Sad Sprinter
Established Member
A couple of months ago I came up with a theoretical alternative plan for a high-speed rail network for Britain, which I will christen as HS-GB.
The idea was to enhance connections with the existing rail network to drive as many people onto high speed trains as possible. For instance, serving Birmingham as a through station allows trains to be full all the time: firstly with London - Manchester/Birmingham passengers, then with Birmingham/Bristol/Cardiff/London-Manchester passengers.
Running up to Scotland, I proposed such a line would also run through Birmingham and Manchester Airport. In past threads, it's been suggested that a high speed line straight to Glasgow and Edinburgh would probably attract around half a full-length HS2 train an hour. Or possibly less. However, running through Heathrow (with connections to the South West) and Birmingham, (connections to Bristol and South Wales), I hoped that this would bolster passenger numbers for high speed trains from London.
My question then is, if a high speed line to Scotland is built, is it worth having separate trains serving Liverpool and Manchester, or is it worth running the line via say, Manchester Airport, and expecting Liverpool and Manchester passengers to change there to boost passenger numbers alongside passengers from London and the South East? Would it dampen demand from Manchester or Liverpool, or would people not mind the change? This is assuming than the frequency of Manchester to Liverpool high-speed trains is of a "turn-up-and-go" frequency.
I suppose, theoretically, running direct trains from Manchester to Scotland would allow a further onward journey to Sheffield and down to Nottingham, assuming the full HS2 "Y" is built and HS3 across the Pennines is built.
The idea was to enhance connections with the existing rail network to drive as many people onto high speed trains as possible. For instance, serving Birmingham as a through station allows trains to be full all the time: firstly with London - Manchester/Birmingham passengers, then with Birmingham/Bristol/Cardiff/London-Manchester passengers.
Running up to Scotland, I proposed such a line would also run through Birmingham and Manchester Airport. In past threads, it's been suggested that a high speed line straight to Glasgow and Edinburgh would probably attract around half a full-length HS2 train an hour. Or possibly less. However, running through Heathrow (with connections to the South West) and Birmingham, (connections to Bristol and South Wales), I hoped that this would bolster passenger numbers for high speed trains from London.
My question then is, if a high speed line to Scotland is built, is it worth having separate trains serving Liverpool and Manchester, or is it worth running the line via say, Manchester Airport, and expecting Liverpool and Manchester passengers to change there to boost passenger numbers alongside passengers from London and the South East? Would it dampen demand from Manchester or Liverpool, or would people not mind the change? This is assuming than the frequency of Manchester to Liverpool high-speed trains is of a "turn-up-and-go" frequency.
I suppose, theoretically, running direct trains from Manchester to Scotland would allow a further onward journey to Sheffield and down to Nottingham, assuming the full HS2 "Y" is built and HS3 across the Pennines is built.
