High Speed 2 - do we really need it?

[LE Greys]

Agreed.
I'm not going to start frothing about the GCR again, but reinstating routes to fill in gaps also allows a separation of traffic flows on overloaded routes. Under a vertically-integrated system, the railway companies could go ahead and build the routes whenever they liked, subject to planning permission.

On the double-deckers, I think it's just possible to squeeze a double-deck coach into W10 loading gauge, provided you had doors over the bogies and the lower deck in a well between the bogies. This might only work on the Southern, and then not on various routes (e.g Tonbridge-Hastings). However, it's worth considering, and there is plenty of double-deck stock on the Continent which could be adapted for UK use.

Other suggestions:
March-Whitemoor-Spalding
Keeps freight away from Peterborough and provides a diversionary route away from the ECML if they ever go for an upgrade.

Stansted Airport-Great Dunmow-Braintree
Provides access to Stansted from the east, cutting out a bus route, and acts as the eastern end of the EWRL

Starcross-Newton Abbott
Inland route planned by the GWR in the 1930s to avoid the Seawall, thus speeding up services and reducing the number of times the route is cut by storm surges

 

[EWS 58038]

Starcross-Newton Abbott
Inland route planned by the GWR in the 1930s to avoid the Seawall, thus speeding up services and reducing the number of times the route is cut by storm surges

Sorry, but with such a statement I think your safety is an issue from now on. Especially on a forum which is dominated by rail enthousiasts.

 

[rb311]

Regarding the Great Western, Im sure someone will correct me if I am wrong, but there was an inland route between exeter and newton abbot via Bovey Tracey.. which again, if rebuilt, would mean no new earthworks...

 

[EWS 58038]

Regarding the Great Western, Im sure someone will correct me if I am wrong, but there was an inland route between exeter and newton abbot via Bovey Tracey.. which again, if rebuilt, would mean no new earthworks...

No, your correct. But still.... Dawlish, seawall, red rock cafe... Don't you think the Cockwood Harbour fencing was enough?

 

[LE Greys]

Sorry, but with such a statement I think your safety is an issue from now on. Especially on a forum which is dominated by rail enthousiasts.

Remind me to duck!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Regarding the Great Western, Im sure someone will correct me if I am wrong, but there was an inland route between exeter and newton abbot via Bovey Tracey.. which again, if rebuilt, would mean no new earthworks...

Seriously, I think this is the route I was talking about. I'm obviously not suggesting abandoning the Seawall, but simply not running expresses or heavy freight along it. Local passenger services and railtours would continue to use it, and it would make a wonderful (but expensive) preserved line if it was ever abandoned entirely.

 

[brianthegiant]

YES WE DO!!,
let us not forget the problems of the wcml upgrade...the delays..the cost of compensation to TOCs etc.

Whilst there is plenty of scope for a never ending debate hear of HS vs Classic upgrades on this forum...I think the actual main political debate out there is "investment in new modern reliable high speed rail infrastructure vs more roads & runways"; (sorry but endless classic line upgrades just dont have the same cheque book opening appeal as high speed lines).
This HS2 vs Road/air debate has swung very heavily in favour of HS in the last 6 months, with the ditching of heathrow runway 3 and continued cross party support for HS2.

Consider also that HS2 as the first stage of the new backbone of the UK rail network will bring more tourists & business people into the heart of britain by Rail,who will use classic lines for completion of journeys, which will in turn provide the increased demand to justify investment in future upgrades in regional rail infrastructure.

IF, we want to see a new golden age of railway in the UK, HS2 is the route to it, support HS2 or consign most of the UK to second class status beyond the increasingly extensive european high speed rail network.

 

[Proud Salopian]

Yeah, that's all very well if the rest of the network continues to receive funding as the HS network gets built (a period of many decades potentially). With limited resources - and past experience from a number of European countries who built HS to the detriment of their local, classic infrastructure - I'm not expecting great things. Frankly unless we massively increase our transport budget, then HS cannot be allowed to happen, for it will suck funding out of the entire rail - and indeed transport - budget. And really not to the benefit of anywhere near the majority of rail passengers.

 

[Metroland]

HS2 would use £1bn out of a £20 billion transport budget for 15 years or so (half the money would come from private sources) the same cost as free pensioner bus travel. This is about 1/600th of public spending. I would suspect the rail spend would be dropped by a couple of billion in 'efficiency spendings' and the money would come out of that.

Q35 Iain Stewart: You have stated your support for the principle of High Speed 2 linking London, the Midlands, the north east, the North West and eventually to Scotland. What I am not clear about is how flexible your view is on the route and some of the broad considerations that HS2 looked at. For example, the possibility of intermediate stops. I know the whole concept of HS2 is a fast, major city to major city. If you look at High Speed 1 and some of the French TGV routes, they do have provisions for intermediate stops and the stations are modelled in a way that some trains can thunder straight through while others pull off and stop. In reconsidering HS2, are you going to re-examine concepts like that?

Mr Hammond: I have asked HS2 Limited to look again at the case for the two principal routes north from the West Midlands, the so-called inverted S route, Manchester to Leeds via the Pennines, as opposed to the so-called Y route, where there would be a separate line through the East Midlands, South Yorkshire to Leeds that way; and also to look at the possibility of intermediate stops. As you will know, there is a vociferous lobby in South Yorkshire for a stop in South Yorkshire and similarly in the East Midlands for a stop in the East Midlands. You will appreciate of course – you clearly do appreciate from your question – that the whole point of High Speed Rail is that it is not for ever slowing down, stopping and then gathering momentum again. Stops will be at a huge premium. They introduce a significant time penalty and every stop significantly erodes the business case for the service. I think it is worth observing that the proposed running speed of HS2 will be considerably faster than the French TGV system and therefore the time penalty from a stop will be considerably greater. When you have trains travelling at 250 miles an hour, clearly slowing them down, stopping them and then starting them up again introduces quite a significant challenge, possibly an engineering challenge as well. You may even need separate stretches of deceleration and acceleration lines, so these will not be decisions that can be taken lightly. Clearly, that will be part of the analysis of the overall project going forward. May I just say something else about Milton Keynes? A light bulb has just gone on in my mind that says "Milton Keynes." One of the key things about HS2 is that it is going to address the problems of capacity on the existing West Coast Main Line and the route to Birmingham. I know one of the issues felt very acutely in places like Watford, Milton Keynes and Nuneaton is the lack of stopping services on the current West Coast Main Line. Clearly, if you have a high speed, dedicated line which is getting you that critical London to Birmingham/London to Manchester, city to city time, then the opportunity to have more what you might call semi-fast – but they could still be pretty fast – services stopping at some of these intermediate stations on the existing West Coast Main Line will be much greater. I think what we envisage is that the two separate lines will create a much greater flexibility in the way the railway can operate with what we would today call high speed services, offering stops at places where frankly they cannot stop today without reducing the line capacity in an unacceptable way.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmtran/uc359/uc35901.htm

 

[moggie]

It's absolutely imperative that HS2 is built on new ground. People constantly underestimate the impact and cost of upgrading classic lines. Sure you can upgrade existing lines if you are prepared to shut them for long periods (months) at a time, but that's never going to happen in this country where use is so intensive and practical long term diversions are not generally available. As it is there will be disruption to existing rail lines where there are connections or civil enginnering nearby / over / under. And that ignores the ability to merge or graft train control / power / signalling systems while altering and maintaining existing systems in service. The list of issues is endless. More worrying is the strenght of UK rail industry to undertake these works. There are increasing skill shortages to carry out these works. Yes you can contract the work out to the other side of the world (it already happens on the UK network far more than most would know about) but these people doen't and can't interface on a daily basis with the implementation teams. At least with new build the bulk of the design and construction is specific to the core system, has optimised engineering features that reduce or eradicate the miriad of novel interfaces with existing sytems and can be built efficiently without the constant contraining effects of posessions imposed by a working railway. Efficient build to standard uncomplicated designs equals efficient implemenation and associated cost savings = more for our money. But then there are tories (sorry - couldn't resist).

 

[starrymarkb]

TBH if you were building a Sea Wall bypass it would probably be just as easy to bore a Tunnel through Haldon, certainly upgrading the former branch via Ide and the Teign Valley would be expensive and probably low speed as well

 

[Metroland]

Just reading the financial case for HS2, excluding external benefits (agglomeration, reduction in congestion and so on).

Euston - Birmingham

Capital cost £19.347 m, including £2.8 billion of trains.

Built over 13 years, 3.8 billion being the highest cost in 2019, long after this current spending squeeze, 8 years it's sub £500 million

After railway opens, operation and maintenance cost of £140 million per annum, all of which is recovered is track access fees

Fare revenue climbs from £565 million in 2027 to £806 million in 2033

Franchise operation cost £204 million (including Track access fees)
Train maintenance £180 million
Leaving an operating profit of £181 million in 2027, climbing to £422 million in 2033

The TOC would keep £28-40 million profit per year, and the government would get a premium of £383 million per year in 2033

If including subtractions from the conventional network this is £232m per year in 2033

There's also a premium from the infrastructure co of around £8 million per year.

So 'real' cost of HS2 is £14 billion

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/hs2ltd/deliveryandfunding/pdf/finance.pdf

 

[LE Greys]

It's absolutely imperative that HS2 is built on new ground. People constantly underestimate the impact and cost of upgrading classic lines. Sure you can upgrade existing lines if you are prepared to shut them for long periods (months) at a time, but that's never going to happen in this country where use is so intensive and practical long term diversions are not generally available. As it is there will be disruption to existing rail lines where there are connections or civil enginnering nearby / over / under. And that ignores the ability to merge or graft train control / power / signalling systems while altering and maintaining existing systems in service. The list of issues is endless. More worrying is the strenght of UK rail industry to undertake these works. There are increasing skill shortages to carry out these works. Yes you can contract the work out to the other side of the world (it already happens on the UK network far more than most would know about) but these people doen't and can't interface on a daily basis with the implementation teams. At least with new build the bulk of the design and construction is specific to the core system, has optimised engineering features that reduce or eradicate the miriad of novel interfaces with existing sytems and can be built efficiently without the constant contraining effects of posessions imposed by a working railway. Efficient build to standard uncomplicated designs equals efficient implemenation and associated cost savings = more for our money. But then there are tories (sorry - couldn't resist).

I certainly agree that it is easier to build a new railway along a new alignment than to deconstruct then reconstruct another one, especially with the loss of revenue that would be entailed. However, the question of building an all-new route is somewhat different when the alternative is laying two new tracks in the field next to the line without any disruption to traffic at all. The main problems in both cases occur at the interface points, unless you intend to produce a completely separate system, which could then be a Maglev or some other unusual design. Interfacing with the current system requires a junction, which requires a possession, resignalling, new electrification and all sorts of other things.

Something I have often wondered is why upgrades aren't built into the normal maintenance cycle. For instance, whenever track gets relayed on the MML, why not relay it to 125 mph standards? You're going to be digging it up anyway, so why waste the opportunity?

 

[Metroland]

Actually track is all relaid to the same standard.

It's the maintenance regime, curvature, signal spacing, level crossings, tunnels, underlying ground conditions, and passenger demand dictates speed.

Say the MML was 100mph, because of a sharp curve, and 3 aspect signals were 1 mile apart, you couldn't increase the line speed until you rebuilt a whole new alignment and resignalled it. It does happen, it happened on the ECML in the 1970s, but it's extremely disruptive for the privatised railway where the TOCs demand compensation and passengers dislike bus replacement services and there are no diversionary routes. It's also hard to justify with today's civil engineering costs to spend £100 million on a new 3 mile alignment to save a couple of minutes.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

Just reading the financial case for HS2, excluding external benefits (agglomeration, reduction in congestion and so on).

Euston - Birmingham

Capital cost £19.347 m, including £2.8 billion of trains.

Built over 13 years, 3.8 billion being the highest cost in 2019, long after this current spending squeeze, 8 years it's sub £500 million

After railway opens, operation and maintenance cost of £140 million per annum, all of which is recovered is track access fees

Fare revenue climbs from £565 million in 2027 to £806 million in 2033

Franchise operation cost £204 million (including Track access fees)
Train maintenance £180 million
Leaving an operating profit of £181 million in 2027, climbing to £422 million in 2033

The TOC would keep £28-40 million profit per year, and the government would get a premium of £383 million per year in 2033

If including subtractions from the conventional network this is £232m per year in 2033

There's also a premium from the infrastructure co of around £8 million per year.

So 'real' cost of HS2 is £14 billion

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/hs2ltd/deliveryandfunding/pdf/finance.pdf

And where, exactly does this account for the one billion or so in annual interest payments on the money borrowed to build HS2??

The problem that we have all had for the last thirteen years or so, is that we've had a Labour government that has suckered just about all of us into thinking that money grows on trees. It doesn't and if the private sector is to finance half the build, they will want their pound of flesh for the money. Even the government borrowing won't be cheap.

 

[moggie]

Something I have often wondered is why upgrades aren't built into the normal maintenance cycle. For instance, whenever track gets relayed on the MML, why not relay it to 125 mph standards? You're going to be digging it up anyway, so why waste the opportunity?

Now I'm no pway expert but typically the signalling system installed today in the UK has a design life of approx 25 years (and in reality has extended well beyond this for systems installed prior to recent times). I guess that the cycle of major pway attention is far less than this??? As stated above, spot upgrades are often carried out (e.g. junction remodelling) but whole line upgrades often results in capacity constraints frustrating the use of the existing signalling kit thereby making the balance between alteration and re equipping with a new system favourable towards new. And then there's obsolecence of the existing system to take into account - in terms of compliance to standards and availability of additional kit. Never easy.

 

[222666]

And where, exactly does this account for the one billion or so in annual interest payments on the money borrowed to build HS2??

The problem that we have all had for the last thirteen years or so, is that we've had a Labour government that has suckered just about all of us into thinking that money grows on trees. It doesn't and if the private sector is to finance half the build, they will want their pound of flesh for the money. Even the government borrowing won't be cheap.

Yes this is the frightening part, because you just know this will be reflected in fares (re: your point I've put in bold), & this is the question: just how expensive are the fares on this route gonna be? More expensive than VT? Would VT fares come down even, having aged & become second fiddle to HS2? OK you get some good off-peak & advance fares on VT, so I guess I'm really asking would the peak fares on VT come down a little bit. It could be good for competition, if VT are trying to keep business passengers on-board, & imo, VT Euston - Brum is still plenty fast enough (obviously LM is not).

Edit: also, what would Chiltern do to compete?

 

[YorkshireBear]

Chiltern would have to go off the fact the serve station inbetween and probably stop trying to providea service between london and brimingham and turn into a setrvice for the station inbetween.
the sheffield leeds stoppers are not for peiople travelling from sheffield to leeds as there is 3 expresses and hour that do it in much less time. they serve stations inbetween.

ive always thought the current VT service to brum was fast enough and didnt warrent the building of HS2 now

what is the price tag for London brum?
And why go via heathrow to just slow this high speed rail down.?

 

[222666]

The fares on VT vary wildy especially London - Birmingham, though I've seen very cheap fares advertised on bill-boards for advance purchase / off-peak, I've also seen such ads from Chiltern.

Chiltern are superb but yeah, I too can see them fading into a semi-fast operator like LM, starting from when Evergreen 3 divert some Clubmans & Turbostars for Oxford, which would no doubt be well before HS2. I really hope Chiltern keep the Birmingham service like it is now.

HS2 is a looooooong way off but we need to consider it's impact on neighbouring routes particularly if those routes aren't getting any new rolling stock. In that respect I'd wager the neighbouring routes would become cheaper in the name of competition, which would be a good thing provided the service doesn't suffer too much.

 

[Trog]

Actually track is all relaid to the same standard.

No it isn't the ballast depth, the sleeper type and spacing and the rail type are all varied according to the speed and traffic carried.

 

[Metroland]

Yep sure thing, but we're taking about like-for-like maintenance type replacement on the MML, where most of the above wouldn't change because there are other factors that limit speed. In the principal case of the MML it's curvature, especially in Northamptonshire.

For example, most of the line speed upgrades with Operation princess, although there was some track re-ballasting in some places for greater depth, were things like fitting crossing phones and moving signals.

Life cycle for main line track is 25-30 years or more I believe, I think quite a bit of the ECML track comes from the 70s and GWML from the 60s/70s. Branch lines can have track from as far back as the 30s. Obviously there is maintenance in the form of the rail grinding, ballast changes, tamping, digging out wet beds and so on in that time.

The Skegness line has just been partly relaid, and most of the track was from just after the war, the the newest bit being from the 60s. The signalling is mostly Victorian too.

NR track assets policy is here

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...ack asset policy part 4 update march 2010.pdf

Main lines are generally UIC60 rail, 300mm depth of ballast, 600mm sleeper spacing and 1 in 30 cross fall.

 

[The Planner]

Chiltern are superb but yeah, I too can see them fading into a semi-fast operator like LM, starting from when Evergreen 3 divert some Clubmans & Turbostars for Oxford, which would no doubt be well before HS2. I really hope Chiltern keep the Birmingham service like it is now.

Thats why Chiltern are bringing in the 67s so Oxford can be serviced by the 168s from Dec 12 or May 13. They wont be semi-fast at all, the Birmingham service improves greatly.

 

[222666]

Nice one I think it did read it but forgot

Just a matter of time now, here's hoping there's enough mkIIIs to go around. Seems a little strange to be going back to loco hauled but as long as they're still in good shape people will be happy.

 

[Class 33]

No I don't think we do need this high speed line built for some time yet. Instead the money needs to be spent on improving the current network and services. One of the priorites should be buying more trains to ease over-crowding where they are urgently needed.

 

[pablo]

To drift back to the OP’s question. What on earth do we need HS for? We’ve got the canals and they’re perfectly adequate. Those in a hurry can always take a ‘fly’ boat.
Mr. Brunel’s new railway is designed for travel at 60 mph or more. People will suffocate with the press of air at speeds like that. And, what will we do with all the horses that become redundant?

The Victorian railways were an investment that has served us well for over 150 years, through the industrial revolution, with more to go. Presumably HS rail will be an investment for the next 250 years? The hiccups of the last 50 years point to a need to reduce our dependency on oil, quite apart from other hysterical claims.

The ‘Y’ and ‘S’ proposals are running into flak for being London centric, Heathrow biased, barreling through the Chiltern AONB, upsetting villages, being west-sided and countless other reasons.

There is another proposal, High Speed North, which, the more you look at it, stacks up much better from practical, political and all those reasons. It’s here:

http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/downloads/file/1773/heathrow_and_high_speed_rail

Mis-named and located obscurely so it doesn’t compete too overtly perhaps? It tackles many of the problems that HS2 skates over such as connectivity, dispersion, existing capacity and minimises demolition. Uses existing transport corridors more and projects Euro gauge throughout the country with through benefits to Europe from the country as a whole.

Being an expat scouser, I’m not too happy that it’s at the end of a spur and I could quibble over the detail. The WCML will probably remain as quick. Glaswegians could have similar reservations. But, you can’t have everything.

Do we need it? Like the Victorian above. No. Is it the way to go? Yes.

 

[LE Greys]

To drift back to the OP’s question. What on earth do we need HS for? We’ve got the canals and they’re perfectly adequate. Those in a hurry can always take a ‘fly’ boat.
Mr. Brunel’s new railway is designed for travel at 60 mph or more. People will suffocate with the press of air at speeds like that. And, what will we do with all the horses that become redundant?

The Victorian railways were an investment that has served us well for over 150 years, through the industrial revolution, with more to go. Presumably HS rail will be an investment for the next 250 years? The hiccups of the last 50 years point to a need to reduce our dependency on oil, quite apart from other hysterical claims.

The ‘Y’ and ‘S’ proposals are running into flak for being London centric, Heathrow biased, barreling through the Chiltern AONB, upsetting villages, being west-sided and countless other reasons.

There is another proposal, High Speed North, which, the more you look at it, stacks up much better from practical, political and all those reasons. It’s here:

http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/downloads/file/1773/heathrow_and_high_speed_rail

Mis-named and located obscurely so it doesn’t compete too overtly perhaps? It tackles many of the problems that HS2 skates over such as connectivity, dispersion, existing capacity and minimises demolition. Uses existing transport corridors more and projects Euro gauge throughout the country with through benefits to Europe from the country as a whole.

Being an expat scouser, I’m not too happy that it’s at the end of a spur and I could quibble over the detail. The WCML will probably remain as quick. Glaswegians could have similar reservations. But, you can’t have everything.

Do we need it? Like the Victorian above. No. Is it the way to go? Yes.

Just downloaded it, I'll look through it properly and give a full analysis later. However, I certainly don't agree with the "S" proposal, mostly because it defeats the object of high speed. Increasing speed to Manchester and Birmingham would provide marginal gain in terms of speed (as would any high speed line shorter than 300 miles) and the loss of time in diversion to Manchester means that Newcastle would not be reached in any less than the time it takes at the moment. As a result, real benefits would not appear until Edinburgh, and the loss of 30 minutes by going from Manchester to Leeds and Newcastle would reduce this. The only way to improve this would be to build a York-Stratford short-cut, built about ten years after the first line.

The "Y" is not so bad. Times to Newcastle are better, and Edinburgh/Glasgow via Carlisle might breach the three-hour mark. Real benefits, but it puts a lot of strain on the lower section of the line. However, it negates all the benefits of the WCML upgrade, and is very much western-biased. Both of these routes ignore the East Midlands, which would continue to suffer along with the congested, 110 mph MML. Electrification might help this, but not much.

My preferred route, the GCR-based "Y", is more eastern-biased. This is very good for the East Midlands, Leeds and Newcastle, but ignores the West Midlands, although I considered a branch to connect to the WCML at Coventry. However, the marginal benefits by cutting 15-20 minutes from the timetable would be no major loss, and I planned to extend XC Reading services to Brighton via Heathrow and Gatwick as compensation (Manchester-Brighton extended and Newcastle-Brighton via the GCR). Manchester times would not be much faster than now, and the Glasgow extension would be there as a placeholder for a direct route via Birmingham later (250+ mph speed for real improvements) although it would cut times to 3hrs or so.

The thing I certainly agree with is connectivity. Each time the new line crosses an old one, especially at stations, there should be a connection to the existing network. This would aid maintenance (permanent way trains travel to the work site via the old line) provide diversionary routes and allow the option to run trains to additional destinations off the route. Placing new stations as close as possible to existing ones, or even better as extensions to existing ones, would also make interchange easier. This is something the Germans do really well, the French manage OK with and the Japanese do really badly (comes from having narrow gauge classic lines).

However, do we need it. Certainly, but perhaps not at the moment. Unless we are building it to relieve unemployment, we should get the deficit under control first so that we actually have money to invest.

 

[Geezertronic]

Sorry to drag this thread up again but I was reading a BBC Blog by Patrick Burns (Political Editor for the Midlands - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/patrickburns/2010/08/fly_the_train.html) about High Speed rail and he mentioned that "Virgin Trains have plans to reduce this to a mere 50 minutes" in respect to journey times between Euston and Birmingham International on the WCML - even with an upgrade to 140mph, I fail to see how that would be achievable? He also states 38 minutes for HS2 between Euston and Birmingham International, I'm dubious about that too, especially if the line is routed via Heathrow.

He's usually pretty good is Patrick but I would like to know what his source is for those figures?

 

[The Decapod]

Maybe one day there will be a need for a British equivalent of the TGV network but the current economic climate is hardly the time. Better to concentrate on increasing capacity and punctuality, getting more freight onto the rails and upgrading routes where speeds are low.

 

[sprinterguy]

With the current plans for the terminal stations at either end of the initial London-Birmingham line, I'm questioning just how successful the High Speed Line will be at attracting custom:

The latest Forster report is suggesting pruning the London end to terminate at an Old Oak Common Crossrail Interchange. Meanwhile, plans in the HS2 report for a new Curzon Street terminus at the Birmingham end has got me looking askance for a myriad of reasons:
Firstly, the new station has no interchange facilities with the "classic" rail services, which means that Birmingham would gain a FOURTH seperate terminal station! Passengers looking to connect onto a London train, arriving at New Street from either a local West Midlands station or from further afield are surely more likely to change onto the next New Street-London Euston "classic" WCML service (although possibly a "dumbed down" service with more stops) on an adjacent platform than traipse across to Curzon for HS2!

Secondly the chosen site has massive potential to be a proper interchange with Moor Street station that would finally offer better connectivity with trains on the Snow Hill local lines and Chiltern line for the first time (Which would be more important once HS2 was extended through to Manchester and Leeds), but it seems to be largely ignored.

Plus, the Curzon Street station that is shown has only TERMINAL platforms: Which allows for absolutely no continuation of HS2 services further north on the WCML, without putting further pressures on New Streets' capacity.

So two terminus stations, one of which requires changing onto another train to reach the English capital, and the other that has shoddy interchange facilities with local services and no room for future expansion. Methinks a bit more thought is required before anything gets built.

 

[Geezertronic]

You have to bear in mind that a Terminal station was under the Labour plans for HS2 whereas the ConLib details I have seen on the web want a through station (quite how that will be achieved in Birmingham is another matter).

Until the ConLibs release some concrete plans, the previous plans and any new suggestions can be taken with a pinch of salt

 

[sprinterguy]

You have to bear in mind that a Terminal station was under the Labour plans for HS2 whereas the ConLib details I have seen on the web want a through station (quite how that will be achieved in Birmingham is another matter).

Until the ConLibs release some concrete plans, the previous plans and any new suggestions can be taken with a pinch of salt

Good to know that thought IS being given to a through station.
I would think it wouldn't be too difficult, given that the current Curzon Street terminus station envisages remodelling the minor roads around Eastside area that pass under the New Street approach, to open up the area adjacent to the New Street approaches where they dive into the tunnel and put the station throat and approach roads there for through trains to/from the North. Then build the new concourse over the top of them (Pretty much where it is suggested to be sited on the current plans, but at the same level as the Moor Street platforms, hopefully linked to them in some way.

I've seen the detailed route maps for the London and Birmingham approaches for the first time this afternoon: I'm amused that they've ploughed the planned Curzon Station approach roads straight through one of my mates' current living quarters that was only built 2 years ago! It intrigues me that this new development of flats is expected to be so knackered after less than 20 years of life that it'll be worth knocking down! Really gives you faith in modern British building practices :roll: