Alternative HS2 solution for Birmingham

[Batman]

Here's an idea that's just come into my head.

Instead of building Birmingham Curzon Street as the Birmingham terminus for HS2, why not run HS2 trains into New Street (better for connection passengers) and create extra capacity at the station by moving existing services from it.

This can by done by:

Revitalising plans from the mid 1990's and having Crossrail style deep tunnels running from Duddeston to Five Ways for the Cross City line with lower level platforms underneath New Street. This probably would require a diveunder just south of Five Ways station so that northbound cross city trains can access their new alignment without affecting south bound Cross Country and regional trains. Five Ways station would be re-built on the waste-ground immediately to the east of its current location. This frees up platforms 8 & 11 at New Street.

Build 4 new terminus platforms at Moor Street on a viaduct immediately to the South East of the point where the approach tracks to New Street and the platforms at Moor Street meet. Completely re-develop Moor Street station, get rid of the GW architecture and link it to the Bull Ring (and New Street) by a bridge over Moor Street Queensway (might require the relocation of an escalator next to Selfrages).

Although it would involve the demolition of some industrial buildings in the eastside of Birmingham, these terminus platforms link to the main cross country tracks just to the east of Proof House junction and would be used by Cross Country regional services (1tph to Stanstead Airport, 2tph to Leicester, 2tph to Nottingham and 1tph to Tamworth and possibly 2tph to Wolverhampton via Walsall and the Sutton Park Line). Regrettably the Cardiff-Nottingham service will have to be split in two (although it could only require a simple change at Moor Street if the Cardiff service is re-directed into Snow Hill once the Bordesley cord is built) and the proposed Tamworth/Leicester-Worcester/Hereford cross city service would no longer be possible. This could release another 2 or 3 platforms at New Street.

With theses services removed from New Street and the Cross city line running in tunnels, some west coast services from London and Coventry could move onto a new alignment at Proof House Junction and use platforms 7-12 at New Street.

HS2 trains could then enter New Street on the current West Coast tracks and use platforms 1-6. Some West Coast and local trains (Walsall-Wolverhampton stoppers) will continue to use these platforms as there will only be four HS2 trains per hour running into New Street (6 when the lines to Manchester and Leeds are open). HS2 trains would move to their own alignment immediately to the east of Proof House junction (just after the flyover) so that the other tracks can shift to their new alignments as mentioned above.

This may create a problems with some West Coast trains that don't start or terminate at New Street (the hourly Wolverhampton - Euston service Chase line and ATW from the airport) having to cross the cross country lines at the south east of the station to get to the Wolverhampton lines, but that will be less of an issue when cross city trains are removed from New Street.

And there are other issues that will need to be thought about such as platform lengths and trains coming from the Wolverhampton lines that terminate at New Street (Shrewsbury, Liverpool etc...)

What do people think of my idea, and would it be a more practical and cheaper alternative to building an expensive new station at Curzon Street?

 

[jopsuk]

The London-Birmingham service is supposed to be using the GC+ (max) sized trains- the tracks they used to reach New Street would have to have their loading gauge massively increased. Plus they'll need longer, lower, platforms.

 

[Batman]

The London-Birmingham service is supposed to be using the GC+ (max) sized trains- the tracks they used to reach New Street would have to have their loading gauge massively increased. Plus they'll need longer, lower, platforms.

OK, so building Curzon Street is probably the safer bet.

I still believe that Moor Street needs to be re-developed and New Street/Moor Street/Curzon Street all linked together as one building.

Hasn't the idea of an airport style moving walkway been mentioned somewhere?

 

[mister-sparky]

build a whole new tunnel under birmingham (having to go VERY deep to get beneath all else down there and the snow hill lines), rebuild stations, AND get rid of the old GWR part of moor street which they've recently spent MILLIONS restoring....
and you think all that will be cheaper than building the approach and station at curzon street?

you're in cloud cuckoo land.

 

[giblets]

Apparently Birmingham is built on very sandy soil, so tunnelling is an absolute mare.

 

[JGR]

There's really no point running HS2 services to New Street unless you're going to run them out the other side.
Diverting through services into extremely expensive tunnels, just to park terminating services (which wouldn't fit anyway) at the existing through platforms does not make much sense.
Curzon Street is ideally placed (though it could possibly be pushed a few hundred metres SWW from the existing site to get it closer to Moor Street)

 

[Batman]

Apparently Birmingham is built on very sandy soil, so tunnelling is an absolute mare.

Maybe so, but there were detailed plans drawn up in the 1990's to have the Cross City Line diverted into tunnels.

When the Bull Ring shopping centre was re-developed a decade ago, the developers offered Railtrack the opportunity to have the tunnels widened so that the number of approach tracks could be increased from 4 to 6. But they turned the offer down in favour of the tunnels option. I suppose we've got to wait an extra 40 years till the next re-development of the Bull Ring for any extra approach tracks.

 

[swt_passenger]

Curzon Street is ideally placed (though it could possibly be pushed a few hundred metres SWW from the existing site to get it closer to Moor Street)

Curzon St is at the far platform ends. The HS2 station concourse is already as close to Moor St as it can get, it crosses the road outside Moor St station.

Curzon St is basically a completely misleading way for DfT to describe the station location.

 

[BananaRepublic]

Curzon Street is ideally placed (though it could possibly be pushed a few hundred metres SWW from the existing site to get it closer to Moor Street)

Curzon St is at the far platform ends. The HS2 station concourse is already as close to Moor St as it can get, it crosses the road outside Moor St station.

Curzon St is basically a completely misleading way for DfT to describe the station location.

I agree with SWT Passenger, Curzon St. is misleading considering that the proposed station concourse is immediately adjacent to - and proposed to be integrated with - the Moor St. station entrance.

There are obviously people who are under the incorrect impression that the old Curzon St. station building is the site of the proposed station entrance. It isn't.


Further to this topic and others.
When proposing such ideas, as in the OP; there seems to be no account taken of the fact that as proposed, HS rail will run on a totally segregated network, only connected (apart from maintenance access) where trains will run off the end onto the "classic" network.
There is also the very strong likelihood that HS2 will be operated by a stand-alone company and not NR.
On both counts, that would make it quite difficult, if not almost impossible to run the line into New St.

 

[Badger]

If you were going to go through all that effort, considering how deep the tunnels would need to be etc, what I'd do if I was planning Birmingham in 50 years time is:

- Demolish Pavillions, Big Top, and the South side of New Street (street)
- Run HS2 through this gap, and the Moor Street lines
- Build a grand central station linking everything together (all Birmingham services would leave from one station)
- Above them, rebuild what was there before but bigger - a big business district, an extension to the Bull Ring replacing the Pavillions, etc.

Not sure who's idea is less likely, but since we're in fantasy land might as well.

 

[Batman]

To be honest, Curzon Street should be called Birmingham Eastside instead.

And it does need at least 4 terminus platforms for local trans coming from the east and north east of the city.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

To be honest, Curzon Street should be called Birmingham Eastside instead.

And it does need at least 4 terminus platforms for local trans coming from the east and north east of the city.

And I'm being deadly serious when suggesting that. I think I've mentioned it before on another thread.

There could potentially be 8 tph from the local platforms as follows:

1tph - XC - Fort Parkway, Castle Bromwich, Kingsbury, Wilncote, Tamworth.

1tph - XC - Kingsbury, Tamworth, Burton, Willington, Derby, Long Eaton, Beeston, Nottingham.

1tph - XC - Tamworth, Burton, Derby, Nottingham.

1tph - XC - Fort Parkway, Castle Bromwich, Water Orton, Coleshill Parkway, Nuneaton, Hinkley, Leicester.

1tph - XC - Coleshill Parkway, Nuneaton, Hinkley, Narborough, South Wigston, Leicester.

1tph - XC - Coleshill Parkway, Nuneaton, Leicester, Melton, Oakham, Stamford, Peterborough, March, Ely, Cambridge, Audley End, Stanstead Airport.

2tph - LM - Fort Parkway, Castle Bromwich, Walmley, Sutton Town, Streetly, Aldridge, Walsall, Pleck, Darlaston James Bridge, Willenhall, Wolverhampton.

This would then free enough paths at New Street to allow a 4tph service on the Camp Hill line to King's Norton (and possibly beyond) without the need for the Bordesley Cord to be built. And in theory it would leave paths for a 6tph Walsall service if there is ever demand for it. Perhaps peak time extras on the cross city north might be more constructive use of these slots.

 

[LE Greys]

If you were going to go through all that effort, considering how deep the tunnels would need to be etc, what I'd do if I was planning Birmingham in 50 years time is:

- Demolish Pavillions, Big Top, and the South side of New Street (street)
- Run HS2 through this gap, and the Moor Street lines
- Build a grand central station linking everything together (all Birmingham services would leave from one station)
- Above them, rebuild what was there before but bigger - a big business district, an extension to the Bull Ring replacing the Pavillions, etc.

Not sure who's idea is less likely, but since we're in fantasy land might as well.

Is this where you got the idea from? Personally, I like it.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Don't you dare touch Moor Street's GWR style, great looking station that. Just a shame I didn't have long to admire it as I rushed to catch the LHCS train.

If the version of the HS2 plans I saw are still current, they seem to have found a good spot for the Birmingham station provided they won't be knocking any parts of Moor Street down to build it. Trobble is, running trains doing more than 140mph there from London seems a bit daft, you don't need the extra expense and energy consumption (and resultant greenhouse gas emmisions) of all the extra speed if you are on a route where the only competition is cars limited to 70mph. Either HS2 should be 4-track to Birmingham International (with trains for Birmingham that haven't come from HS1 running on the slow lines and limited to 140mph) or the Birmingham HS2 station should be on a slope, with the north end being a tunnel mouth which would lead to Manchester (so all trains to Manchester, Glasgow etc. would be routed via Birmingham).

Will the classic compatible HS2 trains have tilt, or will journey times from Preston to Glasgow be extended?

 

[Badger]

Not quite; New Street would still be an integral part of the station. Something like this:

(Red is the demolition area; green is how to connect New Street to the new platforms. Grey is the Moor St lines, on a lower level. Black is the HS2 lines.)

This would all be on a below-street level somehow. Above it would be a mass rebuild of central Birmingham.

(I know this is unfeasible, but IMO it's as "feasible" as the deep tunnels idea!)

http://bb.ohsk.net/uploads/brumsmall.png

Not accurate or anything.

Moor Street would be kept as a terminus for a steam heritage railway.

Cost: probably more than HS2 itself!

 

[Nym]

Cost: probably more than HS2 itself!

Exactly why it won't happen...

 

[Batman]

Not quite; New Street would still be an integral part of the station. Something like this:

(Red is the demolition area; green is how to connect New Street to the new platforms. Grey is the Moor St lines, on a lower level. Black is the HS2 lines.)

This would all be on a below-street level somehow. Above it would be a mass rebuild of central Birmingham.

(I know this is unfeasible, but IMO it's as "feasible" as the deep tunnels idea!)

http://bb.ohsk.net/uploads/brumsmall.png

Not accurate or anything.

Moor Street would be kept as a terminus for a steam heritage railway.

Cost: probably more than HS2 itself!

That's a lot of city centre buildings your demolishing.

The locals certainly won't like it, and I don't like the idea of Bella Italia on New Street being sacrificed on the alter of HS2.

 

[Chris125]

Trobble is, running trains doing more than 140mph there from London seems a bit daft, you don't need the extra expense and energy consumption (and resultant greenhouse gas emmisions) of all the extra speed if you are on a route where the only competition is cars limited to 70mph.

The benefits of building phase 1 for 220mph+ between are more for services to Manchester, Leeds and beyond where the time savings will make HS2 competitive with short-haul airlines while also helping to relieve existing long distance services on the MML and ECML. When building a new line from scratch, the extra cost of such speeds is more than compensated for by the direct and indirect benefits.

Regarding tilting stock, as far as im aware there are no true tilting designs of high-speed (186mph+) stock, and no plans to design any - at least in part i believe due to the weight of the equipment required, especially the bogies.

While there will be a journey time penalty for classic-compatible sets over the northern WCML, HS2 Ltd and NR have identified some infrastructure improvements that will get it down to 4(?) minutes.

Chris

 

[Rhydgaled]

The benefits of building phase 1 for 220mph+ between are more for services to Manchester, Leeds and beyond where the time savings will make HS2 competitive with short-haul airlines while also helping to relieve existing long distance services on the MML and ECML. When building a new line from scratch, the extra cost of such speeds is more than compensated for by the direct and indirect benefits.

Of course the faster running is really for Manchester, Scotland and Liverpool services, which is why I suggested a 4-track line. The trains avoiding Birmingham headed for destonations would run at 200mph (maybe slightly more) on the fast lines but for services from London terminating at Birmingham anything much more than 140mph is a waste of electricity so they would run on the other 2 tracks to keep them out of the way of the high speed services to Glasgow, Manchester and Liverpool.

Or you could take my other option and tunnel under Birmingham from the proposed station site which means the Birmingham HS2 station would not be a terminus and 200mph trains could run to Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow via an intermediate calling point in central Birmingham.

 

[Chris125]

Of course the faster running is really for Manchester, Scotland and Liverpool services, which is why I suggested a 4-track line. The trains avoiding Birmingham headed for destonations would run at 200mph (maybe slightly more) on the fast lines but for services from London terminating at Birmingham anything much more than 140mph is a waste of electricity so they would run on the other 2 tracks to keep them out of the way of the high speed services to Glasgow, Manchester and Liverpool.

Any 'waste' of electricity is made up for by shorter journey times and more efficient use of rolling stock and, crucially, track capacity - it doesnt justify the massive expense and controversy of a 4-track formation.

The idea of tunnelling under Birmingham has been suggested many times before, and the same arguments still stand - passenger demand and travel flows dont justify the huge cost.

Chris

 

[LE Greys]

Well, I'm not sure if I like it or not. The other Grand Central idea had the effect of getting rid of New Street, presumably flattening the platforms and turning the whole area into a new junction, possibly with enough vertical room for a flyover or two. Whether that's a good idea or not is anyone's guess, but it would certainly solve the congested western throat.