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

[Shrop]

and it was to be electrified using some of the cash saved from binning the northern part of HS2 !

Many rail advances were promised with the money saved from binning HS2 to Leeds, but what did we get? Then many more advances were promised when HS2 to Manchester was binned.
Heaven forbid that I should think these were utterly hollow promises, but what have we actually got with the two lots of money saved?

 

[nw1]

One thing that has come to light from other discussions is that there is no direct link to Wolverhampton, as well as Coventry and Birmingham International.

Thus I would have a "main line" further east, close to the M1, and add a spur to allow trains to turn off and reach Coventry, International, New Street and Wolverhampton.

I'd then split the line somewhere in the Nuneaton area, with the west and east branches running close to the WCML and MML respectively, and then much as the original plan. The route would reach the Manchester and Leeds areas before reverting to classic track. There would also be a northern link from New Street available via a spur from the classic New Street-Nuneaton line.

I'd also add the link to HS2 allowing through high-speed working from at least Paris to the Midlands and North (if the intention is to encourage more rail travel for international journeys doable in a day, you'd want to make it easier than it is now to access the near Continent via rail).

More controversially, add a link to the line through Clapham Junction and Willesden to allow through trains from Brighton, Gatwick, East Croydon and Clapham Junction (thus opening up a link from much of the "SR"), assuming bimode variants for the stock can be designed. I realise it seems to be politically incorrect on the forum to even hint at bringing back through Northern services from Brighton (or Portsmouth) but I don't care, I'm going to do it anyway....

 

[Shrop]

One thing that has come to light from other discussions is that there is no direct link to Wolverhampton, as well as Coventry and Birmingham International.

Thus I would have a "main line" further east, close to the M1, and add a spur to allow trains to turn off and reach Coventry, International, New Street and Wolverhampton.

I'd then split the line somewhere in the Nuneaton area, with the west and east branches running close to the WCML and MML respectively, and then much as the original plan. The route would reach the Manchester and Leeds areas before reverting to classic track. There would also be a northern link from New Street available via a spur from the classic New Street-Nuneaton line.

I'd also add the link to HS2 allowing through high-speed working from at least Paris to the Midlands and North (if the intention is to encourage more rail travel for international journeys doable in a day, you'd want to make it easier than it is now to access the near Continent via rail).

More controversially, add a link to the line through Clapham Junction and Willesden to allow through trains from Brighton, Gatwick, East Croydon and Clapham Junction (thus opening up a link from much of the "SR"), assuming bimode variants for the stock can be designed. I realise it seems to be politically incorrect on the forum to even hint at bringing back through Northern services from Brighton (or Portsmouth) but I don't care, I'm going to do it anyway....

Be careful, your suggestions sound pretty sensible!
My boss at a consultancy often used to say to me "Don't bring logic and common sense into this" - words which have never left me and which often seem to apply to rail development.
I've often suggested the merits of using the M1 corridor, including links to serve Birmingham and Manchester, but this forum includes many who focus on why this couldn't have been done, rather than focusing on trying harder to get it done.
I've always believed that capacity issues between London and Birmingham could have been addressed in other ways, while the primary focus of HS2 should have been to link London (and Birmingham) with Northern cities and ultimately Scotland.
But I've been shouted down every time, as I fear you will be if your ideas are close to mine

 

[SynthD]

Thus I would have a "main line" further east, close to the M1, and add a spur to allow trains to turn off and reach Coventry, International, New Street and Wolverhampton.

The entire HS2 service from Birmingham to London, via HS2 or WCML, has to go through the congested two-track section from New St to near Rugby? The French mistake about reusing the same classic lines in the urban approach to the station has been well covered, this extends that 5-10x.

There would also be a northern link from New Street available via a spur from the classic New Street-Nuneaton line.

Would this serve the Birmingham to the North services by using an already nearly full line? I don't see what's sensible about mixing CrossCountry's busiest section with what is supposed to be high speed and reliable by being on new track.

assuming bimode variants for the stock can be designed

It'll be trimode for the similar demand for direct services to North Wales and Liverpool.

 

[Austriantrain]

The entire HS2 service from Birmingham to London, via HS2 or WCML, has to go through the congested two-track section from New St to near Rugby? The French mistake about reusing the same classic lines in the urban approach to the station has been well covered,

Where has it been covered? And how was it a *general* mistake? Why wouldn't you use the classic approach lines when there is not more than, say, two TGV an hour and not a particularly dense classic service, as is often the case in France?

Obviously that's not the case between Rugby and Birmingham, where separating HS2 from the classic network is imperative.

 

[NCT]

One thing that has come to light from other discussions is that there is no direct link to Wolverhampton, as well as Coventry and Birmingham International.

This is factually incorrect. HS2 directly serves Birmingham International.

Thus I would have a "main line" further east, close to the M1, and add a spur to allow trains to turn off and reach Coventry, International, New Street and Wolverhampton.

What would be the advantage of that? Show your working.

I'd then split the line somewhere in the Nuneaton area, with the west and east branches running close to the WCML and MML respectively, and then much as the original plan. The route would reach the Manchester and Leeds areas before reverting to classic track. There would also be a northern link from New Street available via a spur from the classic New Street-Nuneaton line.

What would be the advantage of that? show your working.

I'd also add the link to HS2 allowing through high-speed working from at least Paris to the Midlands and North (if the intention is to encourage more rail travel for international journeys doable in a day, you'd want to make it easier than it is now to access the near Continent via rail).

How would this be achieved? Whose direct Euston trains would you remove/reduce?

More controversially, add a link to the line through Clapham Junction and Willesden to allow through trains from Brighton, Gatwick, East Croydon and Clapham Junction (thus opening up a link from much of the "SR"), assuming bimode variants for the stock can be designed. I realise it seems to be politically incorrect on the forum to even hint at bringing back through Northern services from Brighton (or Portsmouth) but I don't care, I'm going to do it anyway....

How much impact would this have on southern region intensive clockface timetable, and the London Overground timetable?

 

[nw1]

This is factually incorrect. HS2 directly serves Birmingham International.



What would be the advantage of that? Show your working.

The whole West Midlands conurbation benefits from HS2.

What would be the advantage of that? show your working.

Avoids having to build a new line through an urban area? It was just an off the cuff remark, though, see below.

How would this be achieved? Whose direct Euston trains would you remove/reduce?


How much impact would this have on southern region intensive clockface timetable, and the London Overground timetable?

You do seem to be taking this way too seriously. I thought this was supposed to be a light-hearted fantasy thread.

I'm not visiting this thread or this forum as part of my job, but just for entertainment and relaxation. I'd like to think a thread entitled "fantasy" would be a place for just that - fantasy ideas based on what you'd like in an ideal world, unconstrained by the realities of the 2020s railway. I'd hope there would be a place for that in this forum.

After all, HS2 is what it is, if we need to stick rigidly to realism, it invalidates this entire thread.

If I realised I had to do a full timetable design I'd never have contributed!

 

[Austriantrain]

I thought this was supposed to be a light-hearted fantasy thread.

No chance of that with some users. They don't seem to understand the word "fantasy" in the thread title. Must be fun at parties...

 

[Shrop]

The whole West Midlands conurbation benefits from HS2.

Avoids having to build a new line through an urban area? It was just an off the cuff remark, though, see below.

You do seem to be taking this way too seriously. I thought this was supposed to be a light-hearted fantasy thread.

I'm not visiting this thread or this forum as part of my job, but just for entertainment and relaxation. I'd like to think a thread entitled "fantasy" would be a place for just that - fantasy ideas based on what you'd like in an ideal world, unconstrained by the realities of the 2020s railway. I'd hope there would be a place for that in this forum.

After all, HS2 is what it is, if we need to stick rigidly to realism, it invalidates this entire thread.

If I realised I had to do a full timetable design I'd never have contributed!

You found one of the many detractors!

As the OP for this thread I have some mixed feelings about HS2, but since it has failed so dismally to serve Leeds and Manchester, I see nothing wrong with reconsidering what might have been if we could turn the clock back 20 years. Sadly though, some people seem to feel threatened by the logic and common sense that I mentioned earlier!

I for one appreciate your contributions, and yes of course it's only a fun exercise at this point. Nevertheless a worthwhile exercise though, because HS2 in its present form has demonstrated that in the UK we have much to learn.

Any sizeable future rail development needs a far better political commitment, but sadly this could be unlikely in the UK as I don't think any political party is particularly pro-rail. The Tories have demonstrably taken a wrecking ball to HS2, Reform have stated that they would kill off HS2 (and likely any other rail progress) if they had half a chance, Labour and the LibDems have always seemed lukewarm at best. Even the Greens have had plenty of anti-HS2 comment.

Then there is the general public, and it's never hard to find people who are glued to their cars and who are positively anti-rail. Far, far more people use roads than railways, and yes rail travel isn't always practical for a good many journeys, but even when it is, there are many who still won't use railways.

HS2 has likely done far more harm than good to get the general public on side with rail development, and so any big new railway for the UK now won't be happening in my lifetime. But as an exercise it's interesting to see what people think.

Personally I also like to think what we could do for a new UK railway, not instead of HS2, but in addition to it. That might be worth a new thread at some point

 

[nw1]

You found one of the many detractors!

As the OP for this thread I have some mixed feelings about HS2, but since it has failed so dismally to serve Leeds and Manchester, I see nothing wrong with reconsidering what might have been if we could turn the clock back 20 years. Sadly though, some people seem to feel threatened by the logic and common sense that I mentioned earlier!

I for one appreciate your contributions, and yes of course it's only a fun exercise at this point. Nevertheless a worthwhile exercise though, because HS2 in its present form has demonstrated that in the UK we have much to learn.

Thanks, glad you appreciate my ideas but as I said they aren't "that" serious, your thread asked me how I might redesign HS2 and just put down the first thoughts that came into my head.

I'll probably be shouted at for this but.... I wonder how much money you would save by not trying to tunnel through London and the Chilterns and instead diverge HS2 from the WCML in the Tring area (south of there seems to be pretty much impossible - no open country).

Then, with the money perhaps saved (I have no idea how much admittedly) you build more HSL further north where there is more open country available.

It means "classic" speeds closer to London but if you're on HSL all the way from Tring to the southern edge of Manchester, or to southern Cumbria before the hills get in the way, you're still on HSL most of the way.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'll probably be shouted at for this but.... I wonder how much money you would save by not trying to tunnel through London and the Chilterns and instead diverge HS2 from the WCML in the Tring area (south of there seems to be pretty much impossible - no open country).

This isn’t a shout, but the WCML is at capacity south of Leighton Buzzard, so any such proposal would not provide any additional capacity at the south end.

 

[nw1]

This isn’t a shout, but the WCML is at capacity south of Leighton Buzzard, so any such proposal would not provide any additional capacity at the south end.

Fair enough... happy to hear reasons for my suggestions not being so good ideas, just wasn't so keen on the tone of the previous poster!

 

[Energy]

One thing that has come to light from other discussions is that there is no direct link to Wolverhampton, as well as Coventry and Birmingham International.

Thus I would have a "main line" further east, close to the M1, and add a spur to allow trains to turn off and reach Coventry, International, New Street and Wolverhampton.

Wolverhampton's passenger flows are overwhelmingly into Birmingham, which the existing lines would serve well. While connecting HS2 to it would be nice, I'd argue that frequent Birmingham services and an easy change to HS2 there are a higher priority.

I agree with connecting Coventry, primarily because it would leave the Coventry-Birmingham line as XC+LNWR only, which should be more reliable.

Here's the data from the ORR Destination matrix. [source 1] [source 2]

From	To	TOTAL	2023-2024 TOTAL	2024-2025 TOTAL
1	Wolverhampton	Birmingham New Street	886284	959138
2	Wolverhampton	London Euston	196274	203204

From	To	TOTAL	2023-2024 TOTAL	2024-2025 TOTAL
1	Coventry	Birmingham New Street	1133455	1192345
2	Coventry	London Euston	648245	669006

 

[A S Leib]

I agree with connecting Coventry, primarily because it would leave the Coventry-Birmingham line as XC+LNWR only, which should be more reliable.

Is TfW Rail going as far as Birmingham International more about lack of terminating capacity at New Street or connecting Shropshire and northern Wales with the airport, and does going to International rather than Coventry cause fewer issues?

 

[The Planner]

Is TfW Rail going as far as Birmingham International more about lack of terminating capacity at New Street or connecting Shropshire and northern Wales with the airport, and does going to International rather than Coventry cause fewer issues?

Some of both, more about getting it out the way at New St. It can't get to Coventry.

 

[Pigeon]

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

I'd get rid of the high speeeeed.
I'd get rid of the contradiction of providing passenger services not between existing stations but between random bits of derelict land because it's cheaper and doesn't involve thinking about difficult problems.
I'd get rid of the contradiction of promoting railways as "green" while ignoring the energy consumption rising with the square of speed.
I'd get rid of the practical power supply difficulties arising from the power consumption rising as the cube of speed.
I'd get rid of the need to look silly going on about "capacity" without recognising that capacity is inversely proportional to speed.
I'd get rid of the idea of "improving" passenger services by means of a line which goes a hundred miles without any stations and leaves all the intermediate towns and cities out in the cold.
I'd get rid of the daft situation of having two new lines, non-standard but similar to each other, which not only do not connect but are laid out in such a way as to make it ridiculously hard to make them connect.
I'd get rid of loads and loads of lorries off the motorways...

I would go back to the start, and re-design the Channel Tunnel link as well; have them joined together for through running; take the line all the way through to Glasgow and Edinburgh at least; add loops/branches to as many freight terminals and ports as possible; and make the whole thing to a large enough loading gauge to run the Channel Tunnel lorry transporter vehicles right up to Scotland.

This isn't a passenger project at all (except indirectly). It's a freight project. If we're going to have what are essentially two separate networks built to different standards, one of them calling at all the passenger stations and the other one connecting freight yards and other out-of-the-way places where the land is cheap, then it's only sensible to use each one for the type of traffic for which it is inherently suited.

 

[md2016]

HS2 is a great idea, and I wouldn’t change the route. It just needed the planning permission reforms first, a tighter oversight on cost, more planning time and less political interference.

Once it’s completed, everyone will think it’s an obviously great idea that we’ll be proud of for decades, unless they throw the baby out with the bath water and cut too many costs and benefits.

 

[The Ham]

There thing that I'd have been tempted to do would have built the Leeds and Manchester stations first (maybe some others).

Why you may ask given that they'd serve little benefit?

Simple, by building those stations, even if HS2 gets canned, then there's a lot of political pressure for trains to use those stations and so something gets built.

Also, it would have stopped the politicians from being able to redesign them multiple times and so the cost of them would be fixed.

It would also stop the anti HS2 argument of build HS2 from the North first (yes it's an anti argument, as there's no where for the trains to run to southwards and so they could point at how wasteful it all is and still get the rest cancelled), but potentially allow full length trains to serve those stations before the full line was built.

 

[pr1]

In an ideal world, some kind of HS2/3 Liverpool South Parkway would have connected to some form of HS2/3 Ditton (Liverpool Gateway?) connected to Warrington Low Level and onwards to a trans-pennine HS2/3 network over in Yorkshire; and all tied up to a Y-shaped link to Birmingham. But none of us can turn back the clock, or begin the whole thing again, we've got what we've got.

If this thread proves anything, it's the difficulty of satisfying so many demands. Fourteen pages and maybe fifteen pages worth of alternative suggestions!

 

[BogiePicker]

HS2 fouuht a long and probably unwinnable court battle with the EU over their choice of platform height until eventually being bailed out by Brexit.

And now we will be stuck with a handful of very intensively used, very akward platforms of the wrong height forever. Or at least without an enormously disruptive rebuild.

Now with the respecification of vehicle maximum speeds going on in the news, I wonder if it's possible for the platforms to be re-sorted. Pretty much the OOC boxes are done but are any of the station platforms baked in already or is there any scope for redesigning

 

[NCT]

Did HS2 ever go to court with the EU? Or was it just hoping for a 'seek forgiveness rather than seek permission' outcome?

 

[HSTEd]

Did HS2 ever go to court with the EU? Or was it just hoping for a 'seek forgiveness rather than seek permission' outcome?

Lots of official paperwork was certainly being produced about it, because HS2 originally attempted to obtain a derogation or second UK specific platform height.

It was definitely quasi judicial in nature right up until Brexit, although unclear to me who the responsible judicial body would be to check from that end.
EDIT: We now have a thread for this specific question in this forum.

 

[NCT]

Lots of official paperwork was certainly being produced about it, because HS2 originally attempted to obtain a derogation or second UK specific platform height.

It was definitely quasi judicial in nature right up until Brexit, although unclear to me who the responsible judicial body would be to check from that end.
EDIT: We now have a thread for this specific question in this forum.

Would have helped if the 'fighting a court battle' bit was put in quotation marks.

 

[MarkyT]

Now with the respecification of vehicle maximum speeds going on in the news, I wonder if it's possible for the platforms to be re-sorted. Pretty much the OOC boxes are done but are any of the station platforms baked in already or is there any scope for redesigning

Ideally, the platforms might have been designed to be convertible for future generations of rolling stock, with a base for a 915mm platform topped with an overlay structure raising them 'temporarily' to ~1150mm, rather like the temporary conversions of the 'international' platforms at Stratford for the Olympics, but clearly with a design life at least as long as the initial rolling stock. It would still be a big job to change but you wouldn't be applying jackhammers to recently cast concrete (much). Alternatively, the rails might be raised, but that affects loading gauge, wiring clearance etc, Not likely a huge issue with the generous clearances adopted, but it would be far more disruptive and expensive, and it's not simply packing ballast as slab track is used.

There isn't much choice for plausible 915mm level boarding 300km/h+ rolling stock today. I couldn't recommend the new Talgo Avril, though in Spain they've premiered fully level boarding and walkthrough trains at native 760mm platforms. The trains have had many problems during their introduction, however. Alstom might be able to produce something using their TGV style trailer bogies under a new single deck UK body, but that would likely require their preferred 'motrice' (power car) configuration rather than the distributed traction specified in the current HS2 contract. Stadler has produced the 250km/h 'Giruno' train for SBB, but nothing faster, and clearly a new custom UK bodyshell would be required.

 

[BogiePicker]

Ideally, the platforms might have been designed to be convertible for future generations of rolling stock, with a base for a 915mm platform topped with an overlay structure raising them 'temporarily' to ~1150mm, rather like the temporary conversions of the 'international' platforms at Stratford for the Olympics, but clearly with a design life at least as long as the initial rolling stock. It would still be a big job to change but you wouldn't be applying jackhammers to recently cast concrete (much). Alternatively, the rails might be raised, but that affects loading gauge, wiring clearance etc, Not likely a huge issue with the generous clearances adopted, but it would be far more disruptive and expensive, and it's not simply packing ballast as slab track is used.

There isn't much choice for plausible 915mm level boarding 300km/h+ rolling stock today. I couldn't recommend the new Talgo Avril, though in Spain they've premiered fully level boarding and walkthrough trains at native 760mm platforms. The trains have had many problems during their introduction, however. Alstom might be able to produce something using their TGV style trailer bogies under a new single deck UK body, but that would likely require their preferred 'motrice' (power car) configuration rather than the distributed traction specified in the current HS2 contract. Stadler has produced the 250km/h 'Giruno' train for SBB, but nothing faster, and clearly a new custom UK bodyshell would be required.

Though, the eg Velaros in Germany have technically got level boarding at 760, even if it is not step free access, technically not quite the same thing. At 915mm that is almost one step fewer, and one wonders whether that gives enough to play with. It's right to say you'd need new end sections, bespoke.

So the platforms are already designed though, there is no way out from 1150mm?

 

[Austriantrain]

Lots of official paperwork was certainly being produced about it, because HS2 originally attempted to obtain a derogation or second UK specific platform height.

It was definitely quasi judicial in nature right up until Brexit, although unclear to me who the responsible judicial body would be to check from that end.
EDIT: We now have a thread for this specific question in this forum.

I believe in the end, it would have been a question of whether ERA had approved the stock or not. You could of course appeal a negative decision with the European Courts, but that, in practice, would come much too late. So it is rather negotiation style, trying to convince ERA of the merits. Only a fools would order rolling stock for hundreds of millions of pounds/euros when approval is uncertain.

Knowing the EU, I am quite sure though that the issue would have been solved…

 

[osmarks]

Why mention Manchester? Yes if you're heading directly from Manchester to Edinburgh there are arguably hills if you go in a straight line, but the present Manchester to Scotland services manage perfectly well going via Preston.

Then there is the fact that London to Edinburgh is shorter via ECML than via WCML, and a new route could logically go via Leeds without really adding to the present ECML distance.

And you're overlooking that I was only talking about a new London to Scotland route after the present HS2 is completed, which wouldn't run via Manchester. Of course there should be a high quality link from Manchester to Leeds to join into a route to Scotland, but that's additional.


You say that heading via Sheffield is a circuitous way to serve the Northeast? And yet the route to get to Leeds with the original HS2 plan was via OOC and the Chilterns? I'd suggest that this is somewhat pot and kettle!

I didn't mean anything about Manchester specifically; I just mean that a line from the general West Coast area (i.e. extending HS2 phase 2) is, while not a perfect way to serve Edinburgh, good enough that it is probably not worth building a separate eastern high-speed line for it.

My comment about the mountains being in the way was about the hypothetical middle-of-the-country-to-Scotland route.

HS2 serving the North East through Birmingham allows reusing the very expensive phase 1 infrastructure. A new London to Scotland route would not, which would be quite wasteful since phase 1 was designed to handle very high capacities.

 

[The Ham]

HS2 serving the North East through Birmingham allows reusing the very expensive phase 1 infrastructure. A new London to Scotland route would not, which would be quite wasteful since phase 1 was designed to handle very high capacities.

HS2 should be able to handle 17tph, however only 11 of those were going to be used on the Western side.

Assuming that the Eastern Arm is unlikely to be built any time soon, as long as there's capacity (or potential route upgrades to create that capacity) north of the HS2 infrastructure is worth nicking some of those 6 paths originally allocated for the Eastern Arm to provide more Scottish rail capacity.

If the Eastern Arm does go ahead, then at least one path could be freed up by deleting the York & Newcastle service by extending the York service which splits at East Midlands Hub to Newcastle and then run the York, Darlington & Newcastle service as a 400m train (although it may only be 200m north of York) which would give the same seating capacity, even if it doesn't have the same frequency (2tph vs 3tph).

Of course, if that's an issue, especially if there's a need for more capacity on the Western Arm too, then look to build a new line at the southern end. However, that only needs to reach the Eastern Arm junction as the rest would already exist.

 

[Shrop]

HS2 is a great idea, and I wouldn’t change the route. It just needed the planning permission reforms first, a tighter oversight on cost, more planning time and less political interference.

Once it’s completed, everyone will think it’s an obviously great idea that we’ll be proud of for decades, unless they throw the baby out with the bath water and cut too many costs and benefits.

After today's news, your take on HS2 might be a little stretched even for the optimistic among us.
Yes, people have a habit of accepting things once completed, as proved by HS1, but HS2 is a whole different story.
HS1 wasn't decimated.
Neither did it go over budget by several hundred percent.
Nor was it delayed for years. And years. And years.
By the time HS2 is opened, many of us who had looked forward to using it will be past having the need to do so. And we'll be suffering financially as successive Governments try to claw back its ever increasing costs.
It will be a fair bit harder to be so forgiving of earlier doubts with a scheme that has been so incredibly badly managed.

 

[Krokodil]

Nor was it delayed for years.

The Channel Tunnel Act was passed in 1987. The French had LGV Nord open in 1993, in advance of the tunnel opening. Construction of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (now known as HS1) wasn't approved until 1996. The project had to be rescued by the government in 1998 and didn't open in full until 2007. It certainly wasn't smooth sailing.