Fantasy: If you could re-design HS2 ...

[Shrop]

If you could re-design HS2 with hindsight, knowing everything you know now, would you do it differently?

 

[The Planner]

Yes. Handsacre wouldn't even be a line of crayon on a piece of paper.

 

[pdeaves]

If you could re-design HS2 with hindsight, knowing everything you know now, would you do it differently?

I would make a 'Y' shaped route... at the south end. One leg to Heathrow airport, the other to Euston, with no faffing about trying to serve Old Oak Common. There could then be, potentially, a totally different solution for OOC on the main lines. In my view a high speed line shouldn't have many intermediate stops, certainly not close together like OOC and Euston would be. Of course, we are where we are now...!

 

[Uncle Buck]

Pretty much everything, because what I think is needed in a country with our population distribution is a “National Crossrail” not a TGV.

Follow the M1. Link to HS1 at the London end. Have stops at Old Oak (with a link to Willesden Junction), Milton Keynes, Leicester, Birmingham Airport, central Birmingham, Manchester Airport and Manchester.

Combined with HS1 you now have a railway linking pretty much all the major railway lines and several major aiports. Run 4th from Dover to Manchester Airport stopping at all stations. Between these services slot in numerous services from London to the north via Birmingham only.

Do not incude Glasgow or Edinburgh services. If they sprint up the High Speed line to Crewe and then continue to Scotland without tilt, they will take longer than they currently do. Just leave these running with tilting trains on the (emptier) conventional network.

 

[Shrop]

Pretty much everything, because what I think is needed in a country with our population distribution is a “National Crossrail” not a TGV.

Follow the M1. Link to HS1 at the London end. Have stops at Old Oak (with a link to Willesden Junction), Milton Keynes, Leicester, Birmingham Airport, central Birmingham, Manchester Airport and Manchester.

Combined with HS1 you now have a railway linking pretty much all the major railway lines and several major aiports. Run 4th from Dover to Manchester Airport stopping at all stations. Between these services slot in numerous services from London to the north via Birmingham only.

Do not incude Glasgow or Edinburgh services. If they sprint up the High Speed line to Crewe and then continue to Scotland without tilt, they will take longer than they currently do. Just leave these running with tilting trains on the (emptier) conventional network.

Some of this I agree with, certainly the M1 corridor (which was dismissed by the HS2 studies, but far too hastily I've always believed). Not sure about the rest though

 

[The Pelican]

HS2 should have been a V or an A shaped network, in either case with the point of the network in London. Trying to solve the issues of all three northwards mainlines with a single scheme was a mistake. Other than that, as a WCML/ WCML plus Nottingham and Sheffield line it was pretty good.

 

[AlexSJW]

The concept of this, the main spine more thickly outlined, was the best by far. Firstly NPR was not on the radar when the odd HS2 Y shape was presented. The Y shape should have been dropped when NPR was in active focus. This incorporates NPR. Should have been NPR with a base tunnel under the Pennines. An upgraded ECML to 140mph or over an removal of bottlenecks. ECML branches to London and HS1. NPR could have been built by now, inc base tunnel, for less of than cost of HS2 from London to Aylesbury. Birmingham to the ECML would be on an upgraded line to Derby. Birmingham to London on an upgraded Chiltern Line.

 

[Noddy]

The concept of this, the main spine more thickly outlined, was the best by far. Firstly NPR was not on the radar when the odd HS2 Y shape was presented. The Y shape should have been dropped when NPR was in active focus. This incorporates NPR. Should have been NPR with a base tunnel under the Pennines. An upgraded ECML to 140mph or over an removal of bottlenecks. ECML branches to London and HS1. NPR could have been built by now, inc base tunnel, for less of than cost of HS2 from London to Aylesbury. Birmingham to the ECML would be on an upgraded line to Derby. Birmingham to London on an upgraded Chiltern Line.

There are many things on this map that make me smile but given how much folk complain about putting a line across the Chilterns this is proposing putting one across the UK’s first National Park!

 

[D6130]

I would start from new domestic high speed platforms at St Pancras International - above the shops and extending into the Midland Main Line platform area - following the fast lines to the Cricklewood area, then the Hendon lines to just before Silkstream Junction before curving North-Westwards to follow the M1 all the way to the York area - and with the Western branch following the M6 to the Preston area....or possibly even to Carlisle. At certain points - where the motorways are excessively curved or other obstructions are in the way - slight variations in the route would have been necessary.

I would limit intermediate stations to Leicester, East Midlands Parkway, Sheffield (Tinsley) and Leeds Parkway on the Eastern branch and Birmingham Parkway, Crewe Parkway and Preston Parkway on the Western branch....plus Lancaster Parkway should the (very expensive) Carlisle extension have been built.

Given the amount of tunnelling and viaduct-building that has been necessary on the London-Birmingham section, I find it difficult to believe that this option would have been more expensive than that which was chosen.

Oh....and a short chord in the West Hampstead are to take Midland Main Line trains into and out of Euston.

 

[Trainbike46]

Yes. Handsacre wouldn't even be a line of crayon on a piece of paper.

I agree with this.

I would probably do a combined phase 1 and phase 2A, following the route as is to Crewe. I would rename Curzon Street to Moor Street, to make obvious that it offers connections onto local services around the West Midlands.

I would then have a separate scheme in an X-shape (call it HS North, for example), which includes a Crewe/Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds/Preston high speed line, with a through station in Manchester. there should be 1 intermediate through station between Manchester and Leeds, likely Huddersfield or Bradford. Manchester airport would not get a station, Crewe would take over the function of the Cheshire interchange station.

A third scheme could be considered for the East Midlands, but I'm not sure what that would look like. it's definitely the lowest priority though.

Services could then be something like:

From London
- 3 tph London-Birmingham interchange-Birmingham Curzon /Moor street
- 2 tph London-Crewe-Manchester-Leeds
- 2 tph London-Crewe-Manchester-Preston-Carlisle (split)-Edinburgh/Glasgow
- 2 tph London-Birmingham Interchange-Crewe-Runcorn-Liverpool
- 1 tph London-Birmigham interchange-Crewe-Warrington-Wigan-Preston-Blackpool North/Lancaster-Oxenholme-Penrith-Carlisle (alternating)

From Birmingham
- 1 tph Birmingham Curzon/Moor Street-Crewe-Manchester-Leeds-York-Newcastle
- 1 tph Birmingham Curzon/Moor Street-Crewe-Manchester-Preston-Carlisle (split)-Edinburgh/Glasgow

From Liverpool
- 1 tph Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-york-Newcastle
- 1 tph Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Hull
- 1 tph Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-York-Scarborough

All services from London would serve OOC. If an intermediate station between Manchester and Leeds exists, all services would stop there. If Warrington is served by the high-speed line, Liverpool-Manchester services would stop there.

Liverpool-Scotland passengers would change in Manchester.

 

[AlexSJW]

There are many things on this map that make me smile but given how much folk complain about putting a line across the Chilterns this is proposing putting one across the UK’s first National Park!

Not really.

 

[Noddy]

Not really.

How are you doing Sheffield-Manchester then? Going around or going underneath?


(Image is a cropped version of the OP, highlighting with red how the proposed high speed line runs London-Leicester-Sheffield-Manchester-Liverpool).

Here’s the route with the national park:


(Image shows the proposed route Leicester-Sheffield-Manchester-Liverpool crossing the UK’s first national park).

 

[Farigiraf]

I don't think I could design a better overall route than the existing one that's been produced by dozens of trained experts (the fact that mismanagement, NIMBYism and political interference has led to the route being quite troublesome is another thing). There are a few minor things that I would've liked to see more accommodation for:
- Better interchange between Curzon Street and New Street: walking between the two will be frustrating with luggage and I doubt GBR tickets will be valid on the Metro.
- Provision for an orbital line round London, either as an HS1 link or via Heathrow (think LGV Interconnexion)
- Ironically, probably less places for the route to join the mainline, as then you could get large portions of it built in one phase instead of building up to a junction then stopping construction until further funding is approved.
- Building Birmingham Interchange about halfway between Coventry and the Airport instead of as a giant parkway station, with a people mover connecting the airport, International station, the NEC, Interchange HS2 station and Coventry, where it would join the city's light rail network. Then you could build a lot of high-value housing around the station as well. I know the WM Metro Eastside extension will eventually get to Interchange but that'll take decades at this rate.
- Some better solution than East Midlands Hub: serve one of Nottingham or Derby, rather than neither

 

[MatthewHutton]

I would probably do a combined phase 1 and phase 2A, following the route as is to Crewe. I would rename Curzon Street to Moor Street,

Both sensible.

I don't think I could design a better overall route than the existing one that's been produced by dozens of trained experts (the fact that mismanagement, NIMBYism and political interference has led to the route being quite troublesome is another thing).

That does have to in part at least be blamed on the planners.

 

[MarkyT]

Do not incude Glasgow or Edinburgh services. If they sprint up the High Speed line to Crewe and then continue to Scotland without tilt, they will take longer than they currently do. Just leave these running with tilting trains on the (emptier) conventional network.

That's not true. With an expected time saving to Crewe from London of 55 minutes, assuming HS infrastructure extends that far, that comfortably offsets any small increase in journey time north thereof due to no tilt. Even with just the Phase 1 Handsacre connection, time savings should be made to Scotland. TPE today can often do Preston - Glasgow only 11 or 12 minutes slower than an Avanti Pendo, and the TPEs typically make ~2 more stops en route. NR are investigating raising non EPS speed in some places for non-tilt units that can exceed 110mph, including future HS2 trains, so that should help claw back a few more minutes. Tilt trains can be quite a bit heavier than similar non-tilt examples, which affects their acceleration performance.

That only tilt trains can go faster than 110mph on this section is an artifact of how modernisation was carried out exclusively for new Virgin trains at the time, with the new higher EPS speeds only being authorised for trains fitted with the new TASS (tilt advisory and speed supervision) system. There are many places on the WCML where pendolinos go faster than 110mph but do not actually tilt, because the line is straight or only very moderately curved. An example is the section from Crewe to Preston, near straight all the way, yet limited to 110mph for all non-tilt stock.

 

[AlexSJW]

How are you doing Sheffield-Manchester then? Going around or going underneath?

View attachment 198204
(Image is a cropped version of the OP, highlighting with red how the proposed high speed line runs London-Leicester-Sheffield-Manchester-Liverpool).

Here’s the route with the national park:

View attachment 198206
(Image shows the proposed route Leicester-Sheffield-Manchester-Liverpool crossing the UK’s first national park).

NPR is best with a base tunnel emerging around Barnsley. NPR branches into an upgraded ECML.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Better interchange between Curzon Street and New Street: walking between the two will be frustrating with luggage

Moor street to new street are actually pretty close. The main barrier is the between station transfer rules.

 

[Noddy]

NPR is best with a base tunnel emerging around Barnsley. NPR branches into an upgraded ECML.

So you according to the map you posted in post 7 the High Speed spine line should be London-Leicester-Sheffield-Manchester (via Barnsley)-Liverpool. It still crosses a chunk of the Peak District National Park!


(Image shows the suggested Leicester-Sheffield-Barnsley-Manchester-Liverpool route across the national park).

 

[Uncle Buck]

That's not true. With an expected time saving to Crewe from London of 55 minutes, assuming HS infrastructure extends that far, that comfortably offsets any small increase in journey time north thereof due to no tilt. Even with just the Phase 1 Handsacre connection, time savings should be made to Scotland. TPE today can often do Preston - Glasgow only 11 or 12 minutes slower than an Avanti Pendo, and the TPEs typically make ~2 more stops en route. NR are investigating raising non EPS speed in some places for non-tilt units that can exceed 110mph, including future HS2 trains, so that should help claw back a few more minutes. Tilt trains can be quite a bit heavier than similar non-tilt examples, which affects their acceleration performance.

That only tilt trains can go faster than 110mph on this section is an artifact of how modernisation was carried out exclusively for new Virgin trains at the time, with the new higher EPS speeds only being authorised for trains fitted with the new TASS (tilt advisory and speed supervision) system. There are many places on the WCML where pendolinos go faster than 110mph but do not actually tilt, because the line is straight or only very moderately curved. An example is the section from Crewe to Preston, near straight all the way, yet limited to 110mph for all non-tilt stock.

In that case I must eat my words; I have certainly read that HS2 will be detrimental to Scottish journey times before.

 

[SynthD]

Yes. Handsacre wouldn't even be a line of crayon on a piece of paper.

I agree, but I want to check. Handsacre was the wrong place to divide the phases?

I would have all high speed rail end at a terminal station or other rational point. If phase one has to end then there's more rational options (that they wrote down why not a long time ago and I never read) This could be Crewe because only there can 400m trains stop, divide, join, soak up people from feeder branches. It could be Colwich (50km from Delta, Handsacre is 22km) because of the lack of Stoke trains. Or for a cheap option, Lichfield (16km from Delta, though it needs to snake a bit) because it's near. Handsacre doesn't have a unique advantage.

Building Birmingham Interchange about halfway between Coventry and the Airport instead of as a giant parkway station, with a people mover connecting the airport, International station, the NEC, Interchange HS2 station and Coventry, where it would join the city's light rail network. Then you could build a lot of high-value housing around the station as well. I know the WM Metro Eastside extension will eventually get to Interchange but that'll take decades at this rate.

That's interesting. Build Coventry towards Balsall Common (albeit in the green belt and getting close to the flight path) and rebuild Berkswell as a city centre station plus HS2 interchange. Widen the rail corridor with the metro. Prioritise local residents, people coming by metro and local existing rail (and a parkway at the east end of the metro line), rather than a station located for an airport.

 

[Transilien]

I would have a simple route from London to Crewe with an underground station under Euston and St Pancras which would act as both the Eurostar/HS1 and HS2 terminal/through station. There would be spurs to Birmingham and Stoke with New Street being completely rebuilt. There would be two intermediate stations at Birmingham Interchange and Milton Keynes on the route to East-West Rail. Trains to Birmingham would be 2tph but 400m as capacity on the WCML into Birmingham would be compromised with any more intercity trains. Birmingham Interchange would be well served by London-Northwest/Scotland trains in order to make up for the lack of intercity trains to New Street, also the Chiltern and LNWR services would be improved too. This would not be a complete project, rather a start with HS3 being from Birmingham to York via Derby/Nottingham, Meadowhall and Leeds.

HS2 Services from London would be:

400m 2tph to Birmingham New Street
200m 2tph to Manchester via Stoke
400m 2tph to Manchester via Crewe
200m 3tph to Liverpool
200m 2tph to Glasgow
400m 1tph to Edinburgh
200m 1tph to Chester/Wrexham/Holyhead

 

[MarkyT]

In that case I must eat my words; I have certainly read that HS2 will be detrimental to Scottish journey times before.

The anti-HS2 movement latched onto the issue for a while, and much of the media lapped it up without checking.

 

[ABB125]

I'd have started in 1980...
Several reasons. Firstly, much (most?) of the redevelopment of the railway land wouldn't have yet taken place, allowing King's Cross and St Pancras to be rebuilt into the new "London Nordbahnhof" with around 50 platforms*. Secondly, it would have opened by now, and cost about £3.99*.

*Warning: exaggeration may be detected here...

In terms of route, I quite like @D6130's suggestion of diverting Midland Mainline services into Euston, allowing the existing corridor into St Pancras to be completely rebuilt for HS2 (and Thameslink, of course). However, the London end is kind of a distraction, it's the rest of the route that matters.

The general principle I'd take is "only stations at major cities, preferably one in the city centre and one "parkway" station". Obviously there would be exceptions to this. And I'll break this principle several times as explained below.

Regarding the hypothetical M1 alignment, places like Milton Keynes are kind of irrelevant when it comes to high speed rail: they benefit hugely from the capacity released by diverting the fastest trains onto HS2. Therefore the M1 alignment can be discounted because it's terrible for serving Birmingham.

In terms of the Heathrow question, I'm kind of undecided. I like the existing Old Oak Common plans, especially with the interchange to the west and with Crossrail - it opens up so much connectivity. If you went via Heathrow itself you'd improve things for a small number of passengers but make things much worse for most people by removing the interchange opportunities. Unless of course you diverted GWR fast services via Heathrow as well... given the way some people act as if the world will end with an additional call at OOC, I dread to think what the response to this idea would be! However, interchange with GWR would be less important if the next idea was taken forwards...

Plan for an X shaped core network, centred on Birmingham, with the other points being London, Bristol, Manchester and Leeds. In addition, there would be a "reverse L" stuck on top of the X, between Liverpool and Newcastle. Through stations in Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds, generally with two routes either side and the ability to easily reverse trains if needed. Not sure yet how and where the Bristol branch would tie in to the existing network. Design speed 350km/h unless there are very sensible (as defined by me alone!) reasons to reduce it for specific sections.

Parkway/out of town stations would be at "Heathrow", Birmingham Airport/NEC, possibly "North Wolverhampton", Manchester Airport area, Nottingham/Derby area, Sheffield/South Yorkshire area, possibly "M5 Parkway" somewhere near Gloucester*.

Scope for another line to be built from London to meet the X somewhere near the Sheffield station, via Cambridge.

Something approximately like this sketch. Obviously more development work is required, when I'm not sat on a train!





*This one is a bit dubious. But I'm biased as it would be of great benefit to me personally! Also the new high speed line would be do much faster than the existing that it wouldn't really matter having an extra stop, unlike a stop at Milton Keynes, for example.

 

[FGWHST43009]

For starters, don't bother with OOC and go straight to Euston. Build a spur and new station at Heathrow, connected to other lines, a bit like the LGV that avoids Paris. Build through platforms at Euston/Kings Cross/St Pancras for international traffic. The Heathrow Hub line and the London international platforms would be connected to other high-speed lines mentioned later.

Don't bother with Handsacre, build a connection to the Stone-Colwich line for HS2 to serve Stoke.

Build Curzon Street as a through station connected to the XC line, joining north of Worcestershire Parkway. Upgrade and electrify XC route to enable HS2 XC services to Bristol and Cardiff, ideally to Plymouth and Swansea.

Build to Manchester with Airport station and underground station in Manchester.

Eastern Leg via East Midlands Hub and Sheffield station at Meadowhall. Make Leeds a north-south through station and include connections to NPR platforms allowing HS2 services to serve York. Eastern Leg to end just north of York. Eventually extend to Glasgow via Teesside, Newcastle and Edinburgh. Build a HS line from St Pancras/Kings X to East Midlands Hub via Luton and Leicester, meeting with the Eastern Leg at EMH.

I think I'll end it there, there's so much more I would want to do...

Scope for another line to be built from London to meet the X somewhere near the Sheffield station, via Cambridge.

Something approximately like this sketch. Obviously more development work is required, when I'm not sat on a train!

View attachment 198210



*This one is a bit dubious. But I'm biased as it would be of great benefit to me personally! Also the new high speed line would be do much faster than the existing that it wouldn't really matter having an extra stop, unlike a stop at Milton Keynes, for example.

I agree with the idea of a second north-south line. I've gone for going via Luton and Leicester, but have thought about going via Peterborough.

 

[Bletchleyite]

For starters, don't bother with OOC and go straight to Euston.

OOC is for Heathrow. It's needed.

I would add an M25 Parkway though. Remember almost all journeys are not city centre to city centre but rather suburb to city centre.

Other main thing I'd have done is made it a standard 300km/h French style LGV rather than the much higher speed proposed. And not wasted money on Chiltern tunnels however much they moaned.

 

[Oxfordblues]

Ah yes, the joys of hindsight! My route would start from Old Oak Common and take the surface Acton-Northolt Line to South Ruislip, joining the newly-quadrified GW/GC Joint line to Ashendon Junction, then bearing right to Grendon Underwood, with the Great Central reinstated as far as the outskirts of Rugby, then by a new tunnel to join the Trent Valley Line near Newbold, four-tracked all the way to Colwich, then with a new Stafford by-pass to just south of Norton Bridge. Grade-separated junctions at Northolt and Colwich and a reinstated flyover at Ashendon. Probably limited to 125mph for the most part and some expensive quadrification, but at a tiny fraction of the cost of HS2 and attracting much less resistance from the nimbys.

 

[Mr. SW]

Seeing the world has gone mad...Here's my penny worth.

Aitch Ess Too – Google My Maps

Aitch Ess Too

www.google.co.uk

This map was created a couple of years ago based on some seriously old ideas on maps and papers that are currently unavailable to view as they are in storage, so it's been worked from memory.
Note these things:
Not via Old Oak, so an outer station will be needed at somewhere like Brent Cross and therefore the Dudding Hill line would have to be upgraded.
The eastern side of England is less populated and flatter so you can get a smoother, straighter layout.
Scotland is included on the route.
There are two delta junctions.
Euston is the start point.
etc, etc.

But a couple of things have sprung to mind: HS2 is a de facto recreation of the GCR London Extension, albeit in on different route. Abd secondly, UK is playing catch-up on this sort of infrastructure.


Here's a summary map.

 

[A S Leib]

Not at all going for a cost-effective option, I'd have had Curzon Street as a through station on the Interchange – Crewe route with a connection to the existing Cross Country Route towards the south west*, and with Manchester Piccadilly and Leeds as stations en route to joining WCML / ECML in addition to the planned lines to Wigan and York.

*At some point I'd add in a high-speed line in that direction, with my – still cost-blind – choice being to Bristol then a new Severn Tunnel to south Wales / to at least Exeter, but I'd put that under at least HS4 rather than HS2.

 

[Shrop]

I don't think I could design a better overall route than the existing one that's been produced by dozens of trained experts (the fact that mismanagement, NIMBYism and political interference has led to the route being quite troublesome is another thing).

The fact that HS2 was produced by dozens of trained experts is not necessarily a great recommendation, given that their design did not prevent what has happened to it. Whilst you’ve recognised that there are other factors that have contributed to the decimation of the project, surely there is more that you would change with the benefit of hindsight?

Many members of this forum are pretty well adhered to the Chiltern route between London and Birmingham, I guess from your comment that you’re one of them. I’ve never been a fan of this route myself, but there’s more to my concern than this – principally that the design was in such rigid phases.

The design was that Phase 1 should run to Birmingham, with Phases 2a and 2b being dependent upon Phase 1, which was a fundamental flaw. My belief was always that HS2 should serve The North, to Leeds and beyond, including with benefits for London to Birmingham and Manchester, and with links between northern cities being paramount to it.

With hindsight a scheme which was designed so that it would not be vulnerable to being terminated at Birmingham, would surely be a better prospect than what we have now?

 

[Trainbike46]

With hindsight a scheme which was designed so that it would not be vulnerable to being terminated at Birmingham, would surely be a better prospect than what we have now?

That is, I think, why a bunch of people here, including both amateurs like myself and experts like @The Planner have "remove Handsacre, have phase 1 all the way to Crewe" as the main/only change to the route under construction.

I do think since level of phasing is likely necessary, because of how big the project is. I suggested splitting the project in 2 in my earlier post upthread, for example.