High Speed Rail 2 questions

[Geezertronic]

... sending traffic via Birmingham is just ludicrous.

You're making it sound like every HS2 train will make a stop at Birmingham (either International or Curzon Street) - is that confirmed or as assumption? I cannot find anything which states that HS2 trains to destinations north of Birmingham will infact stop at Curzon Street for example as that would be ludicrous and require a reversal.

 

[j0hn0]

Phil says:

Northampton - Bedford
Northampton - Wellingborough
A new curve at Manton allowing Northants - Peterborough flows
Leicester - Rugby
Rugby - Leamington (allows XC to avoid Birmingham)
Stratford - Cheltenham
Oxford - Cambridge
Bolsover - Chesterfield/Sheffield (connects Staveley, Renishaw etc.)
Leicester - Burton (Coalville, Ashby etc.)
Stoke - Newcastle (LRT)

So where is the cost to benefit ratio going to fall for these connections exactly? WHere are the mountains of traffic travelling between them every day?

Some of these aforementioned connections really show that you have little or no knowledge about economics, train planning, or even the routes they run on.

Rugby - Leamington for example does not serve anyone. You would have to reopen the line to leicester, reverse at rugby and reverse at Leamington for "XC to miss Bham", I mean come on.

Hey why don't we just whimsically spend money reopening all of beechings lines despite the fact that they would require huge amounts of subsidy to operate and construct?

The very fact that you say "sending traffic via bham is ludicrous" frankly gets the prize for the most uninformed argument against HS2 yet.

What you are effectively doing, is making the case FOR HS2 much easier

 

[LE Greys]

Phil says:

Northampton - Bedford
Northampton - Wellingborough
A new curve at Manton allowing Northants - Peterborough flows
Leicester - Rugby
Rugby - Leamington (allows XC to avoid Birmingham)
Stratford - Cheltenham
Oxford - Cambridge
Bolsover - Chesterfield/Sheffield (connects Staveley, Renishaw etc.)
Leicester - Burton (Coalville, Ashby etc.)
Stoke - Newcastle (LRT)

So where is the cost to benefit ratio going to fall for these connections exactly? WHere are the mountains of traffic travelling between them every day?

Some of these aforementioned connections really show that you have little or no knowledge about economics, train planning, or even the routes they run on.

Rugby - Leamington for example does not serve anyone. You would have to reopen the line to leicester, reverse at rugby and reverse at Leamington for "XC to miss Bham", I mean come on.

Hey why don't we just whimsically spend money reopening all of beechings lines despite the fact that they would require huge amounts of subsidy to operate and construct?

The very fact that you say "sending traffic via bham is ludicrous" frankly gets the prize for the most uninformed argument against HS2 yet.

What you are effectively doing, is making the case FOR HS2 much easier

Looking at each one independently,

• Northampton - Bedford
  Mostly on the A428. Presumably this will also take up a good deal of freight traffic coming from the Cambridge-Oxford route.
  
• Northampton - Wellingborough
  A major diversionary route for the MML, but also some freight.
  
• A new curve at Manton allowing Northants - Peterborough flows
  Again, freight, but seems to be less need for this
  
• Leicester - Rugby
  Should really be part of the GCR
  
• Rugby - Leamington (allows XC to avoid Birmingham)
  Again, the GCR should negate this by connecting Rugby to Banbury. XC avoiding Birmingham would speed things up and clear out the east end of New Street. There is plenty of XC traffic to Birmingham, just make the trains longer. At the moment, Reading-Sheffield is quicker via London than via a direct train, using the GCR would cut an hour off the time.
  
• Stratford - Cheltenham
  The G/WR can handle that.
  
• Oxford - Cambridge
  Pax and freight, links up all the main lines, if you include Stansted-Braintree. Gives an opportunity to divert much of the freight using the NLL to somewhere where it does not tie up capacity on a busy urban route, and avoids the need to block up Ipswich-Ely-Peterborough as well
  
• Bolsover - Chesterfield/Sheffield (connects Staveley, Renishaw etc.)
  Much of this would fit with my idea of separating out former LMS and LNER traffic flows from other lines by linking up ex-Midland lines into a cohesive network. I would do the same between Ardwarke Lane Jcn and Mexborough, thus splitting Rotherham traffic. Anything using the former LNER lines would run via/call at Central and anything using the former LMS lines would run via/call at Masborough.
  
• Leicester - Burton (Coalville, Ashby etc.)
  That's currently a freight line anyway. Not entirely sure what sort of passenger traffic it would see, but worth looking at.
  
• Stoke - Newcastle (LRT)
  I don't know the area, so not so sure.

 

[The Planner]

Rugby Leamington Leicester You would have a hard job re-instating that too through Leamington and Rugby now too as a lot has been built on. It also faces the wrong way at Leamington to be useful and you would also need an impressive junction and flyover at Rugby too !!

The Manton triangle has been looked at previously and could never muster a cough towards a decent BCR.

 

[dalmahoyhill]

rb311

"Sadly there are a number of people who post regularly on this site whose motives are nothing more than "rail is good, everything else is bad". Often they use the unproven, and further still, unresearched "green argument". Moreover most "informed" comment on here is based on pure rail enthusiasm; apparently, by simply travelling on all sorts of different trains, this makes someone one an expert in all matters rail these days, if not all things transport."

Wrong. I am a rail enthusiast and a pragmatist. The plethora of diesels that came out in the 60s was great for enthusiasts but made for poor economics. Standardisation and widespread use of DMUs and EMU's is entirely sensible so is electrification although it makes for a boring network. I support HS2 not because I think brings in a "golden era" or it adds more trains for spotting but because I think it is the right solution to predicted growth and our future transport needs. I think the WCML upgrade has proved that large scale upgrading of existing lines is poor value for money. And I don't say this as an enthusiast but as a civil engineer who deals in working on repairing assets that cannot be shutdown for any length of time.

I make no claims that HS2 is green. The only green form of transport is staying at home, in the absence of that, then cycling or walking come a close second, but then seeing as laying tarmac is energy intensive even this cannot be that green. However HS2 CAN be supplied by renewables which in an oil strained future is going to be its advantage over the car and plane

"Let's get one thing straight, building HS2 is not some modern day cathedral project that will leave the human race with a thing of sublime beauty in generations to come. By the time this cure all of the current leftist leaning world's ills is finished, this country will be left with yet another hideous, modernist scar across our green and pleasant land. At least Victorians knew how to build bridges."

Indeed but railways were seen as a hideous scar when they were 1st built and plenty of Victorians opposed them, but now you celebrate the design of their bridges. Motorways are not appealing either but they are also essential. So HS2 is a leftist conspiracy? Funny that it is a right wing party is proposing it then?

"And one more thing, people on this site also say some ridiculous things about domestic air travel, from "banning it" to "taxing it out of existence".. Even if the white elephant, named HS2, ever goes to full term it will not alleviate any of the transport issues that happen to cross the axis of London to Birmingham."

No one is claiming the end is nigh for air travel or that we should tax it out of existence, however it is likely to get exceedingly expensive in the future unless oil prices head south which is not likely to happen. The model of budget airlines may become outdated in the next 10 years and if that happens it is going to put additional pressure on the rail network. It is going to be the same for car travel, petrol prices are never going to drop back down to the prices of the last 20 years, we are still going to have cars but we will have to use them less. So HS2 stealing airline market share for cost as well as time reasons for travel to the north is a fair assumption.

Lastly London to Birmingham doesn't make economic sense as a standalone line. The complete HS2 to Manchester and leeds does. It was never conceived than anything less than a network. However as I made clear in another post there isn't the construction capacity to build it in one go, hence staging the works.

"At the end of the day the pro HS2 supporters are and will continue to get more hysterical because the argument is being lost."

Don't agree with that, no one is winning the argument, we are having a debate that is all. Anyway it has the support of the main political parties and the design is advanced. I think it will happen. Ultimately the "argument" doesn't matter because the political will is there.

 

[Philip Elliott]

You're making it sound like every HS2 train will make a stop at Birmingham (either International or Curzon Street) - is that confirmed or as assumption? I cannot find anything which states that HS2 trains to destinations north of Birmingham will infact stop at Curzon Street for example as that would be ludicrous and require a reversal

I'm not suggesting any of that, I'm pointing out that the route is very indirect making it a slower journey time. A good example is between Leicester and Nottingham via the MML or the GCR. The MML is now a 110mph route with very fasts Meridiands. For a while, MML (natex) ran non stop between the two and on one blistering fast run it was just 21 minutes. However I know of several journeys on the GC route in under 20 minutes using a steam loco!

So where is the cost to benefit ratio going to fall for these connections exactly? WHere are the mountains of traffic travelling between them every day?

Nose to tail gridlock on the many dual carriageway roads. So how would you try to reduce the far higher than average car usage in Northamptonshire?

Some of these aforementioned connections really show that you have little or no knowledge about economics, train planning, or even the routes they run on.

Rugby - Leamington for example does not serve anyone. You would have to reopen the line to leicester, reverse at rugby and reverse at Leamington for "XC to miss Bham", I mean come on.

I mentioned no route details, you've just made wild assumptions. Leicester - Rugby would via the GC via new chords at Whetstone and Clifton allowing direct Leicester - Coventry. The route into Leamington is too far gone so you would build a new section to join the Oxford line with a triangular junction so no reversals would be necessary.

No knowledge of the routes? I have photos of all the surviving bridges of the GCR north of Rugby have walked the route. As a Rugby resident you ought to know about the planned re-opening of Rugby - Marton Junction by Rugby cement. It was only when they were bought by Cemex the plan failed. The council was to do the remaining section. The relief road was supposedly designed to allow the railway to be rebuilt though the cross roads don't make it easy. The line closed to Marton in 1986 and is largely complete. The biggest obstacle is getting off the line onto the up lines at Rugby but there is potential to use the bi-di on Platform 1.

I love the idea of re-building the level Crossing across the A5 on the Midland Counties route though!

Rugby - Leamington opens up connections from Warwick, Solihulll, Stratford and potentially from Cheltenham via the Glos/Warks to the east of the country. Rugby is a town of 100,000 and Leamington 30,000+ - hardly nowhere.

Virtually all the schemes I suggested have positive feasibility studies. You do know that Leicester - Burton was given the go-ahead by the last Tory government back in 1993? It was the creation of Railtrack who doubled the cost overnight that scuppered it.

£17 bn subsidy for 10-15 million passengers based on the first stage of HS2 is a lot per passenger. Total expenditure of LRT to date is less than £10bn and now carries over 100million passengers a year and requires no central government subsidy.

John, you have shown nothing but contempt for the concept of debate, making false assumptions and juvenile outbursts.

 

[Geezertronic]

I believe the infill schemes mentioned do warrant a second thought but comparing them to HS2 is not really valid in the context of improving the South-North journey times and the possible accessibility to European destinations.

 

[rb311]

JohnO... or should it not be Oh John. How qualified are you to state that there is no one travelling between these various routes? Taking out short car trips and replacing them with local journeys with well run, efficient, clean and timely local trains would have far more impact on carbon footprint sizes than any HS route, 1,2,3,4 or 5. After all, most rail journeys are undertaken by people on distances less than 50 miles, aren’t they?

Plus you are discounting that these routes can actually stop at intervening stations, and of course, some of these might have connections with others as well, so the Oxford Cambridge route would not be for people who simply want to travel from Ox to bridge. Therefore, I think, it is you who shows a lack of journey planning....

Long distance journeys are governed by time and price. The proposed HS2 may potentially shave a few minutes off between certain limited destinations, but because it’s going to cost an emperor’s ransom, the price of tickets will put most people off travelling on it in any case, and so a permanent blight on this country’s remaining green and pleasant land will be for nothing.

As to the claim somewhere on this thread that domestic flights are only between London and MCT, NCL, GLA and EDN is, to put in politely, crap. I’m afraid that environmentalists have resorted to the simpleton’s argument that flight is bad, rail is good, and that one less flight in the world is somehow a notch to be chalked up with pride on their environmental bedpost.

And there have been plenty of people on this website who express the desire to get rid of domestic flights or tax them out of existence, repeatedly.

 

[jon0844]

I love flying.. and don't want to see a day where we can't fly places for a reasonable amount of money.

Today, with the taxes, it's already getting very expensive - and I count the low cost airlines that are having to find new ways to bump up your total bill, even if people only seem to count the cost of the flight as the flight bit itself (ignoring all the other fees loaded on). Here, rail - for now - can do very well.

But, there are of course other reasons to want to take the train.. like getting on early, getting out the laptop and getting on with some work (or, in my case, just using the computer as if I'm at home, so some games, web browsing, forums, email, social networking etc). No need to pack anything away or turn it off for take off/landing, and a nice relaxed alighting at the other end.

HS2 could save the airlines. It's the fuel that is going to continue going up, so while talking of rationing is a little premature (we'll all be gone before that's really an issue), it is better to keep planes flying to further destinations. Meanwhile, you can always satisfy the people who need to travel at any cost by using private/charter planes. In the 1990s when there was shed loads of money in telecoms, I used to fly in private jets from Northolt, or helicopters from Battersea, quite frequently - and they beat everything hands down!

Airlines are lucky in that they can cherry pick, and start and stop routes without all the regulation that would stop a TOC just axing a service tomorrow as they don't make any money. That means that losing a few planes to serve routes now 'replaced' by HS2 doesn't put them out of business, they just serve other destinations - such as those NOT served by rail (and when I say HS2, I'm really talking about all rail - including HS3, HS4 and existing upgraded lines).

Few people, if any, on here are suggesting we build HS2 and tear up roads and runways. That's not it at all. Well, from my point of view it isn't.

Until we can start decreasing the population, we'll need to keep building infrastructure. Or just get more and more overpopulated to the point where people can't even get around at off-peak times, and the quality of life plummets completely.

 

[brianthegiant]

It's the fuel that is going to continue going up, so while talking of rationing is a little premature (we'll all be gone before that's really an issue)

Fuel prices will certainly continue to increase as demand increases and supplies dwindle, even the IEA now admits we are nearing the peak of oil production, ie the easy to drill reserves have been found & exploited, reserves now being developed require more energy & money to extract,

http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2010-11-11/iea-acknowledges-peak-oil

I think talk of rationing oversimplifies the issue, you'll never get an international agreement on rationing, demand will be tempered by the rising cost, and it will be down to individual governments to put policies in place to limit fuel demand & the impact on national debt. Rationing is politically risky in a democracy, so government will use other policies as long as they can. (As Spain is now doing with its reduced motorway speed limits).

Electrifying railways and building new electric lines would also be an option..

 

[jon0844]

I am not aware of a viable alternative to fossil fuels for flying, so if I was a pro-air supporter I'd be very happy to think that road and rail are looking at alternatives that will mean oil is saved for where there isn't yet a proper alternative.

I don't think they're good enough yet (and they're too expensive), but I would certainly consider within the next five years getting an electric car - with the backup of a petrol generator. Until we have faster charging, and more charging points, I'd not be able to get by with ONLY electric - but gradually, I'd imagine myself needing to fall back on petrol less and less.

 

[Geezertronic]

I'm not suggesting any of that, I'm pointing out that the route is very indirect making it a slower journey time. A good example is between Leicester and Nottingham via the MML or the GCR. The MML is now a 110mph route with very fasts Meridiands. For a while, MML (natex) ran non stop between the two and on one blistering fast run it was just 21 minutes. However I know of several journeys on the GC route in under 20 minutes using a steam loco!

You say a slower journey time but compared to what? The example of Leicester and Nottingham doesn't have any relevance to the initial stage of HS2 does it? Plus (and according to TravelLine) the quickest scheduled services I can find between the two on the MML is 29 minutes?

If you said London to Leicester or Nottingham then it would have some relevance however since the northern sections of HS2 (in particular the eastern Y split) have not been properly defined yet then we're just speculating.

 

[tbtc]

JohnO... or should it not be Oh John. How qualified are you to state that there is no one travelling between these various routes? Taking out short car trips and replacing them with local journeys with well run, efficient, clean and timely local trains would have far more impact on carbon footprint sizes than any HS route, 1,2,3,4 or 5. After all, most rail journeys are undertaken by people on distances less than 50 miles, aren’t they?

Plus you are discounting that these routes can actually stop at intervening stations, and of course, some of these might have connections with others as well, so the Oxford Cambridge route would not be for people who simply want to travel from Ox to bridge. Therefore, I think, it is you who shows a lack of journey planning....

You are conveniently ignoring the fact that HS2 would allow the "classic" lines to introduce more stops on existing services. For example, we have services running non-stop from London to Warrington/ Wakefield/ York etc (with non stop services from Newcastle etc come May).

By taking the "time dependant" traffic onto the new "fast" line, the existing routes would be developed with more stops at interchanges like Watford/ Peterborough/ Doncaster/ Rugby/ Stafford/Crewe (etc).

The ECML/MML/WCML are currently fixated with "London" traffic. HS2 will allow them to serve the local stations on the route, give many interchanges a "turn up and go" service and provide more seats for local journeys.

You make a fair point about train journeys serving a lot more than "end to end" travel (with your Oxford - Cambridge service, though I'm not sure how much real demand there is for such a route). This is obviously a big weakness in air travel. Whilst a train from London to Edinburgh may cater to a dozen different intermediate markets (and the same seat be used for London - Peterborough, Doncaster - York, Darlington - Newcastle and Dunbar - Edinburgh), the plane is of no use to anyone in between.

 

[jon0844]

It's also worth noting that there simply aren't anywhere near as many seats available by air - so it's not even a fair comparison anyway. If there was such a demand for flights, they'd be running every 20-30 minutes all day, every day, like a train service.

 

[Chafford1]

By taking the "time dependant" traffic onto the new "fast" line, the existing routes would be developed with more stops at interchanges like Watford/ Peterborough/ Doncaster/ Rugby/ Stafford/Crewe (etc).

The ECML/MML/WCML are currently fixated with "London" traffic. HS2 will allow them to serve the local stations on the route, give many interchanges a "turn up and go" service and provide more seats for local journeys.

The problem is though that major cities on the route of HS2 will get faster services to London whereas those not on it e.g. Coventry, Wolverhampton will have longer and probably less frequent services to the Capital, arguably putting them at an economic disadvantage.

 

[Philip Elliott]

You say a slower journey time but compared to what? The example of Leicester and Nottingham doesn't have any relevance to the initial stage of HS2 does it? Plus (and according to TravelLine) the quickest scheduled services I can find between the two on the MML is 29 minutes?

If you said London to Leicester or Nottingham then it would have some relevance however since the northern sections of HS2 (in particular the eastern Y split) have not been properly defined yet then we're just speculating.

The point is slower trains on a more direct route can get there quicker than faster trains on a longer winding route. You are correct to say the northern section has not been defined however London - Leeds via Solihull district (which is the airport is) is not a direct route.

By taking the "time dependant" traffic onto the new "fast" line, the existing routes would be developed with more stops at interchanges like Watford/ Peterborough/ Doncaster/ Rugby/ Stafford/Crewe (etc).

How are Stafford/Stoke/Crewe/Coventry/Warrington to London NOT "time dependent" then? They have as every much right to fast services as Manchester or Birmingham. Why would any business decide to move to Coventry or Stoke when it is quicker to Manchester & Birmingham plus all the usual benefits or a larger city?

On the MML as I mentioned before, they key "London" traffic is from Leicester - HS2 bypassing the city completely won't help to free any capacity. What the MML needs is the Derby semi-fast re-instated and more EMT/XC services - there is plenty of capacity for these. (For a start there are less services now than 7 years ago)

 

[Geezertronic]

The point is slower trains on a more direct route can get there quicker than faster trains on a longer winding route. You are correct to say the northern section has not been defined however London - Leeds via Solihull district (which is the airport is) is not a direct route.

You cannot describe the current HS2 route as a winding route, if that was the case then it wouldn't be a HS line. I am no mathematician and I don't know the distance differences between the two (I don't think anyone does since HS2 north of Birmingham has not been defined yet) but if HS2 trains do run at 186-200mph plus, then that gives them a distinct advantage over trains running at 110-125mph even if the distance on the classic line is shorter.

 

[LE Greys]

The point is slower trains on a more direct route can get there quicker than faster trains on a longer winding route. You are correct to say the northern section has not been defined however London - Leeds via Solihull district (which is the airport is) is not a direct route.

How are Stafford/Stoke/Crewe/Coventry/Warrington to London NOT "time dependent" then? They have as every much right to fast services as Manchester or Birmingham. Why would any business decide to move to Coventry or Stoke when it is quicker to Manchester & Birmingham plus all the usual benefits or a larger city?

On the MML as I mentioned before, they key "London" traffic is from Leicester - HS2 bypassing the city completely won't help to free any capacity. What the MML needs is the Derby semi-fast re-instated and more EMT/XC services - there is plenty of capacity for these. (For a start there are less services now than 7 years ago)

And that is essentially caused by the adoption of the French model of high speed rail. Now, the German model, which includes more frequent stops and concentrates on shorter and better-integrated high-speed sections, is much better for a country with our population density. One obvious point is the use of "collector" stations near the big cities. We already have three, Stratford, Ebbsfleet and Ashford, all under-used and under-served by international trains, to the extent that a lot of passengers would probably find it easier to travel to St Pancras to catch a Eurostar. When what I presume we will call HS2a (that is the Euston-Birmingham/Atherstone section) gets built, there are several options for "collector" stations. Stockport, Macclesfield and Stoke are three of them, with what would ultimately be a diverted Virgin diagram joining HS2 at Atherstone and proceeding south. I don't know about extending some Birmingham services through to Wolverhampton, since they would have to run through New Street rather than Curzon Street, but I don't see the three-per-hour Birmingham-Euston expresses with one extending to Wolverhampton being affected. Where does HS2 provide a conflicting path if it is running into Curzon Street? The only possible problem is an increase of five minutes or so because of an extra stop at Milton Keynes or Watford Junction, which might be compensated for by one or two extra peak services filling in paths created by diverting Glasgow, Manchester and Liverpool trains off the Trent Valley at Atherstone. That only gives four HS paths per hour, and assuming that another four go to Birmingham, that gives us an 8 tph HS2 (in each direction, 16 tph if you count both). Birmingham thus has 7 tph. So do you cut it back and run 1 tph out of the Birmingham service to provide a second Liverpool train, or simply fill in the path of one of the Manchester trains for that. Remember, four extra WCML paths.

I had a look at several logs for the ECML, and one HST travelling from Peterborough to Newcastle (actually the Northern Lights) spent a grand total of two minutes at 120 mph or faster out of two and a half hours. That's a bit lower than normal, but the average is probably less than half an hour (I only have my own logs to go on). The problem is simply that the train gets up to speed, then has to slow down for a speed restriction or station stop. Even so, this fast and direct route still delivers some very high averages, certainly giving a better London-Newcastle (and certainly Peterborough-Newcastle) time than the "reverse-S" route ever could, not as good as the "Y" though. What does that tell us? A train able to accelerate faster to 125 will gain more time than one maxing out at 200. 200 gains 11 seconds per mile over 125, but that is no good if the train has to stop everywhere, acceleration helps with that. Balancing the two requirements is the key to the timetable.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Let's look at the normal service patterns for the WCML

• Euston-Stoke on Trent-Macclesfield-Stockport-Manchester Picc
• Euston-Rugby-Coventry-Birmingham Intl-Birmingham NS
• Euston-Stafford-Runcorn-Liverpool LS
• Euston-Milton Keynes-Crewe-Chester-etc
• Euston-Milton Keynes-Stoke on Trent-Stockport-Manchester Picc
• Euston-Watford Jcn-Coventry-Birmingham Intl-Birmingham NS-Wolverhampton HL
• Euston-Warrington BQ-Wigan NW-Preston-Lancaster-Oxenholme-Penrith-Carlisle-Glasgow Ctl
• Euston-Crewe-Wilmslow-Stockport-Manchester Picc
• Euston-Rugby-Coventry-Birmingham Intl-Birmingham NS

OK, crystal ball time everybody. Here's how I'd do the HS2/WCML service, again taking Virgin services only.

• Euston-via HS2-Preston-Carlisle-Glasgow Ctl
• Euston-via HS2-Stoke on Trent-Macclesfield-Stockport-Manchester Picc
• Euston-Rugby-Coventry-Birmingham Intl-Birmingham NS
• Euston-via HS2-Stafford-Runcorn-Liverpool LS
• Euston-Milton Keynes-Crewe-Chester-etc
• Euston-via HS2-Birmingham Intl Nth-Birmingham Curzon St
• Euston-Milton Keynes-Rugby-Stoke on Trent-Stockport-Manchester Picc
• Paris GdN-via HS1-via HS2-Birmingham Intl Nth-Birmingham Curzon St
• Euston-Watford Jcn-Milton Keynes-Coventry-Birmingham Intl-Birmingham NS-Wolverhampton HL
• Euston-via HS2-Birmingham Intl Nth-Birmingham Curzon St
• Euston-Rugby-Crewe-Warrington BQ-Wigan NW-Preston-Lancaster-Oxenholme-Penrith-Carlisle-Lockerbie-Motherwell-Glasgow Ctl
• Euston-via HS2-Crewe-Wilmslow-Stockport-Manchester Picc
• Euston-Milton Keynes-Stafford-Runcorn-Liverpool LS
• Euston-Rugby-Coventry-Birmingham Intl-Birmingham NS
• Brussels Midi-via HS1-via HS2-Birmingham Intl Nth-Birmingham Curzon St

It's not properly planned out yet, and only counts for HS2a to Atherstone, but this gives a general service improvement by filling in paths and transferring them. Anything missing out stations south of Atherstone gets diverted via HS2. Glasgow gets one fast and one slow, as does Liverpool, while Birmingham continues to get a major service. International services only go as far as Birmingham, because there is no dedicated infrastructure farther north than that yet. I have left out an extension of the Javelin, that might happen later, but this is a general idea. If anyone knows the real plans, then please let me know what they are.

 

[j0hn0]

No knowledge of the routes? I have photos of all the surviving bridges of the GCR north of Rugby have walked the route. As a Rugby resident you ought to know about the planned re-opening of Rugby - Marton Junction by Rugby cement. It was only when they were bought by Cemex the plan failed. The council was to do the remaining section. The relief road was supposedly designed to allow the railway to be rebuilt though the cross roads don't make it easy. The line closed to Marton in 1986 and is largely complete. The biggest obstacle is getting off the line onto the up lines at Rugby but there is potential to use the bi-di on Platform 1.

I love the idea of re-building the level Crossing across the A5 on the Midland Counties route though!

Rugby - Leamington opens up connections from Warwick, Solihulll, Stratford and potentially from Cheltenham via the Glos/Warks to the east of the country. Rugby is a town of 100,000 and Leamington 30,000+ - hardly nowhere.

Virtually all the schemes I suggested have positive feasibility studies. You do know that Leicester - Burton was given the go-ahead by the last Tory government back in 1993? It was the creation of Railtrack who doubled the cost overnight that scuppered it.

£17 bn subsidy for 10-15 million passengers based on the first stage of HS2 is a lot per passenger. Total expenditure of LRT to date is less than £10bn and now carries over 100million passengers a year and requires no central government subsidy.

John, you have shown nothing but contempt for the concept of debate, making false assumptions and juvenile outbursts.

Actually no, what you are doing is making wild assumptions that filling in all beechings old line are going to encourage investment and help spread the economic wealth across the country.

I say that this is complete and utter tosh and you should really spend your time writing something more meaningful. In the end, you will keep droning on and on until everyone on here becomes exasperated because its like talking to a brick wall. Then you think you've won, you have the last word and no-one cares. I've seen it so many times on here Phillip Elliot and it's quite pathetic.

WHat is clear to me is that you are in denial. You clearly wrote "Open Leam - Rugby so that that XC can miss Bhm"

Honestly, do you really expect to be taken seriously with comments like that? That's why I am not wasting my time picking apart your short sighted, short term suggestions.

So what if I am born and bred in Rugby, that doesnt mean that your suggestions are any less ludicrous. You didn't mention the GCR in your initial route "knowledge" yet when I question the logic of your claims, you change tack again. What's it to be?

You cannot link the GCR with the Leamington Line, you cannot take the GCR through Rugby as it has all been built on north of the WCML. Really i think you should have a lie down and then go and debate with your friends at Cbeebies.

I choose not to debate with someone who is clearly stuck in his own agenda and will not accept anything that anyone says.

If that's debating my friend, you really have a lot to learn and that is me signing off from this one.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

JohnO... or should it not be Oh John. How qualified are you to state that there is no one travelling between these various routes? Taking out short car trips and replacing them with local journeys with well run, efficient, clean and timely local trains would have far more impact on carbon footprint sizes than any HS route, 1,2,3,4 or 5. After all, most rail journeys are undertaken by people on distances less than 50 miles, aren’t they?

Plus you are discounting that these routes can actually stop at intervening stations, and of course, some of these might have connections with others as well, so the Oxford Cambridge route would not be for people who simply want to travel from Ox to bridge. Therefore, I think, it is you who shows a lack of journey planning....

Long distance journeys are governed by time and price. The proposed HS2 may potentially shave a few minutes off between certain limited destinations, but because it’s going to cost an emperor’s ransom, the price of tickets will put most people off travelling on it in any case, and so a permanent blight on this country’s remaining green and pleasant land will be for nothing.

As to the claim somewhere on this thread that domestic flights are only between London and MCT, NCL, GLA and EDN is, to put in politely, crap. I’m afraid that environmentalists have resorted to the simpleton’s argument that flight is bad, rail is good, and that one less flight in the world is somehow a notch to be chalked up with pride on their environmental bedpost.

And there have been plenty of people on this website who express the desire to get rid of domestic flights or tax them out of existence, repeatedly.

I have said nowt about flights or anything like that. HS2 is about capacity and INTERCITY travel. If the rest of the little englanders want to squabble about petty little infill projects that will provide virtually no cost-to benefit ratio, then let them. HS1 has so far delivered 10 times the initial estimate

It just smacks of "I'm losing my job and so the government CAN'T spend all that money, why do they spend it on me and what I want!"

 

[jon0844]

I would like to see the reinstatement of certain lines, especially anything that links up the WCML, MML, ECML and whatever the NXEA line is called.

A line like that would take away usage from people having to go into London and back out, or use infrequent buses (but said buses are why we'll probably never have the justification to rebuild the lines). It would also connect towns that are very close for those with a car, but 'out of reach' for those who use public transport.

If that happens, great, but I see these things as totally separate to the building of a high-speed, high-capacity, rail network to bring us properly into this century.

Anyone would think that HS2 is the only thing we're ever going to do, and the only money we'll ever get to spend.

 

[tbtc]

I had a look at several logs for the ECML, and one HST travelling from Peterborough to Newcastle (actually the Northern Lights) spent a grand total of two minutes at 120 mph or faster out of two and a half hours. That's a bit lower than normal, but the average is probably less than half an hour (I only have my own logs to go on). The problem is simply that the train gets up to speed, then has to slow down for a speed restriction or station stop

This is an interesting point, and one reason why I think that if we want faster trains we need to have them on a segragated line (at least for the parts where they are going to run fast).

You can't run 125mph trains on the same line as Pacers/ flat crossings/ slow freight etc without either wasting a lot of potential paths or causing some bottlenecks.

So, either we put up with slower journeys from big cities to London (due to the need to squeeze other trains onto the lines) or we set aside a new line. Which is is to be?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I would like to see the reinstatement of certain lines, especially anything that links up the WCML, MML, ECML and whatever the NXEA line is called

GEML.

Reopening lines like that sounds a good idea, but the problem is that you soon come up against bottlenecks on existing routes. Is there capacity on existing lines to add all these extra trains? Plus there are conflicting movements at flat junctions? That kind of thing?

Lets take "Bolsover - Chesterfield/Sheffield" suggestion which Philip made (the one which is closest to me). Where does it join the main line? What conflicting movements are there? How do you find spare paths and dwelling time at platforms? For example, Chesterfield has six passenger trains an hour in each direction (all relatively long distance), plus a lot of freight goes that way. Sheffield has around twenty departures an hour. There are no "flyovers", so everything gets snagged at flat junctions (e.g. the Holmes Chord at Rotherham, Dore Junction). A lot of these suggested alternatives seem to be about competing with buses rather than taking pressure off busy train services.

 

[Philip Elliott]

Actually no, what you are doing is making wild assumptions that filling in all beechings old line are going to encourage investment and help spread the economic wealth across the country.

No I've made suggestions on how to make it easier to travel around parts of the country by public transport. We know that traffic congestion costs the economy billions of pounds ever year. How do you propose to reduce congestion? Buses are useless as they get caught in the same congestion and we know many people will not leave their cars to use a bus but will for a train.

In the end, you will keep droning on and on until everyone on here becomes exasperated because its like talking to a brick wall. Then you think you've won, you have the last word and no-one cares. I've seen it so many times on here Phillip Elliot and it's quite pathetic

How about debating the topic rather than making personal insults? You are a brick wall with your utter refusal to reveal why you support HS2. I've not said I'm againt HS2 per se - I've suggested running it as London - Wigan via the most direct route. I AM against the current proposal which brings little benefits.

WHat is clear to me is that you are in denial. You clearly wrote "Open Leam - Rugby so that that XC can miss Bhm"

Running Leicester - Blaby - Whetstone - Lutterworth - Brownsover - CLifton - Rugby - Leamington WILL allow XC to run avoiding Brum. In case you didn't notice Rugby - Leamington was written below Leicester - Rugby, if you can't add the two together that's your problem. You definitely can join the GCR to the Leamington line - a 3/4 mile route is needed from Brownsover - Clifton crossing Newton Manor lane and the River Avon. From Clifton you can use the chords of the Peterborough to gain access to either side of the station. The biggest issue I pointed was heading north - do you cross the throat to access Platforms 5/6 or use the bi-di through Platform 1 to come back via the viaduct behind the golf course.

That's why I am not wasting my time picking apart your short sighted, short term suggestions.

So John, do you think the following projects should not have occurred? -

Ebbw Vale
Cardiff - Bridgend - via Barry
Stirling - Alloa
Mansfield - Worksop
Nuneaton - Coventry
Larkhall
Chase line
Ivanhoe Stage 1
Moor Street - Snow Hill - Smethwick

Some of them connect far less populous areas than I have suggested with arguably weaker business cases. Yet most of them have hailed as massive successes and the areas they serve have definitely improved.

You didn't mention the GCR in your initial route "knowledge" yet when I question the logic of your claims, you change tack again. What's it to be?

It was a quick list without any details. It wouldn't have been a list if I had put detailed route descriptions with it. Also I didn't mention whether Northampton - Bedford should use Castle, Bridge St or St Johns station but common sense would say which. If I had put "via GCR" would you have then said "but Leicester Central is too built on/ the preserved GCR is in the way blah blah blah"?

I choose not to debate with someone who is clearly stuck in his own agenda and will not accept anything that anyone says.

Look in the mirror! My "agenda" is quite simple - I want people to have the choice to live with or without a car. Clearly you want people to be glued to their cars. HS2 will not encourage anyone to sell thier car.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Lets take "Bolsover - Chesterfield/Sheffield" suggestion which Philip made (the one which is closest to me). Where does it join the main line? What conflicting movements are there? How do you find spare paths and dwelling time at platforms? For example, Chesterfield has six passenger trains an hour in each direction (all relatively long distance),

Chesterfield is on a 4-track section of railway now with a handy third platform. There are plenty of paths available. Running into Sheffield shouldn't be too much of an issue - it's only a 1/2 mile section from Nunnery Jn into the station and we can already manage non standard paths such as the York via Pontefract service.

A lot of these suggested alternatives seem to be about competing with buses rather than taking pressure off busy train services.

No it is about encouraging people onto the railways from their cars but inevitably attract people from buses. Most busy train services in the provinces need longer trains not additional routes.

Sheffield has around twenty departures an hour

The southern approaches were once 4-track so it is silly to say that any congestion can only be solved by a new line - putting back what was there will make a massive difference!

Anyone would think that HS2 is the only thing we're ever going to do, and the only money we'll ever get to spend

No but it will greatly reduce the oppurtunities for development elsewhere. How many communities have been disconnected by the recent bus cuts? I can't go anywhere on a Sunday now despite living in a town! Those bus services could have been saved if we weren't spending £700m on planning costs alone for HS2.

I would like to see the reinstatement of certain lines, especially anything that links up the WCML, MML, ECML and whatever the NXEA line is called.

There were loads of lines in the Hertfordshire/Befordshire/Buckinghamsire commuter belt. The two that remain are Bedford - Bletchley and Watford - St. Albans but there were:

St. Albans - Hatfield
Hemel Hempstead - Harpenden
Hertford - Welwyn - Luton - Leighton Buzzard
High Wycombe - Bourne End
Bedford - Hitchin
Aylesbury - Cheddington
Bishop's Stortford - Braintree

 

[tbtc]

Running into Sheffield shouldn't be too much of an issue - it's only a 1/2 mile section from Nunnery Jn into the station and we can already manage non standard paths such as the York via Pontefract service

Going north out of Sheffield station you currently have

• Huddersfield
• Leeds via Barnsley
• Leeds via Barnsley
• Leeds via Castleford
• Leeds via Rotherham
• Edinburgh via Leeds
• Newcastle via Doncaster
• Hull via Doncaster
• Adwick via Doncaster
• Scunthorpe via Doncaster
• Cleethorpes via Doncaster
• Lincoln via Worksop

Plus plenty freight (on both the Darnall line and the Meadowhall lines), plus the odd York via Pontefract and Grimsby via Gainsborough services.

All of these travel over the same flat junction (twin track), and any eastbound service on the Darnall line needs to cross over the southbound Meadowhall line. We need longer trains (46 metre Pacers instead of 30 metre Pacers, more coaches in Voyagers/ 185s etc). BUT, there are no spare paths. If you want one Bolsover service an hour, you take up one northbound path each hour plus potentially two southbound ones (one for the northbound service when it crosses the Meadowhall line and one for the southbound service from Bolsover).

HS2 is needed, because it'd take some of the longer distance trains (from London/Birmingham to Leeds/Newcastle) and free up capacity in Sheffield (and other cities). Tinkering won't help.

 

[Philip Elliott]

There is capacity available. We're going round in circles - HS2 will not reduce the demands for paths for XC, EMT, Northern or TPE services into Sheffield.

 

[Geezertronic]

I've not said I'm againt HS2 per se - I've suggested running it as London - Wigan via the most direct route. I AM against the current proposal which brings little benefits.

The most direct route between London and Wigan isn't too far off what HS2 is currently to be honest since the road route is M1/M6. I also disagree that the current route offers little benefits because it depends on what market you are expecting HS2 to cater for. If you look at the initial stage of HS2 which can remove EUS-BHM, EUS-MAN and EUS-GLC services off the WCML South and onto HS2 as far as Lichfield then apart from the stated improvements in journey times, you are also freeing up the paths on the WCML South which could be used to serve WFJ, MKC and the Trent Valley stations better (and also improve freight capacity)

 

[dalmahoyhill]

Philliphill
I have read your posts with increasing credulousness.

I am assuming with your opinion that you believe the money should be spent on opening local lines that you do not believe there will be a forthcoming capacity issue with the WCML and the service as it stands will be adequate for the next 30 years? I would draw your attention to the fact that transport planners have consistently underestimated passenger growth over the last 15 years and that the WCML upgrade was exceptionally expensive for what it delivered.

Thank god for once the government has come up with a bit of long term vision with HS2. Your argument comes down to “I would rather the money spent on regional rail services than intercity” which seems to be coloured by your personal needs. So is ultimately your opinion formed around, "HS2 is of no benefit to me therefore I wont support it"? well HS2 wont benefit me either but I still support it as I think it is good for the country.

As for spending the money on reopening closed lines. I disagree, I think we need both, it is not black and white. Taking the pressure off the existing main line helps free up capacity, you think the opposite, that services will suffer.

I think your idea does not stack up. many lines that were closed in the Beeching era have been built over the cost of reopening them is substantial and for most i don't think the economics and passenger numbers are there. Especially if you are suggesting it as a replacement for existing buses services. providing buses costs a fraction of the capital costs of re-opening and operating a line. possible conversion to trams for larger population areas but not heavy rail.

That's not to say some reopening in some areas is not warranted, but alongside building HS2, not as an alternative. The Airdrie Bathgate is a case in point. It is designed to relieve pressure off the m8 and towns like Bathgate are growing quickly due to its proximity to Glasgow and Edinburgh.

And for how does someone get from Amersham to Barnsley you argued? Well not very well at the moment, and that will not change after HS2, not that much demand, so there is no point investing in it. That’s the point, largest investments go for largest return, linking up the main centres of population with a dedicated and moving the traffic off the traditional lines is a win win situation.

smaller regional centres are always going to have to rely on local services that feed into main stations to connect with intercity services. i dont know how your grasp is of economics is but intercity services stopping at every station and stopping at small regional centres does not add up to a service that competes with road or air. separating local services and placing intercity onto high speed rail does.

look you seem fixated on either, instead of both. let me give you this example. I have travelled extensively in Japan and one of the things they do much better than us is integrated timetabling. I have travelled from Tokyo to northern Japan. 650miles and 9 hrs with 3 changes. the shinkansen pulled up at the station in Hachinohe, we walked one platform, got on our regional train which departed 5 mins later. seamless transition. now as we all know that doesn't happen in the UK, changes typically have 30-50mins padding put into them and for good reason. now I am not going to claim we can reach Japan's level of service as we have too many rail companies and a fragmented rail network. But for our congested classic lines this quality of service is not going to improve as congestion increases. With high speed rail it will. high speed rail is reliable, we can pretty much guarantee it will be on time and plan accordingly, it is one of the reasons other than speed and comfort that makes it much more attractive.

I appreciate the cross England market is badly served by rail and to be fair by road as well. Perhaps the reason our roads and motorways have developed as a radial system is that is because that’s where the trade is? There were no east west trunk lines ever built across middle England only in the north.

Ryanairs Michal o Leahry made a similar argument to you. He claimed that HSR is not going to help people travelling between London and Belfast. We no its not, nor Plymouth or Aberdeen, but then its not supposed to.

And as for your argument about the M6 through Birmingham being used for short journeys by local traffic well yes you are right but that is bad not good. Its one of the mistakes that 60s transport planners got wrong. They thought when they built motorways and by-passes it would help make long distance travel more efficient. It did but they didn’t appreciate the effect of induced travel. I.e. by making a shorter local journey more convenient more people make that journey and capacity is quickly used up. That’s why we cant just build more roads in perpetuity, it just induces more travel and snarls up streets in densely populated areas. The only way of tackling this in the future is to get more people to move to public transport for more of their journeys which you advocate but differently to me. Tbtc is right, the motorway was designed as a spine for long distance travel, and effectively HS2 when the network is complete will have the same idea. Having a station a at every little conurbation kills the idea, it becomes a commuting line.

I suggest you try and find the latest copy of modern railways which has heavy objective analysis on whether we need HS2 and the conclusion is yes.

Secondly as one of the other posters said, you keep on referring to the French tgv network. well not all the network is built with out of town stations. Lille station is in the middle. Plus there is quite a difference between the design of high speed networks. the Japanese, Taiwanese and Koreans have built elevated lines that run right into cities elevated over the existing track. The Germans, Dutch, and Belgium have built lines between cities and uses adapted classic lines to run into the centres. Our network is more likely to be like the German than the French design.

If you think our politicians are out of touch i suggest you dig out a report writing by lord adonis (which I cant find a link to) where he compared the different styles of high speed rail and concluded the German or Japanese model was the most suitable.

 

[Invincibles]

When we actually start looking into it more we will see that we actually need a whole network of integrated lines and services.

However, the first stage has to be to get the main artery in place, and that means HS2 and the eventual Y.

From there I would be looking to build lines from

* Leicester - Nottingham via East Midlands
* Nottingham - Derby via East Midlands.
* Leicester - Nottingham via East Midlands

* Sheffield - Doncaster via South Yorkshire
* Sheffield - Barnsley via South Yorkshire

* Leeds - York via West Yorkshire

All HS stations would therefore have extra platforms provided and obvious bridging potential at both ends, to allow cross platform connections to classic / Javelin style shuttles into city centres. The bridges being opportunities for flying junctions

Different areas would need more work and some of these shuttles would be little more than diverted classics.

Over time the whole thing would join up and as well as enabling the sorts of connections talked about in Japan this would really free up more capacity for more local services and bringing convenience to a much better level.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Some of you are suggesting that we can have both reopened lines and a new HS network. True in theroy, but I don't think any government would find the money for both, especially now. We already have a completly mad plan to electrify the Great Western to Cardiff but not Swansea. A short-term cost cutting measure that means we need new bi-mode trains that will aparently cost at least 15% more to run from Paddington to Cardiff than the current 2+8 IC125s.

Unfortunatly therefore it does look like we have to choose one or the other, personally I think we need new segregated fast lines and investment in classic lines, but there simply isn't the money.

However as I said before I would limit the top speed on the new segregated fast lines to 140mph until we have transfered our power supply to nucular and renewables. That's somthing HS2 supporters seem to overlook, the other nations with HighSpeed rail, France particularly, are way ahead of us on cleaner power, in the UK the enviromental impact of HighSpeed rail makes it unjustifable on enviromental grounds as it is no better than private car transport.

 

[LE Greys]

If you think our politicians are out of touch i suggest you dig out a report writing by lord adonis (which I cant find a link to) where he compared the different styles of high speed rail and concluded the German or Japanese model was the most suitable.

Which is funny, because they're completely different things. Japan is a standard-gauge network in a narrow-gauge country, so the two systems are utterly incompatible with each other. Germany is a standard-gauge throughout country, with ICE running on and off the high-speed line all over the place.

Lord Adonis usually knew what he was talking about. He must have taken leave of his senses to get these mixed up.

 

[jon0844]

Some of you are suggesting that we can have both reopened lines and a new HS network. True in theroy, but I don't think any government would find the money for both, especially now. We already have a completly mad plan to electrify the Great Western to Cardiff but not Swansea. A short-term cost cutting measure that means we need new bi-mode trains that will aparently cost at least 15% more to run from Paddington to Cardiff than the current 2+8 IC125s.

The HSTs will not last forever, and can't be refurbished over and over - so new trains have to be built. It therefore makes sense to make the bi-mode trains, which may cost more to run now but can then be adapted/switched to be electric only when the whole line is electrified.

Isn't it okay to do it in stages? You will hopefully keep the same rolling stock for when the wires continue beyond Cardiff.

Like HS2, this is just the beginning. All the work needs to be done in stages, not just because of the need to find the funding, but also to secure the manpower to actually do the work.