HS2: useful additions to attract more passengers?

[edwin_m]

The levels will work, but....

1) The HS2 viaduct is high, very high. About 20 m above ground level as it passes the Freightliner depot. There isn’t enough space from the end of the ‘throat’ for such a curve to dive down, as the bridge over the Aston line and the River Rea are constraints. Therefore the connection must go up and over.

2) it would need to start almost exactly as the line crosses the Aston Line, and swing up to maximum gradient immediately in order for the ‘SW bound’ track to get sufficient height to cross HS2 itself. (Unless, of course, it is to be a flat Junction?)

3) this viaduct would be around 30m above ground level, then start curving round to cross HS2, the Freightliner depot and cranes (interesting challenge that, not sure if its even possible), then transition to maximum gradient down whilst crossing the Derby line, the WCML and the Camp Hill line before dropping down to meet it somewhere in the region of St Andrews. It would need the permanent closure of Garrsion Lane, St Andrew’s St and Emmeline St plus extensive demolition of residential property and probably (hopefully) St. Andrews itself.

It would be a bit easier if it was a flat junction at the Curzon St end, but still need residential demolition.

Methinks this has been looked at "officially"...

 

[The Ham]

Does that mean that we can finally end the “My Idea For” discussions about HS2 Phase 1?

No, as my idea for HS2 Phase 1 is, build it as designed.

Now we've covered that off, yes that should be the end of it!

 

[Bald Rick]

Methinks this has been looked at "officially"...

I suspect it has, but not by me, and I don’t know for sure!

 

[Ianno87]

Does that mean that we can finally end the “My Idea For” discussions about HS2 Phase 1?

Knowing this forum, test trains will be running and there'll still be people insisting the route be changed...

 

[BayPaul]

Knowing this forum, test trains will be running and there'll still be people insisting the route be changed...

When the line is dug up in the year 2408, as teleportation has rendered it superfluous, the forum will still be arguing that it would have been better going to Waterloo.

 

[BayPaul]

2) it would need to start almost exactly as the line crosses the Aston Line, and swing up to maximum gradient immediately in order for the ‘SW bound’ track to get sufficient height to cross HS2 itself. (Unless, of course, it is to be a flat Junction?)

It would be a bit easier if it was a flat junction at the Curzon St end, but still need residential demolition.

I was thinking a flat junction at Curzon Street end, as by that point it would probably be close enough to the station that the lines are being sorted out for the platforms, rather than arranged by direction. To bridge any gap to that point, I would guess it would be easier to run an additional eastbound line to the south of the main pair of lines, rather than crossing over everything. This would presumably limit cross country trains to the southernmost platforms, but I can't see any major issues with that.

 

[si404]

I think a SW branch would be better off from Interchange than Curzon Street - trains could still run into Curzon Street (where a reverse would enable Bristol trains to get north of Birmingham without avoiding the centre), but it would be cheaper.

And at Curzon Street itself, classic platforms on the Cross-City lines would be good.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Doesn't all this reversing show that a through station would have been better? Surely if we're using classic compatible sets New Street could still be used for SW-NE journeys? Of course that would require the construction of a link to HS2.

 

[Bald Rick]

And at Curzon Street itself, classic platforms on the Cross-City lines would be good.

Not physically possible without a complete rebuild and extension of the viaduct which the cross city lines sit on. Even then, it would still be 3-400metres minimum from Cross City platform to HS2 platform, and that assumes access is provided at the very ends of each platform.

 

[Bald Rick]

Doesn't all this reversing show that a through station would have been better? Surely if we're using classic compatible sets New Street could still be used for SW-NE journeys? Of course that would require the construction of a link to HS2.

What’s wrong with reversing? With ATO it will be no different to a normal station call.

 

[Ianno87]

Doesn't all this reversing show that a through station would have been better?

Not if most trains wouldn't be running through anywhere and would be terminating in Birmingham (the Birmingham Spur will have 9tph; we'd be talking 2tph (4tph tops) extending onto Bristol/wherever in all likelihood.

 

[si404]

Not if most trains wouldn't be running through anywhere and would be terminating in Birmingham (the Birmingham Spur will have 9tph; we'd be talking 2tph (4tph tops) extending onto Bristol/wherever in all likelihood.

Indeed.

And also the money angle. The penalty of having to reverse is not outweighed by the savings.

Plus we're looking at something possibly happening 20 years after the original line was built at the earliest - it's serious long-term planning to have Birmingham Curzon Street as a through station just in-case there's a Birmingham-Bristol High Speed Upgrade at some point.

 

[stuu]

Doesn't all this reversing show that a through station would have been better? Surely if we're using classic compatible sets New Street could still be used for SW-NE journeys? Of course that would require the construction of a link to HS2.

That's what I had thought of too - a link to the classic line in the Castle Bromwich area where the lines are parallel should be possible without needing much civil engineering

 

[PG]

From a more emotional standpoint. Why is it always about cost and not what is the best choice ?

I think. Since I work for the railway. My bias has skewed somewhat. Cost has always been a factor and politically I get the numerous implications but I struggle more and more about some of the seemingly short-sightedness. I see some projects that get implemented but kinda have a side plan that at a later date, more would be added. I wonder more and more about the long term future and hope to some extent that money is less of a deciding factor for major projects like HS2 where we need to think more about the very long term implications.

Certainly in my lifetime it has nearly always appeared that cost wins out, and indeed it also appears that this has been the case for many years (centuries). Politicians are loath to be seen (and remembered by history) as the ones who made the "wrong" decisions.

I hear what you are saying and I agree with most of it and I think HS2 and HS3 should be built.

But after Coronavirus I don’t think there will be the political will.

Yes we will need major infrastructure projects to get the country back on its feet, but building more hospitals will gain more brownie points with the electorate...

I think that this may be one of the rare occasions when the government is more concerned with the future of the country than electoral brownie points; we can hope they might do both!

 

[Bald Rick]

That's what I had thought of too - a link to the classic line in the Castle Bromwich area where the lines are parallel should be possible without needing much civil engineering

It would need loads of civil engineering. Whilst the lines are broadly parallel and in the open for roughly 1400 metres, they are only close to being at the same level for about 100 metres. And throughout that 100metre stretch (indeed, most of the whole 1400m) there are large flood defence walls either side of HS2 to stop the River Tame having a subterranean excursion in the Bromford tunnels.

 

[AM9]

If future demand that couldn't be satisfied by electrifying and upgrading the existing main line from Bristol to New St for 125/140mph operation, wouldn't it be a lower through-life cost to branch off the main line just south of Birmingham Interchange*, swing round south of Hampton-in-Arden and pick up the M42 corridor. Then it could join the existing mainline near the loops at Blackwell. through to where it crosses the existing main line at Blackwell. The very high cost of cutting (and operating) a High Speed line through 15kM of continuous suburbs of metropolitan Birmingham would make about 29km of cross country line down an existing corridor look cheap. It would also allow higher speeds to be attained sooner unlike the suggested route which because it is on a victorial alignment woulld resemble the HS1 early days when the Waterloo route included ambling all the way to south of Orpington.

* Branching there would mean that there is easy access to HS2 phase 2a and 2b extensions, and there would be minimal need for Bristol/Gloucester to London direct services as the GWML full upgrade would give comparable end-to-end times, especially to Heathrow.​

 

[stuu]

It would need loads of civil engineering. Whilst the lines are broadly parallel and in the open for roughly 1400 metres, they are only close to being at the same level for about 100 metres. And throughout that 100metre stretch (indeed, most of the whole 1400m) there are large flood defence walls either side of HS2 to stop the River Tame having a subterranean excursion in the Bromford tunnels.

I'll revise "not much" to "less than other suggestions", i.e. underground platforms, or demolishing half of Small Heath to build a viaduct. The difference in levels would help with grade separation, in the unlikely event anything were built in the foreseeable future

 

[si404]

If future demand that couldn't be satisfied by electrifying and upgrading the existing main line from Bristol to New St for 125/140mph operation

I don't think it would be about intercity demand, per se, but more about connecting Intercity services heading SW from Birmingham to the new Intercity network north of Birmingham.

And, perhaps more importantly, removes 2 non-stop-to-Cheltenham services south of Birmingham, allowing more room for non-intercity trains.

 

[Ianno87]

I don't think it would be about intercity demand, per se, but more about connecting Intercity services heading SW from Birmingham to the new Intercity network north of Birmingham.

And, perhaps more importantly, removes 2 non-stop-to-Cheltenham services south of Birmingham, allowing more room for non-intercity trains.

Arguably, it's only a relatively short section that actually acts as the real capacity constraint; the Longbridge-Barnt Green-Bromsgrove section (assuming you can route trains as required via Camp Hill so already have 4 effective tracks north of Kings Norton)

 

[AM9]

I don't think it would be about intercity demand, per se, but more about connecting Intercity services heading SW from Birmingham to the new Intercity network north of Birmingham.

My post was describing an alternative to the suggested route that Bald Rick has indicate would be geographically and technically tight. It does have some other advantages:

Probably faster from Curzon St as the alignment along the M42 corridor is relatively straight as all bends would be greater than 1km radius on a high speed traffic only line​

Cheaper to build than threading through suburban Birmingham, which althogh on an existing alignment, would require so much more noise and vibration mitigation to run much faster than current linespeeds.​

Apart from a single track grade separation at each end, both away from residential areas, the M42 alignment would be free from mitigation except for some accoustic screening.​

And, perhaps more importantly, removes 2 non-stop-to-Cheltenham services south of Birmingham, allowing more room for non-intercity trains.

So bypassing Curzon St certainly gives the connection from HS2a down to the south-west, yet for a simple change (same platform) at Birmingham Interchange, the journey is still convenient from Birmingham Curzon St. Indeed, if a Birmingham to Bristol trains wasn'rt available, there might be a direct Leeds or Manchester train to Bristol stopping at Interchange.
For passengers wanting to go From Birmingham to Bristol without changing, there would as you say also be improved services from New St, (given that the line to Bristol would be electrified by then).

 

[Meerkat]

An underground two platform station linking HS2 and classic lines around Washwood Heath and Kings Norton would bring far more benefits than a pure HS line from Interchange to further South as it could be used by all trains that dont stop on the Cross City Line, providing faster services from Hereford/Worcester/Cardiff/Bristol via Brum NS to Leicester/Derby directions as well as HS.

 

[si404]

Arguably, it's only a relatively short section that actually acts as the real capacity constraint; the Longbridge-Barnt Green-Bromsgrove section (assuming you can route trains as required via Camp Hill so already have 4 effective tracks north of Kings Norton)

But you've still got a Chatham Mainline style issue where the 4 tracking isn't splitting fast and slow, but having two routes with stopping services on which faster services can run.

See also the WAML (where 4-tracking is proposed) with peak fast trains via Southbury as there's not enough room on the 2 tracks through Tottenham Hale to provide for Cambridge/Stansted services and a slightly better-than-terrible local service in the peak.

My post was describing an alternative to the suggested route that Bald Rick has indicate would be geographically and technically tight.

Yes, I know exactly you are proposing, because I proposed something similar (not originally - in post #27 edwinm mentions it, likewise other threads in the last 11 years since HS2 plans were revealed have it) just 9 posts before yours about 24 hours ago now.

For passengers wanting to go From Birmingham to Bristol without changing, there would as you say also be improved services from New St, (given that the line to Bristol would be electrified by then).

Why wouldn't the SW have direct services to Curzon Street via Interchange? This was discussed yesterday - I suggest you read back this page.

An underground two platform station linking HS2 and classic lines around Washwood Heath and Kings Norton would bring far more benefits than a pure HS line from Interchange to further South as it could be used by all trains that dont stop on the Cross City Line, providing faster services from Hereford/Worcester/Cardiff/Bristol via Brum NS to Leicester/Derby directions as well as HS.

But it would have a lot more costs too. I'm not sure it's needed to remove all the regional services from that axis - Ianno87 is right that there's quite a lot of capacity for regional services on those lines (just not quite enough, IMV).

And you've additionally got complications like different rolling stock using the same underground platforms (which would need platform edge-doors), and you've funnelled in several routes into one fairly long segment of shared track with no real way of stopping knock on delays.

 

[Meerkat]

But it would have a lot more costs too. I'm not sure it's needed to remove all the regional services from that axis - Ianno87 is right that there's quite a lot of capacity for regional services on those lines (just not quite enough, IMV).

And you've additionally got complications like different rolling stock using the same underground platforms (which would need platform edge-doors), and you've funnelled in several routes into one fairly long segment of shared track with no real way of stopping knock on delays.

There may be capacity now but is there capacity for the frequency Cross city core could justify and increased regional services?
Are platform edge doors compulsory underground for non-metro lines? If so then just build compatible stock....
i can’t really see needing more than 12tph through, which should be able to cope with perturbations

 

[ABB125]

I think a 4 platform underground station would be a long term investment, but for local (mainly cross-city) rather than high speed trains. It could be built in between New Street and Moor/Curzon Street stations, with an exit at each end of the platforms to each of those stations.
However, this is possibly a bit off-topic.

 

[Chester1]

Another option would be to build Bordsley chords and divert Birmingham-South West services away from New Street. Moor Street will be an annex of Curzon Street (still don't get why it will have a different name). That would free up capacity at New Street for other services. People could take a slow direct service between the North and South West or change at Moor Street / Curzon Street.

 

[The Planner]

Another option would be to build Bordsley chords and divert Birmingham-South West services away from New Street. Moor Street will be an annex of Curzon Street (still don't get why it will have a different name). That would free up capacity at New Street for other services. People could take a slow direct service between the North and South West or change at Moor Street / Curzon Street.

HS2 was always going to have a seperate station name to differentiate it. You are also grade seperating Kings Norton with that suggestion.

 

[Chester1]

HS2 was always going to have a seperate station name to differentiate it. You are also grade seperating Kings Norton with that suggestion.

Why does it need to be differentiated? People who don't know Birmingham well are likely to be put off changing trains, assuming its a walk across town, not a walk down a corridor, then up or down some stairs.

 

[edwin_m]

Would the area where

Why does it need to be differentiated? People who don't know Birmingham well are likely to be put off changing trains, assuming its a walk across town, not a walk down a corridor, then up or down some stairs.

Nothing to stop it being re-named before it opens. During construction giving it a different name is probably handy but if it becomes a unified station it could end up with a unified name. Crossrail became the Elizabeth Line only a few months before it was due to open.

 

[Bald Rick]

Why does it need to be differentiated? People who don't know Birmingham well are likely to be put off changing trains, assuming its a walk across town, not a walk down a corridor, then up or down some stairs.

What proportion of passengers who use central Birmingham stations change trains there and “don’t know Birmingham well”?

If it’s more than 1 in 10,000 I’ll be amazed. It really doesn’t matter in the big picture.

 

[Chester1]

What proportion of passengers who use central Birmingham stations change trains there and “don’t know Birmingham well”?

If it’s more than 1 in 10,000 I’ll be amazed. It really doesn’t matter in the big picture.

A very large number of foreign tourists and foreign residents. People who don't visit Birmingham often. When I have been asked about continental trips most people were surprised that St Pancras and Euston are separated only by a 10 minute walk down one road and that taking the tube isn't necessary. Why would a northerner who hardly ever visits London know that? Curzon Street and Moor Street stations will have a building that connects them together, simpler for them to just have the same name. The HS2 platforms at Euston, Piccadilly and Leeds will be only slightly nearer to their NR counterparts but they will be classified as within the same station.