Axing HS2’s Golborne Link… and the possible alternatives
I initially assumed that the 2% journey time saving from London to Glasgow (MP claims Government to axe HS2’s Golborne Link”, RAIL 955) was a misprint.
That figure of 2% equates to about four minutes, but the journey time saving to Preston using exactly the same high-speed railway would be 12 minutes, or about 6%. Why doesn’t the full 12-minute saving apply to Glasgow as well?
The answer is not in the engineering, but (as I hinted in my Comment) in the train plan.
Rather than the hourly 200metre Euston-Glasgow train of Phase 2A, the Phase 2B service specification using the Golborne Link is based on half-hourly 400-metre trains. This brings two issues:
As well as the normal dwell time, three minutes is allowed at Carlisle, where platforms would be extended, to split the train into Glasgow and Edinburgh portions (this is necessary as Glasgow Central station could not take the full 400-metre train).
The traction current potentially drawn by 400-metre trains would be beyond the capability of the power supply system on the West Coast Main Line, so is limited - at the expense of acceleration and hill-climbing performance. One can estimate that this costs about five minutes between Preston and Glasgow compared with a 200metre train.
While the hourly Phase 2A service via Crewe could be a 400-metre train, thus doubling the capacity, this would be slower than the 200-metre equivalent.
However, the Link could operate a half-hourly service of 200-metre trains, doubling the capacity by bypassing the Winsford-Weaver Junction bottleneck, and saving the full 12 minutes.
Moreover, the three minutes for the split/join seems very conservative, and power supply can be upgraded - at a cost of course, but benefiting other trains, especially freight.
So, ultimately the half-hourly service of 400-metre trains, quadrupling capacity compared with Phase 2A, and relieving the East Coast Main Line by taking Edinburgh traffic, could
be achieved with minimal loss of time.
It would be madness to judge the future of the Golborne Link on such a simplistic basis as ‘only 2% time saving’, which appears to be the Government’s excuse for dropping it.
William Barter, Northants
The suggestion that the so-called Golborne Link from HS2 will be cancelled comes as no surprise.
Currently, several major rail projects in the north of England have been cut or pared back. The eastern leg of HS2 is the largest, but facilities in Manchester are another case in point.
The purpose of the Golborne Link (Golborne is a small town within Wigan Metro on the West Coast Main Line) is to permit services for north of Warrington to destinations to Wigan and onwards to Glasgow that use HS2 to join the WCML for the remainder of their journey. The alternative would be to access the classic WCML at Crewe.
The Link has faced opposition from local MPs and councillors, and blighted properties have reportedly already been bought. Most of the route follows the trackbed of the Glazebrook-Wigan Central railway that closed in 1964, while the remainder crosses agricultural land
- factors that minimise construction cost.
The important town and railhead of Warrington is south of where the Link joins the WCML, and current plans are for it to be served by the HS2 spur to Liverpool that leaves the HS2 Manchester route in north Cheshire. Previous letters in RAIL have drawn attention to the unsuitability of this proposal.
The other option to the Golborne Link mentioned in Philip Haigh’s article is a new proposal to build a spur from HS2 in north Cheshire to south of Preston. This would certainly be more costly than the Golborne option, and it would leave Wigan (also an important town and railhead) devoid of access to HS2 services.
Using the existing part of the WCML north of Crewe will not free up capacity over the nine-mile, two-track section between Winsford and Weaver Junction, where the Liverpool classic line diverges. Is the answer to axing the Golborne Link and the need to free up WCML capacity to build a nine-mile parallel high-speed line to the existing classic railway?
Further north, if the seven miles of double track between Wigan and Balshaw Lane are seen as a bottleneck, then relaying five miles of the slow line between Standish and Balshaw Lane might help.
Could the Whelley freight loop from Standish to Bamfurlong (south of Wigan) that closed in 1972 be reinstated to avoid the remaining two miles of double track through Wigan?
The bottom line is that the cutbacks referred to above are symptomatic of railway spending forming part of the Treasury’s public sector borrowing requirement, which puts it in competition with the NHS and other more publicly virtuous and politically sensitive areas. The growth era for the railway has largely ended.
David Clough, Leigh
I was never convinced that Golborne was a suitable cutting in point for HS2, as the four tracks here reduce to two on leaving Wigan North Western station.
I just cannot understand why planners have not gone for a better option at Standish (north of Wigan), where a four-track formation also commences and continues all the way to Preston; or easily the best option immediately north of Skew Bridge (just south of Preston), where a six-track layout prevails and could provide two dedicated tracks.
The terrain here falls rapidly to the Ribble basin and is quite favourable to a tunnelled route from somewhere south of this area, emerging at track level to slide smoothly into the west side of Preston station.
Squeezing HS2 services onto the West Coast Main Line at Golborne smacks only of economy and short-termism, and this is not the way to plan a high-speed network.
Preston station will be fundamental to HS2 services through to Scotland, and like Carlisle is a perfect natural break point on the route for planning and implementation purposes. HS2 route planning needs to recognise this and ditch the risky Golborne option.
Alan Fell, Topsham
While many will be annoyed with the cancellation of the Golborne spur, amid a possible alternative, the fact is it never went far enough.
Ideally, HS2 should have at least rejoined the West Coast Main Line above Preston, possibly following the route of the M6 so that the WCML could focus on improving connectivity between Liverpool, Preston and Manchester via Wigan.
No doubt many discussions will continue for many months over what should be done, while an addition £3 billion simmers away in the £96bn pot for the
Integrated Rail Plan.
The IRP technical annex does set out a fourth option for Northern Powerhouse Rail which connects Bradford to Huddersfield by a mixture of reopened/new line.
A freedom of information request I submitted has revealed this to have an estimated cost of £1.5bn. A city centre station for Bradford has also been estimated at £0.5bn. Quite clearly, £3bn could cover the cost of delivering for Bradford and also potential alternative options to extend HS2 past Golborne.
Rather than waiting around and potentially allowing this £3bn to get soaked up on project overruns, why don’t we reallocate this for Bradford, which was without a doubt the biggest loser from the
Integrated Rail Plan?
It doesn’t seem right that £3bn should be kept aside to fund partially what is required on the West Coast!
Michael Bradley, Siddal