here is a proposal I've been working on for a Northern HSR linking the main Northern cities which would effectively merge them and make them very commutable, which would encourage growth. and with HS2 to London it would make the new 'Nothern Conurbation' very attractive to businesses. much like the Rhein Ruhr area in Germany. aswell as making the main airport serving the north of the country (MAN) more accesible to the Northern cities by rail.

Route/Link(Google Maps)

I dont know if the link is working to the google maps, so ive got some images here aswell as talkthoughs:

Whole Map- http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w8/Albbie94/wholemap.jpg

Liverpool- http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w8/Albbie94/LiverpoolTermini.jpg

the main station would be in Liverpool in the Liverpool waters Development there for cause minimum distruption and make travel to the city center very easy as the monorail planned could transport people quickly to the city center, line would follow the mersey estuary which would mean the minor demolition of some housing nearer to John Lennon Int'l.
http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w8/Albbie94/LiverpoolJLI.jpg
http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w8/Albbie94/Alternatemerseycrossing.jpg
John Lennon Int'l-the station could be above or underground the carpark with a walkway to the terminal after the station the line would continue to follow the mersey cross near runcorn in a bridge the skirt around runcorn still following the mersey untill meeting the m56 at jct 10 a following untill manchester airport
http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w8/Albbie94/ManchesterAirport.jpg

Manchester Airport- the station would be underground near woodhouse park, the station would have and ULTRA system linking it to the CTA, the line would continue unground untill ascending near old trafford cricket ground and continueing by the MET and railway lines to manchester Victoria
http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w8/Albbie94/ManchesterCorridors.jpg
http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w8/Albbie94/ManchesterVictoria.jpg
Manchester Victoria would have a massive extension built on the old exchange site, a large station capable of accomodating trains from hs2 and the new northern HSR network, manchester would be the core of the network all trains would stop here.
http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w8/Albbie94/EastManchesterCorridor.jpg
the Line would continue above ground to hadfield but using the current corridors out of the city but with some demolition in droylsden to allow the line to continue to guide bridge then follow a realigned woodhead route to allow for higher speeds, this would be the most expensive part at the tunnels would have to be rebored and bridges and viaducts would have to be built.

South Yorksire triangle junction, this junction would allow trains to travel between Liverpool/Manchester and Leeds/Wakefield/Sheffield and trains to travel between Sheffield Wakefield and Leeds the line would follow the M1 and use the
http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w8/Albbie94/SheffieldCorridors.jpg
Parkway Corridor into Sheffield (though this would but running mainly on HS2 which will probably follow the M1

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w8/Albbie94/SouthYorksM1route.jpg
and the Beeston Corridor into Leeds.

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w8/Albbie94/SheffieldVictoriaStation.jpg
the station in sheffield would be at the old Victoria site with a tram extension to connect it to the city center

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w8/Albbie94/Leeds.jpg
at leeds an extension would be built in the western carpark, with the new lines following the existing lines to the beeston corridor

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w8/Albbie94/WakefieldParkway.jpg
the wakefield parkway station would be built at junction 40 of the M1, the a638 allows easy access to wakefield, ossett and dewsbury, making the station accesible to over 100,000 people.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=105982349110269901077.000483e3440d74384accf&t=h&z=7

Journey Timesmethod of working

i have worked out some approximate journey times based on the average speed of trains travelling on the LGV EST in france the newest TGV line (173.6mph) i used the simple T=D/S formula so the journey times are very approximate. but here they areall journey times are calculated as Non-stop services:

Liverpool To...

Manchester Airport-18 minutes

Manchester Victoria-23 minutes

Wakefield Parkway-46 minutes

Leeds 50-minutes

Sheffield Victoria-50 minutes

Manchester To...

Wakefield Parkway-22 minutes

Sheffield Victoria-16 minutes

Liverpool John Lennon Int'l-18 minutes

Liverpool Waters-46 minutes


Leeds To...

Sheffield Victoria-19 minutes

Liverpool John Lennon Int'l-40 minutes

Liverpool Waters-50 minutes

Manchester Airport-32 minutes

Manchester Victoria-27 minutes

Sheffield Victoria To...

Liverpool John Lennon Int'l-40 minutes

Liverpool Waters-50 minutes

Manchester Airport-32 minutes

Manchester Victoria-27 minutes

Leeds-19 minutes

Wakefield Parkway-16 minutes

Wakefield Parkway To...

Sheffield Victoria-16 minutes

Liverpool John Lennon Int'l-42 minutes

Liverpool Waters-46 minutes

Manchester Airport-27 minutes

Manchester Victoria-22 minutes

Manchester Airport To...

Liverpool John Lennon Int'l-14 minutes

Liverpool Waters-18 minutes

Leeds-32 minutes

Wakefield Parkway-27 minutes

Sheffield Victoria-32 minutes

Liverpool John Lennon Int'l To...

Sheffield Victoria-40 minutes

Wakefield Parkway-42 minutes

Leeds-40 minutes

Manchester Airport-14 minutes

Manchester Victoria-18 minutes


possible journey times including stops...

all things considered: the possible journey time for a train from Leeds to Liver pool Via Manchester and Manchester Airport and Liverpool John Lennon Int'l could be 1 hour 5 minutes....with 3 stops. and less with just 1 stop in Manchester (55 minutes)

making travel between the cities very easy and quick, traveling between Liverpool and Leeds/Manchester and Sheffield and visa versa would be quicker than travelling from say Richmond to Bank/Monument at Peak time on the district Line which would effectively merge all the cities together.

land would be cheaper than in London with HS2 travel from the northern cities to London would be under 1hr30 mins which would encourage businesses, Telecommunications and government institutions to move out of London, like now the BBC are moving from white city to mediacity, whitehall is opening in Manchester, but even more so with the quick links to other northern cities.

Would also allow better accessibility to Manchester Airport which would take some strain off heathrow. as well as effectively merge Manchester and Liverpool Airports together. Liverpool John Lennon would effectively become Terminal 4 and runway 3 of Manchester Airport which would allow for more services to be run, Liverpool could become a mainly Longhaul Airport and Manchester become mainly shorthaul the airports could be renamed Manchester and/or Liverpool John Lennon International West and East. or just John lennon International West and East, or remain the same as they are.


basically what do you all think?

comments, dicussion and new/better ideas are welcome so i can keep on improving the route, any NAAONBs i dont know about or listed buildings or places bought for development.

Manchester to John Lennon international 42 minutes? you can drive there in less than that now.

Manchester to John Lennon international 42 minutes? you can drive there in less than that now.

18 minutes sorry its a typo

The links opening googlemaps to a certain location, but theirs no drawings/illustrations.

sorry there seem to be some problems with the link so there are images ive just added.

Mmm, if your having it join with HS2 at the airport then why not share tracks, run under Manchester like thats planned to do with an underground Pic station before emerging above ground again in the more rural less built up north of the county (just after Heaton Park) then head dead east from there (possibly along the M62 corridor?) through the pennines and you will reach the same point your line splits for Sheffield/Leeds (alternatley follow M62 corridor to just west of Huddersfield and have the line diverge there north and south of the town). Far cheaper through Manchester and less disruption to existing rail corridors which would still be needed for commuter services.

i have looked at a line which travels next to the M62 http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=52.65956,-1.567931&spn=3.879116,9.876709&t=h&z=7

ignore the rest of the network, just look at the transpennine line, but across the pennines the terrain i west yorks is much more hilly and built up not to mention the construction would cause distruption to the m62, which is the only motorway accross the pennines. which counters the case for not using the woodhead route because its more built up..... tough call.

I quite like the idea of going via John Lennon. I would recommend crossing the mersey in a tunnel - otherwise the bridge would have to be one of the largest ever, and nimbyism at Runcorn will hamper it otherwise.

I quite like the idea of going via John Lennon. I would recommend crossing the mersey in a tunnel - otherwise the bridge would have to be one of the largest ever, and nimbyism at Runcorn will hamper it otherwise.I think with that route, the bridge would be the least of any NIMBY worries. :lol:

http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w8/Albbie94/Alternatemerseycrossing.jpg

i drew an aternate mersey crossing, staying north of the mersey until cuerdly marsh, skirting north of hale and south of halebank continuing next to the existing Liverpool-Warrington Line and the a562/a568 road untill swooping south at cuerdly marsh and crossing the mersey in bridge or tunnel, the width of the mersey is much smaller and bisect the manor park warehouse estate and follow the daresbury expressway/b5356(daresbury road) past daresbury labs and then join the m56 near jct ten and follow to manchester airport.

Watcher zero said


"Mmm, if your having it join with HS2 at the airport then why not share tracks, run under Manchester like thats planned to do with an underground Pic station before emerging above ground again in the more rural less built up north of the county (just after Heaton Park) "

Are you suggesting the Northern HSR runs under my house?!?!?

Hey only if I have a dedicated lift and tunnel.

Still feels the Northern HST will simply be a new track to Brum and then a doubling up of the WCML to Glasgow with spurs following the Stephenson Rocket line off to Lerpwl and Manchester. Perhaps a HST station at Ordsall, if a tunnel under Manchester city centre is deemed too expensive.

Now if I ever see this in my lifetime I'd be amazed. Through if another Icelandic volcano whips up, suddenly HS will become very attractive!!

I fail to see the most Northern city on there that needs it, Newcastle, basically this is a Lancashire&Yorkshire HSR plan.

I'm confused.
I'm interested to know what the question is, which this proposal is answering.
To "make the new 'Nothern Conurbation' very attractive to businesses" just doesn't immediately present a High Speed rail question to me - sorry.
But I AM VERY interested. I'm sure that the Northern RDAs will be too.

Railways do three things quite well :-
- local commuting (the reach of the networks matter, more than speed),
- inter-city, inter-regional and international travel (where high-speed links and connectivity to other modes matter, more than penetration to localities), and
- freight (reaching local and regional distribution hubs, major customers such as ports and power stations).

So what is this "North of England" proposal trying to improve?
Stockton to Southport?
Wolverhampton to Wallsend?
Liverpool to Lancaster?
Hull to Harrogate?
Rotherham to Runcorn?
Wigan to Warrington?
Workington to Wakefield?
Accrington to Alston?
Blyth to Birkenhead?
Berwick to Bolton?
Harrogate to Hexham?
Hartlepool to Halton?
Preston to Pontefract?
Mansfield to Morpeth?
Macclesfield to Middlesbrough?
Newcastle to Middlesbrough?
Darlington to Penrith?
Alnwick to Chester?
York to Carlisle?
Congleton to Chesterfield?
Everywhere to their nearest airports?
Everywhere in the North of England to Ireland? (Eire and Northern Ireland)?
Everywhere in the North of England to Scotland (Borders, Lowlands and Highlands)?
Everywhere in the North of England to Wales, East Midlands, and West Midlands?

Please tell me what flows you are improving.
I will be happy to support yopur proposals when I can see what challenges they're trying to address. Thanks.
Some passenger numbers and/or freight volumes would be helpful. With or without costings.

Blyth to Birkenhead?

Definitely!

But can we have it via Tameside, Northwich and Hooton please?

Maybe with some branches to places such as.......oh I don't known - Stafford, Telford, East Midlands, Cumbria......

what do you mean whats it trying to improve?
its to decrease the gap between the cities bringing them closer together and make the journeys more commutable and appealing. aswell as make manchester airport more accesible which is the main airport for the region. which would make the cities more appealing to businesses and residents. more people would move to the area. journey times from manchester to leeds are 1 hour to 1 hour and a half for two citied 45 miles apart this means the trains average speed is less than 25mph which for an 'intercity service' is appauling. this proposal will improve this greatly.

what do you mean whats it trying to improve?
its to decrease the gap between the cities bringing them closer together and make the journeys more commutable and appealing. aswell as make manchester airport more accesible which is the main airport for the region. which would make the cities more appealing to businesses and residents. more people would move to the area. journey times from manchester to leeds are 1 hour to 1 hour and a half for two citied 45 miles apart this means the trains average speed is less than 25mph which for an 'intercity service' is appauling. this proposal will improve this greatly.

A Northern HSR should also serve Newcastle, what with it being rather important and in the north. In which case, there would be also be Newcastle's airport to consider. Why cart air travellers all the way from Leeds to Manchester when Newcastle Airport also has international flights and is closer?

If you're trying to improve resource usage efficiency and reduce carbon footprints, the less distance people have to travel, the better. Trains are better than airplanes, but not by much: we still burn a lot of fossil fuels in the UK to make our electricity.

A Northern HSR should also serve Newcastle, what with it being rather important and in the north. In which case, there would be also be Newcastle's airport to consider. Why cart air travellers all the way from Leeds to Manchester when Newcastle Airport also has international flights and is closer?

Leeds is closer to Manchester than Newcastle.

Why cart air travellers all the way from Leeds to Manchester when Newcastle Airport also has international flights and is closer?

:nuts: :lol:

Leeds is closer to Manchester than Newcastle.

Well, that'll teach me to look at maps without my glasses on.

Nevertheless, why terminate at Leeds? It's more of a "Northwest HSR" than a "Northern" one as it stands.

AAA94 can confirm but I would generally assume that ultimately there will be a HSL from Leeds to Newcastle anyway, and that northern HSR would tie in to it. Indeed that is what I have done on my route.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&t=h&hl=en&msa=0&msid=105982349110269901077.000483e3440d74384accf&ll=54.351754,-1.617737&spn=1.102896,2.469177&z=9

i would build a line all the way to newcastle because much of the ECML from thirsk to darlington can accomodate 186 mph speeds then north of darlington with some minor realignment of the curves north of darlington 125 mph which i think is sufficient. connecting from leeds to newcastle would be effectively building the line from liverpool to leeds again but connecting 1 city. on this map a connection just south of thirsk with new stations at leeds/bradford intl and a harrogate parkway station, with an upgraded ECML to newcastle would still offer a significant cut in journey times.

as for newcastle and leeds/bradford intl, they may be airports serving the cities but they dont offer half as many destinations as manchester airport does, which is indeed why many passengers travel to manchester to fly somewhere. this will make manchester aiport closer to many of these cities where it currently takes an hour or more to drive or take the train!

It's more of a "Northwest HSR" than a "Northern" one as it stands.

you can call it what you want. it is a 'northern hsr' just because it doesnt serve newcastle doesnt change that. its a hsr system in the north just because it has more track in the northwest doesnt mean its not nothern.

what do you mean whats it trying to improve?
its to decrease the gap between the cities bringing them closer together and make the journeys more commutable and appealing. as well as make manchester airport more accesible which is the main airport for the region. which would make the cities more appealing to businesses and residents. more people would move to the area. journey times from manchester to leeds are 1 hour to 1 hour and a half for two citied 45 miles apart . . . .I'm sorry if my question was not clear. But I must say that your answer (and later posts) still aren't giving me the planned benefits which investors could consider when looking at your plans.

I THINK you're saying
1) that its a plan to reduce journey times for existing passengers on the existing flows between Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds;
AND 2) that this improvement will attract an unspecified number of passengers onto those 3 flows.
i would build a line all the way to newcastle because much of the ECML from thirsk to darlington can accomodate 186 mph speeds . . . . connecting from leeds to newcastle would be effectively building the line from liverpool to leeds again but connecting 1 city. on this map a connection just south of thirsk with new stations at leeds/bradford intl and a harrogate parkway station, with an upgraded ECML to newcastle would still offer a significant cut in journey times.
AND 3) its a plan to reduce journey times between Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Harrogate and Newcastle (is that for existing passenger flows or new business?),
AND 4) it assists air travellers using Manchester Airport to access the airport (not sure if rail service times will correspond to flight arrivals/departures).

it is a 'northern hsr' just because it doesnt serve newcastle doesnt change that.
OR 5) It does not serve Newcastle.

I'm really sorry but I am struggling to see what benefits it brings to the very large numbers of road users between norther towns and cities - how this connects with our actual communities, how many new journeys will be generated and how this curve links with new inter-regional, trans-national and international journeys (other than Manchester Airport).
And I'm struggling to see how it works, apart from Manchester Airport. For examples, I gave you a pretty long list of possible journeys for which you might have some numbers. Taking your example of Liverpoool to Manchester, if you were generating 1000 new journeys aa day, how are these passengers linking into / out of the service? Will there be 1000 new parking spaces at one station? Are they connecting to 1000 new journeys on local transport (and if so, which routes and how are they provided?). What modes of transport are these journeys using (and what will be done with that released capacity)? How many of these are NEW journeys? Over what hours of the day are these new journeys?
. . . would make the cities more appealing to businesses and residents.
. . . .
more people would move to the area.These could be the plans biggest selling points - if you supplied the numbers!
What business sector(s) are you thinking of that benefits from these inter-city journeys in large enough quantities? What sector(s) are you thinking of that will be attracted by a faster rail link between Liverpool, Manchester, Huddersfield and Leeds?

I hope this helps you to develop the plan more clearly.
I guess I'm still looking for the question that this answers.

I can't answer for AAA94, though having now looked at a map of the area with my glasses on, I don't entirely see what advantages you'd gain by building it to HSR standards anyway.

The UK is not France. Our conurbations tend to be clustered rather than spread more or less evenly around the country. We need to design accordingly. HSR looks very cool, but it's also very expensive and requires engineering on a truly mammoth scale. The Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds conurbations are vast and don't leave a lot of room for long, straight, fast stretches of track.

Looking at a satellite map of the UK on Google Maps suggests that a better plan would be to look at improving and speeding up existing east-west links between Liverpool and Manchester, and from there, to consider improvements along the Manchester-Sheffield-Doncaster and Manchester-Leeds corridors. These routes would then join up again and run along the Humber to Hull. (Or one could run down to Grimsby.)

These would be built using HSR signalling technology (which cuts down on maintenance costs and offers more scope for increased frequencies), but to a lower maximum line speed of around 125-140 miles per hour. (140 mph. appears to be the upper limit for metro / commuter-quality EMUs; the Class 395s can only manage big, single-leaf doors, for example.) OHLE would, of course, be standard.

This option means you can have tighter curves and reduce the engineering costs of the whole line. As a consequence, it becomes easier to justify building (or upgrading) the route as four-track from end to end, to give the best flexibility. All station platforms would have passing loops too, so that, during engineering works, a train using the slow lines can still run non-stop from end to end while stoppers keep out of its way.

Remember, this route is going to be heavily used for local, not national, journeys. Commuters will be the primary source of income, while freight can run off-peak and at night, reducing the amount of it using the roads (and thus freeing up some road capacity too). A non-stop Liverpool to Leeds service would be around 70 miles. At 140 mph., that's 30 minutes end-to-end. More than fast enough. (Compare with London-Brighton fast services, which take nearly an hour to cover a mere 55 miles or so. An average of about 60 mph. And this is considered fast south of the Thames!)

Rather than using "HSR", I'd suggest defining this as an intermediate form of "Regional Super Railway" ("RSR"). It mixes elements of TGV technology to create an advanced, general-purpose, mixed-use, express railway.

Now, full-fat HSR is around 186 mph. minimum today, but this threshold will probably have risen again to around 225 mph. within ten years. At 186 mph. you might shave about 5 minutes off the Liverpool-Leeds journey, but the bulk of the journeys will be heading for Manchester. Non-stop services between these two cities aren't going to be the bread and butter of such a route: it'll be commuters that you'll have to cater for, with a fair few stations along the way and a suitable mix of services. Given the poor east-west rail links currently in place, there's likely to be a lot of pent-up regional demand.

HSR speeds would have a greater impact on Leeds-Newcastle journey times as this stretch is quite long and runs through a lot of open countryside. However, there are already suggestions for an HSR route along a similar alignment to relieve the ECML, so it would be more sensible to just build a junction between this and the east-west route. Beyond this point, the line could continue to Hull, giving a very useful coast-to-coast four-track railway built to modern standards. (And by "modern standards", I also mean "modern, EU-compatible loading gauge" too.) The advantages of such a route for freight alone should be heavily in its favour.

This project therefore becomes a "Northern Coasts RSR".

^^ I concur entirely.

Upgrades to the existing lines is the way I would go, but not some half-baked upgrade that the word normally describes.

There are two lines between Liverpool and Manchester which are nearly dead straight and perfect for high-ish speed use. Whats more they are significantly quad track alignments, using only 2 tracks at the moment. I think it would be better to quadify at least the line through Newton-le-Willows. Two tracks can be made available for 250km/h running, and where there are infrastructural issues like two track sections of alignment then building around these points will be a lot cheaper than building an entirely new alignment from scratch.

The same is true east of Leeds. But crossing the pennines, I've researched for months and tbh I can see no other option but to dig a new tunnel. Yes the line between Stalybridge and Huddersfield has an unused 2 track tunnel, but this route would be so slow as to negate the whole point of upping the speed elsewhere. I've previously posted such a route in detail and frankly 80mph is hard to achieve consistently. Methinks this should be left for eventual re-use for 'normal' traffic. Same goes for the woodhead route, though speeds on that would be slightly better, best reopened for normal stuff.

For a trans-pen HSR I think therefore mostly upgrades except where that would be almost useless which is over the hills themselves, so build a new section here and here only.

Beauty being the rest of the infrastructure works can be done first, improving local services at the same time by electrifying (everywhere!) and then rationalising services (ie creating slow and fast journeys between the cities and creating more of them and generating much more patronage) and then the big ticket item - the new tunnel - can be pressed ahead when the overwhelming success of the project so far makes it an imperitive! Genius. (Internet genius - that is until someone picks it to death :) )

It should be remembered that with a useful high-ish speed (250km/h) route lots of XC high speed journeys become a possibility. For example south west to Newcastle via Manchester using HS2 between Brum and Manc, and HS(NW?) from Leeds to Newcastle (and beyond).

I agree with stimarko and makita09 that there is a poorly served regional market. An existing market that could be well served AND developed, with improved cross-peninne journey times and improved comfort.
This is surely most pressing in the triangle Manchester - Leeds - Sheffield - Manchester?
But this potential has got nothing to do with a national HS network. Same goes for Liverpool, Hull and Manch Airport.

Much as I would enjoy seeing a national HS network, I can't see that trying to make it also serve the needs of trans-pennine "local" commuting can actually provide the benefits which would justify the investment and, frankly, the detrimental inconvenience it would provide to long-distance services.
Railways work best when they're constructed to do one job well, and not to be a bit of everything.
Yes, its a plan for a "Northern Coasts Super Railway"!

All it needs is good connections to existing services to deliver passengers to local low speed networks (which would have some thru-demand relieved), and just 1 link (2 at the most) to a national and international HS network to deliver new passengers attracted FROM air travel (and from road and "old" rail).
For the scheme to work at all, it has to relieve enough capacity on the "old" network to carry substantially more freight - I beleive this is crucial, because there is no financial model which could ever lead to an investment in a new freight rail network, so if we are to encourage freight expansion then it MUST come from liberating capacity on the "old" networks.

But this potential has got nothing to do with a national HS network. Same goes for Liverpool, Hull and Manch Airport.

The problem is that Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds are simply too close to each other for full HSR to be worthwhile. Look at how many stations are planned for the London-Birmingham stretch of HS2, then consider how many you'll need for a Liverpool-Leeds line, which is barely 70 miles long. The journey time savings will be minimal: AGV and TGV class trains have a single door at each end of the coach (so long dwell times) and lower acceleration than regional EMU stock. They simply aren't intended for routes with frequent stops.

The stations themselves will need to be somewhere useful, which means following existing alignments through the urban sprawls into existing stations. These alignments won't be capable of full HSR speeds, no matter how much money you throw at the problem: the only other options are expensive, (and longer!) bypasses, or even more expensive tunnelling. So you don't get the benefit of a dedicated HSR route serving all these cities either way.

Another alternative is something like the compromised HS1, which has 140 mph. Class 395s sharing a two-track route with the faster Eurostars. There's no way you can justify a brand new, four-track, fully-HSR compliant railway between Liverpool and Leeds via Manchester; the costs would be staggering and there simply isn't the demand to justify it.

Hence the four-tracking hybrid line I suggested: 140 mph. max. speed is still plenty fast enough to give a massive improvement in journey times—HSR would shave off only another few minutes or so at best—while not costing the earth. It would also be better suited to serving the region, which a purely HSR-grade route could never do.

Through services via an east-west line between western and eastern HSR trunk routes are unlikely to be able to justify skipping either Manchester or Leeds, so the slower line speed isn't going to be a major handicap. They'll still be able to connect with the HSR lines at each end, where the trains can run at full speed. And these services won't be anywhere near as frequent or popular as regional and local ones, so they can easily run as either 2tph (peak) and 1tph (off-peak).

Remember, HS2 and any other HSR lines won't disappear if this line is built: it's in addition to whatever infrastructure exists at the time of its construction, not a replacement for it. For Cross-country services, the line would still be able to cope with TGV and AGV stock, but there simply isn't enough demand for a train to Edinburgh-Bristol via Leeds and Manchester every 10 minutes, so there's no point going insane with a full-on HSR to fill in a gap of just 40 miles between the east coast and HS2.

For the scheme to work at all, it has to relieve enough capacity on the "old" network to carry substantially more freight - I beleive this is crucial, because there is no financial model which could ever lead to an investment in a new freight rail network, so if we are to encourage freight expansion then it MUST come from liberating capacity on the "old" networks.

Agreed. A "Northern Coasts Super Railway" will do just that, while also speeding up local and regional services and providing a useful link for long-distance HSR cross-country services.

(HS2 is far more likely to run via Manchester than Liverpool if extended to Glasgow, so only the 40-mile stretch from Leeds to Manchester would be used for HSR cross-country routes. 125-140 mph. is plenty fast enough for such a short run given that there's likely to be a stop at each end anyway.)

I take into account all your points, but under tory proposals there will be HSR between Manchester and Leeds, they are likely to be in government in the next term. so 3/4 of the route which i have draw will be built to HSR standards (sheff-Leeds and sheff/leeds-Manc) quadupling the nlewillows line is possible and 140 mph speeds could be attained but if extended to glasgow hs2 will most probably branch off from manchester airport and continue to glasgow and if it calls at warrington thats pretty much half way to Liverpool from manchester why not build an extra 15 miles of HSR grade track into liverpool waters...the other 60 or so miles will already be built under current proposals. and an extra 5 miles for a south curve to join HS2 towards sheffield from the transpennine route.

i have a map here which i have quickly drawn up so its not at all accurate just to show how much of my route will actually be built under tory proposals.

i have also drawn upgrades on an existing rail route from Liv-manch and my transpennine crossing joining up with hs2 to leeds and sheffield
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=105982349110269901077.00048500ec9f77e5e8008&ll=53.306262,-1.950073&spn=1.13077,2.469177&t=h&z=9

I take into account all your points, but under tory proposals there will be HSR between Manchester and Leeds, they are likely to be in government in the next term.

...

The Tories are not known for their love of rail. They created most of the mess that is today's privatised railways. (Labour's shame is their decision not to fix it; instead they just fiddled about around the edges.)

The Tories had 18 years to build even one section of HSR. They gave us... HS1: easily one of the stupidest HSR routes ever created, with too many stations and a 140 mph. commuter service eating up a ton of slots.

That their new plan is to run HS2 to Scotland via Birmingham and Leeds is a testament to their inability to run a bath, let alone a country: it's a truly idiotic route for an HSR trunk line. None of the three reports into the route recommended it, for very sound reasons. (Not the least of which is that it'd bring the London-Scotland journey time very close to the alternative routes via the existing, Victorian railways.)

It's also very, very easy to promise the moon when you're not actually in power. Politicians are famous for lying through their teeth just to get into office, and I wouldn't be too sure the Tories will get everything their own way this time.

We're still struggling with a fragile economy. HS2 is the most obvious project to kick into the long grass: it's expensive and, unlike Crossrail, construction hasn't actually started yet.

I take into account all your points, but under tory proposals there will be HSR between Manchester and Leeds, they are likely to be in government in the next term.

As Stimarco says, be careful of taking their vague promises too explicitly. By HSR they could mean 110 mph, politicians aren't exactly pedants when it comes to their promises.

...but if extended to glasgow hs2 will most probably branch off from manchester airport and continue to glasgow and if it calls at warrington...

I don't know why HS2 would ever go from Manc Airpoirt to Warrington, as that is roughly perpendicular to the direction it wants to go. See the first phase of HS2 to see how straight and direct planners like to build HSLs.

That their new plan is to run HS2 to Scotland via Birmingham and Leeds is a testament to their inability to run a bath, let alone a country: it's a truly idiotic route for an HSR trunk line.

Even just running a route to Leeds via Birmingham (and remember Manchester too) are stupid. It will mean that the East Coast Mainline will remain the fastest way of getting to London for Leeds, Newcastle and Edinburgh. Glasgow meanwhile will benefit only from quicker journey times on the southern section. Their proposal would be a white elephant- so much of a compromise that it benefits hardly anyone.

Even just running a route to Leeds via Birmingham (and remember Manchester too) are stupid. It will mean that the East Coast Mainline will remain the fastest way of getting to London for Leeds, Newcastle and Edinburgh. Glasgow meanwhile will benefit only from quicker journey times on the southern section. Their proposal would be a white elephant- so much of a compromise that it benefits hardly anyone.

Really? The HS2 report indicated a 75 minute journey time from London to Leeds going via Birmingham, well Birmingham International I guess. What's the fastest time now on the ECML? Its over 2 hours isn't it?

AFAIK the absolute fastest is about 2h05-2h10, but most are around 2h20-2h25.

Really? The HS2 report indicated a 75 minute journey time from London to Leeds going via Birmingham, well Birmingham International I guess. What's the fastest time now on the ECML? Its over 2 hours isn't it?

The HS2 route wasn't via Manchester, the tory proposal is, which would add at least another 15 minutes. If the TOC on the ECML competed they could get their more direct route to be nearly as quick, especially if the next generation of trains are faster when the line gets in cab signalling within the next decade or so.

The HS2 route wasn't via Manchester, the tory proposal is, which would add at least another 15 minutes. If the TOC on the ECML competed they could get their more direct route to be nearly as quick, especially if the next generation of trains are faster when the line gets in cab signalling within the next decade or so.

Ah, I thought the reference was to either the HS2 or the Tory proposals. That makes more sense. I do agree that the Tory idea to go from Manchester to Leeds is daft.

Really? The HS2 report indicated a 75 minute journey time from London to Leeds going via Birmingham, well Birmingham International I guess. What's the fastest time now on the ECML? Its over 2 hours isn't it?

It's just over 2 hours, but this takes into account the timetable padding. There did used to be services under 2 hours. I think the fastest services from York are just under 2 hours.

HS2 will only be built to Birmingham initially though. That is no benefit to the East Coast, because Leeds - Birmingham on the current network is around 2 hours- ie the same amount of time it takes to get to London. So while we wait for HS2 to be extended, the ECML will remain the flagship mainline.

The ECML is already a pretty good line. There are capacity issues, some level crossings etc, but if these were taken away through an upgrade allowing for faster speeds, there's essentially a high speed line. It follows a flat route and is very straight. An upgrade of the ECML could bring Leeds- London journey times down to less of that on the later extensions of HS2.

When Leeds is eventually connected to Labour's HS2 it will be good. There is absolutely no point in going via Manchester as the Conservatives propose. I think we are in consensus on that.

. . . . If the TOC on the ECML competed they could get their more direct route to be nearly as quick, especially if the next generation of trains are faster when the line gets in cab signalling within the next decade or so.Ah, Your facts are correct.
But your crystal ball might be playing up a bit.
We can barely guess how public investment will be prioritised, but, I'm very, very, convinced that we won't see BOTH an HS2 AND in-cab signalling to raise linespeeds on the "classic" lines.

The cost of the upgrade is truly staggering - the best comparisons we had was on the WCML upgrade, which was comparable to the new-build of HS2.
[And the bonus of going for the HS option is that it leaves all the existing capacity on teh "classic" network available for freight, for local services, for contingencies during disruptions - all quite independent of the new HS line.]

I take into account all your points, but . . . Thanks, AAA94 !
I'm looking forward to being able to support your proposals.
So will you now have the opportunity to answer some of the questions put to you, the most important being passenger flow numbers?
Thanks again

Ah, Your facts are correct.
But your crystal ball might be playing up a bit.
We can barely guess how public investment will be prioritised, but, I'm very, very, convinced that we won't see BOTH an HS2 AND in-cab signalling to raise linespeeds on the "classic" lines.

It has nothing to do with a crystal ball. It has to do with keeping up to date with Network Rails business plans.

Signals need replacing every 30 years on mainlines. Starting with the GWML resiginalling will be of the in-cab variety with deployment commencing in around 5 years. After that its the ECML.

These costs are already budgeted, as they are part of the renewals process, and the money would have to be spent no matter what.

It has nothing to do with a crystal ball. It has to do with keeping up to date with Network Rails business plans.

Signals need replacing every 30 years on mainlines. Starting with the GWML resiginalling will be of the in-cab variety with deployment commencing in around 5 years. After that its the ECML.

These costs are already budgeted, as they are part of the renewals process, and the money would have to be spent no matter what.

I guess you're referring to NR's Delivery Plan for "Control Period 5" (2014-2019). While I hope your interpretation is correct (I really do!), the 2 hurdles are 1) financial (the budget has to be costed, approved and paid within the period), and 2) technical (the ETRMS signalling system currently being trialled in Walse was cancelled for the WCML upgrade due to higher than budget costs. Leading to the Virgin vs NR claim for breach).

I guess we may just disagree about the future of UK investment in rail (tho' I prefer the outcomes from your optomisim!)

I guess you're referring to NR's Delivery Plan for "Control Period 5" (2014-2019). While I hope your interpretation is correct (I really do!), the 2 hurdles are 1) financial (the budget has to be costed, approved and paid within the period),

If finances require less capital spending then it can be kicked by a few years, though it will cost in terms of compensation payments due to ageing and failing incumbent infrastructure, but this type of trade off is common in business. Ultimately it will happen, the the timing may be more than a little open (when isn't it though!)

and 2) technical (the ETRMS signalling system currently being trialled in Walse was cancelled for the WCML upgrade due to higher than budget costs. Leading to the Virgin vs NR claim for breach).

No, the WCML upgrade was promised by Railtrack to be deliverable with in-cab signalling but this wasn't the ETRMS system currently being trialled. It was a different system and wasn't part of the European Union development programme - Railtrack thought they could go it alone but they couldn't.

The ETRMS system trial and deployment programme is pretty much on schedule and pretty much on budget - as is typical of NR (one can argue they give themselves too big a budget though - still at least they seem to know what they are doing).[/quote]

[quote]I guess we may just disagree about the future of UK investment in rail (tho' I prefer the outcomes from your optomisim!)

I'm glad you think I'm optimistic, but on this matter its more pragmatism. ETRMS isn't some fancy nice-to-have. Its a cost-saving efficiency-saving capacity-enhancing and revenue-generating network enhancement that is one of the core capabilities being developed within the industry across Europe. NR know that if they don't do it it will cost them money in the long run and they'll have larger parts of the network gridlocked preventing growth.

AAA94

About Manchester to Standedge: How about channeling the route along the former Micklefield line which runs along south of the existing from Stalybridge to Diggle Junction.