Imagine if HS2 was cancelled?

[JKF]

Never seen a nice underground station.

Sorry.

Try https://www.visitstockholm.com/art-in-the-subway/stations/

(Though yes, they’re generally pretty horrid)

 

[JKF]

And then there is the argument that there is a need to rebalance the nation's divide in eyswealth between the north and south by investing heavily in the northern routes. The result could be a thriving north, much less dependent on links with London leading to a drop in demand for journeys between the north and south.

You know they don’t actually mean any of this ‘Northern Powerhouse’ stuff, right? Not any actual money going in to it, and the chief proponent of it is now a long way from power.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Bristol and Oxford are lower in mileage (than the bits from the Airport Junction to Cardiff), agreed, but they are going to be difficult/slow to do, with a lot of disruption - given all of the points etc - they may still take a long time to finalise.

And then there's Swansea, which will be expecting the wires that were once promised. And the MML to Sheffield and the various "transpennine" gaps between York and Manchester need to be tackled before we can start to get shovels in the ground and tackle the other English lines in dire need of electrification. There's just so much to tackle, and it'll mean a lot of disruption (turning lines into weekday/ daytime only, as far as passengers are concerned).

Swansea is 'cancelled' though, not paused/deffered as Bristol and Oxford are. Also Cardiff-Swansea is a <= 100mph railway with challanging capacity issues to sort out (which would be easier to do before wiring, and will likely take until the 2030s or worse to resolve). Bristol, Oxford, the Midland Main Line and TPE should be the next routes wired and in my opinion work on these should start before 2030.

I'm not confident that the GWML shows a bright future for other bits of electrification - we can't even do a short simple single track branch like Windermere so what chance is there that we tackle all of the Cross Country route from Yorkshire to the West Country any time soon?

The Great Western Electrification scheme is/was a very bad example of how to do electrification. Things don't look nearly as bad in Scotland, and the Scottish government's pledge to remove diesel from ScotRail (which presumably will lead to electrification to Aberdeen and Inverness) will hopefully shame the UK government into taking action.

Could have had a nice new underground station in Birmingham, with direct pedestrian links into New St/Moor St/Snow Hill.

Some of the long distance services could have then been moved to it over time, eg some of the XC routes & other InterCity services.

That's the sort of thing I have in mind; Manchester-Birmingham-Bristol and Leeds-Derby/Toton-Birmingham-Bristol all using the new Curzon Street station in Birmingham, but my suggestion is a station in an open box (like, I think, Stratford International is) rather than the station itself being in tunnel. That should be alot cheaper than an underground station, although my suggestion would still incur significant increase in costs compared to HS2 due to the need for a tunnel out of Birmingham towards Bristol.

I think OOC to Birmingham(not sure where) gets done

In terms of capacity benifits, what would you gain (compared to today's WCML) and lose (compared to the full HS2 Y-network scheme as currently proposed by HS2 Ltd.) if HS2 was cut back to just Euston - Birmingham International/Interchange?

 

[The Planner]

In terms of capacity benifits, what would you gain (compared to today's WCML) and lose (compared to the full HS2 Y-network scheme as currently proposed by HS2 Ltd.) if HS2 was cut back to just Euston - Birmingham International/Interchange?

None as you don't get to central Birmingham or to the WCML. You lose pretty much all of it. Not sure where your open box would go either.

 

[6Gman]

None as you don't get to central Birmingham or to the WCML. You lose pretty much all of it. Not sure where your open box would go either.

Given there is space for a surface station at Curzon Street I don't see the purpose of an "open box". You certainly can't put one in the immediate environs of New Street.

 

[PTR 444]

It would probably be better to route all the HS2 Birmingham services into New Street to improve connectivity with other long distance services. Curzon Street could still be built but as a station for local services displaced from New Street, such as the Lichfield, Rugeley and Coventry local lines.

 

[Ianno87]

It would probably be better to route all the HS2 Birmingham services into New Street to improve connectivity with other long distance services. Curzon Street could still be built but as a station for local services displaced from New Street, such as the Lichfield, Rugeley and Coventry local lines.

Firstly, New Street could not possibly take 400m trains.


Secondly....what about local passengers wanting to connect onto HS2 then? (Probably more numerous overall)

 

[option]

Firstly, New Street could not possibly take 400m trains.
Secondly....what about local passengers wanting to connect onto HS2 then? (Probably more numerous overall)

Well if anyone in government/civil service was capable of joined up thinking & any form of future proofing, New St would have been redeveloped as a double-deck station.
Current level for local/regional services (high frequency & lots of platforms needed)
Lower level for long distance services (lower frequency & less platforms needed, giving space for waiting rooms)

 

[Ianno87]

Well if anyone in government/civil service was capable of joined up thinking & any form of future proofing, New St would have been redeveloped as a double-deck station.

I love the idea that HS2 is apparently too expensive, but yet proposals like this are totally fine, credible, feasible alternatives....

 

[JonathanH]

Well if anyone in government/civil service was capable of joined up thinking & any form of future proofing, New St would have been redeveloped as a double-deck station.
Current level for local/regional services (high frequency & lots of platforms needed)
Lower level for long distance services (lower frequency & less platforms needed, giving space for waiting rooms)

How expensive would that be? How deep would it need to be and how acceptable would that be to passengers? How would you manage the risk of flooding? Isn't the cost of what is already planned the main concern people have about HS2?

 

[si404]

If government planning was joined up, then the Grand Central that happened (give New Street a polish) wouldn't have, and the Grand Central that involved a new station right where Curzon Street is (the plans had provision for HS2 platforms from both the Solihull and the Coleshill directions) would be being finished - if not already opened.

 

[The Planner]

Well if anyone in government/civil service was capable of joined up thinking & any form of future proofing, New St would have been redeveloped as a double-deck station.
Current level for local/regional services (high frequency & lots of platforms needed)
Lower level for long distance services (lower frequency & less platforms needed, giving space for waiting rooms)

You mean the current level of New St that gets hatred on here for being underground?

 

[Rhydgaled]

None as you don't get to central Birmingham or to the WCML. You lose pretty much all of it.

Good point, I should have looked at map before asking that question. So how about if you built HS2 phase one from Euston to the WCML Trent Valley Line junction (between Lichfield and Rugeley) but instead of building the spur into Curzon Street just put a junction onto the classic line for trains to run into New Street? The new junction to the classic lines could either be between Coventry and Birmingham International or just west of Water Orton.

None as you don't get to central Birmingham or to the WCML. You lose pretty much all of it. Not sure where your open box would go either.

Given there is space for a surface station at Curzon Street I don't see the purpose of an "open box". You certainly can't put one in the immediate environs of New Street.

The 'open box' I'm suggesting would be almost exactly where the surface station at Curzon Street is proposed. The purpose of it would be so that it doesn't have to be a terminus, by sinking Curzon Street below ground level into an 'open box' you can have a tunnel mouth at the end of the platform leading towards Bristol and/or Wolverhampton. With the surface station, HS2 services couldn't extend west without demolishing lots of buildings.

 

[Energy]

Trying to get money into the railways isn't easy when the money has to come from the government, ideally lots of mainlines would be upgraded to ETCS by now but that money has to come from the government.

The only thing MPs seem to care about is getting reelected and replacing signals doesn't as most of the public have no clue about signals, saying new trains does get people interested.

 

[JonathanH]

With the surface station, HS2 services couldn't extend west without demolishing lots of buildings.

Are you sure it could extend west with a subterranean station on the Curzon Street site? You still have to go deep to avoid foundations of buildings even if you avoid demolition. Where would you have it emerge on the western side and what line is it going to connect to?

 

[Rhydgaled]

Are you sure it could extend west with a subterranean station on the Curzon Street site? You still have to go deep to avoid foundations of buildings even if you avoid demolition.

I'm no civil engineer, so I am just assuming that it would be possible to do it given that similar has been done elsewhere.

Where would you have it emerge on the western side and what line is it going to connect to?

I'm in two minds about that:

• Option 1: tunnel from Curzon Street site to junction 8 of the M6, then following the M6 to junction 12 (or beyond) and onto Crewe and Manchester
  • Would significantly change phase 2a route (Birmingham - Crewe)
    
  • Not sure if there is space to squeese the line in alongside the M6 or if it would be cheaper to extend the tunnel
    
  • Main services would run:
    • Liverpool/Manchester - Birmingham Curzon Street - London,
      
    • Edinburgh/Newcastle - Leeds - Birmingham Curzon Street and
      
    • Newcastle/Leeds - Birmingham Interchange - London
  • Low speed link (with some tight curves) for classic-compatible trains along former rail alignment from just north of M6 junction 10 to join the Walsall to Wolverhampton line at Portobello Junction (at least it is labeled as such on the map I'm looking at)
• Option 2: tunnel from Curzon Street site to M5 junction 3, then shadow M5 for a bit and finally take over the Worcester avoiding line, dropping back to a classic line at Worcestershire Parkway.
  • Main services would run:
    • Liverpool/Manchester - Birmingham Interchange - London,
    • Liverpool/Manchester - Birmingham Curzon Street - Bristol,
      
    • Newcastle/Leeds - Birmingham Interchange - London,
    • Edinburgh/Newcastle - Leeds - Birmingham Curzon Street - Bristol
    • Birmingham Curzon Street - London

There are pros and cons for either of those. Unfortunately the ideal of allowing all of the cross-Birmingham links (London-Wolverhampton/Crewe, Manchester-Bristol and Leeds-Bristol) would probably require a stupid amount of infrustructure (both the option 1 and option 2 tunnels, plus both the HS2 phase 2a route and the alternative Birmingham-Crewe route proposed in option 1, probably) or a complicated new junction in central Birmingham to allow use of the classic lines (taking up valuable capacity) in and out of Birmingham on the west side (towards Bristol/Wolverhampton).

 

[takno]

I'm no civil engineer, so I am just assuming that it would be possible to do it given that similar has been done elsewhere.

I'm in two minds about that:

• Option 1: tunnel from Curzon Street site to junction 8 of the M6, then following the M6 to junction 12 (or beyond) and onto Crewe and Manchester
  • Would significantly change phase 2a route (Birmingham - Crewe)
    
  • Not sure if there is space to squeese the line in alongside the M6 or if it would be cheaper to extend the tunnel
    
  • Main services would run:
    • Liverpool/Manchester - Birmingham Curzon Street - London,
      
    • Edinburgh/Newcastle - Leeds - Birmingham Curzon Street and
      
    • Newcastle/Leeds - Birmingham Interchange - London
  • Low speed link (with some tight curves) for classic-compatible trains along former rail alignment from just north of M6 junction 10 to join the Walsall to Wolverhampton line at Portobello Junction (at least it is labeled as such on the map I'm looking at)
• Option 2: tunnel from Curzon Street site to M5 junction 3, then shadow M5 for a bit and finally take over the Worcester avoiding line, dropping back to a classic line at Worcestershire Parkway.
  • Main services would run:
    • Liverpool/Manchester - Birmingham Interchange - London,
    • Liverpool/Manchester - Birmingham Curzon Street - Bristol,
      
    • Newcastle/Leeds - Birmingham Interchange - London,
    • Edinburgh/Newcastle - Leeds - Birmingham Curzon Street - Bristol
    • Birmingham Curzon Street - London

There are pros and cons for either of those. Unfortunately the ideal of allowing all of the cross-Birmingham links (London-Wolverhampton/Crewe, Manchester-Bristol and Leeds-Bristol) would probably require a stupid amount of infrustructure (both the option 1 and option 2 tunnels, plus both the HS2 phase 2a route and the alternative Birmingham-Crewe route proposed in option 1, probably) or a complicated new junction in central Birmingham to allow use of the classic lines (taking up valuable capacity) in and out of Birmingham on the west side (towards Bristol/Wolverhampton).

Not sure how much you really gain from Brum being a through station. I'm somewhat inclined to say you could get 70% of the benefit of this rather more cheaply by just building a flyover from Curzon Street to the camphill line and then doing line speed improvements on the existing route. Turning the train around doesn't even necessarily require a time penalty if you're changing driver anyway

 

[6Gman]

I'm no civil engineer, so I am just assuming that it would be possible to do it given that similar has been done elsewhere.

I'm in two minds about that:

• Option 1: tunnel from Curzon Street site to junction 8 of the M6, then following the M6 to junction 12 (or beyond) and onto Crewe and Manchester
  • Would significantly change phase 2a route (Birmingham - Crewe)
    
  • Not sure if there is space to squeese the line in alongside the M6 or if it would be cheaper to extend the tunnel
    
  • Main services would run:
    • Liverpool/Manchester - Birmingham Curzon Street - London,
      
    • Edinburgh/Newcastle - Leeds - Birmingham Curzon Street and
      
    • Newcastle/Leeds - Birmingham Interchange - London
  • Low speed link (with some tight curves) for classic-compatible trains along former rail alignment from just north of M6 junction 10 to join the Walsall to Wolverhampton line at Portobello Junction (at least it is labeled as such on the map I'm looking at)

Won't running North West - Euston trains via Curzon Street extend journey times?

And create loading problems? (If the train is full leaving Crewe will it pick up at Curzon Street?)

 

[The Ham]

IF HS2 was cancelled, expect a fairly similar project to get the go ahead within a few years.

Why? As passenger numbers would have gone beyond those expected at the opening of the full scheme, even though Phase 1 was even due to be completed.

As an example HS2 predictions for London/Glasgow 2,000 per day currently circa 1,975 per day.

 

[HSTEd]

Some kind of massive reconstruction of the Birmingham railway system into one massive station would be an interesting project.

Sort of like Stuttgart 21, but more.

Ideally we'd also have a Manchester 21........

 

[Rhydgaled]

Not sure how much you really gain from Brum being a through station. I'm somewhat inclined to say you could get 70% of the benefit of this rather more cheaply by just building a flyover from Curzon Street to the camphill line and then doing line speed improvements on the existing route. Turning the train around doesn't even necessarily require a time penalty if you're changing driver anyway

You wouldn't necessarily need to change crews at Birmingham though; so a reversal would have a time penalty and without a reversal accessing the Camp Hill line from the east/north-east would mean Bristol-bound trains being unable to call at any central Birmingham station. The only way of allowing a HS2 train from the currently planned route to proceed to Bristol without major new tunneling or a reversal would seem to be running through New Street, which wouldn't be much help to the capacity issues in Birmingham.

Won't running North West - Euston trains via Curzon Street extend journey times?

And create loading problems? (If the train is full leaving Crewe will it pick up at Curzon Street?)

Yes, there are pros and cons to that option (option 1 in post #46). You have listed the main negatives, some positives are that:

• it would free up (more) paths at New Street (eg. Wolverhampton-Euston trains could go through Curzon Street instead of New Street) and on the route from Wolverhampton into Birmingham
  
• it would help fill longer trains (260-400m fixed formation sets rather than 200m sets sometimes running in pairs) - the other side of the same coin as your 'full leaving Crewe' comment
• it could make the case for more destinations to have (more frequent) HS2 services (eg. Chester and north Wales could justify an hourly service (and electrification) and Liverpool could have more trains per hour) by filling the train at the extremties of the network with passengers for both Birmingham and London. Even if it doesn't use HS2 tracks, I think there should be an hourly Chester/Holyhead - Euston service via central Birmingham after HS2 is open between Euston and Crewe

 

[Bletchleyite]

Even if it doesn't use HS2 tracks, I think there should be an hourly Chester/Holyhead - Euston service via central Birmingham after HS2 is open between Euston and Crewe

I would certainly agree that there should be a reinstatement of the Holyhead to New St via Stafford service once HS2 frees up an hourly path for it. Though connecting to somewhere people want to go (Brum) rather than somewhere they don't (Cardiff) is politically unsound, no?

I wouldn't however send it to Euston - I'd suggest that the new bi-modes being ordered by Avanti should operate an hourly North Wales to Euston via the Trent Valley instead. I suppose you could portion work, but I think even with the best of intentions 10x26m would be hard to justify along the North Wales Coast!

 

[muddythefish]

After supporting HS2 for a long time, I've now come to the decision that £100bn would be better spent "injecting" it into the existing WCML!

Who agrees?

Most likely wouldn't be invested in rail at all. The Treasury would breathe a sigh of relief and hand the money over to the roads budget. It's the same with the £39bn we're supposed to be "saving" by leaving the EU - the money will likely disappear into the Treasury ether never to be seen again.

 

[The Planner]

You wouldn't necessarily need to change crews at Birmingham though; so a reversal would have a time penalty and without a reversal accessing the Camp Hill line from the east/north-east would mean Bristol-bound trains being unable to call at any central Birmingham station. The only way of allowing a HS2 train from the currently planned route to proceed to Bristol without major new tunneling or a reversal would seem to be running through New Street, which wouldn't be much help to the capacity issues in Birmingham.

Yes, there are pros and cons to that option (option 1 in post #46). You have listed the main negatives, some positives are that:

• it would free up (more) paths at New Street (eg. Wolverhampton-Euston trains could go through Curzon Street instead of New Street) and on the route from Wolverhampton into Birmingham
  
• it would help fill longer trains (260-400m fixed formation sets rather than 200m sets sometimes running in pairs) - the other side of the same coin as your 'full leaving Crewe' comment
• it could make the case for more destinations to have (more frequent) HS2 services (eg. Chester and north Wales could justify an hourly service (and electrification) and Liverpool could have more trains per hour) by filling the train at the extremties of the network with passengers for both Birmingham and London. Even if it doesn't use HS2 tracks, I think there should be an hourly Chester/Holyhead - Euston service via central Birmingham after HS2 is open between Euston and Crewe

Geography doesn't actually help you, if you tried to sink HS2 into a box and go out the other end, you would end up ploughing through New St itself. The box would have to be very deep.

 

[NoMorePacers]

Short answer: no.

Money ‘saved’ on HS2 will just get spent on giving government ministers another day of the year to play croquet in their Surrey mansions.

I don’t particularly care about HS2 (it won’t benefit Hull in any way, shape or form) but it’s better to build it than to cancel it.

 

[Ianno87]

I don’t particularly care about HS2 (it won’t benefit Hull in any way, shape or form) but it’s better to build it than to cancel it.

Will it not? It could (for example) enable a current hourly Kings Cross-Leeds service to become an hourly King's Cross-Hull instead, if 2tph is no longer needed for Leeds demand (which would be on HS2).

 

[NoMorePacers]

Will it not? It could (for example) enable a current hourly Kings Cross-Leeds service to become an hourly King's Cross-Hull instead, if 2tph is no longer needed for Leeds demand (which would be on HS2).

I guess that would be a benefit if such a thing were to happen, but realistically we have to wait and see.

I still think the Eastern part of Phase 2 will get chopped, considering it’s an infrastructure project in Yorkshire after all.

 

[HSTEd]

I would expect if anything, for the York branch to be jettisoned and be replaced with a shorter (and thus cheaper) branch from east of Sheffield to join the ECML at Doncaster.
The railway between Doncaster and York isn't exactly slow after all.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I would certainly agree that there should be a reinstatement of the Holyhead to New St via Stafford service once HS2 frees up an hourly path for it. Though connecting to somewhere people want to go (Brum) rather than somewhere they don't (Cardiff) is politically unsound, no?

Would HS2 free up a path for it though? I don't see how HS2 would free up any paths between Birmingham and Wolverhampton, which appears to be the bit where the problem is (if Chester to Birmingham via Stafford is possible today it might not be able to call at Wolverhampton and might need to go in a circle via Tame Bridge Parkway, New Street, Aston and back out to Tame Bridge Parkway (that way round so that it turns left at the busiest junctions to avoid blocking traffic on other lines)). As for Cardiff, if you only did Holyhead-Birmingham via Stafford every two hours it wouldn't need to impact on the Cardiff services; you could just have it replace the current Birmingham-Holyhead (via Wrexham) services with Wrexham getting Birmingham-Wrexham/Chester services instead.

I wouldn't however send it to Euston - I'd suggest that the new bi-modes being ordered by Avanti should operate an hourly North Wales to Euston via the Trent Valley instead. I suppose you could portion work, but I think even with the best of intentions 10x26m would be hard to justify along the North Wales Coast!

Is there much point in N.W. - Euston going via the Trent Valley post-HS2? Presumably it would be faster to change at Crewe onto HS2 for London, so given that the choice is change at Crewe for a faster journey or stay on for a slower journey with no changes I don't think making the slower journey slower still (by running it via Birmingham) would be much of a drawback. Combining Holyhead-Birmingham and Holyhead-Euston into one train Holyhead-Birmingham-Euston should improve the loadings west of Chester by putting Crewe (for HS2), Birmingham and London passengers on the same train, hopefully justifying a longer train through north Wales to remove the need to split the train at Chester. It also saves a path on the classic WCML Trent Valley route for something else (eg. a semi-fast Liverpool/Manchester/Preston-Euston Pendolino service).

 

[Ianno87]

Would HS2 free up a path for it though? I don't see how HS2 would free up any paths between Birmingham and Wolverhampton, which appears to be the bit where the problem is (if Chester to Birmingham via Stafford is possible today it might not be able to call at Wolverhampton and might need to go in a circle via Tame Bridge Parkway, New Street, Aston and back out to Tame Bridge Parkway (that way round so that it turns left at the busiest junctions to avoid blocking traffic on other lines)). As for Cardiff, if you only did Holyhead-Birmingham via Stafford every two hours it wouldn't need to impact on the Cardiff services; you could just have it replace the current Birmingham-Holyhead (via Wrexham) services with Wrexham getting Birmingham-Wrexham/Chester services instead.

.

From Phase 2b, the Birmingham-Scotland service transfers to HS2, so that's in theory a path Birmingham-Wolverhampton-Crewe. There will be a debate about where the most valuable onward extension of this path might be, however.

And although HS2 in theory replaces XC Manchester-Birmingham, you're still going to need similar paths to maintain links/commuter capacity via Stoke.