High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[Nym]

EDIT: Of course long loops for the entire length of the 'stopping services area' say between 'Heathrow Junction' and Birmingham Delta Junction, then one can shove in 24tph in the core 'fasts' and another 8tph slow, and 8tph semi fast / non-homogenous services on the 'releif lines' this could include many kinds of stock.

With 8tph sodding off at OOC or Heathrow, leaving 32tph for Euston to deal with But that would proberbly need 4 track between OOC and BSP...

Of course with only two tracks, if we're going to go silly with services, 24tph - 30tph will be the limit, and they'll all need to run fast between OOC and BSP.

 

[jon0844]

Will HS2 be built with the possibility of adding loops at a later stage?

 

[Tiny Tim]

Will HS2 be built with the possibility of adding loops at a later stage?

Anything's possible, but as much of HS2 will be in deep cuttings and tunnels, the opportunities to add any unplanned bits will be limited.

 

[HSTEd]

Right, I decided to do some more calculations.

A train travelling at the speeds obtained on high speed rail lines has a regenerative braking capacity limited by kinetic energy dispersal rates rather than tractive effort available.
This means that a train with the same power-to-weight ratio as the N700 Shinkansen would take roughly 2 minutes (125 seconds, neglecting drag) to slow from 320kph to 160kph. During this period the train would be travelling at a rough average of approximately 270kph and thus would cover a distance of approximately 8.33km.

During this same two minutes a train that was not stopping would cover a distance of roughly 11km, meaning that the stopping train would loose roughly 2700m on the train that was not slowing during the deceleration period. This translates to the train behind crossing catching up by 30 seconds.
If we allow 15 seconds for the train to clear the crossing and for the signalling interlock system to confirm that it has done so, and 20 seconds for the points to change and gain interlock this means that there would have to be a 65 second gap between the trains occupied sections prior to braking commencing.
As 40 seconds is a reasonable emergency braking time for the set behind (modern trains actually achieve better than this) this means there must be a 105 second gap between the trains.
If faster points are obtainable (225 or even 250kph diverging this would be simpler) this gap can be shrunk down.

If we allow a roughly sixty second dwell (seems reasonable at the intermediate stations where the number of passengers boarding will be relatively small compared to the number of doors on a sixteen carriage train), the train will be ready to depart roughly as the train in the path behind passes.

If we allow 20 seconds for the points at the head of the loop to gain switch over after the fast train passes and gain interlock this means the train can reach 320kph roughly 4 minutes after the train passed.
If we assume that during the acceleration period the train was travelling roughly 200kph (Seems reasonable for a train as powerful as a Shinkansen set) the train would end up 1.5 minutes behind the train in front, fitting it in rather far ahead of its predetermined path.

(This is assuming 3 minute headspacings).

This unfortunately requires all stopping trains to expend a 3 minute headway path for each stop not made by the fast trains which would lead to my two trains per hour expending 14 paths between them, which is impractical.
I will now recalculate for shorter headways.

 

[jon0844]

Anything's possible, but as much of HS2 will be in deep cuttings and tunnels, the opportunities to add any unplanned bits will be limited.

But if you wanted to build a station somewhere later on, with loops, you potentially could?

This line may be around for hundreds of years, so I am sure it won't be literally set in stone forever.

 

[Rational Plan]

I think people are getting a bit over ambitious here. No high speed line in the world currently runs more than 12/14 trains an hour. It will be ambitious to get this up to 18 trains an hour. This will require careful scheduling. The two branches north of Birmingham have a bit of slack, but once on the stretch to London there will be no space for stations.

All this talk of 30 trains an hour is rubbish. The line will have spare capacity for decades. If people start clamouring for more high speed services, then new lines covering other parts of the country will be built.

If new lines are built it will be about capacity. With London approaches rapidly filling up, it may just be new lines for the first 100 miles out from London.

What lines?

London - Bristol, London - Southampton, London - Brighton(?).

A new east coast route, going to Newcastle via York, Doncaster, Peterborough Cambridge and Stansted with a spur to Norwich.

 

[Tiny Tim]

But if you wanted to build a station somewhere later on, with loops, you potentially could?

It won't be impossible to add stations or loops to HS2 at a later date, but with so much of it being buried it will be difficult and expensive over much of the route. Basically, if it isn't in the plan during construction it's unlikely to happen.

 

[HSTEd]

I have done additional calculations assuming that (as above) the train looses 30 seconds on the ones that are not stopping during the deceleration process and that it stops and opens its doors roughly 15 seconds after clearing the points.

This means that the points will gain interlock (taking roughly 15 seconds) just as the the train comes to a halt in the platform, leaving a train that was in a path two minutes behind roughly 75 seconds behind, allowing it to maintain a large margin for error before initiating emergency stopping actions. (It can wait 35 additional seconds before initiating a full emergency stop to allow the points to obtain interlock)

If we assume that the train has a 75 second dwell time timetabled (as it has 32 sets of doors on a 16 carriage set and these are relatively minor stations so should be able to load relatively quickly), this means that the train should be ready to depart just as the train behind passes the station.

If we allow 15 seconds for the points to switch and gain interlock after the train passes over them then the train can depart (this also provides a margin for error in getting the doors closed).
If we assume that it reaches its 320kph service speed in roughly 250 seconds and has an average speed of roughly 200kph while doing so (due to its 75% motored axles and insane power output) the train would end up ~110 seconds behind the train in front, leaving it ahead of its assigned path and thus allowing 10 additional seconds for station dwell and other slack. Thus leaving 100 seconds for maximum station dwells assuming we can get rapidly opening doors.

In other words based on these newer, simpler calculations, if we allow 2 minute headways thanks to the rather rapid braking of Shinkansen style trainsets, we can have 2tph stopping and 16tph fast relatively easy.
However if we are to cut the fast trains to 15tph the slow trains could be increased relatively easily to 7tph (actually 15tph but that's ridiculously excessive as there would be a train in the platform more than half the time) because then you can start reusing paths.

15tph fast and 7tph slow.

Eventually:
2tph Birmingham
2tph Leeds
2tph Manchester
2tph Leeds CC (9 Edinburgh, 9 Newcastle, 6 Hull, 6 Middlesbrough/Sunderland, 6 Secondary Leeds)
2tph Manchester CC (9 Glasgow, 9 Liverpool, 6 Blackpool, 6 Holyhead, 6 Edinburgh)
1tph Manchester Semi Fast (fast to Birmingham Int. and all shacks)
1tph Leeds Semi Fast (fast to Birmingham Int. and all shacks)
3tph Spare for various bits and pieces

2-7tph Slow.

NOTE: As all non classic compatible trainsets are double decker it is reasonable to assume that should the line be extended to Scotland that one of the Manchester or Leeds CC paths could be converted to a non CC path to take an hourly train to Scotland which should prove to be ample capacity, any other growth could be handled with the spare paths or by the construction of a "bypass" for the trunk section.

(As most people assume 1tph Leeds CC would be formed of Edinburgh/Newcastle components in there entirety this could be reformed into a 400m DD path providing 1300 seats per hour to Newcastle/Edinburgh/Glasgow while the Glasgow and Edinburgh trains formed into the Manchester CC consists could be diverted to somewhere else).

This would leave it with something like this:

2tph Birmingham
2tph Manchester
1tph Leeds
1tph Edinburgh Semi Fast (fast to Leeds and all shacks)
2tph Manchester CC (9 Liverpool, 6 Blackpool, 6 Holyhead, 6 Glasgow/Edinburgh, 9 ???)
1tph Leeds/York CC (6 Hull, 6 Middlesbrough/Sunderland, 6 Secondary Leeds)
1tph Scotland (stopping Leeds, Newcastle, Edinburgh, Glasgow)
1tph Manchester Semi Fast (fast to Birmingham Int. and all shacks)
1tph Birmingham Semi Fast (fast to Birmingham Int. and all shacks)
3tph Spare

2-7tph Slow.

EDIT:

Due to this requiring split second planning I would recommend using 2.5 minute headways and not having those spare reserve paths (12tph fast, ~2-6tph slow). This allows 3 minute dwells at all intermediate stations with 40 seconds in reserve.
This would give a London-Birmingham all-shacks train service time roughly equivalent to the current classic "fast service".
I calculate that if the train was fitted with a service use Linear Eddy Current Brake system and we are willing to accept the use of a non regenerative braking system for such a great portion of the braking effort we could add another 10-15 seconds into each deceleration/dwell cycle. This would also probably reduce the braking time to roughly 35 seconds of full speed travel.

12tph fast is sufficient as you can see from me providing the required service (Even after extension to scotland) with the original paths. ~19500 seats per day in each direction to Scotland from London, even if the extended Leeds train is not counted (being Semi-Fast)

If 250kph rated swingnose crossings are available the extension of the loops would enable the margins to be extended somewhat.

 

[Rational Plan]

Birmingham

Old Oak Common

Euston

 

[HSTEd]

Birmingham

Old Oak Common

Euston

Does this mean that the route has been "locked in" or does the approval yesterday simply mean that the actual "proper" design work can commence?

 

[WatcherZero]

The route has been locked in (pending minor changes from public appeals to Parliamentary committee) the design of and requirement for structures will still be refined as design work continues, for example they might decide this viaduct needs lengthening, or this bridge needs a bigger land take, etc... Detailed rather than indicative soil samples will be required to determine foundation depths and whether additional work is required to strengthen the ground (e.g. unexpected water table, boggy ground, depth to bedrock being shallower than surrounding area).

 

[Waddon]

I'm wondering what the long term implications of HS2 will be on the rest of the rail network, assuming it all gets built as planned... difficult to predict the future I know, but if all fast long distance passenger services from London get routed by HS2 (as they probably will, as the government will want the line to be heavily used from day one), will it mean Kings X getting demoted to effectively a commuter and secondary route terminus, maybe with no services beyond York?

Will it also maybe mean the end of London to Scotland through services beyond the limits of electrification, and possibly the end of the Scottish sleeper, with the justification of reduced journey times? And what about services on the WCML from Euston, will there be no non-HS fasts to Birmingham or further north any more, with everything perhaps reduced to all stops services?

 

[Proud Salopian]

Massive MISINFORMATION from the Shropshire Star (and no doubt from other vested interest newspapers) today:

http://www.shropshirestar.com/blogs...ader-new-rail-link-is-bad-news-for-shropshire

It is a little-reported fact that the high speed trains will not go into the centre of Birmingham at New Street, but will go to a new station on the eastern outskirts of the city.

This will mean passengers for Birmingham centre will need another train journey to get there, devaluing one of the main arguments in favour HS2, in that it will cut down journey times.

No wonder there is public opposition to HS2 with this sort of nonsense being pushed in front of their noses.

Quite angry really.

 

[cle]

Any indication on:

linking Euston Square with Euston tube and Euston concourse? Or at least an entrance at the eastern end near the Euston Tap?

A possible interchange and parkway station connecting with the E/W route? Might be interesting.

 

[Nym]

Massive MISINFORMATION from the Shropshire Star (and no doubt from other vested interest newspapers) today:

http://www.shropshirestar.com/blogs...ader-new-rail-link-is-bad-news-for-shropshire



No wonder there is public opposition to HS2 with this sort of nonsense being pushed in front of their noses.

Quite angry really.

You "David" by any chance, he's written a wonderful comment

Said it higher up, if we're to have a parkway and interchange at the HS2/EWR crossing point, if this is the ONLY interchange, then pathing isn't too much of an issue below 18tph core, (before anyone else starts, no systems in the world currently use dynamic compound block signalling, that is what I'm basing my paths on, this was used on the met a long time ago, with coloured lights, very small blocks and relay multipliers) so long as the station is situated on a long loop, ~3-5km and has two platforms per direction. It is also debatable that this station should situate it's platforms between the running lines for conflict free termination of commuter services.

It will be nessesarry to improve links from both the M1/A5 and M40 to this station, the A41 will need to be improved to at least D2AP or D3 standard, with a minimum of S2W link road to the station, if this is to also to link in to the A421, that would also require an upgrade to D2 then a parkway / park&ride for london here could do quite well.

If a 6 track decelaration zone could be provided, it may be possible to include an actual in service link to EWR, for through services to Bichester and Bletchley / Milton Keynes, using of course, Classic Compatable stock. A possible service provision could be 4tph from EWR Interchange to Euston, 2tph from Birmingham running Semi-Fast over HS2, calling Birmingham CZS, Birmingham S Parkway, EWR Interchange, Old Oak Common, Euston. With 2tph origonating from Milton Keynes and/or Bichester. The latter is very adventurous and risky, but would run on a similar model to services that join HS1 at Dartford. But it would mean nibbling paths for no reason, and giving cause for complaint if these services become overcrowded and there isn't any space for additionals.

Either way, if a 6 track decelaration zone (2 through tracks, 2 tracks for through platforms (that there are four of) and 2 'link tracks' that would link directly onto the EWR station, would be a major chunk of junction to do without massive bridges etc and take up rather a large chunk of land, if you can have bridges, less land.

Anyway, if EWR is being electrified, and if it can be re-opened as UIC GC Gauge (why not?) then an in service link facing Bletchley could be rather advantagous. Even if no regular services make use of this link, services could be provided to MKC from Euston via HS2, it also provides cover for posessions.

And without anything else swaying this, there will be a maintenance depot there anyway, and no rail access to this for in service stock, would be a nice political move to have a parkway station, and a good excuse for not having it elsewhere or any more is the EWR interchange.

 

[Invincibles]

Some more cynical thinking:

Manchester: Build a new tram network serving the airport, east didsbury and parts of the southern suburbs. Create a Northern Hub proposal which pushes trains through Piccadilly 13/14 (and 15/16 potentially). Slowly downgrade the stopping service on the Styal line (potentially announcing a new tram along Kingsway corridor) and so the trains begin to stop to a pattern (each TPE serving one intermediate station) and suddenly there are a couple of paths to squeeze the HS train in to the platforms that have been vacated in the main Piccadilly shed (so extending the western most - 8,9,10 and 11 (12 would close) to take HS trains. Indeed since Virgin get 3tph from just 2 platforms even that might be more than needed and 11 and 12 could branch off from 13 were 15/16 built). HS is then built at the airport and continuing through a cheaper route to a further parkway between Manchester and Liverpool somewhere near Warrington.

Leeds: Build a new parkway station at Leeds, begin to call long distance services there, including XC, and promote its' benefits for getting to Scotland easily without having to get into the city centre. Similar to Manchester promote local journeys to the Cross Gates area. HS then built by the A1M1 link road at Cross Gates with good connections into central Leeds - some Leeds trains can use a current route in.

Massive savings over any attempt to actually put HS into the city centres and brings the UK system more in line with the system that has been developed in China.

While I know that many on here are wedded to grandiose engineering schemes to build into existing city centres I do beleive that actually there will be a bigger market for new developments on brownfield sites (housing shortage, etc) of which there are many on the edges of the former coal cities particularly.

I also believe we will see all but a couple of trains stop once between London and Birmingham so that people can use HS2 but that there will be few if any that stop more than once. Based on braking technologies described above one stop is not going to penalise trains too much.

 

[trainfanatic]

There are several stages to a Project;

1) Euphoria & Excitement

2) Disenchantment

3) Search for the Guilty

4) Punishment of the Innocent

5) Rewards for the Uninvolved

We are at Stage 1 now!

 

[Sapphire Blue]

There are several stages to a Project;

1) Euphoria & Excitement

2) Disenchantment

3) Search for the Guilty

4) Punishment of the Innocent

5) Rewards for the Uninvolved

We are at Stage 1 now!

I'm already at 3.

 

[jon0844]

Can I jump to 5? I've been a strong supporter on forums, so even though I had nothing to do with the planning or getting it approved, or indeed built (as and when it is), I'd like to claim that I helped make it happen and you can all thank me!

 

[HSTEd]

Oh Nym, I just realised that if two minute headways were used you could get the 220 second dwells at intermediate stations by using every third path, which would leave us with the rather impressive 20tph fast and up to 5tph slow.

Which would remove any of the issues with the alternative route that I proposed because it would enable train capacities which are massive overkill for any reasonable demand projections unless the government does something stupid like order single deck 200m trains. (Which it appears it will).

I find myself forced into the anti-HS2 camp by the apparent commitment of the government to building an LGV style railway that will not serve any intermediate stations and thus will not really benefit those cities beyond providing additional seats on current service timings (It will take a similar amount of time to go from Northampton as it will to Birmingham, likely resulting in further abstraction of business from the former to the latter).

Meanwhile service to other destinations further north (like Sheffield or Nottingham) will be provided only by Classic Compatible trains that will use high speed paths and still not save that much time or carry that many people.
Not that we will be short of paths any time soon as the line will basically consist of a uniform stream of trains... going where?
We are talking about engineering for 24-30tph pathwise which is massive overkill for the first two decades or more when there are no stops between Old Oak Common and Birmingham International. (And no "semi-fast" trains that would serve "all shacks" between Birmingham and Leeds or whatever, including a city of nearly a million people)

Not engineering intermediate stations is going to come back to hurt us, Birmingham and London are not the French pair of cities separated by completely empty fields.
If we were to build four additional intermediate stations we could still have a massively excessive 20 trains per hour through the core section and have up to 5 trains per hour serving Milton Keynes/Northampton/Rugby/Conventry, allowing them to share in the bounty of the high speed system. (The train stopping "all shacks" making three more stops than the current fast service and still managing the end-to-end trip in the same time, while carrying more people than 3 Pendolinos). Possibly by extending a stopping train to Manchester/Leeds or even Scotland (eventually) every hour.

The lack of order of double deck trains is also going to hurt us if the train system is the runaway success the government claims it will be, we will be left with tonnes of single deck stock and be forced to buy additional double decker stock at enormous expense.

 

[brad465]

There are several stages to a Project;

1) Euphoria & Excitement

2) Disenchantment

3) Search for the Guilty

4) Punishment of the Innocent

5) Rewards for the Uninvolved

We are at Stage 1 now!

I'm already at 3.

Many people living on route/against environment loss are starting to feel stage 4 in their mind at least

 

[Nym]

Have a lil read up as to how we could still serve MK using a junction at EWR, say if we path up for 6tph stoppers flighted between an 18tph core, if the EWR interchange is the first station call, with 3tph clockface leaving here, and 3tph calling northbound, the 3tph calling northbound would arrive in their path, and leave in the path of the service leaving at EWR, meaning a 10min loss of time, but, stopping paths being configured such that one in two paths is taken North of EWR, so for any stops between EWR and BSP, the services would simply all, 'drop back a path' if they stopped.

This of course could also work in a 20tph core with 10tph stoppers pathed in, but you would need to have calling patterns configured so that services could either drop back into an empty path, or drop back into a path vacated by a service that will be stopping next. That would mean a 6min stop alowance.

If you path for a 6min40sec segment and therefore stop alowance, you could quite nicely fit 18tph core and 9tph stoppers in, that would work out (for my timetabling) as if we had three stops, all services calling EWR, 3tph leave at EWR for MKC, 3tph call at each of the stations between EWR and BSP. Or, simply leave 3tph as empty.

Working off say 18tph core, in groups of three, giving 6tph slow paths available, not unreasonable. Have three intermediate stations at:
EWR, Brackley / A43, Kelingworth / A46.

The service pattern would look something like (Off OOC / Heathrow Jcn) Every 20mins
Fast
Fast (Maybe calls BSP)
Fast (Calls at BSP)
Slow to MKC (OOC, EWR, Bletchley, MKC, Onwards?)
Fast
Fast (Maybe calls BSP)
Fast (Calls at BSP)
Slow to BCZ (OOC, EWR, A43, A46, BSP, BCZ)

The slows would loose 10min per slow stop with an 18/6 profile, if you run with an 18/9 profile and spare 'slow' paths that could be used for slightly slower stock, or as spare paths, still pathed in and out of the station loops. then you'd loose 6min40 per stop.

But I would still provide the running at 3tph Slow Birmingham, 3tph MKC, 18tph Fast, 3tph spare. Since the spares can then be used for ECS or additionals, but would run in and out of the loops and be overtaken by two fasts.

If you're working the 18/9 profile it would be a case of:

Fast
Fast BSP
Slow (MKC)
Fast
Fast BSP
Slow (BCZ)
Fast
Fast BSP
Spare Path

Every 20mins. Yes, departures would need to be timed to the 20sec accuracy...!

If you cut back to 15tph core, or even 12tph core fasts, flighting fasts in pairs, it's easy to path as 10min waits, 16/8tph pushes a 7.5min pathing alowance, and means 4tph 'slow' onto each route.

10tph West and 6tph East isn't an unreasonable pair of numbers, 3tph Brum (Would be 8tph including 'slows' if all where included), 7tph Rugley (Splitting services at CRE, allows good service provision to all routes), 6tph East could include 2tph to Nottingham and Derby CC (Splitting at Trent Jcn), 2tph Leeds and 2tph Doncaster and Beyond. Any additionals can be picked up from the 4tph 'slow' pathed services, that don't all need to actually run fully slow, 2tph could call at EWR only and the other 2tph 'all shacks' the fallback pathing allows this. 18tph core is more desireable as it would allow heathrow and international services to kick about... But anyway, I can discuss this pathing thing till I'm blue in the face.

Can anyone else see value in opening a branch off as part of EWR to Bletchley and Milton Keynes Central, and sending say, 3tph that way, and call another 3tph at the EWR station. (So we can use the 18/6 or 12/6 pathing strategies, allowing 21 or 15tph up to BSP) 18/6 would mean falling back by 10mins, or 18/9 is proberbly the limit and would mean a 6:40 fallback.

PS: 18/6 would provide a clockface 6tph from EWR, 3tph from MKC, and 3tph to any other intermediate stations (at the cost of 10mins journey time each) and if the extended slows continued to BCZ, provide their links to BSP, fasts also calling BSP for convenience, and provide enough paths to keep everyone N of BSP happy for a long time (15tph, 8L 7R?)

 

[HSTEd]

Massive MISINFORMATION from the Shropshire Star (and no doubt from other vested interest newspapers) today:

http://www.shropshirestar.com/blogs...ader-new-rail-link-is-bad-news-for-shropshire



No wonder there is public opposition to HS2 with this sort of nonsense being pushed in front of their noses.

Quite angry really.

Well I have have seen some legitimate complaints that Curzon Street is not as central as it could be.
Either way I think the 20tph/10tph proposal is optimum and I hope we do get some intermediate stations, although parkways along the current route are unlikely to generate anywhere near as much traffic as ones in town centres (like the ones on the route I proposed).

Unfortunately that pattern is only practical if every stopping train is capable of Shinkansen acceleration profiles and every train can brake to a stop sufficiently rapidly to make maximum use of moving block signalling.

Open access operators make this problematic.

 

[swt_passenger]

Well I have have seen some legitimate complaints that Curzon Street is not as central as it could be.

The entrance will be in Moor St. If that's the case then Moor St isn't in central Birmingham either.

Incidentally, exactly where do locals consider the centre of Birmingham to be? Are all distances measured from New St for some odd reason?

 

[Ascot]

The entrance will be in Moor St. If that's the case then Moor St isn't in central Birmingham either.

Incidentally, exactly where do locals consider the centre of Birmingham to be? Are all distances measured from New St for some odd reason?

Moor St is great for shoppers and the like as you have the Bull Ring. Not many offices for now but the "Millennium Point" is being developed on which, incidentally, Curzon St is nicely located. Snow Hill is more office spaces around the Plaza and the law courts. Then New St is just New St which is neither here or there and quite snug between everything.

Centre of Birmingham for locals would be somewhere between Victoria Square and Corporation Street as West you have the ICC and Broad St which New St Victoria St entrance serves well. East way you have the Snow Hill offices and just south towards Moor St is the Bull Ring. Curzon St will be at the heart of a nicely developed area in 10-15 years time and plans have already been sent/approved to Birmingham City Council (Building Consultancy/Planning office department) for high earner buildings.

 

[All Line Rover]

I wonder if, when HS2 is built to Birmingham, Virgin (or whoever the WCML franchise holder is at the time) will reduce the frequency between London and Birmingham and increase the frequency between London and Liverpool / Glasgow and perhaps even the Trent Valley? I'm sure many people would be pleased if that happened.

 

[Badger]

It's quite true that, in comparison to everything else, Curzon Street is not really central Birmingham. As an outsider I've always considered Moor Street/ Park Street to be the boundary of the sort of central area. However while Curzon Street is at Millenium Point, the proposed station opens out onto Moor Street thus making it part of central Birmingham. It's all part of the Big City Plan which aims to spread the shopping district towards Digbeth and such.

Millenium Point / Curzon Street are only not central Birmingham due to the large amount of empty land seperating the two - land which is empty only (presumably) in reservation for HS2.

Using the following site: http://www.daftlogic.com/projects-google-maps-distance-calculator.htm

New Street to Moor Street: 250m
New Street to proposed Curzon Street entrance: 300m
New Street to former Curzon Street entrance: 650m
New Street to Millenium Point: 700m

You can see therefore where the confusion may lie, the former Curzon Street station is a fair distance away - but the new station's doors much closer.

Personally I think much of Birmingham should be demolished to make way for a giant station which would replace Curzon Street and Moor Street with a new "New Street" in the middle, serving all three lines. Is there honestly anything that can't be easily replaced between Bordesley Street and Albert Street?

Here, like this:

http://bb.ohsk.net/uploads/birminghamcentralstation.png

Nothing says Big City Plan more than a Birmingham Central Station.

 

[JohnCarlson]

Some more cynical thinking:

Manchester: Build a new tram network serving the airport, east didsbury and parts of the southern suburbs. Create a Northern Hub proposal which pushes trains through Piccadilly 13/14 (and 15/16 potentially). Slowly downgrade the stopping service on the Styal line (potentially announcing a new tram along Kingsway corridor) and so the trains begin to stop to a pattern (each TPE serving one intermediate station) and suddenly there are a couple of paths to squeeze the HS train in to the platforms that have been vacated in the main Piccadilly shed (so extending the western most - 8,9,10 and 11 (12 would close) to take HS trains. Indeed since Virgin get 3tph from just 2 platforms even that might be more than needed and 11 and 12 could branch off from 13 were 15/16 built). HS is then built at the airport and continuing through a cheaper route to a further parkway between Manchester and Liverpool somewhere near Warrington.

Leeds: Build a new parkway station at Leeds, begin to call long distance services there, including XC, and promote its' benefits for getting to Scotland easily without having to get into the city centre. Similar to Manchester promote local journeys to the Cross Gates area. HS then built by the A1M1 link road at Cross Gates with good connections into central Leeds - some Leeds trains can use a current route in.

Massive savings over any attempt to actually put HS into the city centres and brings the UK system more in line with the system that has been developed in China.

While I know that many on here are wedded to grandiose engineering schemes to build into existing city centres I do beleive that actually there will be a bigger market for new developments on brownfield sites (housing shortage, etc) of which there are many on the edges of the former coal cities particularly.

I also believe we will see all but a couple of trains stop once between London and Birmingham so that people can use HS2 but that there will be few if any that stop more than once. Based on braking technologies described above one stop is not going to penalise trains too much.

If you look at Leeds station on Google earth at about the seven o clock position there is a long disused two track viaduct running from the Wakefield line to the entrance to Leeds station with a lot of disused and semi used industrial land around it. I wonder if an HS2 station could be built there?

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/11967/

 

[brad465]

Really I believe the only stations that should be between Euston and Birmingham are:

Old Oak common to provide GWML interchange
Birmingham International for airport obviously

Any other stations would cost more and would not have much time saved compared to using the classic line, plus would restrict service frequency towards faster services, and gives less leeway time in case of delay.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Would it be possible to build additional platforms for existing services ie Cross City line trains to call at Curzon Street? In all fairness Curzon Street is not the most convenient location particulary if your local connecting service runs into New Street. Even less so if you have baggage.