The Economist : HS2 Railroad to nowhere

[Zoe]

You don't have to go through to Peak District if you split off a western branch before the Peak District. If you head to Sheffield and then cut across the Peak District to Manchester then you are adding distance. There could also be a branch from Birmingham to the main line.

 

[mallard]

You don't have to go through to Peak District if you split off a western branch before the Peak District. If you head to Sheffield and then cut across the Peak District to Manchester then you are adding distance. There could also be a branch from Birmingham to the main line.

I didn't expect to go to Manchester via Sheffield, more likely to go via Derby and follow (generally) the direction of the old Midland route through the Peak District.

If you want to avoid the peak district you would have to branch from the WCML/"M1 corridor" somewhere near Nuneaton/Leicester to keep the route straight and fast, but even this isn't exactly direct and access to Birmingham from the North East is difficult.

 

[Philip Elliott]

If you want to reach Manchester via that corridor you will have to (re)build the line through the Peak District National Park

No you don't. As the Crow flies, the most direct route to Manchester is via Nuneaton (as per the current WCML) and then via the Churnet Valley (which you have to avoid). We are only talking about following the M1 south of Rugby.

Also note that passenger numbers on the MML are much lower than on the WCML or ECML, which gives an idea of how popular a HS route along the same corridor might be

That makes no sense. Why would a non-stop train from London to Manchester be less busy if it went via the M1 corridor rather than the Chilterns? It would be shorter and quicker...

It also would be far less helpful when it comes to easing capacity issues on the WCML south of Rugby

How do you work that out? A new line south of Rugby that takes existing traffic off won't ease capacity. If you build a London - Rugby via MK line, you remove ALL existing services of the existing line and still keep all the other stations served (except Watford Junction).

and along the Coventry corridor.

The Coventry corridor needs 4-tracking end of. HS2 will be used as an excuse not to but it won't help provide the extra paths to allow fast trains to Coventry & Northampton aswell as the local services.

 

[mallard]

No you don't. As the Crow flies, the most direct route to Manchester is via Nuneaton (as per the current WCML) and then via the Churnet Valley (which you have to avoid). We are only talking about following the M1 south of Rugby.

No, the straight line between central London and central Manchester passes through Northampton, just west of Leicester and Derby and through the Peak District roughly between Ashbourne and Marple, passing just west of Buxton. The old Midland route was more direct than the WCML.

When you mentioned the M1 corridor in your previous comment, you mentioned it being the most direct route to Sheffield and Leeds, that doesn't give me the impression that you just meant to use it south of Rugby.

That makes no sense. Why would a non-stop train from London to Manchester be less busy if it went via the M1 corridor rather than the Chilterns? It would be shorter and quicker...

If HS2 just joined London and Manchester, maybe with an awkward branch to Birmingham, it would be far less busy than if it served both Birmingham and Manchester properly. The MML already carries the vast majority of of passengers between Sheffield and London, yet it's the quietest of the north-of-London main lines.

How do you work that out? A new line south of Rugby that takes existing traffic off won't ease capacity. If you build a London - Rugby via MK line, you remove ALL existing services of the existing line and still keep all the other stations served (except Watford Junction).

Is this another new line in addition to HS2? Following the WCML closely enough to serve MK and Rugby isn't practical. By "ALL existing services", I assume you mean all Intercity services? If not, how do you intend to serve Hemel Hempstead, Leighton Buzzard, Tring, etc?

If you build a direct line between London and Manchester, you take at most 3tph in each direction off the WCML (less, because stopping services will be needed to serve Stoke, Stafford, Rugby, etc.)

The Coventry corridor needs 4-tracking end of. HS2 will be used as an excuse not to but it won't help provide the extra paths to allow fast trains to Coventry & Northampton aswell as the local services.

I agree that the Coventry corridor needs 4-tracking. However, there isn't room. Acquiring all the land and modifying all the structures to do it is likely to cost somewhere in the billions, at which point you've already spent a significant proportion of the money for HS2, which will reduce the number of "fast" services being held up by the stoppers and the need for as many New St.-International trains, helping with the capacity issues.

 

[Philip Elliott]

No, the straight line between central London and central Manchester passes through Northampton, just west of Leicester and Derby and through the Peak District roughly between Ashbourne and Marple, passing just west of Buxton. The old Midland route was more direct than the WCML.

Ahem... http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?...neaton&st=3&tl=Map+of+Nuneaton,+Warwickshire+[Town]&searchp=ids.srf&mapp=map.srf

The arrow is Nuneaton.

When you mentioned the M1 corridor in your previous comment, you mentioned it being the most direct route to Sheffield and Leeds, that doesn't give me the impression that you just meant to use it south of Rugby.

Rugby would be the Junction for a 'Y'. The West Coast trains would only use the M1 corridor south of there but Sheffield/Leeds would continue via the M1 corridor.

The MML already carries the vast majority of of passengers between Sheffield and London, yet it's the quietest of the north-of-London main lines.

Maybe because the MML no longer has it Leeds, Bradford & Scottish services? The MML carriers on excess of 10 milion compared to the 19 million of the East Coast.

Following the WCML closely enough to serve MK and Rugby isn't practical

Yes it is. There is enough room to make Bletchley - Wolverton 6-track - north and south of there it doesn't matter how close it is. At Rugby it only needs to join somewhere south of the station and I'd suggest that TV services would continue on a separate and join near Nuneaton.

By "ALL existing services", I assume you mean all Intercity services?

Indeed I did, apologies for not being more specific.

If you build a direct line between London and Manchester, you take at most 3tph in each direction off the WCML (less, because stopping services will be needed to serve Stoke, Stafford, Rugby, etc.)

You still have the junctions and spurs to serve other destinations. HS2 won't be serving those places.

However, there isn't room. Acquiring all the land and modifying all the structures to do it is likely to cost somewhere in the billions,

There is. The route has already been surveyed and costed at £900 million for Stechford - Beechwood Tunnel. Beechwood - Coventry would be easy.

at which point you've already spent a significant proportion of the money for HS2, which will reduce the number of "fast" services being held up by the stoppers

Those fast services need to remain to service the Coventry, Rugby, Northampton, MKC & Watford flows.

 

[mallard]

Ahem... http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?...neaton&st=3&tl=Map+of+Nuneaton,+Warwickshire+[Town]&searchp=ids.srf&mapp=map.srf

The arrow is Nuneaton.

I'm not sure what you mean by that, but even the straight line between Nuneaton and Manchester passes through the peak district.

Rugby would be the Junction for a 'Y'. The West Coast trains would only use the M1 corridor south of there but Sheffield/Leeds would continue via the M1 corridor.

If you have the junction there, you don't get connections from the North East to Birmingham.

You still have the junctions and spurs to serve other destinations. HS2 won't be serving those places.

With the current planned route, trains could come off HS2 at the Rugeley junction and call at Stafford and Stoke on the way to Manchester.

Those fast services need to remain to service the Coventry, Rugby, Northampton, MKC & Watford flows.

Northampton, Rugby, MKC and Watford aren't on the Coventry corridor. They can be served by trains off the Trent Valley from Liverpool, Manchester, Crewe, Scotland, etc.

For reference, I have attached a map of the routes we have been discussing. Blue lines are the straight lines to Birmingham and Manchester. Red lines are based on the current HS2 plans, with pink showing the proposed extensions. Green lines are what I can make of your proposed route to Manchester (with a branch to Birmingham), with lighter green showing a Leeds branch. Orange shows the required chords to allow trains from the north to access Birmingham by your route.

Note that much best-guessing has been done and detail has been omitted.

 

[HSTEd]

One of the reasons passenger numbers are relatively low on the MML is it takes so long to get anywhere, its almost faster to walk to King's Cross, take the train to Grantham and change onto the local to reach Nottingham.

 

[LE Greys]

One of the reasons passenger numbers are relatively low on the MML is it takes so long to get anywhere, its almost faster to walk to King's Cross, take the train to Grantham and change onto the local to reach Nottingham.

That's a combination of low top speed and line curvature. It's almost the same with the Berks and Hants, travelling the extra 30-odd miles via Bristol has a relatively-low time penalty. Tilt could sort that out, but it would be expensive to fit TASS to the line. The Meridians could probably be adapted to use it, though. That might cut half an hour from the time to Sheffield.

 

[A0]

That's a combination of low top speed and line curvature. It's almost the same with the Berks and Hants, travelling the extra 30-odd miles via Bristol has a relatively-low time penalty. Tilt could sort that out, but it would be expensive to fit TASS to the line. The Meridians could probably be adapted to use it, though. That might cut half an hour from the time to Sheffield.

Alternatively works could be carried out which have been to the ECML on a couple of occasions to improve linespeeds for conventional trains - which would provide benefit to all trains routed, including freight. A far better use of resources.

 

[Zoe]

travelling the extra 30-odd miles via Bristol has a relatively-low time penalty.

It's only just over 20 miles longer via Bristol.

 

[HSTEd]

Electrification and tilting are probably the answers there, line realignment can only achieve so much and the ECML is far straighter to start with.
Could always extend the London-Newark train to Sheffield via Doncaster, that would give them a second fast train per hour.

 

[Snapper]

As requested, the quote in full from Nigel Harris:

And your name is mentioned where exactly?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

True, but it really should have gone the other way, though. Instead of going up 6.3% points, if it went down 6.3% to to 24.6% then there would then be 12.6% points difference. We would then have a little bit more breathing space to kick start the economy with infrastructure investment that would prepare us for the next growth cycle. Right now we need to keep hold of our AAA credit rating. America lost theirs, and much of Europe is struggling, so we shouldn't get to carried away with our borrowing.

Obviously that is very back-of-a-fag-packet maths, but more the principle, of course.

Building HS2 will in now way get us 'carried away' with our borrowing. It's a vital infrastructure project that the Government recognises we need and it's prepared to fund.

As for all these attempts to redraw the route, it's an exercise in pointlessness, nothing more.

 

[Get-Pulled-Off]

And your name is mentioned where exactly?

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You implied the lack of a verbatim quote was evidence that the quote was not as patronising as it was. I provided it. It's for other to make their mind up whether they agree with me or not.

I'm just glad this Government has a record of U-Turns as it's quite possible they will have a wobble before it's built. Fingers crossed, eh?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Building HS2 will in now way get us 'carried away' with our borrowing. It's a vital infrastructure project that the Government recognises we need and it's prepared to fund.

I wasn't taking specifically about HS2, sorry for any confusion.

 

[The Planner]

There is. The route has already been surveyed and costed at £900 million for Stechford - Beechwood Tunnel. Beechwood - Coventry would be easy.

When was that dated ?? there are certainly no plans to do it or even consider it that I know of on the part of NR, unless it is what Atkins or whoever did the alternative solutions to HS2 work it out to be. There is no passive provision for it in the New St re-signalling either. You only need to do Stechford to Beechwood anyway, no need for the last bit to Coventry.

 

[Holly]

You can't say for certain there will be large benefits from HS2 in 100 years time, for all we know rail itself may be redundant by then. I doubt the canal companies ever thought they would go out of business.

The railway may not be needed in 100 years, but the right of way surely will.

The reason why few (any?) canals were converted into railways is that they were built as cheaply as possible in the first place. That is to say there was little oversizing to allow for future expansion.

Four-tracking makes a lot of sense with an intention of handling freight on the slower lines overnight. With large gauge clearance primarily for the freight. Again, not expensive if planned in from the start. If you fail too build it too large you will surely build it too small.