Rumours Grow Over Future Of HS2
The title of this post is the same as that of this article on Railnews.
This is the first paragraph.
The future of HS2 appears to be increasingly in doubt, as reports suggest that the forthcoming Oakervee Review will axe Phase 2b between the West Midlands and Yorkshire and possibly cancel the project entirely.
The article also says this about the first phase of the project.
Another possibility is that Phase 1 between London and Birmingham could be built more cheaply by lowering the maximum speed from the presently-planned 250km/h. Such a reduction would reduce the new line’s capacity and lengthen journey times but still ease the pressure on the West Coast Main Line, where paths are in short supply.
There are three suggestions in these two paragraphs and before I discuss them, I’ll detail the various phases of the project as they are current proposed.
The Phases Of High Speed Two
High Speed Two will be two phases with the second phase split into two.
- Phase 1 – London and the West Midlands
- Phase 2a – West Midlands and Crewe
- Phase 2b – Crewe and Manchester and West Midlands and Leeds
The plan improves links between London and several major cities in the Midlands and North.
Northern Powerhouse Rail
I am a great believer in holistic design and in the economies of doing several similar projects together or in a well-defined sequence, that delivers benefits in a stream.
For that reason, I believe that the equally-important Northern Powerhouse Rail should be designed in conjunction with High Speed Two, to achieve the following objectives.
- A better railway, that connects more towns and cities.
- A phased delivery of benefits.
- Possible cost savings.
This report on the Transport for the North web site which is entitled At A Glance – Northern Powerhouse Rail, advocates a much better approach.
- High Speed Two would go from Crewe to Hull via Warrington, Manchester Airport, Manchester Piccadilly, Huddersfield, Bradford and Leeds.
- Northern Powerhouse Rail would go from Liverpool to Hull via Warrington, Manchester Airport, Manchester Piccadilly, Huddersfield, Bradford and Leeds.
- There would be a double junction at High Legh between Liverpool and Manchester, that connects the two routes.
- London and Liverpool services would use the Western end of Northern Powerhouse Rail from High Legh.
- There would be improvements East of Leeds to connect to Sheffield and the East Coast Main Line.
This map shows the high speed railways between Crewe, Liverpool, Manchester and Warrington.
I discussed, what has been proposed by Transport of the North in Changes Signalled For HS2 Route In North.
Cutting High Speed Two To An Affordable Budget
I’ll take the three suggestions in the Rail News article.
Suggestion One – Cancel The Project
This is actually the second suggestion, but I think the article kills it in the second paragraph, that I quoted, when it says that High Speed Two is needed to ease pressure on the West Coast Main Line.
Cancellation would probably be a vote loser and a big stick with which to beat Boris, if he brought forward any environmental proposals.
I doubt cancellation will happen, unless we get someone like Nigel Farage as Prime Minister.
Suggestion Two – Cancel Phase 2b Between The West Midlands And Yorkshire
This clip of a map from the Transport for the North report shows a schematic of the rail links to the East of Manchester.
Northern Powerhouse Rail would offer a lot of improvements, which are shown in purple.
There are also these projects that will improve trains to and from Yorkshire.
- Northern Powerhouse Rail between Liverpool and Hull via Manchester Airport, Manchester Piccadilly, Huddersfield, Bradford and Leeds.
- A possible connection between Northern Powerhouse Rail and High Speed Two at High Legh.
- Midland Main Line upgrade with 125 mph bi-mode trains between London and Sheffield.
- 140 mph running on the East Coast Main Line between London and Doncaster and onward to Bradford, Hull, Leeds and York.
I’ll add a few more flesh to the points.
High Speed Two To Hull
If High Speed Two connects to Northern Powerhouse Rail at High Legh it will join everything together.
- High Speed Two trains would run between London and Hull via Birmingham, Crewe, Manchester Airport, Manchester Piccadilly, Huddersfield, Bradford and Leeds.
- Very expensive infrastructure would be shared between High Speed Two and Northern Powerhouse Rail.
- Leeds and Manchester would be just twenty minutes apart, with trains from both lines on the same tracks.
- Hull station has the space to handle the trains.
Combining the two routes should save billions.
Midland Main Line To Sheffield, Rotherham, Barnsley, Wakefield And Leeds
This is already ptoposed for the Midland Main Line.
- New stations will be built at Rotherham and Barnsley.
- Four fast trains per hour between Sheffield and Leeds can be delivered.
- 125 mph bi-mode trains to Yorkshire via the East Midlands.
But what about the following?
- Could the Erewash Valley Line be used instead of a new High Speed Two line between the East Midlands and Sheffield?
- Could the Midland Main Line be electrified and upgraded to 140 mph running like the East Coast Main Line?
Similar connectivity to that of High Speed Two can be created at a lower cost.
Cancellation of the Eastern Leg of Phase 2b would mean there would be no improved link between the West and East Midlands.
Perhaps, the Eastern leg of High Speed Two, would run only to the proposed East Midlands Hub station at Toton.
Increasing Capacity On The East Coast Main Line
In Thoughts On A 140 mph East Coast Main Line Between London And Doncaster, I did a crude calculation to see how many extra trains could be run between London and Doncaster on a digitally signalled 140 mph East Coast Main Line.
This was my conclusion.
If something similar to what I have proposed is possible, it looks like as many as an extra seven tph can be accommodated between Kings Cross and the North.
That is certainly worth having.
Extra trains could be run between Kings Cross and Bradford, Hull, Leeds, Nottingham and Sheffield.
Estimated timings would be eighty minutes to Doncaster and under two hours to Leeds.
Suggestion Three – Reduce Speed In Phase 1
There is always a tendency for project promoters to make sure their project is the biggest and the best.
There will be an optimum speed for a London and Birmingham high speed line, which balances benefits, costs, noise and disturbance. One politician’s optimum will also be very different to another’s.
Such parameters like operating speed and capacity must be chosen with care.
Conclusion
I believe, that we need the capacity of both High Speed Two and Northern Powerhouse Rail to move passengers and freight.
So we should design them together and with other improvements like the Midland Main Line and the East Coast Main Line.
Thoughts On A 140 mph East Coast Main Line Between London And Doncaster
The East Coast Main Line is being upgraded with digital signalling to allow Azumas and other high speed trains to run at 140 mph for most of the route, starting with the section between London and Doncaster.
There is also a string of projects all along the line to improve operating speed, cut out slow trains and improve junctions and crossings.
Finsbury Park And Stevenage
In The New Fifth Platform At Stevenage Station – 11th October 2019, I talked about the improvements at the Northern end of the Hertford Loop Line, which I believe could allow the fast lines between Stevenage and Finsbury Park stations to be exclusively used by digitally-signalled 140 mph trains.
Currently, these passenger services run between Stevenage and Finsbury Park in a typical hour.
- LNER – Edinburgh – 2 trains – #
- LNER – Leeds – 2 trains – #
- LNER – Newark or York – 1 train – #
- Great Northern – Cambridge and Ely expresses – 2 trains
- Thameslink – Cambridge stopping trains – 2 trains.
- Thameslink – Peterborough and Horsham – 2 trains
- Thameslink – Cambridge and Brighton – 1 train
- Hull Trains – 7 trains per day. – #
- Grand Central – 9 trains per day. – #
- East Coast Trains – 5 trains per day. – From 2021. – #
The services can be divided into four groups.
140 mph Non-Stop Expresses
Services marked with a hash (#) will probably be run by versions of Hitachi Class 80x trains or similar, which will be capable of 140 mph running under digital signalling, between Finsbury Park and Stevenage stations.
The twenty-one services run by Hull Trains, Grand Central and East Coast Trains, will probably add up to less than two trains per hour (tph).
This means that there is a need to run seven tph between Finsbury Park and Stevenage.
Kings Cross and Cambridge/Ely Expresses
Currently, these go non-stop between Kings Cross and Cambridge on the fast lines.
Surely, these should be 140 mph-capable trains, so they fit in with all the fast expresses.
After all, Oxford is served by 140 mph-capable trains, so why not Cambridge?
Cambridge Stopping Trains
The half-hourly Cambridge stopping trains have to stop in Welwyn North station,
- They will have to use the fast lines between Welwyn Garden City and Knebworth stations, as there are only two tracks.
- Currently, trains are timetabled to take nine minutes to pass through the double-track section.
- North and South of the double-track section, the services will use the slow lines, as they call at several stations
But these services still leave forty-five minutes in every hour, in which to fit the 140 mph services through the restricting double track section.
These services will be replaced by a two tph Thameslink service between Cambridge and Maidstone East stations.
Thameslink Cross-London Services
The two Thamelink Cross-London services between Peterborough and Horsham and Cambridge and Brighton, go non-stop between Finsbury Park and Stevenage stations.
So could these three services use the Hertford Loop Line?
- North of Stevenage, they use the slow lines.
- South of Finsbury Park, they use the slow lines to access the Canal Tunnels for the Thameslink platforms at St. Pancras.
- Would calls at perhaps Alexandra Palace, Enfield Chase and Hertford North be worthwhile.
The only disadvantage would be that the route would be a few minutes slower, than using the main line.
Trains Terminating At Kings Cross Station
In each hour, it appears that the following trains will terminate at Kings Cross station.
- Seven 140 mph expresses, that are going North of Hitchin.
- Two 140 mph expresses, that are going to Cambridge/Ely.
- Two stopping services, that are going to Cambridge.
The station has nine platforms in the main station and three in the suburban station at the side.
The Wikipedia entry for Kings Cross station, has a section entitled Future Remodelling, where this is said.
In January 2018, it was announced that half the station would close for 3 months from January to March 2020 for remodelling work to the station and its approach, expected to cost £237 million. This includes rationalisation of the tracks, reopening the third tunnel to the approach of the station and closure of platform 10.
The remodelling must allow an increase in numbers of trains terminating at Kings Cross, especially as the problems in the throat should be sorted.
These points should be noted about the High Speed Two platforms at Euston.
- There are eleven platforms.
- They can handle eighteen tph.
- The trains will be up to four hundred metres long.
Considering that a nine-car Class 801 train is less than 240 metres long, I wouldn’t be surprised to find that Kings Cross can handle eighteen tph.
Does that mean that Kings Cross station can accommodate another seven services?
Would The East Coast Main Line Be Able To Handle Eighteen 140 mph Expresses An Hour?
If Kings Cross station can handle eighteen tph, then the two fast lines of the East Coast Main Line must be able to handle this number of trains.
- The two fast lines of the East Coast Main Line between London and Doncaster could be considered a smaller and slower version of High Speed Two.
- High Speed Two has a capacity of eighteen tph.
- High Speed Two trains are almost twice as fast as those on the East Coast Main Line.
- Signalling on the East Coast Main Line will have to deal with slower trains, where there are less than four tracks, as over the Digswell viaduct and through Welwyn North station.
This is just the sort of challenge, for which digital signalling has been created.
Spare Capacity South Of Hitchin
Suppose in a couple of years the following has been done.
- Kings Cross station has been remodelled.
- The Hertford Loop Line has been updated for more and faster trains.
- Thameslink services can use the Hertford Loop Line.
- Thameslink is running the full 24 tph service.
- The Cambridge stopper has been changed into a Thameslink service between Cambridge and Maidstone East.
- Cambridge and Brighton has become a two tph service.
- Kings Cross and Cambridge/Ely expresses are run by 140 mph-capable trains.
This would mean the following frequencies, to the South of Hitchin.
- Seven tph – 140 mph-capable expresses between Kings Cross and the North, with some stopping at Stevenage.
- Two tph – 140 mph-capable expresses between Kings Cross and Cambridge/Ely.
- Two tph – 100 mph Thameslink services between Cambridge and Brighton routed via the Hertford Loop Line.
- Two tph – 100 mph Thameslink services between Peterborough and Horsham routed via the Hertford Loop Line.
- Two tph – 100 mph Thameslink services between Cambridge and Maidstone East routed via the East Coast Main Line. The slow line will be used except over the Digswell viaduct and through Welwyn North station.
Note.
- There will also be a two tph Thameslink service in the Peak between Welwyn Garden City and Sevenoaks. This can be discounted as it avoids the tricky bits of the East Coast Main Line.
- Thameslink services to Cambridge and Peterborough would be routed via the Hertford Loop ine, at a frequency of four tph.
- All Thameslink services would be routed via the Canal Tunnels and St. Pancras station.
- Kings Cross would only be handling 140 mph-capable trains, at a frequency of nine tph.
If the capacity of the 140 mph fast lines is the same as the similar High Speed Two, then eighteen tph should be possible.
Planned trains could be as follows.
- Seven tph – 140 mph-capable expresses between Kings Cross and the North, with some stopping at Stevenage.
- Two tph – 140 mph-capable expresses between Kings Cross and Cambridge/Ely.
- Two tph – Thameslink service between Cambridge and Maidstone East.
Does that mean another seven tph can be accommodated between Kings Cross and Hitchin?
As only nine tph would be going into Kings Cross, the station should have no difficulty handling that number of trains. It could possibly handle another nine tph.
Spare Capacity North Of Hitchin
At Hitchin, the following services wukk go to and from Cambridge.
- Two tph – 140 mph-capable expresses between Kings Cross and Cambridge/Ely.
- Two tph – Thameslink service between Cambridge and Maidstone East.
The other Thameslink services can be ignored, as they use the slow lines between Stevenage and Hitchin and the Hertford Loop Line, so they are out of the way of the 140 mph services.
Does that mean another ten tph can be accommodated between Hitchin and the North?
What Limits The Number Of Extra Trains?
My crude estimation appears to show the following.
- Kings Cross station may be able to handle another nine tph.
- Between Kings Cross and Hitchin may be able to handle another seven trains.
- North of Hitchin may be able to handle another ten trains.
It would appear that the double track section over the Digswell viaduct and through Welwyn North station, limits the capacity of the whole route.
Estimated Timings
In Changes Signalled For HS2 Route In North, I stated this.
Currently, the fastest non-stop trains between London and Doncaster take a few minutes over ninety minutes. With 140 mph trains, I think the following times are easily possible.
- London and Doncaster – 80 minutes
- London and Hull – A few minutes over two hours, running via Selby.
- London and Leeds – A few minutes less than two hours, running on the Classic route.
For comparison High Speed Two is quoting 88 minutes for London Euston and Leeds, via Birmingham and East Midlands Hub.
There could be a race to Leeds between High speed Two and Classic services on the East Coast Main Line.
Speculation On Extra Services
It would not be right, if I didn’t have a small speculation.
Cambridge Services
Consider.
- Oxford and Cambridge both have two main routes to and from London.
- Both have a fast service running at a frequency of two tph.
- Both have other quality, but slower services.
It could be argued that extra fast services are run to Cambridge, but this would use up two valuable paths over the Digswell viaduct.
Perhaps it would be better to copy Greater Anglia’s solution for London and Norwich services and order a high quality purpose-designed train for the route.
- 140 mph-capability
- Digitally-signalled
- 240 metres long
- High quality interior
There would need to be some platform lengthening between Cambridge and Kings Lynn.
Leeds Services
Leeds currently has two tph from Kings Cross and Manchester Piccadilly has three tph from Euston.
Leeds also has a daily direct service to Aberdeen.
I suspect that there could be a sorting out at Leeds, which would mean it gets a third service from London.
Conclusion
If something similar to what I have proposed is possible, it looks like as many as an extra seven tph can be accommodated between Kings Cross and the North.
The New Fifth Platform At Stevenage Station – 11th October 2019
Stevenage station is getting a fifth platform for the termination of Great Northern services to and from Moorgate station.
- This platform will be on the down side of the station.
- A single platform should be able to turnback at least four trains per hour (tph) and possibly as many as six tph, that have used the Hertford Loop Line to come North.
- Wikipedia says that this will increase the capacity and frequency on the East Coast Main Line and the Hertford Loop Line.
These are a few pictures of the works.
This page on the Network Rail we site is entitled Stevenage Turnback and it gives more details.
- improved resilience and reliability is claimed.
- Two kilometres of new track and a set of points will be added.
- The embankment on the West side of the track will be strengthened.
- The signalling will be improved.
- Two bridges will be modified.
Everything should be completed by Summer 2020, so that the four tph from Moorgate to Stevenage can be resumed.
These are my observations.
- The work on the West side of the East Coast Main Line seems to be to a very high standard.
- There seems to be enough space for a possible double-track or a passing loop between the new platform and the Hertford Loop Line in future.
- The embankment on the West side of the track is being strengthened.
- Will trains still be able to come from the Hertford Loop and continue North?
It certainly appears to me to be built to allow expansion in the future.
What Frequency Will The New Platform Be Able To Handle?
There are several platforms in the UK, where four tph are turned back.
It looks to me, that there is no reason, why this frequency couldn’t be handled in the new platform at Stevenage.
Especially, as there appears to be at least one crossover between Stevenage and Watton-at-Stone stations.
But could it handle more trains?
The Hertford Loop Line is scheduled to be updated with digital signalling. So in the future, this may be possible, if the need is there!
The Great Northern Metro
It should also be noted that in 2016, Govia Thameslink Railway published plans for a Great Northern Metro. They seemed to have dropped this idea, but I discussed the plan in The Great Northern Metro.
This is a brief summary of those proposals.
- Fourteen tph in the High Peak.
- In the Off Peak, there would be six tph to Hertford North, four tph to Welwyn Garden City and two tph to Stevenage.
- Sunday services are four tph to both branches and two tph to Stevenage.
I do wonder what is the capacity of the Hertford Loop Line.
- It has grade-separated junctions at both ends of the route.
- It is double-track throughout.
- It has 25 KVAC overhead electrification.
- It has a 75 mph operating speed.
- It has turnback platforms at Gordon Hill and Hertford North stations.
- It is planned to equip the route with digital signalling.
- It is planned to upgrade the power supply.
- It probably handles a maximum of about eight tph, which can include a couple of freight trains.
I suspect that this route can be improved to handle more and longer trains., at a higher speed than now!
Could Thameslink Use The Hertford Loop Line?
Could some Thameslink services to Cambridge and Peterborough use the Hertford Loop Line, rather than the East Coast Main Line?
Consider.
- The Hertford Loop Line will have an increased speed limit.
- Digital signalling is to be introduced on the route.
- Trains might only stop at Hertford North, Enfield Chase and Alexandra Palace.
- Some current Thameslink services between London and Cambridge and Peterborough, run non-stop between Finsbury Park and Stevenage.
Diverting some services to the Hertford Loop Line would have the following advantages.
- It would relrease capacity on the East Coast Main Line.
- It would reduce the number of trains using the two-track section over the Digswell viaduct.
- It could give Hertford a direct link to Cambridge and Peterborough.
The disadvantage would be that services would be a few minutes slower.
140 mph Running On The East Coast Main Line
Under Planned Or Proposed Developments the Wikipedia entry for the EastCoast Main Line says this.
Most of the length of the ECML is capable of 140 mph subject to certain infrastructure upgrades. Below is the foreword of the Greengauge 21 report:
“Upgrading the East Coast Main Line to 140 mph operation as a high priority alongside HS2 and to be delivered without delay. Newcastle London timings across a shorter route could closely match those achievable by HS2..
The section then goes on to describe a lot of improvements with the aim of running between London and Edinburgh in four hours.
The project has a code name of L2E4. There is more information at this page on the Network Rail web site.
South of Peterborough, there are infrastructure and rolling stock limitations, that will stop the Hitachi Class 800 trains running at 140 mph.
- Extra tracks are needed between Huntington and Woodwalton.
- There is a double-track section over the Digswell viaduct, through Welwyn North station and the Welwyn tunnels.
- Thameslink’s Class 700 trains that run services to Cambridge and Peterborough are only capable of 100 mph.
- Great Northern’s Class 387 trains, that run services to Cambridge and Kings Lynn are only capable of 110 mph.
- Hull Trains and Grand Central run services with trains that are only capable of 125 mph.
I will deal with these in order.
Extra Tracks Between Huntingdon and Woodwalton
The Wikipedia entry for the East Coast Main Line says this about this project.
Re-quadrupling of the route between Huntingdon and Woodwalton (HW4T) which was rationalised in the 1980s during electrification (part of the ECML Connectivity programme). This also involves the closure and diversion of a level crossing at Abbots Ripton which was approved in November 2017.
This improvement, which will mean continuous quadruple tracks between Stevenage and Peterborough will mean.
- A few minutes for all trains will be saved.
- Slower stopping services between London and Peterborough, will be kept out of the way of the 140 mph expresses.
What sort of stink would there be, if a motorway closed in the 1980s was now being rebuilt, to provide what existed forty years ago?
But British Rail closed or simplified infrastructure, without properly looking at the consequences, mainly to please or under the direction of the Treasury.
Double-Track Over Digwell Viaduct And Through Welwyn North Station
This is one of the worst rail bottlenecks in the UK.
To make matters worse, a service between Kings Cross and Cambridge with a frequency of two tph stops at the station.
It means a fast train would have to do a pit stop at speeds nor far off those of a racing car.
I think we can say, that adding extra tracks through the area would be extremely difficult, if not impossible.
But consider the trains that pass Welwyn North every hour.
- LNER – 5 trains
- Thameslink – 3 trains
- Cambridge and Ely expresses – 2 trains
- Cambridge stopping trains – 2 trains.
- Hull Trains – 7 trains per day.
- Grand Central – 9 trains per day.
If it is assumed that the Hull Trains and Grand Central add up to one train per hour, it looks like about thirteen tph go through the double track section.
If another couple of trains are added for luck, this means that the double track section will be handling a train every four minutes.
The double-track section is less than five miles long, so a 140 mph train will run between the quadruple track sections at Welwyn Garden City and Knebworth stations in jut over two minutes.
Currently, the trains that stop at Welwyn North station are timetabled to take nine minutes between stops at Welwyn Garden City and Knebworth stations.
Effectively, the stop at Welwyn North station blocks the double-track section for nine minutes..
This means that there are two twenty-one minute periods in an hour where the other trains can pass through.
So how can you maximise the use of these available periods?
- The trains must arrive precisely at the right time – Digital signalling with automatic train control is probably the best way to ensure this.
- All through trains must be running as near to 140 mph as possible.
- Diverting of slower trains to alternative routes should be examined.
- The stopping train should be able to execute a stop in the shortest possible time.
I believe that if the timetable is efficient, that as many as twenty tph could be handled.
Most would go through the double-track section at 140 mph!
I must add a point about safety.
Trains currently go through these platforms at Welwyn North station at a maximum speed of 125 mph.
Will more trains going through at a faster speed, necessitate the addition of a passenger protection system at the station?
Thameslink’s Class 700 Trains
I have heard East Midlands drivers moan about Class 700 trains on the Midland Main Line, as they are too slow at 100 mph to mix it with the 125 mph expresses.
It looks like the Treasury got the specification wrong again! Surprise! Surprise! Even a 110 mph capability, as is often specified for outer suburban trains would be better.
But these trains run non-stop between Finsbury Park and Stevenage stations, so at 100-110 mph, they will be a bit of a hindrance to the trains running at 140 mph. It would be like granny and grandpa in a Morris Minor in the fast lane of a motorway!
If there is the capacity, then perhaps the Thameslink trains should run on an upgraded Hertfprd Loop Line along with the 100 mph Class 717 trains.
Once they rejoined the East Coast Main Line, they would take to the upgraded slow lines to go Cambridge and Peterborough.
Great Northern’s Class 387 Trains
Cambridge is one of the UK’s world-class cities and it deserves a top quality service from London.
The current Class 387 trains are only 110 mph trains, so wouldn’t fit well with the herds of 140 mph trains running to and from London.
It would probably be best in the long term to replace these trains with 140 mph trains designed for the route.
After all if Oxford can have a commuter service to London using Class 802 trains, then surely these are good enough for Cambridge?
In Call For ETCS On King’s Lynn Route, I discuss the possibility of digital signalling on the London and Kings Lynn route via Cambridge, based on reports in Rail Magazine.
If the Cambridge Line from Hitchin were to be upgraded for faster running, then London and Cambridge times might be reduced significantly.
Hull Trains And Grand Central
Hull Trains and Grand Central will want to participate in the 140 mph action between London and Doncaster.
Hull Trains have already made their move and have leased a fleet of Class 802 trains, which will shortly enter service.
Another Open Access operator; First East Coast Trains has already ordered five Hitachi 140 mph trains.
Will Grand Central replace their fleet of Class 180 trains?
They will either buy 140 mph trains, cease trading or give up!
The other operators won’t want slow trains on the fast lines.
How Many 140 mph Trains Will Be Able To Run Between London And Doncaster?
I finish this section with a question.
I answered this question and a few others in Thoughts On A 140 mph East Coast Main Line Between London And Doncaster.
This was my conclusion.
If something similar to what I have proposed is possible, it looks like as many as an extra seven tph can be accommodated between Kings Cross and the North.
That is certainly worth having.
Conclusion
The new platform at Stevenage station is a well-designed sub-project that enables the Hertford Loop Line to be used to its full capability.
- Up to four tph will be able to run between Moorgate and Stevenage stations.
- The redesigned junction at Stevenage will allow services like Thameslink to use the Hertford Loop Line rather than run at 100 mph on the East Coast Main Line.
It is an important sub-project in turning the East Coast Main Line into a high speed line with a high proportion of 140 mph running.
HS2 Way Out In Front In Tunnel Design For High-Speed Rail
The title of this post is the same as that of this article on Rail Engineer.
The article describes how Arup and Birmingham University are using physical and computer modelling to obtain the ultimate profiles of both tunnel portal and train nose to both increase train performance and reduce train noise as the trains enter tunnels.
They are even using a huge shed at the former British Rail Research Centre in Derby!
The biggest problem, is that there are aerodynamic effects, as the trains enter the tunnels at very high speeds, which result in what are inevitably called sonic booms, that disturb the local residents.
Because the new trains and tunnel portals are being developed together, there must be a greater chance, they will meet the objectives.
Collateral Benefits
Get the design right and there will be other benefits.
Lower Power In The Cruise
In How Much Power Is Needed To Run A Train At 125 mph?, I said this.
I have found this on this page on the RailUKForums web site.
A 130m Electric IEP Unit on a journey from Kings Cross to Newcastle under the conditions defined in Annex B shall consume no more than 4600kWh.
This is a Class 801 train.
- It has five cars.
- Kings Cross to Newcastle is 268.6 miles.
- Most of this journey will be at 125 mph.
- The trains have regenerative braking.
- I don’t know how many stops are included
This gives a usage figure of 3.42 kWh per vehicle mile.
This figure is not exceptional and I suspect that good design of the train’s nose will reduce it, especially as the design speed of High Speed Two will be 360 kph or 224 mph.
Reduced Noise
Stand on a Crossrail platform at say Southall or West Drayton stations and listen to the Class 801 trains passing.
They are only doing about 100 mph and they are certainly not quiet! Noise comes from a variety of sources including aerodynamics, overhead wires and running gear.
Could the nose and profile of high speed trains also be designed to minimise noise, when cruising at high speeds?
Reduced Pantograph Noise
Travelling at up to 360 kph, pantograph noise could be a serious problem.
The only way to cut it down, would be to lower the pantograph in sensitive areas and run the train on battery power.
But if the trains energy consumption could be cut to a much lower level, it might be possible for the cruise to be maintained on battery power alone.
Consider a journey between Euston and Birmingham.
- The train would accelerate away from Euston and go in a tunnel to Old Oak Common.
- Batteries could be charged whilst waiting at Euston and in the run to Old Oak Common.
- Accelerating away from Old Oak Common would bring the train to 360 kph as fast as possible.
- It would now cruise virtually all the way to Birmingham Interchange at 360 kph.
- At the appropriate moment the pantograph would be lowered and the train would use the kinetic energy to coast into Birmingham Interchange.
- There would probably be enough energy in the batteries to take the train into Birmingham Curzon Street station after the stop at Birmingham Interchange.
One technology that will massively improve is the raising and lowering of the pantograph at speed.
So could we see much of the long non-stop intermediate section being run on batteries with the pantograph down. If power is needed, it would raise to power the train directly. If the raising and lowering was efficient, then it might be able to use the pantograph only in tunnels.
Could It Be Possible To Dispence With Wires Outside Of Tunnels?
Probably not on the first phase of High Speed Two, but consider.
- High Speed Two is designed to have a lot of tunnels.
- Arup and Birmingham may come up with even better aerodynamic designs.
- Pantograph raising and lowering will get faster and extremely reliable.
- Battery technology will hold more electricity for a given weight and volume.
- Dispensing with visible wires could reduce the problems of getting planning permissions.
- Noise and visible intrision will be reduced.
I believe there will come a time, when high speed railways could be built without visible overhead electrification.
The only places, where electrification would be used would be in tunnels and stations.
Are There Any Other Applications Of This Research?
These are a few thoughts.
Hitachi Trains For The Midland Main Line
I’m suspicious, that the research or similar research elsewhere, might have already produced a very handy result!
In an article in the October 2019 Edition of Modern Railways, which is entitled EMR Kicks Off New Era, more details of the new Hitachi bi-mode trains for East Midlands Railway (EMR) are given.
This is said.
The first train is required to be available for testing in December 2021 with service entry between April and December 2022.
The EMR bi-modes will be able to run at 125 mph in diesel mode, matching Meridian performance in a step-up from the capabilities of the existing Class 80x units in service with other franchises. They will have 24 metre vehicles (rather than 26 metres), a slightly different nose to the ‘800s’ and ‘802s’, and will have four diesel engines rather than three.
Could the new nose have been designed partly in Birmingham?
Consider.
- Hitachi’s bi-modes for EMR InterCity could be running at up to 225 kph in a few years.
- The Midland Main Line between Derby and Chesterfield goes through a number of tunnels in a World Heritage Site.
- Hitachi have collaborated with UK research teams before, including on the Hyabusa.
- Hitachi and Bombardier are submitting a joint bid for High Speed Two trains, which is based in Birmingham.
It should be noted that when the Tōkaidō Shinkansen opened in 1964 between Tokyo and Osaka average speed was 210 kph.
So are Hitachi aiming to provide EMR InterCity with almost Shinkansen speeds on a typical UK main line?
Arup and Birmingham University, certainly have the capability to design the perfect nose for such a project.
Aventras
Did the research team also help Bombardier with the aerodynamics of the Aventra?
I’m pretty certain, that somebody did, as these trains seem to have a very low noise signature, as they go past.
Talgo
Tsalgo are building a research centre at Chesterfield.
Will they be tapping in to all the rail research in the Midlands?
Conclusion
It looks to me, that there is some world-class research going on in Birmingham and we’ll all benefit!
HS2 Railway To Be Delayed By Up To Five Years
The title of this post is the same as that of this article on the BBC.
These first few paragraphs indicate the current situation.
The first phase of the HS2 high-speed railway between London and Birmingham will be delayed by up to five years, Transport Minister Grant Shapps says.
That section of the line was due to open at the end of 2026, but it could now be between 2028 and 2031 before the first trains run on the route.
HS2’s total cost has also risen from £62bn to between £81bn and £88bn, but Mr Shapps said he was keeping an “open mind” about the project’s future.
The second phase has also been delayed.
What are the short term consequences of this delay in the building of High Speed Two?
- No Capacity Increase Between London And Birmingham., until three or five years later.
- Capacity increases to Glasgow, Hull, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Nottingham and Preston will probably be five years or more later.
Are there any other things we can do to in the meantime to make the shortfall less damaging to the economy?
East Coast Main Line
Much of the East Coast Main Line (ECML) has been designed for 140 mph running. Wikipedia puts it like this..
Most of the length of the ECML is capable of 140 mph subject to certain infrastructure upgrades.
Wikipedia also says that Greengauge 21 believe that Newcastle and London timings using the shorter route could be comparable to those using HS2.
Track And Signalling Improvements
There are a number of improvements that can be applied to the ECML, with those at the Southern end summed up by this paragraph from Wikipedia.
Increasing maximum speeds on the fast lines between Woolmer Green and Dalton-on-Tees up to 140 mph (225 km/h) in conjunction with the introduction of the Intercity Express Programme, level crossing closures, ETRMS fitments, OLE rewiring and the OLE PSU – est. to cost £1.3 billion (2014). This project is referred to as “L2E4” or London to Edinburgh (in) 4 Hours. L2E4 examined the operation of the IEP at 140 mph on the ECML and the sections of track which can be upgraded to permit this, together with the engineering and operational costs.
Currently, services between London and Edinburgh take between twenty and forty minutes over four hours.
Who would complain if some or even all services took four hours?
To help the four hour target to be achieved Network Rail are also doing the following.
- Building the Werrington Dive-under.
- Remodelling the station throat at Kings Cross.
- Adding extra tracks between Huntingdon and Woodwalton.
- Devising a solution for the flat junction at Newark.
Every little helps and all these improvements will allow faster and extra services along the ECML.
Obviously, running between London and Edinburgh in four hours has implications for other services.
In Changes Signalled For HS2 Route In North, I said this.
Currently, the fastest non-stop trains between London and Doncaster take a few minutes over ninety minutes. With 140 mph trains, I think the following times are easily possible.
- London and Doncaster – 80 minutes
- London and Hull – A few minutes over two hours, running via Selby.
- London and Leeds – A few minutes less than two hours, running on the Classic route.
For comparison High Speed Two is quoting 81 minutes for London Euston and Leeds, via Birmingham and East Midlands Hub.
I suspect that North of Doncaster, improving timings will be more difficult, due to the slower nature of the route, but as services will go between Edinburgh and London in four hours, there must be some improvements to be made.
- Newcastle – Current time is 170 minutes, with High Speed Two predicting 137 minutes. My best estimate shows that on an improved ECML, times of under 150 minutes should be possible.
- York – Current time is 111 minutes, with High Speed Two predicting 84 minutes. Based on the Newcastle time, something around 100 minutes should be possible.
In Wikipedia, Greengauge 21 are quoted as saying.
Upgrading the East Coast Main Line to 140 mph operation as a high priority alongside HS2 and to be delivered without delay. Newcastle London timings across a shorter route could closely match those achievable by HS2.
My estimate shows a gap of thirteen minutes, but they have better data than I can find on the Internet.
Filling Electrification Gaps East Of Leeds And Between Doncaster And Sheffield
In Changes Signalled For HS2 Route In North, I said this.
These are the lines East of Leeds.
- A connection to the East Coast Main Line for York, Newcastle and Edinburgh.
- An extension Eastwards to Hull.
These would not be the most expensive sub-project, but they would give the following benefits, when they are upgraded.
- Electric trains between Hull and Leeds.
- Electric trains between Hull and London.
- Electric access to Neville Hill Depot from York and the North.
- An electric diversion route for the East Coast Main Line between York and Doncaster.
- The ability to run electric trains between London and Newcastle/Edinburgh via Leeds.
Hull and Humberside will be big beneficiaries.
In addition, the direct route between Doncaster and Sheffield should be electrified.
This would allow the following.
- LNER expresses to run on electricity between London and Sheffield, if they were allowed to run the route.
- Sheffield’s tram-trains could reach Doncaster and Doncaster Sheffield Airport.
A collateral benefit would be that it would bring 25 KVAC power to Sheffield station.
Better Use Of Trains
LNER are working the trains harder and will be splitting and joining trains, so that only full length trains run into Kings Cross, which will improve capacity..
Capacity might also be increased, if Cambridge, Kings Lynn and Peterborough services were run with 125 mph or even 140 mph trains. GWR is already doing this, to improve efficiency between Paddington and Reading.
Faster Freight Trains
Rail Operations Group has ordered Class 93 locomotives, which are hybrid and capable of hauling some freight trains at 110 mph.
Used creatively, these might create more capacity on the ECML.
Could the East Coast Main Line be the line that keeps on giving?
Especially in the area of providing faster services to Lincoln, Hull, Leeds, Huddersfield,Bradford Newcastle and Edinburgh.
Conclusion On East Coast Main Line
There is a lot of scope to create a high capacity, 140 mph line between London and Edinburgh.
An Upgraded Midland Main Line
Plans already exist to run 125 mph bi-mode Hitachi trains on the Midland Main Line between London and Leicester, Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield.
But could more be done in the short term on this line.
Electrification Between Clay Cross North Junction And Sheffield
This 15.5 mile section of the Midland Main Line will be shared with High Speed Two.
It should be upgraded to High Speed Two standard as soon as possible.
This would surely save a few minutes between London and Sheffield.
140 mph Running
The Hitachi bi-modes are capable of 140 mph, if the signalling is digital and in-cab.
Digital signalling is used by the Class 700 trains running on Thameslink, so would there be time savings to be made by installing digital signalling on the Midland Main Line, especially as it would allow 140 mph running, if the track was fast enough.
Extension From Sheffield To Leeds Via New Stations At Rotherham And Barnsley
Sheffield and Transport for the North are both keen on this project and it would have the following benefits.
- Rotherham and Barnsley get direct trains to and from London.
- A fast service with a frequency of four trains per hour (tph) could run between Leeds and Sheffield in a time of twenty-eight minutes.
This extension will probably go ahead in all circumstances.
Use Of The Erewash Valley Line
The Erewash Valley Line is a route, that connects the Midland Main Line to Chesterfield and Sheffield, by bypassing Derby.
It has recently been upgraded and from my helicopter, it looks that it could be faster than the normal route through Derby and the World Heritage Site of the Derwent Valley Mills.
The World Heritage Site would probably make electrification of the Derby route difficult, but could some Sheffield services use the relatively straight Erewash Valley Line to save time?
Faster Services Between London And Sheffield
When East Midlands Railway receive their new Hitachi bi-mode trains, will the company do what their sister company; Greater Anglia is doing on the London and Norwich route and increase the number of hourly services from two to three?
If that is done, would the third service be a faster one going at speed, along the Erewash Valley Line?
I suspect that it could have a timing of several minutes under two hours.
Conclusion On An Upgraded Midland Main Line
There are various improvements and strategies, that can be employed to turn the Midland Main Line into a High Speed Line serving Leicester, Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield.
West Coast Main Line
The West Coast Main Line is not such a fruitful line for improvement, as is the East Coast Main Line.
Digital signalling, 140 mph running and faster freight trains, may allow a few more trains to be squeezed into the busy main line.
Increasing Capacity Between London and Birmingham New Street
I’ve seen increased capacity between London and Birmingham quoted as one of the reasons for the building of High Speed Two.
Currently, both Virgin Trains and West Midlands Trains, have three tph between London and Birmingham New Street.
- This is probably not enough capacity.
- The line between Birmingham New Street and Coventry stations is probably at capacity.
These points probably mean more paths between London and Birmingham are needed.
High Speed Two is planned to provide the following services between London and Birmingham after Phase 2 opens.
- Three tph – London and Birmingham Curzon Street stations via Old Oak Common and Birmingham Interchange (2 tph)
- Fourteen tph – London and Birmingham Interchange via Old Oak Common.
That is a massive amount of extra capacity between London and Birmingham.
- It might be possible to squeeze another train into each hour.
- Trains could be lengthened.
- Does Birmingham New Street station have the capacity?
But it doesn’t look like the West Coast Main Line can provide much extra capacity between London and Birmingham.
Increasing Capacity Between London and Liverpool Lime Street
Over the last couple of years, Liverpool Lime Street station has been remodelled and the station will now be able to handle two tph from London, when the timetable is updated in a year or so.
Digital signalling of the West Coast Main Line would help.
Increasing Capacity Between London and Manchester Piccadilly
Manchester Piccadilly station uses two platforms for three Virgin Trains services per hour to and from London.
These platforms could both handle two tph, so the station itself is no barrier to four tph between London and Manchester.
Paths South to London could be a problem, but installing digital signalling on the West Coast Main Line would help.
Conclusion On The West Coast Main Line
Other improvements may be needed, but the major update of the West Coast Main Line, that would help, would be to use digital signalling to squeeze more capacity out of the route.
The Chiltern Main Line
Could the Chiltern Main Line be used to increase capacity between London and Birmingham?
Currently, there are hourly trains between Birmingham Moor Street and Snow Hill stations and London.
As each train has about 420 seats, compared to the proposed 1,100 of the High Speed Two trains, the capacity is fairly small.
Increasing capacity on the route is probably fairly difficult.
Digital Signalling
This could be used to create more paths and allow more trains to run between London and Bitmingham.
Electrification
The route is not electrified, but electrifying the 112 mile route would cause massive disruption.
Capacity At Marylebone Station
Marylebone station probably doesn’t have the capacity for more rains.
Conclusion On The Chiltern Main Line
I don’t think that there is much extra capacity available on the Chiltern Main Line between London and Birmingham.
Conclusion
I have looked at the four main routes that could help make up the shortfall caused by the delay to High Speed Two.
- Planned improvements to the East Coast Main Line could provide valuable extra capacity to Leeds and East Yorkshire.
- The Midland Main Line will increase capacity to the East Midlands and South Yorkshire, when it gets new trains in a couple of years.
- Planned improvements to the West Coast Main Line could provide valuable extra capacity to North West England.
- The Chiltern Main Line probably has little place to play.
As Birmingham has been planning for High Speed Two to open in 2026, some drastic rethinking must be done to ensure that London and Birmingham have enough rail capacity from that date.
Will HS2 And Northern Powerhouse Rail Go For The Big Bore?
Different Versions Of This Post
The original post was published on the 25th August 2019.
It has been updated on the 21st November 2020 to reflect changes made to High Speed Two (HS2).
It has been updated on the 13th January 2023 for piggy-back freight trains.
The Merging Of High Speed Two And Northern Powerhouse Rail
It looks to me that there will be increasing links and merging between High Speed Two (HS2) and Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR).
This report on the Transport for the North web site, is entitled At A Glance – Northern Powerhouse Rail.
Proposals and possibilities include.
- NPR will have a Western terminal at a new station in Liverpool City Centre.
- HS2 trains would access Liverpool and Manchester via a junction between HS2 and NPR at High Legh.
- There will be six trains per hour (tph) between Liverpool and Manchester via Manchester Airport.
- The route between Manchester and Manchester Airport is planned to be in tunnel.
- There will be six tph between Manchester and Leeds.
In addition, Boris has made positive noises about a high speed line between Manchester and Leeds being of a high priority.
So will the planners go for the logical solution of a High Speed tunnel between Manchester Airport and Leeds?
- There could be a theoretical capacity of perhaps 18 tph, which is the design capacity of High Speed Two.
- Speeds of up to 125 mph or more could be possible. The Gottard Base Tunnel has an operating speed for passenger trains of 125 mph.
- Stations could be at Manchester Airport, Manchester Piccadilly/Piccadilly Gardens/Victoria, Huddersfield, Bradford and Leeds.
- West of Manchester Airport, the route appears easier and the tunnel would emerge close to the airport. High Speed Two is planning that the tunnel emerges just to the North of the Airport and that the station is below ground level.
- East of Leeds the tunnel would join up with existing routes to Doncaster, Hull, Newcastle and York.
- Freight trains would be allowed at speed of up to 100 mph.
I believe such a tunnel could be built without disrupting existing rail services and passengers. Remember building Crossrail’s tunnels in London was an almost invisible process.
It would result in two rail systems across Northern England.
- Upgraded Classic Rail Routes
- The Big Bore
My thoughts on the two systems follow.
Upgraded Classic Rail Routes
This could include improvements such as these,
- Extra passing loops.
- Selective electrification
- Improved stations
- Comprehensive in-cab digital signalling
- More paths for passenger and freight trains.
Which could be applied to routes, such as these.
- The Huddersfield Line
- The Chat Moss Line
- The Calder Valley Line
- The Hope Valley Line
- The Dearne Valley Line
- The Selby Line
- The Midland Main Line North Of Clay Cross
In addition, there could be the reopening of some closed or freight routes to passenger trains.
This article on Rail Technology Magazine is entitled Network Rail Reveals Detailed £2.9bn Upgrade Plans For TransPennine Route.
It is a comprehensive upgrade that includes.
- Improvement between Huddersfield and Westtown, which is near Dewsbury
- Grade separation or a tunnel at Ravensthorpe
- Rebuilding and electrification of eight miles of track.
- Possible doubling the number of tracks from two to four.
- Improved stations at Huddersfield, Deighton, Mirfield and Ravensthorpe.
This project would be a major improvement to the Huddersfield Line.
In Sheffield Region Transport Plan 2019 – Hope Valley Line Improvements, I talked about planned improvements to the Hope Valley Line, which should begin in the next couple of years.
These improvements are given in detail under Plans in the Wikipedia entry for the Hope Valley Line.
The Hope Valley Improvements will cost in the region of tens of millions of pounds and Wikipedia sums up the benefits like this.
These changes to allow three fast trains, a stopping train and freight trains each hour were also supported in a Transport for the North investment report in 2019, together with “further interventions” for the Northern Powerhouse Rail programme.
It seems like good value to me!
So could we see other multi-million and billion pound projects created to improve the classic routes across the Pennines?
Projects would be fully planned and the costs and benefits would then be assessed and calculated.
Then it would be up to the Project Managers to devise the optimal structure and order in which to carry out all the projects.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see the following techniques used.
- Discontinuous electrification to avoid bridge reconstruction.
- Intelligent, hybrid diesel/electric/battery trains from Bombardier, CAF, Hitachi or Stadler, capable of 125 mph running and changing mode at speed.
- Modular digital signalling
- Factory built stations and step-free bridges.
- Removal of all level crossings.
- All stations updated for step-free access between train and platform.
The objectives would be as follows.
- More train paths, where needed.
- Faster line speed.
- Less running on diesel.
- Fast station stops.
Hopefully, the upgrading could be done without too much disruption.
Remember though, that disruption to existing users during a project, is most likely down to bad project management.
The Big Bore
The Central Core tunnel of Crossrail between Royal Oak and East London, was virtually a separate project before Crossrail’s stations and much of other infrastructure was built.
I believe that digging the tunnel first gave a big advantage, in that it could be constructed as an independent project, provided that the logistics of delivering the components and removing the junk was done efficiently.
But it did mean that travellers wouldn’t see any benefits until the project was almost complete.
HS2 and NPR are different in that they also envisage upgrading these routes.
- The Huddersfield Line
- The Chat Moss Line
- The Calder Valley Line
- The Hope Valley Line
- The Dearne Valley Line
- The Selby Line
- The Midland Main Line North Of Clay Cross
Only the Huddersfield Line is directly affected by the Big Bore.
Effectively, the Big Bore will provide a by-pass route for passenger trains between Leeds and West of Manchester Airport, to take the fast trains of HS2 and NPR underneath the congested classic lines.
In Changes Signalled For HS2 Route In North I said this about a tunnel between Leeds and Manchester.
To get a twenty-five minute time between Leeds and Manchester with a ten minute frequency, which I believe is the minimum service the two cities deserve, would be like passing a whole herd of camels through the eye of a single needle.
The Swiss, who lets face it have higher hills, than we have in Northern England would create a new route mainly in tunnel between the two cities, with perhaps an underground station beneath the current Grade I Listed; Huddersfield station.
The transport for the North report suggests Bradford Low Moor station, as an intermediate station, so why not Bradford Low Moor and Huddersfield stations?
Note that the Gotthard Base Tunnel, which opened a couple of years ago, deep under the Alps, is about the same length as a Leeds and Manchester tunnel, and cost around eight billion pounds.
It would be expensive, but like Crossrail in London, the tunnel would have big advantages.
- It could be built without disrupting current rail and road networks.
- It would have a capacity of up to thirty tph in both directions.
- Unlike Crossrail, it could handle freight trains.
- It would unlock and join the railway systems to the East and West.
I believe, it would be a massive leap forward for transport in the North of England.
It would be a very big project and probably one of the longest rail tunnels in the world.
Comparison With The Gotthard Base Tunnel
But surely, if a small and rich nation like Switzerland can build the Gotthard Base Tunnel, then we have the resources to build the Big Bore between Manchester Airport and Leeds.
Consider these facts about the Gotthard Base Tunnel.
- It is two single track bores.
- Each bore has a track length of around 57 kilometres or 35 miles.
- The tunnel may be deep, but it is direct and level.
- The maximum speed is 250 kph or 160 mph.
- The operational speed for passenger trains is 200 kph or 125 mph.
- The operational speed for freight is 100 kph or 62 mph.
- It can take the largest freight trains.
To make numbers even more impressive it is joined to the shorter Ceneri Base Tunnel, to provide an even longer route.
Manchester Airport And Leeds Direct
Now consider Manchester Airport and Leeds.
- The current rail distance is 56 miles.
- There are stops at Manchester Piccadilly, Manchester Oxford Road, Manchester Victoria and Huddersfield stations.
- Journey time is eighty minutes.
But the direct distance is only 68 kilometres or forty-three miles.
Surely if the Swiss can blast and dig two 57 km. single-track rail tunnels through solid rock, we can go eleven kilometres further with all the recent experience of tunnelling around the world.
The lengths of the various legs would be as follows.
- Manchester Airport and Manchester – 14 km.
- Manchester and Huddersfield – 35 km.
- Huddersfield and Bradford – 17 km.
- Bradford and Leeds – 13 km
Trains running on the various legs at 200 kph, which is the cruising speed of a 1970s-built InterCity 125, could take the following times for the various legs.
- Manchester Airport and Manchester – 4.2 minutes
- Manchester and Huddersfield – 10.5 minutes
- Huddersfield and Bradford – 5.1 minutes
- Bradford and Leeds – 13 km – 3.9 minutes
Leeds and Manchester Airport would be under thirty minutes apart, even allowing two minutes each for the three stops.
Looking at NPR between Liverpool and Hull, times could be as follows.
- Liverpool and Manchester – 26 minutes
- Manchester and Leeds – 20 minutes
- Leeds and Hull – 38 minutes
Or a Coast-to-Coast time of under ninety minutes.
Train Frequencies
HS2 is being designed to handle eighteen tph, although slower intensive railways in the UK can handle up to twenty-four tph.
At the current time or certainly in a few years time, the theoretical maximum frequency through the Big Bore should be between these two figures. I will assume at least eighteen tph in this post.
The At A Glance – Northern Powerhouse Rail report talks about the following frequencies.
- Liverpool and Manchester via Manchester Airport – Six tph.
- Manchester and Leeds – Six tph
- Leeds and Hull – Two tph
This is all so lacking in ambition. It is like building a new high capacity road and only allowing those with status to use the road.
If Leeds and Manchester Airport can handle eighteen tph, why not use some of it to create an Express Metro under the Pennines?
To me, if the Big Bore is built, nothing short of twelve tph or a train every five minutes is acceptable, at Liverpool, Manchester Airport, Manchester, Huddersfield, Bradford and Leeds stations.
The extension to Hull could be reduced to perhaps six tph, but with the upgrading of the Hull and Leeds Line to perhaps 140 mph, I’d be bold and create a true TransPennine Express;
Hull and Liverpool every five minutes would be the ultimate Marketing Man’s dream.
The Underground Stations
Manchester Airport, Manchester, Huddersfield, Bradford and Leeds would all be through stations deep underground.
- They would be connected to the surface by lifts and escalators.
- Some entrances to the stations would connect to existing stations and others might emerge in City squares like Manchester’s P:iccadilly Gardens.
- Most stations would be just two platforms, as all trains would pass through on either side of a large underground concourse.
- Bay platforms could be added as required.
- All stations would have platform edge doors.
- Passengers would be able to reverse direction by just walking across the concourse.
Stations would build on the lessons learned from Crossrail. But then NPR is closer to Crossrail than a Classic High Speed Line.
Weston Williamson’s Vision For Manchester Piccadilly Station
I wrote about this in The Rival Plans For Piccadilly Station, That Architects Say Will ‘Save Millions’.
I believe that this is the way to create an underground station.
The Terminal Stations
The two main terminal stations for NPR and trains running through the Big Bore would be the proposed High Speed station at Liverpool and the existing Hull station.
But one other terminal station is being created; Edinburgh.
I have been going to Edinburgh station to and from England for perhaps thirty years and the capacity of the station has constantly increased.
Recent developments have been an extended Platforms 5 and 6, that can take the longest LNER trains.
I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that with the application of digital signalling, that there is capacity for at least eight tph between Edinburgh and Newcastle.
There would certainly be capacity for at least two tph between Liverpool and Edinburgh via Manchester Airport, Manchester, Huddersfield, Bradford, Leeds, York and Newcastle.
In the East the other possibilities for terminals are Doncaster, Newcastle and York.
- I would discount Newcastle, as it lacks capacity and its location would make it difficult to add more.
- Doncaster has good connectivity and space, but do Leeds and Hull offer similar connectivity?
So that leaves Hull, Edinburgh and York, as the only Eastern terminals.
In the West, there is probably a need to connect to the Northern section of the West Coast Main Line (WCML).
- Glasgow Central is probably the obvious terminal, but it would need an extra connection at the junction of HS2, NPR and WCML at High Legh.
- If necessary Preston could be used, as it has space and lots of connectivity.
- Why not use Blackpool North, as it sits on a large site and is fully electrified. It could certainly take four tph?
- A lot of the things I said for Blackpool, also apply to Chester, which would give a gateway to Mid and North Wales!
The trains through the Big Bore could fan out at both the East and West.
Tunnel Size
As Manchester will be served by High Speed Two’s Full-Size trains from Birmingham and London, both Manchester stations will need to be built to accept these trains.
I feel that the whole tunnel between Manchester Airport and Leeds, should be built to the High Speed Two size, so that it can accept the largest possible passenger and freight trains, in the future.
That would obviously include the ability to handle piggy-back freight trains.
Integration Of HS2 and NPR
The At A Glance – Northern Powerhouse Rail report is proposing this and it looks that the following HS2 services could be possible between Euston and Manchester.
- Two tph – Euston and Hull via Old Oak Common, Manchester Airport, Manchester, Huddersfield, Bradford and Leeds
- Two tph – Euston and Edinburgh via Old Oak Common, Manchester Airport, Manchester, Huddersfield, Bradford, Leeds, York and Newcastle.
Note.
- Manchester Airport, Manchester, Huddersfield, Bradford and Leeds would all have four tph to and from London, by the Western arm of HS2’s Y.
- If in addition there were two tph between Liverpool and Hull and Liverpool and Edinburgh, this would mean four tph from the Big Bore of NPR to both Hull and Edinburgh.
- None of these core services need to terminate in the Big Bore.
I very much feel that integrating HS2 and NPR is the way to go.
Could We See A High Speed Northern Metro?
If we assume that the Big Bore could handle the HS2 frequency of at least eighteen tph, then it would be possible to create a high speed service across the Pennines with the following Metro-like frequencies.
- Liverpool and Hull – 4 tph
- Liverpool and Edinburgh – 2 tph
- Glasgow and Hull – 2 tph
- London Euston and Hull – 2 tph
- London Euston and Edinburgh – 2 tph
- London Euston and Glasgow – 2 tph
This would result in the following frequencies
- Liverpool – 6 tph
- Glasgow – 4 tph
- London Euston – 4 tph
- Manchester Airport – 12 tph
- Manchester – 12 tph
- Huddersfield – 12 tph
- Bradford – 12 tph
- Leeds – 12 tph
- Hull – 8 tph
- York – 4 tph
- Newcastle – 4 tph
- Edinburgh – 4 tph
What would these frequencies do for train travel in the North of England?
Freight
The Gotthard Base Tunnel has been designed so that both freight and passenger trains can use the route.
There is a need for extra freight capacity across the country and I wonder if freight trains could use the Big Bore.
I estimate that the Big Bore would be 68 kilometres if bored straight and level between West of Manchester Airport and Leeds.
Lets assume it is seventy kilometres or 43.5 miles.
So times, through the tunnel at various average speeds would be.
- 125 mph – 21 minutes
- 110 mph – 23.7 minutes
- 100 mph – 26.1 minutes
- 90 mph – 29 minutes
- 80 mph – 32.6 minutes
- 62 mph (Gotthard Base Tunnel speed for freight) – 42 minutes.
Could it be mandated that freight trains can use the tunnel, if they could maintain a particular speed?
Consider.
- A 125 mph train with stops at Manchester Airport, Manchester, Huddersfield, Bradford and Leeds would probably take thirty minutes to transit the tunnel.
- A freight train running at 90 mph would take more or less the same time.
- Fifteen tph would mean a train every four minutes.
- Automatic control of all trains in the tunnel would be a possibility. It appears to work on the much more complicated Thameslink.
I think with the following conditions, one or even two freight trains per hour, in addition to the passenger trains, can pass through the Big Bore in each direction.
- The locomotives have the performance of at least the Class 93 locomotive, which is currently being built.
- Freight trains can be hauled through at a minimum speed, which could be between 90 and 110 mph.
- The passenger trains and train and platform staff work together to produce very short station dwell times.
- All passenger trains are identical.
- Station platforms are designed so that passengers can leave and enter the trains rapidly.
It will be a Big Bore with a capacity to match!
What About Sheffield?
I haven’t forgotten Sheffield, but I think it could be linked across the Pennines by another route.
Under the upgrades for Northern Powerhouse Rail, it is proposed that services between Sheffield and Leeds become 4 tph in 25 minutes along the Dearne Valley Line.
Does Boris Know More Than He Lets On?
The headline on the front cover of Issue 885 of Rail Magazine is Boris Backs New Pennine Railway.
There is also a sub-heading of PM commits to Leeds-Manchester line.
Boris didn’t apply any substance to the speech, except to say that it will be funded.
Conclusion
I believe that my naïve analysis in this post shows that a TransPennine tunnel is possible.
But I believe that the right tunnel could have one big advantage.
Suppose it was built to handle the following.
- A capacity of eighteen tph, which is the same as High Speed Two.
- An operating speed of 140 mph or more. The Gotthard Base Tunnel has a maximum operating speed of 160 mph.
- High Speed Two’s Full-Size trains.
- The largest freight trains.
It would be future proofed for longer than anybody could envisage.
There are also other smaller advantages.
- It would by-pass a lot of difficult areas.
- It would cause very little aural and visual disruption.
- If it were designed with care, it would not affect the flora and fauna.
- As with the Swiss tunnel, it could be dug level, which would save energy and allow trains to run faster.
- It could be running twelve tph between Leeds and Manchester Airport via Bradford, Huddersfield and Manchester Piccadilly.
- Existing surface railways at the Eastern end could serve Cleethorpes, Darlington, Doncaster, Edinburgh, Hull, Middlesbrough, Newcastle, Scarborough, Sheffield and York
- Existing surface railways at the Western end could serve Barrow, Blackpool, Carlisle, Chester, Glasgow, Liverpool. North Wales, Preston and Wigan.
It would be more like Thameslink for the North turned on its side, rather than Crossrail for the North.
The Future Of TransPennine Express
TransPennine Express operates services across the Pennines.
In Changes Signalled For HS2 Route In North, I explored the possibilities of merging the infrastructure of High Seed Two and Northern Powerhouse Rail, as proposed by this report on the Transport for the North web site, which is entitled At A Glance – Northern Powerhouse Rail.
In my post, I proposed this service pattern across the Pennines, after sketching it on one of the 5 x 3 inch cards, that I use for notes.
- High Speed Two – Two tph between London and Hull via Manchester Airport, Manchester Piccadilly and Leeds
- High Speed Two – One tph between London and Edinburgh via Manchester Airport, Manchester Piccadilly, Leeds, York and Newcastle.
- Northern Powerhouse Rail – One tph between Liverpool and Edinburgh via Manchester Airport, Manchester Piccadilly, Leeds, York and Newcastle.
- Northern Powerhouse Rail – Two tph between Liverpool and Sheffield via Manchester Airport and Manchester Piccadilly
- Northern Powerhouse Rail – Two tph between Liverpool and Hull via Manchester Airport, Manchester Piccadilly and Leeds
- Northern Powerhouse Rail – One tph between Liverpool and Sunderland via Manchester Airport, Manchester Piccadilly, Leeds, York and Middlesbrough.
But how do proposed services across the Pennines like these, fit with the current TransPennine Express services?
Manchester Airport And Middlesbrough
The Liverpool and Sunderland service covers the same route. at the same frequency of one tph.
Manchester Airport And Newcastle
The London and Edinburgh and Liverpool and Edinburgh services cover the same route, at a doubled frequency of two tph.
Liverpool And Newcastle
The Liverpool and Edinburgh service covers the same route, at the same frequency of one tph.
Liverpool And Scarborough
I didn’t put this in thew original proposed schedule, so it would need to be added at one tph.
Manchester Piccadilly And Hull
The London and Hull and Liverpool and Hull services cover the same route, at an increased frequency of four tph.
Manchester Piccadilly And Huddersfield And Huddersfield And Leeds
These two services, either side of Huddersfield, are effectively local services and could either stay with TransPennine Express or be moved to Northern.
Manchester Airport And Cleethorpes
The Liverpool and Sheffield service covers the same route, at a doubled frequency of two tph, as far as Sheffield.
One tph could be extended to |Cleethorpes.
Manchester Airport And Glasgow Central
If there is a connection between the Northbound West Coast Main Line and Westbound Northern Powerhouse Rail then this service will be possible at the current frequency of one tph.
There would need to be a West-facing terminating platform at Manchester Airport.
Alternatively, this could remain a Classic service.
Manchester Airport and Edinburgh
The London and Edinburgh and Liverpool and Edinburgh services cover the same route, at a doubled frequency of two tph.
Liverpool And Glasgow Central
If there is a connection between the Northbound West Coast Main Line and Eastbound Northern Powerhouse Rail then this service will be possible at the soon-to-be-introduced frequency of one tph.
It could use Liverpool’s High Speed station.
Alternatively, this could remain a Classic service.
New Services
I could also throw in a few other services.
Liverpool And Nottingham
Could a service between Liverpool’s new High Speed station and Nottingham be introduced with a frequency of one tph?
The route would be via Manchester Airport, Manchester Piccadilly and Sheffield on Northern Powerhouse Rail before reversing at Sheffield and travelling to Nottingham via Chesterfield and Alfreton.
Scarborough And Llandudno
Why not?
If the demand is there various services might be viable.
Extra Stations
I think we will also see more station calls, by both High Speed and TransPennine Express trains.
Conclusion
TransPennine Express will be a very different franchise in the future.
Huddersfield And High Speed Two
There are only nine Grade I Listed Railway Stations In The UK and Huddersfield station is one of them.
As you can see, it also has several long platforms and two pubs.
In addition, the station is step-free and has connecting local services to Leeds, Manchester and Sheffield.
This Google Map shows the basic layout of the station and its position on St. George’s Square.
Manchester is to the South and Leeds is to the North.
Huddersfield station has no direct services to London, but there are three routes to and from London with a single change.
These are best times.
- Euston changing at Manchester Piccadilly – two hours and fifty-five minutes
- Kings Cross changing at Leeds – two hours and forty-eight minutes
- St. Pancras changing at Sheffield – two hours and forty-eight minutes
There’s not really much in it!
I bought an Off Peak Return from London Terminals to Huddersfield, travelling North via Euston and Manchester Piccadilly and returning South via Sheffield and St. Pancras.
How Long Will A Journey To And From London By High Speed Two Take?
In Changes Signalled For HS2 Route In North, I looked at proposals to effectively merge High Speed Two and Northern Powerhouse Rail into a comprehensive High Speed Rail system for the North of England.
My thoughts in the related post, were based on this report on the Transport for the North web site, which is entitled At A Glance – Northern Powerhouse Rail.
This map from the Transport of the North report, shows Western section of the rail system.
There are three routes going East from Manchester.
- The yellow route is a possible new route to Leeds via Bradford, which I feel will probably be largely in tunnel.
- The black toute is the upgraded existing Huddersfield Line between Manchester and Leeds via Huddersfield, which is shown.
- The purple route is the upgraded Hope Valley Line to Sheffield.
I feel that the upgraded black route will be created first, with the faster yellow route, which I suspect will be mainly in tunnel, being added later.
In Changes Signalled For HS2 Route In North, I said that I believed that both London and Liverpool and London and Manchester services could be below seventy minutes.
In that report I also quoted a figure from a Transport for the North report, that said that Manchester and Leeds services would take twenty-five minutes.
I think the following timings, should be possible by High Speed Two trains.
- London and Manchester – 70 minutes
- Manchester and Huddersfield – 20 minutes
What would a ninety minute time between London and Huddersfield do for the town?
Conclusion
High Speed Two should call at Huddersfield station.
High Speed Two And Brexit
This article on the BBC, is entitled HS2: High-Speed Line Cost ‘could Rise By £30bn’.
Brexiteers like Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage have said in the past, that they are minded to cancel the project.
But surely Boris and Nigel believe that we’ll all be better off under Brexit, so we will have the money for the NHS, kicking the foreigners out of the UK, building a wall to stop the emigrants walking across the Irish Border and High Speed Two.
They can’t have it both ways!
Or is it that both wouldn’t be seen dead on a train?
The Anonymous Widower 