High Speed Rail beyond HS2

[LE Greys]

HS2 should be built to suit this countries characteristics, geography and journey patterns - capacity constraints (especially around London,
Birmingham and Manchester) and loading gauge make a dedicated line both viable and neccesary.

Yes, but I'm looking for a model for this country. Take the Ruhr, for instance, an area of about 4,400 sq km with a population of 5,000,000. Now, that's twice the population of the West Midlands (if you include Coventry), but is also about twice the size, so the population density is similar. The settlement pattern is similar as well, a number of cities that have coalesced into one connurbation. Now, the only genuine Ruhr ICE station is Dortmund, but just down the road, there are three practically on top of each other, Duisburg, Dusseldorf and Cologne. Essen and Borchum could probably argue that they are served rather poorly by ICE, but that's a different debate. There is then a high-speed section that makes a dash up the Rhine to Frankfurt (through an area with a lower population, but they can also use the old route through Koblenz and Mainz). Then you have another connurbation, with a clump of stations at Frankfurt, Frankfurt Airport, Fulda and Mannheim on a sort of triangle, plus Wurzburg a bit further on, before another dash to Nuremburg, and another to Munich. Now, this clump-and-gap pattern is very like our country, say London, West Midlands, Greater Manchester, Mid-Lancashire, Carlisle (on its own) and the Central Belt separated by varying distances from 50 to 150 miles. It's the same on our side of the Pennines: London, Peterborough (which acts as a feeder from East Anglia), the West Riding, York, Teesside, Tyneside (Newcastle might cover both), Berwick and the Central Belt. France tends to have stand-alone cities with individual stations, plus the middle-of-nowhere regional stations.

Therefore, my idea for high-speed rail in Britain is the same dash-and-stop one as in Germany. Basically, you build new sections of fast line to link the existing stations, with some smaller ones bypassed to save time. Increasing the loading gauge is a different question, and I'm deliberately assuming Eurostar-sized trains (maybe even cascaded Eurostars) to keep costs down. It probably is possible to increase loading gauges at many of the older stations, but bridges present a problem - although some would have to go during electrificaiton anyway. Tunnels, I'm leaving alone, because most of them are on section where new line would be put in anyway.

 

[jon0844]

If we start building lots of new lines in the future, on the basis that we haven't found some super cheap fuel for cars and planes, then I am sure you could have branches off of HS2 to build part of an all-new network. We're probably talking about developments long after we're gone, but for now I am not sure it's necessary (or a good idea) to try and build HS2 as another WCML. For all intents and purposes, it's a bypass - and a way of speeding up longer distance travel later on.

However, in the future, these ideas may be more sensible. A long time in the future.

 

[HSTEd]

Oh and a more northerly route through the area north of Chesham seems to spend a far smaller amount of time inside the defined area of the Chiltern AONB.
Thus reducing the number of pointless tunnels and allowing more (far cheaper) embankments and cuttings.

 

[Rational Plan]

Oh and a more northerly route through the area north of Chesham seems to spend a far smaller amount of time inside the defined area of the Chiltern AONB.
Thus reducing the number of pointless tunnels and allowing more (far cheaper) embankments and cuttings.

I'm not sure it make any difference on the route as far as the nimbys are concerned.

 

[Chris125]

Note my route proposal is extremely unpolished, and while I was reviewing it to gain tunnel lengths I realised I could divert the line via a route through the Chilterns closer to Tring and probably shorten the tunnel requirements considerably, I will have to recalculate once I have worked out if that is feasible.

You need to work out why all this extra cost is needed first - HS2 will relieve the capacity crisis on the WCML without all this added expense. There's no point in providing room for more LM and Virgin services between London and Birmingham if HS2 takes away much of the traffic.

Chris

 

[Nym]

Freight...

 

[Chris125]

Freight...

..which HS2 in its current guise will provide room for, not just on the WCML but potentially the MML and ECML too. Its still only a knock-on benefit however - as important as railfreight is there are more cost effective ways to provide room for growth than spending billions on a longer, slower HS2 route serving a numnber of large built up urban area's that will see an enhanced WCML service anyway.

Chris

 

[giblets]

Wondering about the existing ECML route North of Leeds (I had a search, but couldn't find the answer, if it's there, could someone point me in the right direction), how much would it cost to reduce the journey times up to Newcastle and Edinburgh, another half hour off the time should be possible at least.

Clearly there are 'simple issues' such as the Morpeth curve (there appears plenty of land in the area to re-align this (missing Morpeth)). Or is the issue once again local services (Morpeth could become a loop in this case).
What are the other major obstacles on this route.

 

[Waverley125]

Any extension of HS2 northwards from Leeds (which I'm very much in favour of) would require a tunnel under Leeds City Centre to Neville Hill (just over a mile) and a widening to at least 4 tracks of the existing line. When you consider that the wiring of this section would also provide extra trains on the 'fasts' out of Leeds (i.e. shared by HS & express classic) this is quite easily doable. From Cross Gates, the line would need to swing northwest, then head basically dead straight to Teeside, then turn northwest again and head North to Newcastle.

Given current journey times from Middlesbrough/Newcastle to Leeds are about 1hr30min HS should easily be able to knock this down to 40mins tops. Any extension of HS2 north of Newcastle (again which I support) would need a new line through the Cheviots.

 

[PR102]

Forget HS2:

1. Upgrade GWML Through to Bristol and Cardiff as planned
2. Upgrade Reading-Oxford on a new fast alignment from just past Chosley. Retain Didcot. install a railway 'by-pass' round the West of Oxford for the non-stoppers. Follow much of the A34. Re-align with the existsing route at Finstock then leave it again at Charlbury,
3. Go straight all the way to just North of Stoke on Trent then rebuild and straighten this route into Birmingham
4. Marylebone rebuilt and extended (sod the neighbours - the rest of the country has been suffering London's needs for decades now) and linking with the ECML and existing Chiltern stuff.
4. Leave Bristol-Taunton-Exeter-Plymouth and Cardiff-Swansea as is for stopping services and/or diversions
5. Upgrade Basingstoke-Exeter (ex-SR) through Yeovil etc.
6. Re-open Lewes to Uckfield, upgrade the entire line, reinstate Tunbridge etc.

In my opinion, the want of the government to build a completely new link to Birmingham is a class thing, it is not needed, and they don;t want to be seen to be upgrading and reversing their own willful decline of a perfectly capable network. It was over 50 years ago that they last spent huge amounts of money on the network, now is the time to show that they have learnt their lesson!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
P.S not forgetting the other links north of Birmingham, just never really been up there! Anyone wanna continue with using the current network as much as poss???

 

[jon0844]

So you don't go north of Birmingham much, so there's no point spending any money there?

 

[Geezertronic]

Forget HS2:

1. Upgrade GWML Through to Bristol and Cardiff as planned
2. Upgrade Reading-Oxford on a new fast alignment from just past Chosley. Retain Didcot. install a railway 'by-pass' round the West of Oxford for the non-stoppers. Follow much of the A34. Re-align with the existsing route at Finstock then leave it again at Charlbury,
3. Go straight all the way to just North of Stoke on Trent then rebuild and straighten this route into Birmingham
4. Marylebone rebuilt and extended (sod the neighbours - the rest of the country has been suffering London's needs for decades now) and linking with the ECML and existing Chiltern stuff.
4. Leave Bristol-Taunton-Exeter-Plymouth and Cardiff-Swansea as is for stopping services and/or diversions
5. Upgrade Basingstoke-Exeter (ex-SR) through Yeovil etc.
6. Re-open Lewes to Uckfield, upgrade the entire line, reinstate Tunbridge etc.

In my opinion, the want of the government to build a completely new link to Birmingham is a class thing, it is not needed, and they don;t want to be seen to be upgrading and reversing their own willful decline of a perfectly capable network. It was over 50 years ago that they last spent huge amounts of money on the network, now is the time to show that they have learnt their lesson!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
P.S not forgetting the other links north of Birmingham, just never really been up there! Anyone wanna continue with using the current network as much as poss???

What part of this allows services to be removed off the WCML South and helps to speed up services to the North East, North West & Scotland? Where's the "class thing" in that? It's not just about services to Birmingham.... never has been

 

[Waverley125]

That said, I think a 'High Speed Three' to the West of England & Wales, something like

Old Oak Common
Heathrow
Reading
Bristol Temple Meads
Cardiff
Swansea

also I'd support the extension via a tunnel under the St George's Channel to access Ireland, with the potential for through services from London to Cork & Dublin. With the potential for a 'Eurotunnel' operation near the end of the M4 at Carmarthen you could create jobs in west wales as well as new international connections.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

That said, I think a 'High Speed Three' to the West of England & Wales, something like

Old Oak Common
Heathrow
Reading
Bristol Temple Meads
Cardiff
Swansea

also I'd support the extension via a tunnel under the St George's Channel to access Ireland, with the potential for through services from London to Cork & Dublin. With the potential for a 'Eurotunnel' operation near the end of the M4 at Carmarthen you could create jobs in west wales as well as new international connections.

Bear in mind that British / Continental and Irish railways work on different gauges - 4ft 8.5in here and in Europe, and 5ft 3in in Ireland.

 

[Waverley125]

yes, but you can either build international trains on Isolated gauge (not hard to build independent lines through Ireland & dual-gauge tracks into stations) or you can use variable-gauge technology as currently used on the line between Perpignan & Barcelona.

 

[HSTEd]

You need to work out why all this extra cost is needed first - HS2 will relieve the capacity crisis on the WCML without all this added expense. There's no point in providing room for more LM and Virgin services between London and Birmingham if HS2 takes away much of the traffic.

Chris

It will relieve the capacity crisis for a few years yes, this way the capacity crisis is permenantly removed from existance as the only thing running on the WCML would be London Midland trains, a handful of ICWC trains and freights.
As well as opportunities for a wide range of open access operators.

And now your saying we must deliberately reduce the market for HS2 so that London Midland and Virgin can make more money?

Within the end to end traffic I think its doubtful the fast trains on the WCML would survive anyway, and this way they are not needed as all the major stations commonly served by said trains would have an alternative. (Especially as even stopping all of those stations to Birmingham would be as fast as the current three-intermediate stop route end to end.)

And this is before we get into the fact that the capital cost of the WCML has already been defrayed, while HS2 has not.
The additional cost of the route is not that great and as everyone keeps saying, if the money is not spent on HS2 it will not be spent at all, so saying there are more cost effective alternatives is pointless.

Building the HS2 route suggested by HS2 limited leeds to the removal of at best 6tph from the core of the WCML, and in fact rather less than that as the trains will likely to have run anyway to serve places such as Stoke and Rugby and to provide the "low cost" alternative.

This way those trains are completely and utterly removed (with the stopping HS2 trains forming the "low cost" alternative as well as servicing intermediate stations) and you can think about cutting back the "faster" London Midland services by adding more stops, causing a greater transfer of capacity to lesser stations than would otherwise be the case.

 

[LE Greys]

That said, I think a 'High Speed Three' to the West of England & Wales, something like

Old Oak Common
Heathrow
Reading
Bristol Temple Meads
Cardiff
Swansea

also I'd support the extension via a tunnel under the St George's Channel to access Ireland, with the potential for through services from London to Cork & Dublin. With the potential for a 'Eurotunnel' operation near the end of the M4 at Carmarthen you could create jobs in west wales as well as new international connections.

I definitely agree with that, although I would push it northwards to allow it to serve Bath, Bristol and Cheltenham with a Javelin-style service coming off the route at Swindon. You can probably add an Exeter-Plymouth-Penzance route coming off at Bristol (in other words the "Great Way Round" revived). It might then be possible to reopen some of the smaller stations on the old route, Grove, Uffington, Wooton Bassatt Junction, Corsham and so on, and route more freight that way (not sure what though).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And now your saying we must deliberately reduce the market for HS2 so that London Midland and Virgin can make more money?

Hasn't that been the policy for the ECML for twenty years?

Do you wonder why I want the eastern route to go via Peterborough?

 

[HSTEd]

yes, but you can either build international trains on Isolated gauge (not hard to build independent lines through Ireland & dual-gauge tracks into stations) or you can use variable-gauge technology as currently used on the line between Perpignan & Barcelona.

There is no through passenger service between perpignan and Barcelona at the current time. There is currently a cross platform interchange at Figueres

When it starts in 2014 it will be standard gauge throughout.

Although your argument is still valid

 

[Bald Rick]

There is no through passenger service between perpignan and Barcelona at the current time. There is currently a cross platform interchange at Figueres

Errr.....

http://reiseauskunft.bahn.de/bin/tr...064&station_type=dep&currentReferrer=tp&rt=1&

 

[HSTEd]

Errr.....

http://reiseauskunft.bahn.de/bin/tr...064&station_type=dep&currentReferrer=tp&rt=1&

I meant on the LGV Perpignan-Figueres....

There has been gauge changing stock in use for years

 

[Chris125]

It will relieve the capacity crisis for a few years yes, this way the capacity crisis is permenantly removed from existance as the only thing running on the WCML would be London Midland trains, a handful of ICWC trains and freights.

What do you want, a railway running at 50% capacity? The cost of the infrstructure, whether its HS2 or the WCML, has to be paid for by people travelling on it, there's no logic in having more capacity than there is any projected need for - and as i've said before, there's much more scope for growing demand on services travelling via HS2 than the WCML.

Chris

 

[HSTEd]

What do you want, a railway running at 50% capacity? The cost of the infrstructure, whether its HS2 or the WCML, has to be paid for by people travelling on it, there's no logic in having more capacity than there is any projected need for - and as i've said before, there's much more scope for growing demand on services travelling via HS2 than the WCML.

Chris

Its either the WCML or HS2 running at half capacity.

The construction debt associated with the WCML has already been paid off and it also has greater opportunities for new services (such as freights) which cannot practically use HS2 during the day.

You could run trains to dozens of places off HS2 to be sure, but you still wont fill its capacity without running short independent CC trains on it, which constitutes a massive waste of paths. (Clockface hourly 6 coach trains to Hull, Sunderland and one of the "secondary" "Leeds" stations fit all in one path thanks to 400m lengths, while providing massive increase in capacity to all those places (1tp3h to Skipton/Harrogate/Bradford F. Sq)

And before anyone says that splitting High Speed/Classic Compatible services is not viable, why would Alstom create the AGV and make a great deal of fuss about having precisely that capability? (AGV seems a reasonable proxy, especially as any adoption of dynamic block signalling would enable the trains to keep to the blocks associated with Shinkansen over the core section of the route assuming it made no intermediate stops)

 

[Martin222002]

I thought it might be worth say that the proposed Y network service pattern for HS2 has had some changes as a result of the consultation.

I have listed below the service pattern which is given in the DfT report "Economic Case for HS2: Updated appraisal of transport user benefits and wider economic benefits" (see link below) on page 67, with anything in brackets being assumptions that I have made from the information given from this report as well as others.

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/hs2-economic-case-appraisal-update/hs2-economic-case-appraisal-update.pdf

Proposed services from London Euston are:

London Euston to Birmingham Curzon Street - 3tph of which:
- 2tph calling at, Old Oak Common, Birmingham Interchange, Birmingham Curzon Street
- 1tph calling at, Old Oak Common, Birmingham Curzon Street

London Euston to Manchester - 3tph of which:
- 1tph calling at, Old Oak Common, Birmingham Interchange, Manchester Outskirts (Airport), Manchester
- 1tph calling at, Old Oak Common, Manchester Outskirts (Airport), Manchester
- 1tph calling at, Old Oak Common, Manchester

London Euston to Leeds - 3tph of which:
- 2tph calling at, Old Oak Common, East Midlands, South Yorkshire (Sheffield), Leeds
- 1tph calling at, Old Oak Common, Birmingham Interchange, South Yorkshire (Sheffield), Leeds

London Euston to Newcastle - 2tph of which:
- 1tph calling at, Old Oak Common, York, Newcastle
- 1tph calling at, Old Oak Common, Darlington, Newcastle

London Euston to Liverpool Lime Street - 2tph of which:
- 1tph calling at, Old Oak Common, Crewe, Runcorn, Liverpool Lime Street
- 1tph calling at, Old Oak Common, Stafford, Runcorn, Liverpool Lime Street

London Euston to Glasgow Central and Edinburgh Waverley - 2tph of which:
- 1tph calling at, Old Oak Common, Birmingham Interchange, Preston, Carlisle where the train splits, on half to Glasgow Central, the other half to Edinburgh Waverley
- 1tph calling at, Old Oak Common, Manchester Outskirts (Airport), Carlisle where the train splits, on half to Glasgow Central, the other half to Edinburgh Waverley

Proposed services from Birmingham Curzon Street (not going to London) are:

- Birmingham Curzon Street to Manchester - 2tph calling at, Manchester Outskirts (Airport), Manchester

- Birmingham Curzon Street to Leeds - 2tph calling at, East Midlands, South Yorkshire (Sheffield), Leeds

- Birmingham Curzon Street to Newcastle - 1tph calling at, East Midlands, South Yorkshire (Sheffield), York, Darlington, Durham, Newcastle

- Birmingham Curzon Street to Glasgow Central - 1tph calling at, Manchester Outskirts (Airport), Wigan, Preston, several unidentified intermediate stations (most likely Lancaster, Oxenholme, Penrith, Carlisle and possibly Motherwell), Glasgow Central

Proposed services from Heathrow are:

- Heathrow to Manchester - 1tph calling at, Birmingham Interchange, Manchester Outskirts (Airport), Manchester

- Heathrow to Leeds - 1tph calling at, Birmingham Interchange, East Midlands, South Yorkshire (Sheffield), Leeds

There is the potential that these 2 services from Heathrow could work in multiple, as detailed in the DfT report (in above link), with the train spiting at Birmingham Interchange with one half going to Leeds and the other half going to Manchester.


Also taken from the above report it gives the proposed make up and amounts of the rolling stock to be used on HS2.

- 105 x 200 meter HS2 captive sets

- 68 x 200 meter classic compatible sets

- 15 x 260 meter classic compatible sets

With the longer 260 meter classic compatible sets specified so that on train capacity for services to Newcastle (as an example) can be maintained vs the current on train capacity on existing routes, in this case HSTs and Mk4 sets on the ECML.

 

[HSTEd]

Why do you require 260m trains to match a rake of Mark 4s? One of the benefits of modern multiple unit operation (see the AGV) is that you can maintain capacity with shorter trains, in this case 200m trains should be able to (nearly anyway) match the capacity of the 9 coach rakes used now.
Extending to 260m also looses the possibility of coupling them in pairs and splitting them at the ends of the High Speed line. (Running a train to Newcastle coupled to a train to Edinburgh as far as Leeds for instance).

Additionally as the CC trains are almost certainly not going to be sufficiently tilt capable to keep to the existing timings north of Manchester, the East Coast route off Leeds is likely to return to its posistion as the fastest route to Scotland, hence a London-Edinburgh trian via the WCML is likely unneccesary).

EDIT:
Also Im of the opinion than running 3tph to Leeds, Manchester and Birmingham is likely overkill (these trains can have three times as many seats as the existing fleet of Cl390s, meaning that we will not be short of capacity in any reasonable scenario, additionally trains tO Leeds and Manchester would be supplementable with the CC trains going to places like Hull and the "Leeds associated" stations that currently receive trains under the East Coast Franchise or Grand Central, these would fill out the timetable to allow frequencies even higher than now (if waiting max 30min for a train is that much worse than max 20min)

 

[VTPreston_Tez]

As I have pre-said, how would HS2 operate at speed through Preston if it's going Manchester-Carlisle non-stop? It would have to work around Blackburn because Preston's just too crammed.

 

[HSTEd]

As I have pre-said, how would HS2 operate at speed through Preston if it's going Manchester-Carlisle non-stop? It would have to work around Blackburn because Preston's just too crammed.

via Manchester is probably unlikely for London-Scotland HS2 trains due to the lack of sufficient tilt capability (most I'm aware of is roughly 1.5 degrees, not the 6 that is really needed at minimum) to keep to current timings over that section of line.

The speeds are higher via Newcastle.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

As I have pre-said, how would HS2 operate at speed through Preston if it's going Manchester-Carlisle non-stop? It would have to work around Blackburn because Preston's just too crammed.

There are paths via Preston. I fail to see how going via Blackburn would solve anything.

 

[LE Greys]

I thought it might be worth say that the proposed Y network service pattern for HS2 has had some changes as a result of the consultation.

I have listed below the service pattern which is given in the DfT report "Economic Case for HS2: Updated appraisal of transport user benefits and wider economic benefits" (see link below) on page 67, with anything in brackets being assumptions that I have made from the information given from this report as well as others.

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/hs2-economic-case-appraisal-update/hs2-economic-case-appraisal-update.pdf

Proposed services from London Euston are:

London Euston to Birmingham Curzon Street - 3tph of which:
- 2tph calling at, Old Oak Common, Birmingham Interchange, Birmingham Curzon Street
- 1tph calling at, Old Oak Common, Birmingham Curzon Street

London Euston to Manchester - 3tph of which:
- 1tph calling at, Old Oak Common, Birmingham Interchange, Manchester Outskirts (Airport), Manchester
- 1tph calling at, Old Oak Common, Manchester Outskirts (Airport), Manchester
- 1tph calling at, Old Oak Common, Manchester

London Euston to Leeds - 3tph of which:
- 2tph calling at, Old Oak Common, East Midlands, South Yorkshire (Sheffield), Leeds
- 1tph calling at, Old Oak Common, Birmingham Interchange, South Yorkshire (Sheffield), Leeds

London Euston to Newcastle - 2tph of which:
- 1tph calling at, Old Oak Common, York, Newcastle
- 1tph calling at, Old Oak Common, Darlington, Newcastle

London Euston to Liverpool Lime Street - 2tph of which:
- 1tph calling at, Old Oak Common, Crewe, Runcorn, Liverpool Lime Street
- 1tph calling at, Old Oak Common, Stafford, Runcorn, Liverpool Lime Street

London Euston to Glasgow Central and Edinburgh Waverley - 2tph of which:
- 1tph calling at, Old Oak Common, Preston, an unidentified station (most likely Carlisle) where the train splits, on half to Glasgow Central, the other half to Edinburgh Waverley
- 1tph calling at, Old Oak Common, Manchester Outskirts, an unidentified station (most likely Carlisle) where the train splits, on half to Glasgow Central, the other half to Edinburgh Waverley

Proposed services from Birmingham Curzon Street (not going to London) are:

- Birmingham Curzon Street to Manchester - 2tph calling at, Manchester Outskirts (Airport), Manchester

- Birmingham Curzon Street to Leeds - 2tph calling at, East Midlands, South Yorkshire (Sheffield), Leeds

- Birmingham Curzon Street to Newcastle - 1tph calling at, East Midlands, South Yorkshire (Sheffield), York, Darlington, Durham, Newcastle

- Birmingham Curzon Street to Glasgow Central - 1tph calling at, Manchester Outskirts (Airport), Wigan, Preston, several unidentified intermediate stations (most likely Lancaster, Oxenholme, Penrith, Carlisle and possibly Motherwell), Glasgow Central

Proposed services from Heathrow are:

- Heathrow to Manchester - 1tph calling at, Birmingham Interchange, Manchester Outskirts (Airport), Manchester

- Heathrow to Leeds - 1tph calling at, East Midlands, South Yorkshire (Sheffield), Leeds

There is the potential that these 2 services from Heathrow could work in multiple, as detailed in the DfT report (in above link), with the train spiting at Birmingham Interchange with one half going to Leeds and the other half going to Manchester.


Also taken from the above report it gives the proposed make up and amounts of the rolling stock to be used on HS2.

- 105 x 200 meter HS2 captive sets

- 68 x 200 meter classic compatible sets

- 15 x 260 meter classic compatible sets

With the longer 260 meter classic compatible sets specified so that on train capacity for services to Newcastle (as an example) can be maintained vs the current on train capacity on existing routes, in this case HSTs and Mk4 sets on the ECML.

Now this is interesting, for several reasons. Firstly, I think they're putting a bit too much emphesis on Birmingham and not enough on places north of there. For instance, I'd like to see all the Curzon Street trains reversing, finding their way to the WCML and serving places such as Stafford, Stoke and Liverpool. I'd also rather see the Newcastle trains calling at Leeds and extended through to Edinburgh, with perhaps the Edinburgh trains running though to Aberdeen or Inverness. Still, it seems that York is part of the network, which is one sop to Easterners like me who are worried about losing our direct links to Scotland, since changing at York is much quicker than at Leeds - we might even keep our Edinburgh trains. This Manchester (Outskirts) thing rather annoys me, when I was hoping for something that ran right through the city, perhaps underneath it. Manchester Central (what's left of it) might be a good location. As for Sheffield, I've sometimes wondered whether what's left of Victoria might be worth looking at. And would East Midlands perhaps be East Midlands Parkway (giving it a useful purpose) or is there some chance of going directly through Nottingham?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As I have pre-said, how would HS2 operate at speed through Preston if it's going Manchester-Carlisle non-stop? It would have to work around Blackburn because Preston's just too crammed.

Something along the lines of Ashford, I imagine. Over or under.

 

[VTPreston_Tez]

Something along the lines of Ashford, I imagine. Over or under.

Preston already is "over" with a load of bridges.
Under's a problem because this "over" is mainly at ground level.
Unless we can go really high or use the middle track between Preston and Lancaster, there's really no way.

 

[Nym]

Or just go round...

I do get the feeling that initally though the line will end abruptly at Wigan and/or Newton... Before being extended further again to Preston / Lancaster.