High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[HSTEd]

The at least seven paths appears to be a new thing, I've not seen that referenced elsewhere.

Well lets see shall we:
- 1tph Liverpool - this train will be surplus to requirements as the only station that will not be served by CC services is Stafford, and those calls could be picked up by other Chester services quite easily. [There is also talk of a second Liverpool service starting soon, which would also be rendered surplus for the same reason listed here]
- 1tph Glasgow - almost all flows will be taken by the CC services or could be picked up by the Birmingham-Scotland trains, the remainder could be accomodated by changing at New Street
- 1tph Manchester via Stoke - there is no reason really to maintain a second train per hour on the Stoke route once all the Manchester and most of the Stockport (decanting to the Airport station) passengers are eliminated, the calls (Macclesfield) can be picked up by the remaining service.
- 1tph Manchester via Crewe - this train is rather hairy, it would only serve Wilmslow uniquely, and this would be far more rapidly done by changing at Crewe so its probably a good idea to eliminate it.
- 3tph Birmingham - a rather large fraction of the traffic on these services will decant, Birmingham and Birmingham Airport passengers will all decant completely to High Speed, Wolverhampton passengers will partially transfer depending on further intermodal passenger options made available at Curzon Street - a spur on Midland Metro would likely be best.
This leaves the remaining Wolverhampton passengers, Coventry passengers, Rugby passengers and MKC passengers - these can probably concentrate down to 1 (or maybe 2) tph if the first class provision on the existing sets is reduced or if new more suitable regional stock is acquired.

That leaves us with a net saving of 5 or 6 trains per hour even if 125mph service is maintained. This will increase to the full 7 if we include the projected second Liverpool train that we have been hearing talk of.

Plus the general consensus is that the WCML will not reduce to a 110mph railway so that gain will not exist.

The general consensus is that HS2 trains will be powered by powdered horns of unicorn and manned by magical elves.
The serious discussions for the post HS2 conventional railway have not commenced yet and are being deliberately delayed until after project approval is given to avoid stirring up more opposition than already exists.
Considering the rapid stopping patterns the remaining services will be left with there seems little point in maintaining 125mph running with all the attendant costs with regards to tilting equipment.

Class 390s are rather more expensive to maintain than Class 350s per passenger.

As for wibble like "Saying it is not revolutionary is dependent on insisting that Coventry can justify three trains per hour with full Intercity restaurant service and 125mph capability by itself, which is clearly nonsense.", I really don't understand what you are talking about. Who even mentioned Coventry ?

Well you are claiming that ICWC traffic will remain as it is for some reason.
Do you really think London-Birmingham/Wolves would have 3 trains per hour with massive first class sections and full restaurants if the only people uysing it were Wolves and Coventry passengers?

Fairly limited gains on the WCML are not revolutionary. A perception is that something of the scale of HS2 should be.

The freed capacity is equivalent to all long distance traffic on the ECML.
This sounds revolutionary to me?

You don't sell the idea very well, which may account for the scale of the opposition.

I'm still curious as to why we are spending so much on relieving the WCML when the evidence (albeit as produced by obvious antis) implies this is currently much less congested than other routes.

Because the routes that come out as 'more congested' mostly have major reconstruction projects committed or underway.
This also relieves the ECML remember.

 

[corfield]

Please moderate your condescencion, it just makes you come across as a prat, and to someone who actually supports HS2, it simply serves to make me question that agreement if someone "pro HS2" doesn't seem to be able to hold a discussion.

I strongly suspect you don't know nearly as much about the reality of the railways as you pretend, I certainly don't know much, but I do have a sense of when people are Mittying.

The data HS2 have released, and discussions on here do not point to the WCML becoming a 110mph railway nor that there will actually be that much capacity released, that seems largely to be your view.

You are the one wibbling about Coventry and now Walsall or wherever, the point, which you are either too dim to see, or more likely are trying to obscure; is that HS2 does not appear to be that revolutionary in what it delivers in terms of improving the suburbans/semi fasts/freights that are actually the problem areas (since LD IC is currently not at max and is quite fast). It may be a revolution in a lot of small bites, but then it is legitimate to question if those bites could be done differently, or if they really need to be done / can be afforded.

Again, my question was that (according to antis) Euston services run at 60% (and as mentioned above, the long distance IC services are actually lower, which begs the question why invest in such services to a significant deal further), with Padd/Waterloo in high 90s. The investment in those two is far less than HS2 and thus adding more capacity to the WCML. GW/XR is significant, but the SWML is not seeing more than a fraction of the spend.

If the stats are wrong/misleading, please demonstrate, but it does beg the question over priorities.

Increasingly HS2 seems a political project, not a commercial or even industrial one. Such projects rarely deliver as desired, at much greater cost, if they don't fail outright. Healthy skepticism in any Government project, especially when backed by overly passionate supporters/believers, seems a sensible position to take.
Especially when coupled with such lack of concern for those directly impacted with the negatives.

 

[NSEFAN]

Again, my question was that (according to antis) Euston services run at 60% (and as mentioned above, the long distance IC services are actually lower, which begs the question why invest in such services to a significant deal further), with Padd/Waterloo in high 90s. The investment in those two is far less than HS2 and thus adding more capacity to the WCML. GW/XR is significant, but the SWML is not seeing more than a fraction of the spend.

If the stats are wrong/misleading, please demonstrate, but it does beg the question over priorities.

Increasingly HS2 seems a political project, not a commercial or even industrial one. Such projects rarely deliver as desired, at much greater cost, if they don't fail outright. Healthy skepticism in any Government project, especially when backed by overly passionate supporters/believers, seems a sensible position to take.
Especially when coupled with such lack of concern for those directly impacted with the negatives.

HSTEd's point was that the overcrowding isn't on the peak-time Virgin intercity services out of Euston but the London Midland commuter ones. By including all services out of Euston in one number, you could say that HS2 isn't needed because the WCML is "only" at 60% capacity. This is misleading because most of the peak intercity trains out of Euston make no calls at major commuting towns en-route (Milton Keynes for example), unlike the GWML (Reading) and SWML (Woking, Guildford and Basingstoke).

Route capacity seems to be very much an all-or-nothing problem: you either stop all your trains at a station or none of them, otherwise you reduce the number of trains per hour which can run. If however you started making the intercity trains all call at Milton Keynes, Watford, etc, you would risk extracting passengers from the dedicated commuter trains they are supposed to use. The same would happen if you built intermediate stations along HS2 phase 1: people see the faster trains and drive further to catch them rather than use their local station, adding to congestion and making the faster trains overcrowded. It's not a good use of resources.

So, if most trains are running non-stop between London and Birmingham, then there is no point in running them on the current WCML. You might as well build another set of running lines which they can use. Doing so allows the existing line to be freed up for more stopping trains and maybe some semi-fast ones. Since the vicinity of the WCML is rather built up, it's probably cheaper to actually build the new set of running lines away from the existing ones, much like HS2 is doing.

I agree that the project is becoming awfully political, which is annoying but unsurprising given how much politics there is in the railways as it is. Given how cynical the public are, it's important that politicians sell the project honestly and not keep on throwing out meaningless statements like "engine for growth". :roll:

 

[The Ham]

Again, my question was that (according to antis) Euston services run at 60% (and as mentioned above, the long distance IC services are actually lower, which begs the question why invest in such services to a significant deal further), with Padd/Waterloo in high 90s. The investment in those two is far less than HS2 and thus adding more capacity to the WCML. GW/XR is significant, but the SWML is not seeing more than a fraction of the spend.

If the stats are wrong/misleading, please demonstrate, but it does beg the question over priorities.

Increasingly HS2 seems a political project, not a commercial or even industrial one. Such projects rarely deliver as desired, at much greater cost, if they don't fail outright. Healthy skepticism in any Government project, especially when backed by overly passionate supporters/believers, seems a sensible position to take.
Especially when coupled with such lack of concern for those directly impacted with the negatives.

The GWML will be improved by cross rail, Reading station remodeling and IEP. Which will increase it's capacity in the next 5 years. The best scheme to improve the SWML is crossrail 2, which is more likely with HS2, however there are other schemes which are likely to be developed over the next 20 years (such as the reuse of the international platforms at Waterloo). All of which will aid in reducing the capacity problems on those lines. Yes they may not equal the cost of HS2, however HS2 will also allow capacity enhancements on the ECML and MML. It is also likely that by the time HS2 is fully operational that there will have been a lot more investment on all the lines into London as well as around all the cities of the UK.

Although the Level of passengers loadings on the WCML going into Euston is fairly low now, the 390's have just been lengthened. Give it another decade and passenger numbers will likely be much higher, however as HS2 will take some time to build planning for it will need to start before the line is full. In the same way that in the next decade or so a new line out of London to the West will proberbly start to be planned.

What is needed is for there to be a longer term plan showing the likely schemes could be needed over the next 20 years depending on passenger growth. Which could then form the basis of the next few control periods. If passenger growth is low it would take longer for all the schemes to be built, whilst if the growth is high then the schemes will be completed over a shorter time frame.

 

[AndyLandy]

Please moderate your condescencion, it just makes you come across as a prat, and to someone who actually supports HS2, it simply serves to make me question that agreement if someone "pro HS2" doesn't seem to be able to hold a discussion.

I don't think his post was particularly condescending. I guess that's the problem with the Internet, it's hard to convey emotion.

The data HS2 have released, and discussions on here do not point to the WCML becoming a 110mph railway nor that there will actually be that much capacity released, that seems largely to be your view.

You are the one wibbling about Coventry and now Walsall or wherever, the point, which you are either too dim to see, or more likely are trying to obscure; is that HS2 does not appear to be that revolutionary in what it delivers in terms of improving the suburbans/semi fasts/freights that are actually the problem areas (since LD IC is currently not at max and is quite fast). It may be a revolution in a lot of small bites, but then it is legitimate to question if those bites could be done differently, or if they really need to be done / can be afforded.

The essence of the problem is, as you rightly say, with the semi-fast and stopping services ran by LM, and freight. This could be fixed by another pair of lines along the WCML to run more of those services.

The thing is, laying another pair of lines along the WCML alignment would be ludicrously expensive. So, you build HS2 instead. You don't follow a current alignment, so you can save money there, you don't need to build or upgrade lots of intermediate stations, and you can build it to a wider gauge and for faster running, all as comparitively marginal cost increases on the base.

You then remove Intercity trains from the WCML and put them on HS2, freeing up WCML capacity, which is far more ideally suited to commuter services, since it already has all the stations along it. This is potentially as many as ten paths an hour.

And this is where Coventry, Stoke and Milton Keynes keep getting referenced. At the moment, these cities enjoy a regular Intercity service currently provided by ICWC but the HS2 plans do not cater for them.

Stoke could theoretically have a CC service that joins HS2 at Crewe, but that assumes there isn't a more important service requirement for the HS2 path.

Coventry and Milton Keynes however have no provision at all as part of HS2. Both cities have 3tph? ICWC service at the moment and certainly have large enough population to justify frequent and fast services, but to what extent?

And here's the tradeoff. You either continue to provide those cities an Intercity service on the WCML, chewing up paths you were hoping to free; or those cities take the hit to free up lots of capacity.

If you're aggressively pursuing maximising paths on the WCML, you'd standardise on all passenger services running to one speed (probably 110mph) with consistent, fixed calling patterns. By doing so, you could probably eke out another path or two, giving as many as twelve to play with. But that would mean that COV would likely be reduced to 2tph, calling at a few more stations along the way, making the journey times longer. MKC would benefit from additional commuter services into London, but it would lose out on fast services, with maybe only one or two semi-fasts calling there, and nothing of note for Intercity travel northwards.

Alternatively, if you attempt to continue to give all existing WCML stations a level of service equivalent or better than the current one, you'll be lucky if you free up any more than a couple of paths. This in itself is still a potentially worthwhile improvement. You'd no longer have Birmingham and Coventry passengers competing for seats on the same services, so you'd massively increase capacities at both these locations, but it's hardly the game-changing improvements you'd expect from a new HS railway.

Again, my question was that (according to antis) Euston services run at 60% (and as mentioned above, the long distance IC services are actually lower, which begs the question why invest in such services to a significant deal further), with Padd/Waterloo in high 90s. The investment in those two is far less than HS2 and thus adding more capacity to the WCML. GW/XR is significant, but the SWML is not seeing more than a fraction of the spend.

If the stats are wrong/misleading, please demonstrate, but it does beg the question over priorities.

This report highlights the top ten busiest train services. Four of them are LM ones (though not all are to/from Euston):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20783986

The sticking point with the WCML is that it's already had a massive route modernisation programme. It wouldn't surprise me if that's why at the current time, WCML capacity seems lower than other main lines. The difference is that there's no longer many practical things we can do to improve capacity on the existing line.

Electrification, IEP and CrossRail will all help with congestion on ECML, MML and GWML routes. And I agree with you that I'd like to see more done to improve SWML services. XR2 should help with that, but it's a long way off.

Increasingly HS2 seems a political project, not a commercial or even industrial one. Such projects rarely deliver as desired, at much greater cost, if they don't fail outright. Healthy skepticism in any Government project, especially when backed by overly passionate supporters/believers, seems a sensible position to take.
Especially when coupled with such lack of concern for those directly impacted with the negatives.

There's a lot of truth in that. If HS2 keeps getting tweaked to try and be 'all things to all men', we'll end up not doing anything particularly well.

HS2 isn't a silver bullet. I'm still definitely pro-HS2, but not nearly as much as I once was. It will deliver benefits, but they probably aren't going to be as revolutionary as one might wish.

 

[Martin222002]

My personal view on services on IC services on the WCML post HS2 services staring, is that it will allow a calling pattern for retained IC services (and by this I mean running at 125mph) to be more akin to those on the GWML, as there would be no need for services to run to London non-stop from Crewe, Stoke, Stafford and even Rugby.

This would allow more IC services to call at intermediate stations like Stafford, Lichfield, Tamworth, Nuneaton, Rugby and Watford, which either have a limited service through the day or only a few in the peaks at the moment. Milton Keynes in my opinion should also see all retained IC services calling there as is the case with Reading.

This would allow commuters at these stations to use these IC services to London, freeing up capacity on WCML outer suburban services for intermediate stations on the WCML.

 

[AndyLandy]

My personal view on services on IC services on the WCML post HS2 services staring, is that it will allow a calling pattern for retained IC services (and by this I mean running at 125mph) to be more akin to those on the GWML, as there would be no need for services to run to London non-stop from Crewe, Stoke, Stafford and even Rugby.

This is a not-unreasonable suggestion from a passenger train perspective, but I don't think it would help with the lack of freight paths.

Sadly, something has to give.

 

[The Ham]

This is a not-unreasonable suggestion from a passenger train perspective, but I don't think it would help with the lack of freight paths.

Sadly, something has to give.

Couldn't the 125\140 mph services run on the fast lines with 110mph/freight on the slow lines.

 

[Philip Elliott]

This is a not-unreasonable suggestion from a passenger train perspective, but I don't think it would help with the lack of freight paths.

Sadly, something has to give.

Or as I said, you build a "London to Rugby" route via MK for phase 1. Everything transfers (minus Watford stops), nobody loses out (except Watford).

Sit back for a moment and think. Do you really believe spending £30bn (the biggest UK transport project of all time) for a scheme that circa 1 million people will see poorer transport links?

The suggestions you make would encourage greater use of the motorways not extract from it.

Stoke could theoretically have a CC service that joins HS2 at Crewe, but that assumes there isn't a more important service requirement for the HS2 path

Please do learn some geography. Unless you really think 225mph trains will reverse in Crewe station and then traverse a single track route...

 

[AndyLandy]

Or as I said, you build a "London to Rugby" route via MK for phase 1. Everything transfers (minus Watford stops), nobody loses out (except Watford).

And how much would that cost? How much additional capacity would it add? How fast could it practically be if it has to run via and call at MKC and RUG? What alignment would it take? Would the speed and capacity improvements for North-South services be anywhere near as significant as they are with the current HS2 proposal?

Sit back for a moment and think. Do you really believe spending £30bn (the biggest UK transport project of all time) for a scheme that circa 1 million people will see poorer transport links?

If it benefits significantly more people than that, yes. And clearly, as it's still on the cards, I can't be the only person who thinks that.

HS2 CANNOT solve every problem for every town and city along the WCML. It's ridiculous to assume it can. Something has to give.

I've listened to the points you've made and I don't think you're wrong. There will be winners and losers where HS2 is concerned, and Stoke and Coventry look like they're getting the raw end of the deal. For what it's worth, it's has made me think twice about HS2 and I no longer see it as the almighty solution it was originally sold to me as. However I'm still yet to be convinced of a better alternative.

Please do learn some geography. Unless you really think 225mph trains will reverse in Crewe station and then traverse a single track route...

Sorry, I'm doing that thing where I get confused between Stoke and Stockport.
Still, I'm sure it's not beyond the realms of possibility to double the Crewe-Stoke line and add in a chord to avoid reversing at Crewe. As ever, it's all a matter of cost.

 

[Geezertronic]

Please do learn some geography. Unless you really think 225mph trains will reverse in Crewe station and then traverse a single track route...

The constant sarcastic nature of your responses does degrade the content of your discussion. Please learn some manners when responding to posts, I doubt you would take that tone in person...

 

[tbtc]

Sit back for a moment and think. Do you really believe spending £30bn (the biggest UK transport project of all time) for a scheme that circa 1 million people will see poorer transport links?

The suggestions you make would encourage greater use of the motorways not extract from it

Who are these one million people?

Presumably you're adding the population of Coventry (325,000), Stoke (250,000) and a few other places on the WCML?

(figures taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_districts_by_population)

Do all of these people regularly use the railway to London? ALL of them?

I'm more interested in looking at which people currently travel on the railway (and on the M6), what demand is going to be for both modes of transport in twenty/ fifty years time.

 

[The Ham]

Or as I said, you build a "London to Rugby" route via MK for phase 1. Everything transfers (minus Watford stops), nobody loses out (except Watford).

Sit back for a moment and think. Do you really believe spending £30bn (the biggest UK transport project of all time) for a scheme that circa 1 million people will see poorer transport links?

The suggestions you make would encourage greater use of the motorways not extract from it.

Let me get this right, so by basicly removing the IC trains from the existing WCML (which will provide more paths for other services) that the existing services will get worse.

Yes there is a risk that a few places will not be able to have such a range of places which will be able to travel directly to, however if a HS link is built to Scotland then there is a good chance that those services resume.

As I've asked before what happens if passenger growth continues at its current rate, as there is a risk that if it does that no amount of upgrades will be able to cope with the passenger numbers. I'm of the view that we'll need both HS2 and further (as yet not announced) upgrades to the WCML will be required to cope.

 

[Metrailway]

I can't speak for Philip Elliott but IIRC there are over 1 million rail journeys to/from Coventry and Euston per annum. Don't know the figures for Stoke - London though.

 

[The Ham]

I can't speak for Philip Elliott but IIRC there are over 1 million rail journeys to/from Coventry and Euston per annum. Don't know the figures for Stoke - London though.

So the concern is that if the WCML slows to a 110mph railway that passengers will have a slightly longer journey than at present, however it is likely that there would be more services per hour. This would mean that there would be "faster" journeys for many as there would be less waiting for the next service. For example if a passenger whishes to travel to London at the train currently takes about 64 minutes with the choice of 3 trains per hour. However post 110mph it's likely to take about 70 minutes but with the say 4 or even 6 trains per hour as then Coventry becomes one of the major stations on the line.

 

[keithboddey]

Question.
What is the average load factor of virgin west coast trains leaving Euston.

Ill post the answer later..

 

[AndyLandy]

Question.
What is the average load factor of virgin west coast trains leaving Euston.

Ill post the answer later..

This has come up before. It's something in the 60% region, IIRC.

 

[Philip Elliott]

And how much would that cost? How much additional capacity would it add? How fast could it practically be if it has to run via and call at MKC and RUG? What alignment would it take? Would the speed and capacity improvements for North-South services be anywhere near as significant as they are with the current HS2 proposal?

Cost depends on largely which option is taken for the Birmingham branch - if you can utilise the existing Birmingham International station rather than a new station with the huge programme of road works then overall I think it would be a lot less.

Manchester in phase 2 would be no more than 80 minutes or perhaps less as it would be much more direct than the current route. Capacity wise, it would provide much more for the existing line. Personally, I don't think we should be aiming for 18tph - it is far too risky and the "East Coast" services should be on a separate line entirely but it would still be doable if you wish.

Remember MK will become a Hub with decent connections to Bedford/Aylesbury/Oxford etc. plus the commuter towns and villages (Hemel, Berko etc.). For anyone travelling north, whether it be holidaying in the Lake District, going to Scotland, the journey time reduction could easily be over 2 hours compared to getting a semi-fast to Crewe to connect onto an hourly service north.

AndyLandy, at least you do realise that HS2 isn't a "win-win" situation for all for which far too many believe.

 

[YorkshireBear]

No project is ever win-win for everyone. Anyone who believes so is hopelessly deluded.

 

[tbtc]

AndyLandy, at least you do realise that HS2 isn't a "win-win" situation for all for which far too many believe.

No project is ever win-win for everyone. Anyone who believes so is hopelessly deluded.

OF course there are losers - you'd be daft to think otherwise.

But the fact that "some people will lose out" is a pretty weak one as a criticism - any large project will see some people with a poorer service.

People in Wimbledon look like they'll lose their direct service to Luton once Thameslink is completed, but we don't see people pretending that there is a huge market for such direct services.

Its all about trade offs. Is it worth a big cut in the journey time for the large Manchester - London service if it means a slightly longer journey time for the smaller Stoke - London service?

 

[NotATrainspott]

Remember the Stonebridge Railway reopening idea? A closer look at the HS2 ES and it seems there is little, if any, recognition of reopening the line in the HS2 plan.

CFA 24 map book: Birmingham Interchange and Chelmsley Wood (Ref: ES 3.2.2.24) [Page 23]

There's no underbridge provided and the people mover depot is built over the top of the line. Certainly an awful shame and would cause the reopening to cost several hundred million pounds more if it were ever going to happen, notwithstanding the disruption it would have to cause to HS2 during its own construction. There's definitely enough space for a two-platform, two-track station alongside the carpark and it would allow direct services to Interchange from the wider North West Midlands.

 

[The Planner]

That idea to reopen that line beats some of the wacky ideas that come up on here sometimes. It is just a fag packet idea that is highly unlikely to get past that stage. No business case or anything to speak of.

 

[keithboddey]

Virgin Train - Passenger Km 5,699m, Timetabled Train km 35.6m, implied
average load 160 passengers. There are no seat km figures, but if you
use the then 9 car seating plan (assuming they are all Pendoinos) that
works out at 160/440 or 36%. If you transpose the new 11 car fleet
onto that it becomes 160/590 or 27%.

 

[jon0844]

Why would you work out an average load, when peak trains are often packed and off peak trains near empty?

Most railways will have quiet times, even during the peak when going against the flow. You wouldn't use all those empty trains to argue that commuters have nothing to moan about.

 

[Philip Elliott]

Its all about trade offs. Is it worth a big cut in the journey time for the large Manchester - London service if it means a slightly longer journey time for the smaller Stoke - London service?

So you would support HS2 not stopping at "Sheffield" and "Nottingham" then? Sheffield - London is a smaller flow than Leeds - London and fairly similar in size to Stoke. Stopping at Stoke would not add a significant amount of time to a high speed Manchester journey.

Leeds is a similar distance from London as Manchester is, yet the high speed service is roughly 15 minutes longer, partly through a very curvaceous route and partly through extra calls. People have no problem with the Leeds train stopping but do for the idea of Manchester trains stopping...

 

[HowardGWR]

Why would you work out an average load, when peak trains are often packed and off peak trains near empty?

Most railways will have quiet times, even during the peak when going against the flow. You wouldn't use all those empty trains to argue that commuters have nothing to moan about.

I thought HS2 had nothing to do with 'commuters' but was for long-distance travellers and thus leave the WCML for commuters?

 

[Metrailway]

I believe average load factor on IC WC services is around 35%, with it rising to around 55% during peaks. These figures were bandied about during the WCML bidding rounds.

I remember reading elsewhere that average load factor on IC EC services was around 45%. Don't know whether this figure is accurate though.

 

[Philip Elliott]

I thought HS2 had nothing to do with 'commuters' but was for long-distance travellers and thus leave the WCML for commuters?

Yet HSTEd will tell you it is all about bringing 'the north' into the 'commuter belt'. You see the problem - no one is exactly sure what it is for.

 

[tbtc]

So you would support HS2 not stopping at "Sheffield" and "Nottingham" then? Sheffield - London is a smaller flow than Leeds - London and fairly similar in size to Stoke. Stopping at Stoke would not add a significant amount of time to a high speed Manchester journey.

Leeds is a similar distance from London as Manchester is, yet the high speed service is roughly 15 minutes longer, partly through a very curvaceous route and partly through extra calls. People have no problem with the Leeds train stopping but do for the idea of Manchester trains stopping...

Obviously Sheffield to London is a less important market than Leeds to London is (just like Coventry to London is less important than Birmingham to London). That's why I can accept that HS2 isn't diverting into central Sheffield (but is instead stopping on the Rotherham border, so as not to slow the Leeds - London journeys down further) - and isn't going into central Nottingham either.

I may not be delighted at the fact that Sheffield isn't as important, but I'm grown up enough to accept the realities.

Similarly, because of (much of/ most of) the longer distance trade moving to HS2, I can accept that the Sheffield City Centre/ Chesterfield/ Derby to London services may be slowed down by inserting (more) stops at places like Loughborough/ Luton etc in the longer term.

If HS2 was being built through the centre of Stoke, I could understand your frustration, but its not.

 

[HowardGWR]

Yet HSTEd will tell you it is all about bringing 'the north' into the 'commuter belt'. You see the problem - no one is exactly sure what it is for.

Well, I don't know about 'no one'. I do not understand why you take this tone in your contributions. I know what it is for and so does the Government and Opposition (even). It is for providing a long distance high speed route between our major centres of commerce. In England these are London, Brum, Manchester and Leeds. Sheffield, East Midlands and Airports are also being provided for. Other major cities will get access, thus also benefiting. The capacity relieved elsewhere (chiefly WCML and ECML) will be available for more pax and freight services than otherwise would be the case, in an ever-growing rail market.

That's it. I find it very simple to understand, to be honest.