Tuesday 31st January 2023 the House of Commons debated the Bill permitting the construction of the fast rail link from Crewe to Manchester Piccadilly. This is part of section 2b of the High Speed 2(HS2) line originating in London and initially laid out to Manchester. The line to Crewe has already been decided and is being built.
This blogger considers that the line, as it is laid out in this last stage from Crewe to Manchester, is grossly damaging to the environment, unnecessary in the majority of its length, prohibitively expensive in its costs, and adds nothing, or very little, of value to the rail system of this country.
I know that the period for consultation is now closed on discussion of this Bill. That, however, should not be an obstacle to any rectification. The Bill should not take on a life of its own which pushes it forward erroneously. The members of the House of Commons should take the opportunity to reject the Bill in its present form. That way the Department for Transport can offer a new Bill which retains the few good parts of the plan, but eliminates the completely unnecessary, grossly damaging and prohibitively expensive elements.
Let us look at the present proposal as it is shown on the HS2 website.
The title of the image as presented is......
HS2 Crewe to Manchester, 2017 Prefered Route
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/630690/C320-AEC-EN-MAP-200-000001_P03_wm.pdf
Unfortunately, this map is out of date, especially since the Golbourne link (from Manchester Airport to Ashton-in-Makerfield, just south of Wigan) is still shown after it had been cancelled on 6th June 2022. On the map this link refers to sectors HSM12, HSM21, and HSM22.
In the Minister´s statement to Parliament on 6th June 2022....
"Removing the Golborne Link from the HS2 Bill", (https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/removing-the-golborne-link-from-the-hs2-bill)
....he basically said that the link did nothing to alleviate capacity limitations on the WCML between Crewe and Preston, so was unnecessary. "He recommended that the government should reduce journey times and increase rail capacity between England and Scotland by upgrading the WCML north of Crewe and by doing more work on options for alternative northerly connections...".
To take this thinking to its conclusion then we can see that the branch of HS2 in the direction of Manchester Airport as shown on their map is completely unnecessary. That makes it ecologically damaging, and as a result prohibitively and unnecessarily expensive. This would mean that sectors HSM10B and HSM28A are superfluous to requirements. Therefore, these sectors should not be included in the Bill. That means we are left with just sector HSM28B. This is the sector which will pass underground from the Airport to surface at Ardwick before entering Piccadilly.
This section of HS2 should be retained but with slight modifications. It is a good idea to have a fast, uninterrupted link from Piccadilly to the Airport. However, What is the point of having the Airport station some way from the Airport if this section of the line will go through the station airport. If we follow the thinking as shown on the WCML by upgrading it, then we can do the same on the line from Crewe through Holmes Chapel and Wimslow to enter the Airport, instead of the damaging, expensive and superfluous sectors HSM10B, HSM28A, as well as the cancelled Golbourne link.
Some sectors will need quite extensive upgrading but without doubt the resulting cost will be much lower than constructing new lines in virgin territory. This blogger works on the principle that major lines - such as the WCML, and the connection from Crewe to Manchester Airport should be four-tracked. This means you can separate freight, regional and commuter traffic from High Speed/Inter-City, and fast non-stop services. The only sections where these different sorts of traffic would merge or coincide would be at stations where all the trains stop (except freight).
HSM28B would be the only part of this plan that would be used. Then again it should be pointed out that in the original plan the HS2 Airport station was outside the airport. In the ideas presented here the airport station situated within the airport would be extended westwards to join HSM28B so as to eliminate the need for the station outside.
This map will illustrate what needs to be/can be done.........
As can be seen on the map I have illustrated two lines.
1)- the West Coast Mainline (WCML) from Crewe to Wigan North Western. This follows the line of the existing WCML.
The medium blue line which runs under Crewe and emerges north of the town is common to both WCML and HS2 up to Crewe Central – this would be an underground facility under Crewe Station to be used in case of necessity. Its length is 5.50 kms. and included in WCML
The blue markings indicate where the line is four-track and does not need extensive renovating. There was renovation done on this part of the line in the first decade of the twenty-first Century. I do not know if the signalling system needs an upgrade. There are four sections on which very little or no upgrade work needs to be implemented...........
Crewe North to Winsford South.....................................................8.40 kms.
Hartford North to South Weaverham............................................2.43 kms.
Manchester Ship Canal to Winwick...............................................8.20 kms.
Golbourne to Wigan North Western..............................................9.20 kms.
TOTAL 28.23 kms.
To make all the WCML four-track to the top standard, then those parts indicated in very light blue would need work on them. These break down into three sections.....
a)Winsford South to Hartford North..................................................9.00 kms.
b)South Weaverham to the Manchester Ship Canal ......................13.00 kms.
c)Winwick to Golbourne ...................................................................4.45 kms.
TOTAL 26.45 kms.
a)Only on the first section is tunnelling probably needed to avoid unnecessary disruption, and not on the whole 9 kms.
b)In the second section there is plenty of land to build new track.
c)In this third section a flyover will have to be constructed at Winwick Junction to separate the WCML to Wigan from the connection to the Chat Moss Liverpool to Manchester line at Earlestown.
2)- to differentiate the two examples, I have called the other the HS2 from Crewe to Manchester Piccadilly. The first part through Holmes Chapel (lightish blue) to Manchester Airport follows the line of the existing railway along that route up to the Airport. After that the line would continue non-stop underground out of the west of the airport (darkish blue) and up northwards parallel to the M62 to emerge at Ardwick before entering Piccadilly. The other part would enter the present airport station to connect to the new fast line to Piccadilly but principally continue along the present stopping line to Ardwick and then into Piccadilly (colour purple).
Crewe Central to Crewe North East (also a new underground line - darkish blue) 2.00 kms.
Crewe North East to Manchester Airport (up-grade existing line) 34.50 kms.
Manchester Airport to Ardwick (new fast underground line) 14.30 kms.
Manchester Airport to Ardwick and Piccadilly (via existing line) 14.60 kms.
TOTALS 16.30 kms. 49.10 kms.
The next logical step in the renovation/updating of the WCML/HS2 line is to look at the two principal obstacles to making it a really fast line in all its length.These are the sections from
a)Lancaster to Penrith,then
b)from Penrith to Gretna Green and
c)from Gretna Green to Glasgow.
a)When I talked initially about the major rail trunk routes, I said that they all should be 4 tracked (and even 6 tracked where it is needed). Looking at the line from Lancaster to Penrith, on reaching Morecambe Bay the line runs at sea level next to the water for a good length. Sea levels rising with the change of climatic conditions and the expectancy of more frequent and more violent storms on stretches open to the sea would make it prudent and foresighted to start elevating the railway on to a viaduct to run behind the houses and not spoil their view of the Bay. This would run to at least Carnforth. The difficulty of incorporating the new fast line into the WCML so as to run through both Carnforth and Oxenholme would suggest that the new two tracks would not run through those stations, but near them.
From Oxenholme onwards the new fast two tracks would be planned towards Penrith more directly by elevating the line on to a viaduct as far as possible until a tunnel is essential. I calculate that at most such a tunnel towards Penrith would be between 10 and 12 kms. long (at an estimated maximum altitude of 300 metres). The whole stretch from Lancaster to Penrith could be reduced by the two new fast tracks from the existing 82.5 kms. to 75.5 kms. The saving in length would be thus 7 kilometres.
b)The second segment would run from Penrith to Gretna Green a total distance on the WCML of 44.5 kms. HS2 would have to be added to the same track to make it four-tracked. Here the construction is relatively easy since WCML and HS2 could run side by side with the difference that HS2 could avoid some of the (few) curves, be straighter and thus faster. The difference in length is minimal (44 kms.), just 500 metres.
c)The third and longest sector runs from Gretna Green to Glasgow. To sort out the vagaries of the curves and terrain the alignment of the two new fast tracks would be completely new. The length of the WCML along the present line is 150 kms. from Gretna Green to Glasgow. The alignment of the new two-track section is 135 kms. resulting in a saving of 15 kms.
If we consider the total of the three sections from Lancaster to Glasgow then the distances come out to be......
1) WCML (the actual railway) ............................................................. 277 kms.
2) HS2 (the new railway to be built between the same stations) ........ 254.5 kms.
The TOTAL saving in length with the new aligment comes out at ...... 22.5 kms.
****************************************
There is one section I have missed out for the line from Crewe to Glasgow and that is the one between Wigan North Western to Preston and Lancaster. Except for the passage through the three stations, where the trains stop to pick up passengers, as is their wont, the 58 kms. line is almost straight along all its length. That means to upgrade the line to four-track, straighten out some unnecessary curves, is relatively easy and cheap work, and thus the line speed can be upgraded.
The present length for a journey Glasgow to Euston, on the existing WCML, is timed at 4hrs. 30mins to 4hrs. 35 mins. . With these line improvements along its whole length the works would make it quite easy to reduce the time to under 4hrs, and even substantially further. May it be so.
The ideas presented here for the Crewe to Manchester HS2 connection together with the improvements proposed for the WCML (together with additional new tracks) should make it quite clear that better solutions than the original HS2 exist. These can be implimented at a lower cost and most likely more easily. Without doubt the effect on the environment is lower and much less damaging. Let us hope the powers that be, put aside vainglorious ideas, and entreched attitudes and postures so as to come up with an acceptable, workable solution to the West Coast´s needs.
