Great Western Coffee Shop

It appears that George Osbourne thinks HS3 linking Liverpool and Leeds would be a good idea.

However it seems to me with HS2 having terminal stations in MAnchester and Leeds it's going to be very difficult to link HS3 to HS2 .

It has already been  commented upon that unlike the LGVs in France and High speed lines in ain and Germany HS2 has few/no connections with the local networks around Manchester and Leeds, where HS3 fits in I'm not sure. Maybe we need to scrap the plans for HS2 to have terminal station and build iundergrounf through stations in Manchester an Leeds with links to the local network.

Leeds and Manchester are only about 40 miles apart so this does not seem an obvious candidate for full high speed.

The Manchester site is at least integrated with the present station which has through platforms so further through platforms could be added if you could get a route through!

I would not like to try and build an station under the present Leeds Station.  The present station is on a viaduct because there is a major river underneath it!

The reports on HS3 are very sketchy, but the talk seems to be of speeds of ~140mph, not speeds of 225mph for HS2.

So, I think the the government is taking a liberty with terminology.

The proposed ^7B appears to be improved track, signalling and a few tunnels through hills (the penines). This will allow direct trains at 140mph, not 90mph.

If only HS2 could be as cheap! 

Personally, I have always thought that the economic north/south divide argument for HS2 was weak. Instead, I thought, if that was the objective then instead of HS2 they should try and make an 100-140mph INTERCITY line between Liverpool and York, with INTERCITY standard rolling stock and stops at Manchester and Leeds. Of course the real reason for HS2 is capacity on the WCML (but if that's the case, why nothing for the GWML, ECML and some of the South West Trains and Southern routes?)

I never thought the terminal stations on HS2 made much sense, but for me it is the Birmingham one that is particularly bad. Euston to Chester, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow etc. via central Birmingham would be a great way of improving links at the northern end, for example Chester would gain through trains to Birmingham via the direct route and Liverpool would gain fast services to Birmingham instead of mostly having just London Midland stoppers.

That's what I was thinking when I heard the story. I wonder whether Osbourne was just using the term to attract more press attention, when he really means something along the lines of my suggestion above (conventional INTERCITY rather than HS1/HS2-style 'HighSpeed'). I wonder if even that is necessary though, 4-tracking and electrifying the existing line and introducing a fleet of 100mph EMUs based on the class 175s but with the addition of Unit End Gangways (with enough ordered to allow lots of multiple working, maybe up to 10-car trains) would be a huge improvement in itself.

For Manchester, I thought HS2 could have a station in a cutting, with tunnel portals both ends, on the site of the abandoned 'Mayfield' station next to the Piccadilly through platforms. Additional through platforms on the classic lines could then be built above the HS2 station. I don't know the area arround Leeds station nearly as well, but how steep a slope can electric trains cope with a low speed? Could you have the HS2 line approach from the south at the same level as the tracks in the current Leeds station, then have a steep incline up and over the classic lines before a sharp turn and decent into tunnel?

There are somewhat sketchy rules on what constitutes a high speed rail line:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_rail_terminology#Rail_terminology_with_regard_to_speed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_rail_terminology#Rail_terminology_with_regard_to_speed)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-European_high-speed_rail_network (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-European_high-speed_rail_network)

Depending on how you interpret these 'standards' 140mph does qualify as a high speed line.  As does the GWML  ;)

If they're serious about an HS3, it might be worth considering an alternative to a forked Northern end to HS2: why not a triangular junction in one place, enabling HS2 trains to continue along HS3 westwards to Manchester and Liverpool or eastwards towards the North Sea coast?

 

He is flying an electioneering kite

Not too close to the OHLE I hope...

The Calder Valley (L&Y) route is already capable of high speed with gentle curves and gradients.

If the DfT can't bring itself to electrify throughout, then why the sudden push for HS3?

OTC

You missed my point. The flood maps for the river Aire which passes under the station shows a large area of flood risk on the site. Not a problem for a station on a viaduct, but maybe not that good for a sub-surface station.  

I'm with Electric Train on this. There is an election coming up. None of the Chancellor's words should be taken at all seriously. Possibly there is some bad news about to slip out, from which he's trying to divert attention.

Bad news has already slipped out in the form of TPE seeming likely to suffer a reduction in much-needed rolling stock in the form of Chiltern taking their class 170s. Perhaps the Chancellor is trying to divert attention from that?

French LGV has a gradient as steep as 1:12, 8% !

The TGV installed power and adhesion allows this, but the track top, line and formation must be perfect.

Hence why freight and TGV's shouldn't mix.


OTC

To be pedantic (does post count as freight?!), that's not entirely accurate. SNCF have 'La Poste' TGV's which run on the LGV's. Indeed one apparently attended St Pancras on a demonstration run in March 2012. They apparently run 6 return services daily (when there's not a strike of some description I presume!).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNCF_TGV_La_Poste (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNCF_TGV_La_Poste)

By freight, we mean long rakes of 100t wagons hauled by a Co-Co (6 axle) locomotive at up to 75mph, all with 22.5t axle loads on basic suspensions. They can climb with creep control which allows the driving wheels to rotate 10% faster than forward speed dictates but must still have limited loads to avoid stalling on the banks. This has consequences for track maintenance, pathing and signalling, hence they don't mix well.

We also have the GPO class 325's, a cross between a windowless 319 and a Networker, intended for fast dedicated mail workings on both ac and dc.

A high speed line could be planned to allow for freight, it would just need 4+ tracks, gentle alignments and gradients, and separate signalling. A TGV can of course run conventionally but at "conventional" speeds. HS2 would make more sense and be better value (IMHO) if built this way.

OTC

Really?

According to RFF, the maximum LGV gradient is 3.5%, and stopping or starting a TGV on that could still be problematic. TGVs use power cars and friction brakes, and most ICEs also have power cars. ICE 3 has distributed motors and electromagnetic brakes, and is the only kind allowed on the K^ln-Frankfurt high-speed line due to its 4.0% gradient.

So, unless the French have come up with a TGV avec une cr^maill^re I can't really believe that figure.

Mind you, if anyone did that it probably would be the French. They claim (or Wikipedia does on their behalf) that Line C of the Lyon Metro is the only rack and pinion metro in the world. Since the M^tro Lausanne ^ Ouchy has had its rack confiscated and been given rubber tyres instead that may be true. And that had a maximum gradient of only 12%, and it was mostly indoors, too.

The figure came from a MR article, a long time ago. I agree it's rather steep. If I find it, I'll post the reference.

Thanks,

OTC