Northern Powerhouse? Unlikely if this is true.

[david.hill64]

14 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

I think its more the case that the extra costs of going up to 250mph are minimal - its not as though a modest reduction in speed will allow significantly sharper curves is it?

 

In fact going for a 250mph design speed has some benefits even if trains run slower - the larger tunnel diameters will decrease wind resistance - i.e. a 200mph train in a 250mph tunnel will use significantly less energy than a 200mph one in a 200mph tunnel.

 

 

But larger tunnel diameters cost much more to dig. 

 

When I was involved with Taiwan High Speed Rail, after the System contract had been awarded to the Japanese, the Japanese tried to persuade the project to adopt the smaller tunnel bores used in Japan. It was calculated that it would have saved a huge amount on tunnelling costs but wasn’t adopted. IIRC it was something like 14% of the civil works costs. The UIC standard dimensions were retained to permit flexibility in future rolling stock procurement. 

 

The other killer is maintenance costs. I cannot remember the source now, but I think attributed to or quoted by Peter Dearman (UK electrification guru) that OHL maintenance cost rise exponentially above 200mph. 

 

Add in the inevitable increased energy costs at higher speeds. 

 

Given that that there is close on 30 years experience of running at 300km/h and s0d all for 250mph, I know what I would choose if it were my money. 

[Mike Storey]

I thought this thread was supposed to be about the Northern Powerhouse (or lack of it)? Instead, it seems to be mostly duplicating the HS2 thread.

 

But in an attempt to merge the two, the GDP benefit side of HS2 (as planned) has been forecast at about £92 billion. (That figure was last revised in 2014 IIRC, and has not been inflated, unlike costs). That figure, which is a mid-range from a number of projections, made the c.£50 billion a feasible sum to spend. Of course that changes if costs rise, but then some changes to plans, such as the Sheffield diversion, have reduced costs and increased projected benefit (we are told).

 

But is there a projected financial benefit for Northern Powerhouse? I have seen a large range of figures, but nothing stands out as a consensus (unless I am out of date). If there was at least some agreement on likely benefit, then a case for expenditure to a certain level could be more easily made.

 

[phil-b259]

4 hours ago, david.hill64 said:

But larger tunnel diameters cost much more to dig. 

 

When I was involved with Taiwan High Speed Rail, after the System contract had been awarded to the Japanese, the Japanese tried to persuade the project to adopt the smaller tunnel bores used in Japan. It was calculated that it would have saved a huge amount on tunnelling costs but wasn’t adopted. IIRC it was something like 14% of the civil works costs. The UIC standard dimensions were retained to permit flexibility in future rolling stock procurement. 

 

 

They do - but this cost can be recouped to a degree  if you would otherwise need to bring in spoil from elsewhere to build embankments, plus of course the surpass can be sold on to other infrastructure projects (like roads) which cannot generate enough fill material internally. I believe that a number of road projects in Buckinghamshire are now faced with increased costs because fine tuning of the HS2 proposal has meant there is less surplus spoil available. The potential energy savings due to lower wind resistance due to larger tunnel diameters over the subsequent decades must also not be trivialised

 

4 hours ago, david.hill64 said:

The other killer is maintenance costs. I cannot remember the source now, but I think attributed to or quoted by Peter Dearman (UK electrification guru) that OHL maintenance cost rise exponentially above 200mph. 

 

Add in the inevitable increased energy costs at higher speeds. 

 

Given that that there is close on 30 years experience of running at 300km/h and s0d all for 250mph, I know what I would choose if it were my money. 

 

You do raise a valid point here - however unlike certain other things (radii of curves and tunnel aerodynamics which are nigh on impossible to alter later on) upgrading the OLE in future should technical advances in materials would be a relatively simple exercise (particularly if some of the basic elements like mast spacing are done right at the outset).

 

As things stand though, with current OLE systems I agree speeds grater than 200mph are not really justifiable on a day to day basis.

[jim.snowdon]

Not just the costs of maintaining the OLE, but everything else associated with the track as well. Are the routes long enough to warrant such high speeds, or is this really an exercise in national vanity? As a route to parallel and relieve the WCML, it has a purpose, but I m not convinced about the logic of even higher speeds, with all that that means in terms of energy usage and train, and consequently station, lengths.

 

Jim 

[Mike Storey]

1 hour ago, jim.snowdon said:

Not just the costs of maintaining the OLE, but everything else associated with the track as well. Are the routes long enough to warrant such high speeds, or is this really an exercise in national vanity? As a route to parallel and relieve the WCML, it has a purpose, but I m not convinced about the logic of even higher speeds, with all that that means in terms of energy usage and train, and consequently station, lengths.

 

Jim 

 

I defer entirely to your engineering expertise, but I would just point out that China, after a period of restricting top speeds on HSR to 300kph due to operational costs, returned to higher speeds in 2017, and now regularly run 350kph services. Of course, distances in most cases are vastly different, labour costs remain lower, but the costs of such high speeds over so many miles of track and OLE that all needs maintenance, must have had some sort of business case, even there, to be warranted. CRRC are now building sets capable of speeds approaching 500kph, although there appear to be no proposals to raise track speeds to that level (yet).

 

The economics of higher speeds have been changing with new technology (as they did with the High Speed Train in the UK, much lighter construction of vehicles and motors from Alstom, are doing so with new Japanese techniques for tunnel mouth design and appear to be doing so with developments in China), and given we are up to ten years away from operation, it is sensible to plan and build for higher speeds, even if not used initially. The Chinese built a Maglev but the track is not long enough to get up to its top speed. HS2 is not that short, especially after Phase 2 is built. I don't call that vanity, more like common sense.

 

But I totally note your scepticism!

 

[Zomboid]

It may also be worth noting that the newest Shinkansen line (Kyushu) is also the slowest, at a mere 260km/h.

300 is probably fine for UK distances, but building the alignment for more seems like sensible future proofing, even if they'll be limited to 300ish through some of the tunnels.

[ess1uk]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49132477

Boris gives it thumbs up

[jim.snowdon]

42 minutes ago, ess1uk said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-49132477

Boris gives it thumbs up

That'll put the kiss of death on it, then. 

 

More seriously, are the Northern cities really far enough apart to make high speed really worthwhile, or does it simply become an exercise in accelerating then putting the brakes on before you have even reached a decent speed? Would the money not be better spent on upgrading the existing routes and services, even reinstating some of what has been removed?

 

Jim

[Mike Storey]

43 minutes ago, jim.snowdon said:

That'll put the kiss of death on it, then. 

 

More seriously, are the Northern cities really far enough apart to make high speed really worthwhile, or does it simply become an exercise in accelerating then putting the brakes on before you have even reached a decent speed? Would the money not be better spent on upgrading the existing routes and services, even reinstating some of what has been removed?

 

Jim

 

I agree, but a key part of the problem, as with HS2, is capacity, assuming the intensity of local, stopping services continues and, presumably needs to expand. It is almost certainly cheaper and faster to build a new railway, rather than tinker with so many hotspots all along any of the three extant routes, and that leads to saying it might as well be a faster railway. But anything would be faster than what runs now between Leeds and Manchester particularly, so it becomes a question of degree?

[The Stationmaster]

In BR terms 'high speed' = linespeed in excess of 100mph.  On Transpenine routes actually being able to achieve 100mph, let alone any faster, over a reasonable dstance would amount to a considerable improvement on today.

[TheSignalEngineer]

32 minutes ago, jim.snowdon said:

 

More seriously, are the Northern cities really far enough apart to make high speed really worthwhile,

Probably not high speed in continental terms as the centre to centre distances are only just over 30 miles as the crow flies. The running time saving between stops when you get over about 110mph is not worth it for that distance. For example the difference between 125mph and 140mph for 20 miles of constant running would be about 1 minute. The Pennine weather can make as much difference.

 

Back in the days of West Coast Route Modernisation a review was undertaken on the effects of maximum speed on journey times in connection with the cost of providing cab signalling at 140mph against lineside signals at 125mph. I don't remember the financial side (several £bn) but given the proposed stopping pattern and likely attainable speeds the time savings from Euston were 4 minutes to Birmingham, 8 minutes to Manchester and 11 minutes to Glasgow.

 

The biggest benefits of a new line(s) would be getting rid of rail bottlenecks and having a route capable of piggybacking lorry trailers from an east coast port to a west coast port and linking say Hull / South and West Yorkshire / Manchester / Liverpool. That would free up capacity on both the local rail network and the M62 / A628 roads. There are questions being asked about the desirability of providing expensive extra capacity on those at the moment because air pollution is already above the maximum safe levels and more traffic will make it worse.

[APOLLO]

Four tracks once existed from Stalybridge to Leeds (Gildersome & Morley routes from Heaton Lodge Jcn)

 

Rebuild & Electrify. Rebuild Woodhead also. 

 

Job done.

 

Brit15

[Zomboid]

A proper 100/110 mph alignment without any flat junctions would probably do the job as well as it needs to be for trans pennine services. And perhaps that is what is proposed.

[Mallard60022]

"If this is true" is surely the correct part of the Header for this latest little platitude from someone that knows nowt about rail needs north of the M25, but is trying desperately to appeal to us northerners.

Yes, I know, and I shall be banned.

Ar$£

[Northmoor]

3 hours ago, APOLLO said:

Four tracks once existed from Stalybridge to Leeds (Gildersome & Morley routes from Heaton Lodge Jcn)

 

Rebuild & Electrify. Rebuild Woodhead also. 

 

Job done.

Sorry but that will not do the job, because the answer to a rail congestion problem is not "what disused Victorian infrastructure, built to satisfy traffic flows in the mid-1800s, can we re-open?".

Stalybridge to Leeds won't solve the chronic bottleneck through Manchester Piccadilly - Deansgate, or through East Leeds.  It won't make Standedge Tunnel any higher or wider.  Likewise, the Woodhead route (nostalgic for it though I am) was a speed-restricted curving route primarily handling traffic from the South Yorkshire coalfield, for which speed wasn't exactly a priority.  Yes it serves Sheffield and Manchester, but what else?

 

The HS3 ( for which the name probably makes it a hostage to fortune in the same way HS2 has) solution is probably a network of mostly 125mph railway that will provide significant travel time benefits between Liverpool/Wirral to Leeds/Hull//Teesside/Newcastle and many points in between.  It will also need include a lot of local road improvements, allowing people easy access to the network; there is little point saving 5-10 minutes on the rail part of a journey if the passengers, transferring from the historic route, need to travel 5-10 minutes longer through a series of congested road junctions, to get to the stations.  People measure door-to-door travel time; politicians (and sadly all too often my fellow engineers) don't.

[Ian Hargrave]

42 minutes ago, Mallard60022 said:

"If this is true" is surely the correct part of the Header for this latest little platitude from someone that knows nowt about rail needs north of the M25, but is trying desperately to appeal to us northerners.

Yes, I know, and I shall be banned.

Ar$£

 

Admit it though...the Boris The Builder outfit is a great PR image......oooh sooo cool.

[4630]

45 minutes ago, Mallard60022 said:

"If this is true" is surely the correct part of the Header for this latest little platitude from someone that knows nowt about rail needs north of the M25, but is trying desperately to appeal to us northerners.

Yes, I know, and I shall be banned.

Ar$£

 

I'm happy to cut Boris 'a little bit of slack' on HS3, but only so far as pretty much all he's said is "...the full details of the Leeds-Manchester route would be published in the autumn...".

 

I'm happy to wait until the 'puff of white smoke' with the publication in the Autumn.

 

If anybody wants a clue as to the likely date of the announcement, I'd suggest 2nd October 2019.

 

Why?  Because that's the last day of the Tory Party conference this year and I'm guessing that will be the date of  BoJo's speech to conference.

 

And where is the conference venue this year?  Well, what a surprise, Manchester Central conference centre.   

 

There's a lot more that could and should be done in a much shorter timeframe than the development and building of HS3 that would help all modes of transport infrastructure in the north.  Both at a local level for the major conurbations across the north, but also along the existing key transport corridors.

 

I hope it's not significant that no firm announcement, beyond the availability of funding in Control Period 6 which started 4 months ago, has been made yet from either Network Rail or the DafT about the full scope of the Trans Pennine Route Upgrade.  Plenty of rumours but nothing official.

 

 

 

Edited July 27, 2019 by 4630
My usual problem with speeeling and gramma

[Mike Storey]

As someone has already said, on the HS2 thread - his new Northern friends will not be sending him any Christmas cards soon, if he tries to cancel HS2 in order to pay for HS3. They want HS2 as much as HS3, not instead of.

[Mallard60022]

On the news this morning someone was saying that HS3 needs the HS2 bit south of somewhere, that I missed the name of, to be viable. Where the hell is that 'somewhere' as I thought HS2 was just going to Brum? I think the whole thing is just a load of luke warm guff and the best idea, as mentioned earlier, was where some sort of substantial upgrades (and better trains, some already almost in service?) would be money better spent. Andy Burnham was not dismissive but was sceptical, having heard this sort of 'offer' (locally known as gobshite in Leeds....don't know about Manchester) from previous Ministerial visitors.

I.M. Notholdin Mibreath, BO; NOB.

 

 

[4630]

As a very quick summary, the current plan is for HS2 to be built in two phases.

 

Phase 1 - from London Euston to Birmingham, with early construction and enabling work along the agreed route already underway.

 

Phase 2 - goes north from Birmingham and splits with one leg going to Manchester and the other leg to Leeds.  Still at the detailed route planning and development stage.

 

There's plenty for you to get your teeth into here; https://www.hs2.org.uk

Edited July 27, 2019 by 4630

[Mallard60022]

5 minutes ago, 4630 said:

As a very quick summary, the current plan is for HS2 to be built in two phases.

 

Phase 1 - from London Euston to Birmingham, with early construction and enabling work along the agreed route already underway.

 

Phase 2 - goes north from Birmingham and splits with one leg going to Manchester and the other leg to Leeds.  Still at the detailed route planning and development stage.

 

There's plenty here for you to get your teeth into here; https://www.hs2.org.uk

Cheers matey. Man Leeds completes the turning triangle then!

P

[4630]

2 hours ago, Mallard60022 said:

Cheers matey. Man Leeds completes the turning triangle then!

P

 

One of the issues that hopefully will become clear when further detail about the Leeds leg of HS2 is provided, and Boris gives also gives an outline as to the route for HS3, is what they do about Leeds?

 

As currently envisaged a new station for HS2 is to be built in Leeds adjacent to and linked with the existing Network Rail station.  Hopefully the planners and developers will ensure that this new station also has the capacity to handle HS3 trains.  Unless the intention will be to route HS3 trains through the existing Network Rail station!

 

 

Edited July 27, 2019 by 4630

[Mallard60022]

1 minute ago, 4630 said:

 

One of the issues that hopefully will become clear when further detail about the Leeds leg of HS2 is provided, and Boris gives also gives an outline as to the route for HS3, is what they do about Leeds?

 

As currently envisaged a new station for HS2 is to be built in Leeds adjacent to and linked with the existing Network Rail station.  Hopefully the planners and developers will ensure that this new station also has the capacity to also handle HS3 trains.  Unless the intention will be to route HS3 trains through the existing Network Rail station!

 

 

Ah, Elland Road will go then. Plenty of space in that area.

P

[Mike Storey]

29 minutes ago, 4630 said:

 

One of the issues that hopefully will become clear when further detail about the Leeds leg of HS2 is provided, and Boris gives also gives an outline as to the route for HS3, is what they do about Leeds?

 

As currently envisaged a new station for HS2 is to be built in Leeds adjacent to and linked with the existing Network Rail station.  Hopefully the planners and developers will ensure that this new station also has the capacity to also handle HS3 trains.  Unless the intention will be to route HS3 trains through the existing Network Rail station!

 

 

 

Yes, much has been said about HS2 reducing the costs of HS3, by already creating part of the corridor that HS3 will need. I think this mainly concerns Leeds - Sheffield and the link to the ECML, plus south and west of Manchester. Quite how the Manchester - Leeds section would link into those is still not apparent, although I could envisage a possibility or two. A reversal at Leeds would not be a good planning assumption for HS3, and I hope that is not what they do, unless a south to east spur is created somewhere between Stourton and Hollinthorpe (Garforth) - that could make sense as it completely avoids the bottleneck east of Leeds.

 

https://www.hs2.org.uk/where/route-map/#13/53.7869/-1.5355

[Dunsignalling]

I'd take the Govt's support for "The Northern Powerhouse" a lot more seriously if they'd proposed building the northernmost bit of HS2 first and working south to meet the rest of it coming north.

 

At least Boris has proposed something of direct benefit in that direction.

 

As things stand, the primary purpose of Phase 1 still looks suspiciously like a premium commuter railway for London.

 

John