I don't. I do however get annoyed when someone starts talking down to me. Either you always were aware that I won't confuse Klagenfurt and Graz with Manchester, Liverpool or Leeds, in which case explaining that to me is equivalent to a deliberate, completely unnecessary dressing down. Or you really think that I would confuse them; in that case, I don't understand why you engage in a discussion with me, because it would then be clear that I am not on the level.
This is a thread entitled entitled "if you could re-design HS2" in the speculative subforum. It is not a discussion about the 2027 timetable or the technicalities of the trans-pennine upgrade. As far as suggestions on these last 9 pages go, I am quite sure that mine is not one of the more outlandish ones. If in such a thread one cannot voice an opinion without having a detailed technical plan and exhaustive studies to back it up, then the speculative section should close or access to the entire forum limited to people in or very close to the industry. If you think that I am not on the level, don't enter into a discussion with me. If you think that discussing stuff with me is interesting, then please accept that while you are an expert, I am a hobbyist, even though not the most clueless one. Don't expect me to explain every single point up to such detail as you would expect from an industry insider. I will never be able to. Also please realize that English is not my first language and while it is very serviceable, it is far from perfect, especially in a "technical" environment. I will never be able to make points as clear and as good as you can.
And I disagree with your disagreement.
Within a circle of Birmingham/Preston/London/Newcastle - with the full Y of course - you are right; but there is a very substantial amount of Great Britain - even England - with major cities and densely populated areas well outside it. And they are also far outside Dutch norms - and Utrecht - Maastrich is, in Dutch terms, extreme and not that relevant. I don't think it is comparable to Bristol - Newcastle or Exeter - Manchester.
In the end, my point is political, not technical - I have some technical ideas, but I do realize that I am not an expert on this (even though I do know enough to see that rebuilding New Street for HS2 is a non-starter, and building an entire second underground station between Moor Street and New Street is so too) and I am open to every alternative that is cheaper and/or more efficient. The thing is: Huge expenditure into railways need *a lot* of public support. And I believe that you won't get it with a project that is excellent for Londoners (who do not care for it that much though because mostly they are far more interested in going to Paris, Amsterdam, the French Alps, the Cote d'Azur or Marbella than to Leeds) and helps Mancunians to be faster in Birmingham or Brummies to be faster in Leeds. It won't convince people from the South or the South-West who now have direct (if overcrowded) trains and in the future have to change at least once, maybe twice and lose much of the HS2 time saving on the change (maybe not up to Newcastle, but surely to Manchester or Liverpool); or they can (maybe) use existing direct trains, which will probably become even more uncomfortable and slower than they are because they will cater to more local traffic. It also won't convince much of the West Midlands, which will have to change stations and again, lose much of the time saving doing this.
Now I am not one of those that say you should extend the Y to an X towards Bristol or Penzance or Southampton or what have you. That would be nonsense, if alone because there is no single axis where you could bundle traffic on and combine it with London trains. But I strongly believe that if you build such a project you need to make sure to spread the advantages as wide as possible. The entire discussion between us was on me saying that I do believe that that was not done in Birmingham, and as such the project did get less support than it could have, which played a factor in it falling apart so easily just because of one misguided PM.
Now, that is not something that I (or anyone) can prove. And if you disgree with me, that is fine. If you don't understand this about me however, you will never understand what I write (and I do believe what I wrote is entirely with the topic of a speculative "what if things were different" thread).
It is also why I believe that the Manchester station thing is a red herring. I do know that HS2 doesn't need an underground station there, and I am pretty sure that Andy Burnham knows it too (he is just trying to get other things). But I cannot fault Manchester for thinking that HS2 alone is of little advantage to them - what they need much more urgently (as well as the entire North) is a resilient and fast East-West-axis. What is really really baffling on all this ist that not only Manchester access was dropped, but everything north of Handsacre, when there can be really not be much doubt that phase 2b as far as Crewe would mitigate most problems that you now face. Another sign to me that the whole "railway political incentive thing" does not work well (anymore) in the UK; I don't think this would have happened anywhere on the Continent bar the Iberian peninsula and the Balkans.
That was a bit of a disgression on my side. I had recently read the MR article about the Coventry - Leicester plans and thought: I don't understand you (I mean not you personally, but British rail planning or whoever comes up with such things). It is not about HS2 per se, although I am never happy with 20-minute-frequencies when so much of the rest of the network relies on half-hourly. But I can live with it, because it is unavoidable: Half-hourly would give too little capacity from London; quarter-hourly is not feasible on a two-track railway.
The general idea is not difficult, although it obviously would need a lot of electrification. Basically, it would be the current XC Y moved from New Street to Curzon Street. Bristol arrives, then Reading, cross-platform interchange, then Birmingham leaves, 3 minutes after that Leeds. If you do not insist on a Swiss node at Curzon Street (which I do not think is necessary, Dutch style works well here - also, there is not a lot of case for Reading - Bristol or Manchester - Leeds connections at Birmingham), then you can do it on two tracks with a central platform, even adding/losing a second 200m-set for the trip north. I am not sure that ending every train at Curzon Street and turning it around there needs less platform capacity.
Timetable wise, south of Birmingham nothing much changes. I accept that on the ECML and the WCML that would not be the case. However, I don't think it is plausible that any HS2 trains there will simply fit into the existing timetable pattern. Rather, both ECML and WCML will really have separate timetable planning for the northern (focused on HS2) and southern (focused on the remaining London traffic) sections, with the remaining direct trains (which should still exist of course) being the one that have to accomodate the rest. And before you tell me: I do know that the northern sections have a lot of other traffic, both passenger and freight, with strong bottlenecks. I also do know that the UK has excellent timetablers. If some compromises have to be made, I can easily accept them.
Apart from the question if connections are buildable (see below), the main issue is if you want to buy expensive HS trains that run large distances on the classic network. I do believe that in a country like the UK, you should. Operating profits on the core HS2 should easily cover it. I also do accept that this is very likely a minority position here.
My basic idea was for a Curzon Street to Camp Hill line chord. You would probably need a Wien Hbf like flyover on the HS2 approach into Curzon Street to disentangle the access. Maybe a chord towards the Coventry line (or quadruple HS2 from its triangle towards the South until it crosses the B'ham - Conventry mainline.) If you added a chord from Curzon street towards the Walsall - Wolverhamton line, you could also do a lot for wider West Midlands connectivity, accepting that you could only run a UK gauge train there (probably coupled to a UIC gauge set - even double deck - until Curzon Street).
I never would suggest a Stuttgart 21 approach - I believe it is crap there, and completely unnecessary (and unfinanceable) in the Birmingham context; I also don't think you need a Wien Hbf style through-station. Also, as stated above, I am not an engineer and I accept that my proposals are probably unworkable and very crayonista. I would be perfectly open to alternatives (also, incidentally, to run those services via Moor Street if you can fit long platforms there).
And ok, I do write as much or more as you do.
