GCML as HS2

[HSTEd]

Not sure this is where this would go but oh well I apologise if its not.

Well this is my first post on these forums but Ive been reading them for quite some time, seem to have a real cross section of knowledgeable people here.
Well, I got thinking about the really insane cost of HS2 infrastructure and how it wont really benefit anyone in the actual north that much with the half hour shortenings in journey times.

I also admit having a bit of a soft spot for reopening old railway lines and the idea of upgrading everything as opposed to building new stuff from scratch.

So I came up with the probably totally unoriginal idea of restoring the Grand Central as an alternative to the entirely new built HS2. The Exact Proposal I have here is:

1. Expand the Marylebone Station to form the basis of a High Speed Rail terminal.
2. Upgrade and rebuild the lines out of Marylebone to Harrow-on-the-hill and the Chiltern Main Line to ~100mph running perhaps using slab track and judicious cambers, electrify to 25kV.
3. Install a fancy signalling system on the metropolitan line north of Harrow-on-the-hill to allow moving blocks north to Moor Park.
4. Properly Quadrouple the line from Moor Park to Amersham.
5. Electrify the line from Amersham to Aylesbury at 25kV and perhaps install slab track to enable high speed running. Perhaps triple it to enable local trains to stay out of the way of high speed stock and enable services during engineering works.
6. Electrify/Upgrade the Chiltern Main Line all the way to Birmingham and install cab signalling.
7. Double the High Wycombe-Aylesbury spur and electrify.
8. Reinstate the Grand Central Main Line all the way from Aylesbury to Sheffield with quadrouple or double track as required, you can probably get away with using almost the entire existing right of way with relatively minor reroutes at Leicester and Rugby to get around all the stuff that's been built in the way and possibly use the Robin Hood line RoW to bypass Nottingham.
9. Electrify the surrounds of Nottingham to enable trains to leave the restored GCML and enter the Midland station and vice versa
10. Electrify the remainder of the Robin Hood Line
11. Restore the Woodhead line from the old site of Sheffield Victoria all the way to Glossop, fitting cab signalling and other shiny things.
12. Electrify and upgrade lines to allow electric trains coming from Glossop/Hadfield to enter Sheffield Victoria station (its a few extra miles) and revitalise the station as a viable station to take the pressure off Picadilly.
13. Electrify and upgrade the Penistone line from Penistone-to-Barnsley, installing new chords at Penistone and Barnsley to allow trains to move run from Sheffield to Leeds over it without reversing.
14. Electrify the Barnsley-Leeds line via Wakefield Kirkgate (not sure what thats called)

This gives what amounts to two two track routes out of Marylebone to Aylesbury and takes advantage of the fact that there are apparently only four Metropolitan line trains an hour on the fast tracks north of Harrow-on-the-Hill.
It allows suburban services that terminate at High Wycombe and Aylesbury to be converted to electric traction and extended to somewhere like Ruby or even Leicester in an analogous situation to that on the ECML (outer suburban all the way to Peterborough).
You can use both of the upgraded lines as required to allow the high speed and local services out of London during busy times and provides redundancy.
Upgrades to the Chiltern Main Line make the 2tph run to Snow Hill a viable alternative to the WCML service, nearly doubling the service frequency to Birmingham.
Meanwhile you would be able to slash travel times from Nottingham, Sheffield, Leeds and Manchester using something like a dual voltage (750V/25kV) ETR 610 (Italian 155mph Pendolino). I estimate 60 minutes to Nottingham, 75 to Sheffield and like 95-100 minutes to Leeds and Manchester although those numbers are probably not really realistic.

Electrification of the remainder of the Robin Hood line would enable conversion of those services to electric traction for operational and cost reasons.
I know this would never happen and would probably be almost as expensive as HS2.... but I can dream.
Who wants to shoot holes in it first?

 

[Greenback]

I think it would actually cost quite a bit more than HS2, sorry. You would have to factor in the cost of the disruption caused by the expanions, upgrading or electrification of so many bits of track, which would not be popular with the people who currently use the lines.

Welcome to the forum by the way!

 

[HSTEd]

Thanks, Il try and work out some figures to get a better estimate of price, as the project isn't really a total overlap with HS2, it provides benefits to Nottingham and wherever that you dont get otherwise.

~5km for wiring stations at London, Nottingham Midland, Sheffield Midland (to allow Worksop trains to work electrically) and Barnsley
106km of upgrade/rebuild on the Chiltern Main Line
60km of upgrade/rebuild on the Aylesbury-London Line
183km of reinstating new line Aylesbury-Orgreave (including distance to allow diversions)
20km of rebuild/upgrade on the Robin Hood Line
30km of simple electrification on the Robin Hood Line to Worksop
15km of simple electrification Worksop-Orgreave (turns RHL into a diversionary route)
7km of upgrades/rebuild Orgreave-Sheffield
45km of reinstating new line Sheffield-Hadfield (with a new tunnel)
25km of upgrades/rebuild/partial electrification Hadfield-Manchester Victoria
25km of simple electrification Sheffield Midland-Barnsley (turns Hallam Line into a diversionary route with a reverse at Sheffield)

So in total thats:-
218km of upgrade/rebuild
228km of reinstating new route
75km of simple electrification

Il now try and find examples of the three and estimate lengths per unit price

 

[Greenback]

Then treble or quadruple it to allow for inflation and Newtowrk Rail!

 

[mallard]

Well, I got thinking about the really insane cost of HS2 infrastructure and how it wont really benefit anyone in the actual north that much with the half hour shortenings in journey times.

I don't think the HS2 costs of ~£30bn are "insane". Consider that the WCML upgrade cost ~£10bn. HS2 would easily offer 3x the benefits. Secondly, the benefit to "the actual north" may be limited in the first instance, but HS2 is designed only as stage 1. It provides the basis for further expansion of HSR to benefit the entire country.

When HS2 is built and the passenger numbers are (as they inevitably will be, considering other recent rail projects and the rising cost of other transpiration) significantly higher than projected, then the second and third phases will easily gain the political support they need. (Although I'm sure they'll be some NIMBYism among them too.)

About the reinstatement of the GREAT Central mainline and Woodhead routes, I think it is a worthwhile thing, but won't offer the benefits of HS2. You'd be unlikely to be able to achieve line speeds much beyond 125mph (140mph at most) on those routes and the mixing of high-speed and suburban traffic in London and the West Midlands would cause the same issues it does on the current WCML. My theory is that it is worthwhile to reopen Aylesbury-Rugby-Leicester and Woodhead, but there is little need for an alternative the MML between Leicester and Sheffield.

In short, please do reinstate the GCML and Woodhead lines, but it's not a viable alternative to HS2.

 

[Metroland]

I suppose an HS2 'lite' would consist of the following:

- Re-open the GCR main line from Ashedon to Leicester, electrify and upgrade to 125/140mph. (I doubt it's straight enough for much more).
- Grade separated Junction at Ashedon
- Four track Marylebone to Princess Risborough
- Build a high speed diversion around Banbury
- Electrify Ashedon-Birmingham Snow Hill, and upgrade line for 125/140mph
- Build brand new HSL from Birmingham - Leeds/ECML. Connect in south portions at Birmingham and Leicester.
- Reopen Woodhead and upgrade for upto 125mph and connect in with HSR

Overall this would provide 75% of the speed and over 60% of the capacity of a completely brand new line, with probably £10-15 billion off the overall price tag.

But the main problem with using the GCR is Leicester-Sheffield has been very re-developed. Overall, you are not going to get much more than 140mph out of it.

Building a new HSR on the northern half may get less public opposition and would link the northern cities together thus in order to compete with London and probably wouldn't cost much more than re-instating the GCR on the northern half.

 

[HSTEd]

I have no confidence in the ability of Network Rail to complete HS2 on budget or on time, and as the Government has said repeatedly it will not be retained in public ownership, which means we can look forward to more Railtrack-esque incompetence.

I suppose this isn't a viable alternative to HS2 speed-wise, but I still think upgrading and reopening old lines is better value for money than building brand new high speed lines from scratch. It also has the advantage that we already know where the vast majority of the alignment is and we could almost start work tommorow, and since a large part of the excavation is already been done it could be finished far faster.

Oh and its less likely to result in a 30% ticket price hike similar to the one on Javelin services, with faster conventional trains withdrawn to force people to use it.

 

[mallard]

I have no confidence in the ability of Network Rail to complete HS2 on budget or on time, and as the Government has said repeatedly it will not be retained in public ownership, which means we can look forward to more Railtrack-esque incompetence.

Who says it is to be built by NR? HS1 wasn't. HS1 was also built on-budget and on-time (after a bunch of political dilly-dallying over cost).

HS1 is also not in public ownership, with no "Railtrack-esque incompetence" to date.

I suppose this isn't a viable alternative to HS2 speed-wise, but I still think upgrading and reopening old lines is better value for money than building brand new high speed lines from scratch. It also has the advantage that we already know where the vast majority of the alignment is and we could almost start work tommorow, and since a large part of the excavation is already been done it could be finished far faster.

Except that no old, closed lines really go where HS2 needs to go. Upgrading the WCML again isn't viable. The plan already re-uses old alignments where possible, so will be built faster and cheaper than if it were constructed absolutely from scratch.

Oh and its less likely to result in a 30% ticket price hike similar to the one on Javelin services, with faster conventional trains withdrawn to force people to use it.

The actual price increase for HS1 hike is well under 30% on average. You say the faster conventional services were withdrawn to force people onto HS1, others may say that they were re-timed to better serve the areas that didn't directly benefit from HS1.

Personally, considering HS1 will be in direct competition with both the WCML and Chiltern routes (as opposed to HS1's SET services which only compete with other SET services), ticket prices will be kept more competitive. Additionally, ticket prices on the WCML at least are likely to drop in response to competition.

 

[Greenback]

Others may say that they were re-timed to better serve the areas that didn't directly benefit from HS1.

Do you work for ATOC or SET at all? if not you should consider a career with their PR departments!

Personally, considering HS1 will be in direct competition with both the WCML and Chiltern routes (as opposed to HS1's SET services which only compete with other SET services), ticket prices will be kept more competitive. Additionally, ticket prices on the WCML at least are likely to drop in response to competition.

There will be no need for ticket prices to fall on the WCML if they will be lower than those charged on HS2. I haven't seen anything to suggest that the fares on the latter will be anything but premium, to reflect the premium service/speed. This suggests they will be higher than the WCML, and based on what the market is prepared to pay for high speed travel i.e. WCML/ECML fares plus a bit more.

 

[mallard]

Do you work for ATOC or SET at all? if not you should consider a career with their PR departments!

No, I'm just able to look at alternative viewpoints. I don't doubt that SET wanted people to use HS1 (and pay the premium), but it's also true that smaller stations closer to London now have a better service than before.

I used to live in SET's area and regularly visit. When I do, I almost invariably travel via HS1 since; on my long-distance tickets there is no extra cost and since I now live in EMT's area, changing at St. Pancras is far easier than getting the tube to Victoria. In fact, apart from the reduction of time in London, HS1 doesn't actually shorten my journey time!

Anyway, I fear we are straying from the original topic, which was whether or not re-opening (and upgrading) the GCML (and Woodhead) routes would be a viable alternative to HS2...

 

[Greenback]

No, I'm just able to look at alternative viewpoints. I don't doubt that SET wanted people to use HS1 (and pay the premium), but it's also true that smaller stations closer to London now have a better service than before.

I used to live in SET's area and regularly visit. When I do, I almost invariably travel via HS1 since; on my long-distance tickets there is no extra cost and since I now live in EMT's area, changing at St. Pancras is far easier than getting the tube to Victoria. In fact, apart from the reduction of time in London, HS1 doesn't actually shorten my journey time!

Anyway, I fear we are straying from the original topic, which was whether or not re-opening (and upgrading) the GCML (and Woodhead) routes would be a viable alternative to HS2...

I was more thinking about how well worded your sentence was!

Metroland's HS2-lite looked like an interesting proposal. Obviously, it has it's downsides in terms of speed, but combined with a northern HS line it seems to provide some more than half the benefits at less than half the projected cost.

I don't think the original suggestion on this thread would be viable, there's far too much involved.

 

[gordonthemoron]

obviously the best thing to do would be to rebuild and straighten WCML, MML & ECML to enable 200mph running and the scrapping of all commuter services on these lines

Alternatively, build a high speed line to take all the express services off WCML, MML & ECML and improve commuter services on the classic lines, i.e. HS2

 

[swt_passenger]

I have no confidence in the ability of Network Rail to complete HS2 on budget or on time, and as the Government has said repeatedly it will not be retained in public ownership, which means we can look forward to more Railtrack-esque incompetence.

I suppose this isn't a viable alternative to HS2 speed-wise, but I still think upgrading and reopening old lines is better value for money than building brand new high speed lines from scratch.

There's a lot of info in the original HS2 reports that explains exactly why it isn't better VFM. But you're not the first to think that upgrading the GC is somehow a solution - lets face it people have been posting it as a new idea every few months ever since Adonis first mentioned HS2...

Network Rail aren't in public ownership, but at the same time they've never been suggested as the builders of HS2 anyway.

 

[anthony263]

I have read that it would be near inpossible to expand Marylebone station due to the recent building work on either side.

I do agree with re-opening the Woodhead route which should never have been closed in the 1st place.

 

[Greenback]

I have read that it would be near inpossible to expand Marylebone station due to the recent building work on either side.

I do agree with re-opening the Woodhead route which should never have been closed in the 1st place.

Perhaps it could be rebuilt as a bi level station?

You are right about the Woodheahd route.

 

[Philip Elliott]

Except that no old, closed lines really go where HS2 needs to go. Upgrading the WCML again isn't viable. The plan already re-uses old alignments where possible, so will be built faster and cheaper than if it were constructed absolutely from scratch.

Utislising existing alignments will probably increase the costs as all the existing structures will have to be removed first with cuttings and embankments widened.

The GCR does go where HS2 needs to go. The WCML is busy south of Rugby - check, the MML is busy south of Leicester- Check, the ECML is busy south of Doncaseter - check...

 

[daikilo]

Not sure this is where this would go but oh well I apologise if its not.

Well this is my first post on these forums but Ive been reading them for quite some time, seem to have a real cross section of knowledgeable people here.
Well, I got thinking about the really insane cost of HS2 infrastructure and how it wont really benefit anyone in the actual north that much with the half hour shortenings in journey times.

I also admit having a bit of a soft spot for reopening old railway lines and the idea of upgrading everything as opposed to building new stuff from scratch.

So I came up with the probably totally unoriginal idea of restoring the Grand Central as an alternative to the entirely new built HS2. The Exact Proposal I have here is:

1. Expand the Marylebone Station to form the basis of a High Speed Rail terminal.
2. Upgrade and rebuild the lines out of Marylebone to Harrow-on-the-hill and the Chiltern Main Line to ~100mph running perhaps using slab track and judicious cambers, electrify to 25kV.
3. Install a fancy signalling system on the metropolitan line north of Harrow-on-the-hill to allow moving blocks north to Moor Park.
4. Properly Quadrouple the line from Moor Park to Amersham.
5. Electrify the line from Amersham to Aylesbury at 25kV and perhaps install slab track to enable high speed running. Perhaps triple it to enable local trains to stay out of the way of high speed stock and enable services during engineering works.
6. Electrify/Upgrade the Chiltern Main Line all the way to Birmingham and install cab signalling.
7. Double the High Wycombe-Aylesbury spur and electrify.
8. Reinstate the Grand Central Main Line all the way from Aylesbury to Sheffield with quadrouple or double track as required, you can probably get away with using almost the entire existing right of way with relatively minor reroutes at Leicester and Rugby to get around all the stuff that's been built in the way and possibly use the Robin Hood line RoW to bypass Nottingham.
9. Electrify the surrounds of Nottingham to enable trains to leave the restored GCML and enter the Midland station and vice versa
10. Electrify the remainder of the Robin Hood Line
11. Restore the Woodhead line from the old site of Sheffield Victoria all the way to Glossop, fitting cab signalling and other shiny things.
12. Electrify and upgrade lines to allow electric trains coming from Glossop/Hadfield to enter Sheffield Victoria station (its a few extra miles) and revitalise the station as a viable station to take the pressure off Picadilly.
13. Electrify and upgrade the Penistone line from Penistone-to-Barnsley, installing new chords at Penistone and Barnsley to allow trains to move run from Sheffield to Leeds over it without reversing.
14. Electrify the Barnsley-Leeds line via Wakefield Kirkgate (not sure what thats called)

This gives what amounts to two two track routes out of Marylebone to Aylesbury and takes advantage of the fact that there are apparently only four Metropolitan line trains an hour on the fast tracks north of Harrow-on-the-Hill.
It allows suburban services that terminate at High Wycombe and Aylesbury to be converted to electric traction and extended to somewhere like Ruby or even Leicester in an analogous situation to that on the ECML (outer suburban all the way to Peterborough).
You can use both of the upgraded lines as required to allow the high speed and local services out of London during busy times and provides redundancy.
Upgrades to the Chiltern Main Line make the 2tph run to Snow Hill a viable alternative to the WCML service, nearly doubling the service frequency to Birmingham.
Meanwhile you would be able to slash travel times from Nottingham, Sheffield, Leeds and Manchester using something like a dual voltage (750V/25kV) ETR 610 (Italian 155mph Pendolino). I estimate 60 minutes to Nottingham, 75 to Sheffield and like 95-100 minutes to Leeds and Manchester although those numbers are probably not really realistic.

Electrification of the remainder of the Robin Hood line would enable conversion of those services to electric traction for operational and cost reasons.
I know this would never happen and would probably be almost as expensive as HS2.... but I can dream.
Who wants to shoot holes in it first?

Ah, at last, the blindingly obvious. You stand a fair chance of being proved right. How many votes can you contribute to such a scheme?.....

 

[Nonsense]

What happened to that scheme a few years back to re-open the route as a piggyback freight route taking HGVs, cars and container freight etc direct from Liverpool, over the Woodhead and then down through the tunnel to France?

It was a private venture, requiring no public money and included scope for some passenger services.

I was very much supportive of this scheme, but in addition to HSL, which at the time was Virgin's proposed Eastern route to Edinburgh.

 

[Metrailway]

What happened to that scheme a few years back to re-open the route as a piggyback freight route taking HGVs, cars and container freight etc direct from Liverpool, over the Woodhead and then down through the tunnel to France?

It was a private venture, requiring no public money and included scope for some passenger services.

I think the Govt considered the proposed budget was too low and would need significant taxpayers money to get it built.

 

[Yew]

Doesnt the proposed HS2 route use a few sections of the GCML?

 

[mallard]

The GCR does go where HS2 needs to go. The WCML is busy south of Rugby - check, the MML is busy south of Leicester- Check, the ECML is busy south of Doncaseter - check...

Yes, but most people using the WCML (IC services) don't want to go to Rugby or the East Midlands (which is where the GCR went). They want to go to Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool or Scotland. The GCR goes to none of these places. HS2 will (eventually).

The WCML is also pretty much at capacity through Coventry and Birmingham New Street. Re-opening the GCR won't help here. HS2 will.

Reopening parts of the GCR network to increase capacity and speed up journeys to the East Midlands and between Sheffield and Manchester makes a lot of sense, but it doesn't solve the problems that HS2 is trying to solve.

 

[Philip Elliott]

Yes, but most people using the WCML (IC services) don't want to go to Rugby or the East Midlands (which is where the GCR went). They want to go to Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool or Scotland. The GCR goes to none of these places. HS2 will (eventually).

You'd put a link down from the GCR onto the WCML, I'd thought anyone would realise that:roll:

The WCML is also pretty much at capacity through Coventry and Birmingham New Street. Re-opening the GCR won't help here. HS2 will.

HS2 won't help provide additional train capacity on the Stours without destroying Coventry's London service. 4-tracking however will.

The GCR did go to Manchester, Liverpool & Wrexham though.....

 

[mallard]

You'd put a link down from the GCR onto the WCML, I'd thought anyone would realise that:roll:

Of course you would, but that would just provide another set of "fast" (actually not that fast since you still have Chiltern services to interwork with) lines south of Rugby. It wouldn't decrease journey times by a significant amount.

HS2 won't help provide additional train capacity on the Stours without destroying Coventry's London service. 4-tracking however will.

I don't know about "destroying" Coventry's London service, but I expect that additional stops would be added to Birmingham/Wolverhampton-Euston WCML services after construction of HS2. I also expect that Coventry-London passengers would be allowed to travel via Birmingham and HS2 with no journey-time penalty.

The GCR did go to Manchester, Liverpool & Wrexham though.....

I think London-Wrexham via the East Midlands isn't exactly what you'd call "direct", although I'm sure you could manage journey times similar to what WSMR achieved!

 

[sprinterguy]

HS2 won't help provide additional train capacity on the Stours without destroying Coventry's London service. 4-tracking however will.

The existing WCML corridor between Coventry and Birmingham is very narrow though and hemmed in by extensive residential development on both sides of the line, which would make four tracking nigh-on impossible, while the chosen route from HS2 running parallel to the Derby line from Water Orton follows a much wider alignment with much less development in the vicinity and a lot of existing old railway infrastructure, espcially around Washwood Heath capable of being levelled and converted to HS2s' purposes.

 

[Philip Elliott]

I don't know about "destroying" Coventry's London service, but I expect that additional stops would be added to Birmingham/Wolverhampton-Euston WCML services after construction of HS2. I also expect that Coventry-London passengers would be allowed to travel via Birmingham and HS2 with no journey-time penalty.

Coventry will go from 3tph to 1tph and have 10 minutes I added. It'll also lose services into New Street as a consequence. Do you honestly believe you will be able to do Coventry - London via Birmingham / Airport in 62 minutes? Do you think it will be possible to travel from the train at International to the new HS2 station in about 10 minutes.....?

The existing WCML corridor between Coventry and Birmingham is very narrow though and hemmed in by extensive residential development on both sides of the line, which would make four tracking nigh-on impossible, while the chosen route from HS2 running parallel to the Derby line from Water Orton follows a much wider alignment with much less development in the vicinity and a lot of existing old railway infrastructure, espcially around Washwood Heath capable of being levelled and converted to HS2s' purposes.

The Coventry corridor needs to be widened regardless of whether HS2 is built or not. However, I strongly suspect HS2 will be used as a reason to abvoid spending the money. The route between Beechwood Tunnel and Stechford has already been surveyed and costed. From Coventry to Beechwood there is only one short stretch where the formation is hemmed in. The tunnel itself could easily be dug out.

 

[mallard]

Coventry will go from 3tph to 1tph and have 10 minutes I added. It'll also lose services into New Street as a consequence. Do you honestly believe you will be able to do Coventry - London via Birmingham / Airport in 62 minutes? Do you think it will be possible to travel from the train at International to the new HS2 station in about 10 minutes.....?

As I said in a previous thread, I think talk of post-HS2 timetables is premature. The "official" sources might give an outline of what to expect, but given the amount of timetable changes that have been made to the WCML in the last 10 years, I don't think we can say anything concrete.

Coventry may well be one of the "losers" of HS2, but just because you can find one group of "losers" doesn't mean the whole scheme is not worthwhile. There will be far more "winners" than "losers". Who knows what might be done to mitigate the losses to Coventry? A few extra non-stop services? A free shuttle but between International the new HS2 station at Birmingham Airport? An OOA providing better services than the franchised WCML operator?

HS2 is something that is vital for the future of the UK rail network. Saying it could be replaced by a 125mph line to Rugby and the East Midlands is silly, even though that on its own is not a bad idea.

 

[Greenback]

As I said in a previous thread, I think talk of post-HS2 timetables is premature. The "official" sources might give an outline of what to expect, but given the amount of timetable changes that have been made to the WCML in the last 10 years, I don't think we can say anything concrete.

Coventry may well be one of the "losers" of HS2, but just because you can find one group of "losers" doesn't mean the whole scheme is not worthwhile. There will be far more "winners" than "losers". Who knows what might be done to mitigate the losses to Coventry? A few extra non-stop services? A free shuttle but between International the new HS2 station at Birmingham Airport? An OOA providing better services than the franchised WCML operator?

HS2 is something that is vital for the future of the UK rail network. Saying it could be replaced by a 125mph line to Rugby and the East Midlands is silly, even though that on its own is not a bad idea.

I broadly agree. There will always be losers when something changes, whether it be new services introduced, staff harmonisation or a new fares system! That's not a good reason to oppose such changes, especially if things cna be done to mitigate the disadvantages for those affected.

 

[Philip Elliott]

Coventry may well be one of the "losers" of HS2, but just because you can find one group of "losers" doesn't mean the whole scheme is not worthwhile. There will be far more "winners" than "losers". Who knows what might be done to mitigate the losses to Coventry?

There plenty of likely 'losers' following phase 2 - Wolverhampton, Stoke, Wakefield, Stafford, Chesterfield, Wigan, Sandwell etc, etc, who will suffer either reduced frequency and / or longer journey times. The end to end traffic makes up the minority of journeys currently.

 

[mallard]

There plenty of likely 'losers' following phase 2 - Wolverhampton, Stoke, Wakefield, Stafford, Chesterfield, Wigan, Sandwell etc, etc, who will suffer either reduced frequency and / or longer journey times. The end to end traffic makes up the minority of journeys currently.

Possible "losers". Given that phase 2 hasn't even had it's route decided yet, it's even harder to say what the effect on "classic" timetables will be than it is for phase 1.

Most of those stations will however be close enough to a HS2 station that they may well gain a faster overall journey time to many destinations (including London) although with a change.

 

[Greenback]

Agreed, Mallard. It's not possible at the moment to state with certainly who will lose out and in what way.