Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium

And how much has been spent on consultations and not building this western link?

Of course as you say the costs are hidden, but they are real. We spend far too much of our money like this without any useful result.

I am not expecting an answer.

But I have noticed it locally, re possible reopening of Carno station. Every time it gets near to the point where Powys might actually have to make a decision it says there needs to be another consultation, so spending more money to ne effect. 

Jonathan

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, woodenhead said:

Thanks.

 

The old route after Warrington heads towards Lymm which is close to where HS2 branches so at least some of the alignment will be used to get out of Warrington and past the M6.

 

Getting east out of Manchester, well there is one alignment going east with space land alongside it, used to go by the name of the M&SLR.

 

That would be a open route and then a proper new route to meet with Standedge once out past Guide Bridge.

Give me a clue. Where? The upper Tame valley is narrow, bendy and fairly crowded, particularly around Mossley. There was a point near Heyrod where the main line and the Freizland Loop were barely 200 yards apart

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

you not aware of the Elizebeth Line (Crossrail) ?

I may live in rural parts, but things are not so benighted here that we are unaware of what's happening outside Little Snoring :read:  Although the shock result of the annual cake baking contest dominates headlines here at the moment.

 

When they (eventually) get Crossrail finished and working to design, it will be interesting to see the impact on Heathrow traffic - it cannot but increase traffic, you'd think. That 70% of car/bus folks is a big target. Interestingly, City Airport gets a high proportion of its passengers via the DLR, so people clearly will use public transport if it is convenient and easy. It's a big deal that The Elizabeth Line goes via the city and Canary Wharf, plus connecting with Liverpool Street and Stratford. I hope to use it before I die...

 

26 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

Western Rail Link project

Yes, that's what's wanted. It's still only at pre-application stage. The schedule keeps moving to the right faster than Crossrail, which is quite an achievement.  "I'll believe it when I see it" is my position - but it is basically the right kind of scheme. Can't see it being open before 2026 at the earliest, unfortunately. If it does come about, it will be interesting to see whether there are any service changes to serve Hampshire and the South West as well as Cardiff/Bristol/Oxford. Changing at Reading should be OK, but they need to ensure enough services and capacity - the current Cross Country trains via Reading are not frequent enough and too often standing room only.

 

Yours, Mike.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

HS2 isn't "only going to Birmingham".

It's being built all the way to Manchester and will provide connections at Crewe and further north, into the WCML, to serve Liverpool, the NW and Scotland.

 

.

 

I agree.

What is officially HS2?

If you consider it to be from London to Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds & Scotland, including all the spurs & connections to places like Crewe, the final figure is very expensive.

If you re-classify some of it to HS2 phase 2, HS3, HS4 etc then what remains as HS2 is considerably less & you publish the savings. It is a common trick in both public & private projects.

We may not have heard of HS4 yet, but by the time we do, this post will be long forgotten.

Then later when you present the extras as new projects, they get different scrutiny, but you keep the argument that HS2 is almost done now, so it would be a huge waste to abandon the extra parts & many will argue that if it the first part exists, it makes sense to extend it.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Flittersnoop said:

HS2 won't be a cul de sac - trains will reach Liverpool, Manchester and Glasgow, and eventually Nottingham and Sheffield.

 

Today's announcement is nowhere as bad as I thought it might be - bits of it are actually an improvement on the old plan. But, as you say, there's no guarantee whether any of it will be finished. If inflation really takes off and the country is bankrupt, at least we can convert the Chiltern tunnels into nuclear bunkers in case any of our friends in the East decide to start a war!

Not that cobblers again! Technically bankrupt, perhaps, but as long as UK plc can pay its loans, then that won't happen

 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, 62613 said:

Give me a clue. Where? The upper Tame valley is narrow, bendy and fairly crowded, particularly around Mossley. There was a point near Heyrod where the main line and the Freizland Loop were barely 200 yards apart

As they have not declared any particular route, then it is going to be hard to give any clues.

 

The only thing I am thinking is that they will use the M&SLR/GC route from Ardwick to Guide Bridge to get out of Manchester unless they plan on lots more tunnelling for the Manchester to Leeds route, which I doubt as saving money is the name of the game again.

 

Once past Guide Bridge it is either going to need new alignments or somehow they are going to use the old Hooley Hill alignment into Stalybridge and the the Micklehurst Loop.  Given the proposed use of the CLC from Liverpool to Warrington to get to HS2 somewhere near Lymm, then if you are looking for an alignment east of Manchester then further re-use of old (but this time lifted or closed and partially demolished) may also be forming their thinking.  It has to cost less to rebuild an existing albeit closed alignment than to tunnel.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, woodenhead said:

As they have not declared any particular route, then it is going to be hard to give any clues.

 

The only thing I am thinking is that they will use the M&SLR/GC route from Ardwick to Guide Bridge to get out of Manchester unless they plan on lots more tunnelling for the Manchester to Leeds route, which I doubt as saving money is the name of the game again.

 

Once past Guide Bridge it is either going to need new alignments or somehow they are going to use the old Hooley Hill alignment into Stalybridge and the the Micklehurst Loop.  Given the proposed use of the CLC from Liverpool to Warrington to get to HS2 somewhere near Lymm, then if you are looking for an alignment east of Manchester then further re-use of old (but this time lifted or closed and partially demolished) may also be forming their thinking.  It has to cost less to rebuild an existing albeit closed alignment than to tunnel.

I can see getting to Guide Bridge easily enough, but beyond that, it's extremely difficult. The Loop is now a linear path from Stalybridge, right up into Saddleworth; all the bridges have been demolished, and much of the trackbed has been built upon, e.g. Uppermill baths, Freizland riding centre, and so on. It's an area I know well, living as I did for 18 years just above the loop, in Uppermill, and now in Hyde.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, 62613 said:

I can see getting to Guide Bridge easily enough, but beyond that, it's extremely difficult. The Loop is now a linear path from Stalybridge, right up into Saddleworth; all the bridges have been demolished, and much of the trackbed has been built upon, e.g. Uppermill baths, Freizland riding centre, and so on. It's an area I know well, living as I did for 18 years just above the loop, in Uppermill, and now in Hyde.

 

I know, which is why I said M&SLR then something new, but it's going to be interesting what 'new' may be.

 

Suprised no-one has said, use Woodhead to Penistone, take a left there for Huddersfield - controversial!!  Although, that would be a very long way around to avoid StalyVegas,

Edited by woodenhead
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Do the East-West aspects of the "Northern Powerhouse" scheme, as amended yesterday, now amount to any more than a few miles of quadrupled track, a bit of re-signalling, and some longer and marginally faster trains?

 

As ever, the remaining portion will be as much about getting out of the north as it is about accessing it.

 

Good news for Leeds Bradford Airport, though?

 

John

Edited by Dunsignalling
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

Do the East-West aspects of the "Northern Powerhouse" scheme, as amended yesterday, now amount to any more than a few miles of quadrupled track, a bit of re-signalling, and some longer and marginally faster trains?

 

 

It includes (quote)

"40 miles of new build high speed line between Warrington, Manchester and Yorkshire (to the east of Standedge tunnels)"

 

Part of that 40 miles is the section of HS2 2b between Crewe and Piccadilly.

 

 

.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Draw a straight line from Manchester to Leeds and it would pass quite near Marsden, but Guide Bridge would be well to the south, as that line heads east when the straight line would be roughly north-east.  

 

Given the difficulties of getting a high speed line through the Tame Valley without bulldozing much of it, I'm expecting it to be in tunnel for much of the distance.  Possibly some surface running through the Medlock Valley between Oldham and Ashton, then tunnel from Lees area with perhaps a short surface section in Saddleworth to reduce the evacuation requirements that kick in when a tunnel reaches a certain length.  Probably duck through the hill north of Marsden too, to pick up the existing line where it straightens out.  

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Edwin_m said:

Draw a straight line from Manchester to Leeds and it would pass quite near Marsden, but Guide Bridge would be well to the south, as that line heads east when the straight line would be roughly north-east. 

But you have to get out of the new above ground station at Piccadilly, so not easy to go NE immediately, even tunnelling you have to get quite some distance to reach a tunnel mouth, and the ex GC alignment to Guide Bridge is ready and waiting, then it gets much harder!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we all have to wait to see what the Liverpool to Leeds is classified as when it comes to speed - is HS2 fast or just fast - big difference in the infrastructure.

 

If this is also about spending less money, then tunnelling may be restricted to where absolutely necessary, hence the GC alignment looks attractive for the first few miles and then something else is required and again it will depend on how much they are looking to spend and how fast the trains will be going.

 

Given everything to the east of Standedge will be on existing lines and the new build is between Liverpool and Standedge using some existing alignments then this may not be a HS2 fast high speed line but it may be a 100+mph high speed line, the Warrington Central line is never going to be a higher speed line beyond the benefits of electrification, Chat Moss is certainly not a candidate for high speed so any speed improvements over those two lines for the new route via Warrington is goint to be 'high speed' compared to as is.  Given the topology of the area, the Micklehurst loop has to be in consideration even if perhaps it becomes the slow route with stations for Saddleworth allowing the existing route to be the higher speed one.

Edited by woodenhead
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Grovenor said:

But you have to get out of the new above ground station at Piccadilly, so not easy to go NE immediately, even tunnelling you have to get quite some distance to reach a tunnel mouth, and the ex GC alignment to Guide Bridge is ready and waiting, then it gets much harder!

Maybe so.  The junction is already planned (page 33 of link below), and looks to be a pair of stubs that to go either towards Guide Bridge or on some new alignment.  It is only just short of the tunnel portal on the route towards the Airport, so is at an appropriate elevation to go underground within a short distance.  It could quite easily be aimed towards the area just north of Ardwick depot, where there is ample space for a portal unless it's been significantly built up since I last passed by.  

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/927058/10961-DfT-HS2_DRC2_Response_Correction_Slip_in.pdf

  • Informative/Useful 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

That's very interesting.  It means that Liverpool to Leeds and beyond trains will have to reverse at Manchester and the line heads out along the old GC route where there is a lot of redundant railway land.  I suspect that the whole route has already been planned but not released.

 

Jamie

Edited by jamie92208
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jamie92208 said:

That's very interesting.  It means that Liverpool to Leeds and beyon trains will have to reverse at Manchester and the line heads out along the old GC route where there is a lotbof redundant railway land.  I suspect that the whole route has already been planned but not released.

 

Jamie

That is almost certainly true.  Some colleagues of mine were working on it five or six years ago, though I have no specific knowledge of what the proposal might be.  

 

With this sort of work you don't release any maps until you are pretty certain of what you want to do, because you then also trigger "blight" provisions to buy out anyone whose property is potentially affected. 

Edited by Edwin_m
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Thinking the route from Ardwick through, one way might he  on the surface till Guide Bridge then a shortish tunnel through to the Micklehurst loop are, probably near Greenfield. That would lead into the Chew Valley where the longish tu nel would stat, probably emerging between Marsden and Slaithwaite before joining up with existing line before Milnsbridge.  That would avoid all the Chew Valley and Wessenden valley reservoirs by goi g under them.  It's somethi g to think about as I head towzrds my dotage.

 

Jamie

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jamie92208 said:

Thinking the route from Ardwick through, one way might he  on the surface till Guide Bridge then a shortish tunnel through to the Micklehurst loop are, probably near Greenfield. That would lead into the Chew Valley where the longish tu nel would stat, probably emerging between Marsden and Slaithwaite before joining up with existing line before Milnsbridge.  That would avoid all the Chew Valley and Wessenden valley reservoirs by goi g under them.  It's somethi g to think about as I head towzrds my dotage.

 

Jamie

 

Having happy memories of the Chew Valley BEFORE the lowest of the reservoirs was built, it would be a shame to see the ancient tranquility disturbed by high speed trains.

 

CJI.

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

 

Having happy memories of the Chew Valley BEFORE the lowest of the reservoirs was built, it would be a shame to see the ancient tranquility disturbed by high speed trains.

 

CJI.

I think it might be in tunnel all the way up the east side of the Tame valley, at least from about the old Staley and Millbrook northwards.  Maybe they could have it pop out and run across the dam at Dovestones?  

Edited by Edwin_m
Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Edwin_m said:

I think it might be in tunnel all the way up the east side of the Tame valley, at least from about the old Staley and Millbrook northwards.  Maybe they could have it pop out and run across the dam at Dovestones?  

What if they inverted the railway, reinstated the Micklehurst loop but for the stoppers and added a couple of stations, closing the existing Mossley and Greenfield stations.  That way the new (electric) route could service the towns it went through and allowing the current route to become the higher speed route.

 

Just a thought, would prefer that to a high speed line popping by by Dovestone reservoir.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, woodenhead said:

What if they inverted the railway, reinstated the Micklehurst loop but for the stoppers and added a couple of stations, closing the existing Mossley and Greenfield stations.  That way the new (electric) route could service the towns it went through and allowing the current route to become the higher speed route.

 

Just a thought, would prefer that to a high speed line popping by by Dovestone reservoir.

Interesting thought, but I think we're into "thought experiment" territory rather than anything that might actually happen.  

 

The Micklehurst Loop could serve Uppermill and Greenfield much better than the existing line, with stations at Chew Valley Road (a Greenfield site?) and on the former Uppermill goods yard rather than where they originally were.  It would be much worse for Mossley though.  

 

I reviewed this line a few years ago with a view to reopening, and the verdict was "no chance".  All six (?) viaducts have gone and housing encroaches on the formation in Uppermill, as well as the swimming pool I think someone mentioned upthread.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Edwin_m said:

I reviewed this line a few years ago with a view to reopening, and the verdict was "no chance".  All six (?) viaducts have gone and housing encroaches on the formation in Uppermill, as well as the swimming pool I think someone mentioned upthread.  

If you can tunnel under the channel, you can build new viaducts and if you can can compulsory purchase properties on an route (HS2B) currently mothballed then you can buy a few properties that encroach on the alignment.

 

It is a thought experiment, but in the absence of the actual plans what else do we have - for me it is whether tunnelling under the Chew valley is cheaper than reinstating a railway on the surface missing some viaducts.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...