opened with phase 1 assuming it catches up by having shorter construction time.  All the rest (Crewe to Manchester and Golborne and the entire eastern leg) is currently phase 2b but is likely to be sub-divided further with some of the eastern leg potentially deferred or cancelled.  

 

I know that is how it is being reported, but there are, as yet, no indications of that happening, other than this rogue report, cited above. It MAY happen, but it is not yet likely. I would suggest that decision is some way off, given the implications for the MML, and to a lesser extent, the ECML. Especially as all the reports the govt have commissioned, have reported that the BC for HS2 only makes the best sense, if you build the whole caboodle, and not a bit of cherry-picking. That may not worry a PM who does not expect to still be PM in 2040 of course..... (although, with this chap, .....)

[Edwin_m]

3 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

 

I know that is how it is being reported, but there are, as yet, no indications of that happening, other than this rogue report, cited above. It MAY happen, but it is not yet likely. I would suggest that decision is some way off, given the implications for the MML, and to a lesser extent, the ECML. Especially as all the reports the govt have commissioned, have reported that the BC for HS2 only makes the best sense, if you build the whole caboodle, and not a bit of cherry-picking. That may not worry a PM who does not expect to still be PM in 2040 of course..... (although, with this chap, .....)

I've heard some fairly strong indications that Crewe to Manchester will get the go-ahead before the rest of 2b.  I think they want to progress via smaller Hybrid Bills and a more phased construction, if only because it's easier to manage it that way and the problems of one section are less likely to catch out an unrelated one.  

[black and decker boy]

On 09/06/2020 at 11:33, lmsforever said:

Work going on at Hartwell fields outside Aylesbury  and bridge abutments appearing outside of Stoke Manderville across H Wycombe Rd.Big plans for links to Totton  trams buses and tram trains  should boost economy.

I’ve been down the A4010 ten today from Aylesbury to Risborough. Definitely no bridge abutments or any structures of any type. HS2 contractors are working near the Goat Centre but only doing vegetation Clearance as MCR and access / prep works

[Ron Ron Ron]

Manchester Piccadilly HS2 & NPR.

 

Alternative proposal for a revised, subterranean, combined HS2 & NPR station, with through platforms to avoid reversals for NPR trains.

 

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/underground-station-tabled-to-connect-hs2-and-northern-powerhouse-rail-in-manchester-29-06-2020/

 

https://www.railbusinessdaily.com/high-speed-station-square-an-alternative-proposal-for-a-fully-integrated-transport-hub-at-manchester-piccadilly/

 

 

 

 

Edited July 3, 2020 by Ron Ron Ron

[Mike Storey]

Reminds me of the original Picc-Vic tunnel proposal, which never saw the light of day.

 

Both HS2 Ltd and NPR are basically proposing a reversal at surface, for all services. HS2 have proposed a second option of an underground station, but its orientation would not suit NPR's aspirations. So this additional punt by a firm of architects, might move the game on. But one wonders just how this is affordable - if Picc-Vic was written off pretty early in its gestation - when the time penalties from London/Birmingham to Sheffield/Leeds and the NE would be that much greater.

 

Seems to me to be a compromise of no great benefit to either NPR or to HS2, even though a through route, underground, would be a marvellous addition to the local network. It is so hard to see how it would pay for itself, given the compromises it invokes. Some far reaching belief would be needed, well beyond the Treasury's current threshold for successful investment.

 

A shared infrastructure, whilst cutting the bill for both routes, does not necessarily give the best value.

[South-East Rail]

30 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

Reminds me of the original Picc-Vic tunnel proposal, which never saw the light of day.

 

Not too surprising for a tunnel... 

 

Ed

[Edwin_m]

2 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

Reminds me of the original Picc-Vic tunnel proposal, which never saw the light of day.

 

Both HS2 Ltd and NPR are basically proposing a reversal at surface, for all services. HS2 have proposed a second option of an underground station, but its orientation would not suit NPR's aspirations. So this additional punt by a firm of architects, might move the game on. But one wonders just how this is affordable - if Picc-Vic was written off pretty early in its gestation - when the time penalties from London/Birmingham to Sheffield/Leeds and the NE would be that much greater.

 

Seems to me to be a compromise of no great benefit to either NPR or to HS2, even though a through route, underground, would be a marvellous addition to the local network. It is so hard to see how it would pay for itself, given the compromises it invokes. Some far reaching belief would be needed, well beyond the Treasury's current threshold for successful investment.

 

A shared infrastructure, whilst cutting the bill for both routes, does not necessarily give the best value.

There's also the question of how long it would take to design, consult and get powers for something that would completely change the station, not to mention re-routeing the tunnel most of the way from the Airport with revised shaft locations etc to be determined.  It could easily put back any high speed line to Manchester by five years.  

Edited July 3, 2020 by Edwin_m

[jamie92208]

It seems similar to what Lord Berkely and friends suggested for an underground Euston station for HS2 that was going to connect up with HS1. That didn't fly either. I wonder if some of the same names are involved.

 

Jamie

Edited July 3, 2020 by jamie92208

[Ron Ron Ron]

1 hour ago, Edwin_m said:

There's also the question of how long it would take to design, consult and get powers for something that would completely change the station, not to mention re-routeing the tunnel most of the way from the Airport with revised shaft locations etc to be determined.  It could easily put back any high speed line to Manchester by five years.  

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this proposal does not require any re-routing or changes to the tunnels from the airport to central Manchester.

It appears that the proposed changes only start at the point where in the current HS2 plan, the tracks emerge from the tunnels and rise up to above surface level, on the final approaches to the station.

The change being a continuation of the tunnels to lead into the large station box.

Everything else south of Piccadilly, out to the airport station, remains the same.

It also releases the surface land above the station approach to be developed for commercial use, which could claw back part of the build cost.

 

 

.

Edited July 3, 2020 by Ron Ron Ron

[Edwin_m]

9 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this proposal does not require any re-routing or changes to the tunnels from the airport to central Manchester.

It appears that the proposed changes only start at the point where in the current HS2 plan, the tracks emerge from the tunnels and rise up to above surface level, on the final approaches to the station.

The change being a continuation of the tunnels to lead into the large station box.

Everything else south of Piccadilly, out to the airport station, remains the same.

It also releases the surface land above the station approach to be developed for commercial use, which could claw back part of the build cost..

Yes you're right, I was thinking of an earlier proposal that had trains from the south entering Piccadilly to the west and leaving eastwards.  However the change in vertical alignment to put the station underground will still have major implications for timescales.  And there would probably need to be some detailed assessment of the technical viability of tunneling onwards under Manchester to be sure it worked before committing to the much more expensive sub-surface station that would enable it.  

Edited July 4, 2020 by Edwin_m

[RJS1977]

Tunnelling onwards under Manchester shouldn't be too difficult - it ought to be possible to follow the course of the Rochdale Canal and then the A62 up to Miles Platting without having many tall buildings to avoid.

[Grovenor]

The Rochdale canal is effectively at 90 degrees to that route, no way they could turn to follow it.

Looks to me that the architects just want to build a Manchester version of the Shard.

[Northmoor]

1 hour ago, Grovenor said:

The Rochdale canal is effectively at 90 degrees to that route, no way they could turn to follow it.

Looks to me that the architects just want to build a Manchester version of the Shard.

This is always the possibility with these sorts of proposals; they are an architect's dream and a detailed idea for a impressive station, but with no consideration of the back-to-square-one re-design required for five miles of railway either side of the station.

[Ron Ron Ron]

28 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

.........but with no consideration of the back-to-square-one re-design required for five miles of railway either side of the station.

Which doesn’t appear to apply in this case.
Only the last mile into the station from the south is changed.

The route out towards Leeds hasn’t been decided.

 

 

.

[corneliuslundie]

As I hadn’t heard of either firm involved in this proposal I wondered if they knew anything about transport projects. I thought  a search would be useful – and it was surprising:

Weston Williamson projects:

·                    Metro Tunnel

·                    Paddington and Woolwich Elizabeth line stations

·                    Paddington Integrated Project

·                    Docklands Light Railway Extension to London City Airport

·                    Docklands Light Railway Extension to Woolwich

·                    East London Line Stations at Hoxton and Dalston Junction railway Jubilee line station at London Bridge

·                    Paddington Crossrail

·                    Miami Metromover

·                    HS2 Old Oak Common

 

Expedition Engineering appears to have an involvement in HS2 Euston station and Old Oak Common station (both with WSP).

So they ought to have some idea about the subject, though I too wonder about financial viability.

Jonathan

[Edwin_m]

5 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

Which doesn’t appear to apply in this case.
Only the last mile into the station from the south is changed.

The route out towards Leeds hasn’t been decided.

And therein lies another problem.  The proposal assumes something that follows the M62 but it could use the trackbed of the extra two tracks out towards Guide Bridge and diverge northeastwards off that at some point.  If so then NPR trains would have to reverse in the new station and the money spent putting it underground is largely wasted.  

Edited July 4, 2020 by Edwin_m

[Mike Storey]

21 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this proposal does not require any re-routing or changes to the tunnels from the airport to central Manchester.

It appears that the proposed changes only start at the point where in the current HS2 plan, the tracks emerge from the tunnels and rise up to above surface level, on the final approaches to the station.

The change being a continuation of the tunnels to lead into the large station box.

Everything else south of Piccadilly, out to the airport station, remains the same.

It also releases the surface land above the station approach to be developed for commercial use, which could claw back part of the build cost.

 

 

.

 

It does not particularly do any of those things, apart from a direct route continuing from the exisiting planned route.

 

It is, of course, perfectly possible, once we know what "it" is, east of Piccadilly anyway. The question is about viability, practicability and subsequent efficacy, as regards both routes.

 

On viability, having been a member of the original Piccadilly Upgrade works in the 90's, I would suggest it faces a number of, pretty expensive, problems, depending on the depth of bore proposed.

 

[Zomboid]

I've said before that I think the design is a bit terminus heavy, but for my money it's Leeds which would be better changed into a through station (with lines that don't stop too). If Manchester is to be a through station it ought to be so that the Scotland trains can go that way, rather than the eastern fork. Both would enable future expansion of the proper high speed network northwards in future.

[Ron Ron Ron]

11 hours ago, Zomboid said:

.......If Manchester is to be a through station it ought to be so that the Scotland trains can go that way, rather than the eastern fork. ......

The HS2 Scotland trains are to route via the Western fork and join the WCML in Lancashire, not go via the eastern fork.

 

 

.

[Zomboid]

I know, I meant that if Manchester is a through station it should be for the Scotland trains rather than the Leeds trains running via Manchester.