High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[DXMachina]

Paday

There is no point in speaking truth to liars. They will just reply with more lies and by repeating their own 'solutions' (which oddly all involve railways being built other than near where they live) no matter how many times serious investigation proves them to be utterly fictitious

 

[northwichcat]

conducted almost exclusively from a narrow corridor directly adjacent to the approved Route3 pathway.

YouGov have a huge number of participants of varying ages and backgrounds around the country. They don't go around a couple of streets near a proposed development to ask people's opinions on it.

 

[LE Greys]

Even though I disagree with the way it's been planned, I still want them to built HS2. Why? Because even a badly-planned high-speed line is better than no high-speed line at all. I'm not going to go over the arguments yet again, we could argue them till Doomsday and I'm sure we would still not agree. I can hardly hope to influence the decision, can I? If it happens in the next decade, then I will be glad to see it open, and we can always fix the problems later, even though it will take time.

 

[Kettledrum]

the MML and HS2 are separate projects, so it'd be great if we could keep them on separate threads.

The thing is, both of what is being said on this thread is true. There will be a capacity shortage on the southern MML post-Thameslink, and the stations at the northern end of the MML could do with a better service, as there probably is a problem of suppressed demand, given the rail service is not the best quality, and the M1 provides an easy route to the home counties & London. Not increasing capacity on the MML will lead to a squeeze on the ability to serve stations to Leicester & beyond.

HS2 frees up capacity by allowing long-distance services to run with more stops, meaning the need for semi fasts, neither expresses nor Thameslink local services, is removed. This means you can give a greater service to intermediate stations (as the problem of conflicting services is reduced) as well as a more extensive service. So when Sheffield's getting 4tph to London on HS2, you can let Sheffield services call at St Albans, Luton Airport, Luton, Bedford, Kettering, Wellingborough etc. This will lead to MORE people using the railways, because the biggest deterrent to people using lines is having to change trains, whereas driving is direct. If a station has more direct services, competing against an ever more clogged-up motorway system, then the train becomes an ever more attractive proposition for most travellers.

HS2 meanwhile will be taking people off coaches and the motorways, as well as aeroplanes, by giving a much better journey time to the country's major destinations. It's probably helpful to point out that HS2 directly reduces journey times and indirectly increases capacity. Trains aren't 'taken off' the MML, they're slowed down to serve more places. But this gives a much better frequency to those stations, and, given the journey time including stations for the present indirect services, a shorter journey time overall.

For instance, a St Albans-Sheffield journey with a slowed MML would take 2hr10 according to current timetables, assuming calls at Luton Airport Parkway, Luton, Bedford, Wellingborough, Kettering, Market Harborough, Leicester, Derby & Chesterfield. But that 'slow' service is 25 mins faster than the current service, which, having two changes, is decidedly unattractive to passengers. Let's even suppose it also called at EMP, Loughborough and Belper. Still, 15 minutes quicker to Sheffield than currently. Even 'slowed down' services post-HS2 will usually be quicker than the current journey opportunities.

However, this isn't to say that other projects wouldn't also be good ideas. Personally, I'd support the reopening of both Quainton Road-Rugby-Leicester and Northampton-Market Harborough. This would allow services from Leicester into both Euston & Marylebone, as well as St Pancras, and give many towns good connections to the North on MML services.

This is absolutely spot on - unlike some of the other posts on here recently, which have some very odd ideas.

There is currently very little scope for extra trains on the MML south of leicester, platforms at St Pancras are full - and electification of the full MML is needed as it means 2 extra passenger carrying cars per set would replace diesel HSTs taking up passenger space.

Would the opening of HS2 x years in the future lead to the MML withering away? - absolutely not - paths south of leicester will remain fully utilised, and the MML trains serving Derby, Nottingham, Chesterfield and Sheffield will simply have more stops.

Is re-opening part of the Great Central an alternative to HS2? - certainly not - It might provide more communting capacity from Rugby and an M1 park and ride station, which might be beneficial in itself, but it's not in the same league in terms of the benefits of HS2 to a much wider geographical area.

 

[tbtc]

Even though I disagree with the way it's been planned, I still want them to built HS2. Why? Because even a badly-planned high-speed line is better than no high-speed line at all. I'm not going to go over the arguments yet again, we could argue them till Doomsday and I'm sure we would still not agree. I can hardly hope to influence the decision, can I? If it happens in the next decade, then I will be glad to see it open, and we can always fix the problems later, even though it will take time.

I agree with all of that. I'd do HS2 differently, but it's not up to me, it's a case of "build what they are proposing" or "have nothing". And, for those reasons above, I'd rather they built their (imperfect) HS2.

Actually it doesn't make sense at all, although your comment does reveal the successful nature of the anti-HS2 campaign, conducted almost exclusively from a narrow corridor directly adjacent to the approved Route3 pathway.

Anti-HS2 campaigners, motivated by an agenda of naked self-interest, have been successful in promoting a myth amongst the general public (your comment provides more compelling evidence) that there is somehow a huge pot of magic money already allocated to HS2. The anti campaign seeks to convince the public that if only our political masters would see common sense by cancelling HS2, this windfall of taxpayer's money would be released to immediately fund a raft of more localised rail transport improvements.

The reality is that there is no such huge pot of money. Less than 3% of the admittedly massive headline budget figure of £32.6bn is allocated to the present Parliamentary period; some of it dedicated to relieving the issue of blighted property, much of the rest funding preparations required to inform the enabling Hybrid Bill legislation.

Jo Public has been taken in by this false storyline. If someone believes that there is money available right now that could fund a local rail scheme from which they might directly benefit, it's not surprising to find support for HS2 wilting in favour of this notion - but it's simply a downright lie!

If money being spent right now, during this period of austerity, could be reallocated through cancellation, the only scheme to fit the bill is CROSSRAIL, currently consuming £2bn, per annum, of money from the same strategic infrastructure fund that HS2 will draw from when CROSSRAIL is completed, sometime in 2016 - that's why HS2 construction can't effectively begin before that date.

In short, there is a blatant propaganda war going on, with the prize being the hearts and minds of the British public and guess what; HS2 Ltd, largely through its own ineptitude and incompetency, is losing this attritional campaign!

I'm not saying I agree with them, but I can see why unemployed people and pensioners can't see the benefits of HS2. Not everyone will benefit from it (which I think we need to accept, before we get into arguments about "what's in it for my village" with everyone). But many will benefit. And I think that they justify spending the money (even if some will lose out and some will see no benefit).

 

[LE Greys]

This is absolutely spot on - unlike some of the other posts on here recently, which have some very odd ideas.

There is currently very little scope for extra trains on the MML south of leicester, platforms at St Pancras are full - and electification of the full MML is needed as it means 2 extra passenger carrying cars per set would replace diesel HSTs taking up passenger space.

Would the opening of HS2 x years in the future lead to the MML withering away? - absolutely not - paths south of leicester will remain fully utilised, and the MML trains serving Derby, Nottingham, Chesterfield and Sheffield will simply have more stops.

Is re-opening part of the Great Central an alternative to HS2? - certainly not - It might provide more communting capacity from Rugby and an M1 park and ride station, which might be beneficial in itself, but it's not in the same league in terms of the benefits of HS2 to a much wider geographical area.

I count the diversion of Edinburgh services away from the ECML, Glasgow services away from the WCML, an increase in frequency and capacity for both, expansion of South TPX, speed increases on Nottingham-Sheffield and Banbury-Sheffield (i.e. Liverpool-Norwich and Reading-Newcastle), reopening loads of fomer GCR stations, a Javelin-style service to Rugby, Birmingham Moor Street and Stratford-upon-Avon, extension of the Metropolitan Line to Aylesbury, and a link to the Continent via HS1 'benefits of HS2 to a much wider geographical area' in my book. That's the whole point of the GCR route, by plugging it in at both ends and the middle (via Woodhead, Tinsley, Darnall, Weekday Cross [to Grantham], Leicester Brackley-Banbury, Quainton Road and Old Oak Common), it can do a heck of a lot more. The point is to get more trains to Sheffield Victoria and Brackley Central rather than just fetching up in Curzon Street or Tysley and expecting people to find their own way to wherever they are going. How much will diverting a lot of New Street suburban traffic into Curzon Street cost? That is what it will take to enable Curzon Street to serve the West Midlands. The Birmingham Grand Central idea at least had the advantage of having all services under one roof.

We can still force HS2 into ATOC ticketing regulations, allowing people to travel out via the WCML and back via HS2 on an Anytime Day Return if they want. That would be a great step forwards.

 

[Batman]

I count the diversion of Edinburgh services away from the ECML, Glasgow services away from the WCML, an increase in frequency and capacity for both, expansion of South TPX, speed increases on Nottingham-Sheffield and Banbury-Sheffield (i.e. Liverpool-Norwich and Reading-Newcastle), reopening loads of fomer GCR stations, a Javelin-style service to Rugby, Birmingham Moor Street and Stratford-upon-Avon, extension of the Metropolitan Line to Aylesbury, and a link to the Continent via HS1 'benefits of HS2 to a much wider geographical area' in my book. That's the whole point of the GCR route, by plugging it in at both ends and the middle (via Woodhead, Tinsley, Darnall, Weekday Cross [to Grantham], Leicester Brackley-Banbury, Quainton Road and Old Oak Common), it can do a heck of a lot more. The point is to get more trains to Sheffield Victoria and Brackley Central rather than just fetching up in Curzon Street or Tysley and expecting people to find their own way to wherever they are going. How much will diverting a lot of New Street suburban traffic into Curzon Street cost? That is what it will take to enable Curzon Street to serve the West Midlands. The Birmingham Grand Central idea at least had the advantage of having all services under one roof.

We can still force HS2 into ATOC ticketing regulations, allowing people to travel out via the WCML and back via HS2 on an Anytime Day Return if they want. That would be a great step forwards.

If the prime purpose of HS2 is to free up capacity on the WCML south of Rugby (which I believe it is), it is possible to do it on the cheap.

Before the official plans were drawn up, my own plans for HS2 involved it starting at a new underground station between Euston and St Pancras, with 6-8 west facing bay platforms at 2 trough platforms linking to HS1. The line would have run underground, partly along the route of the GWML to Heathrow where there would be a station at Heathrow itself (not a cross rail connection). It would then take a sharp turn to the north west where it would run on a purpose built high speed line to the north of Slough and roughly along the course of the M40 towards junction 8 of the M40. Some parts of the lines will have to be in tunnels to minimise local environmental damage, and it probably wouldn't run above the standard continental running speed for HS of 180mph. From Oxford it would diverge from the M40 slightly but still running high speed, it would cross the M40 close to junction 10 and on to Brackley. At Brackley it would decelerate and move on to the old Grand Central route towards Rugby. Just to the south of Rugby the line would split with the main line running to the west of the town and connecting to the West Midlands spur of the WCML and the Trent Valley main line just to the north of Rugby. The Rugby spur would continue through central rugby on the Grand Central alignment and terminate at a Parkway station next to junction 19 of the M1.

There would however be intermediate stations for a Javelin style commuter service. There would be the M1 Parkway station at Junction 19, a station at Rugby, Daventry and Southam, Brackley, Bicester, and Oxford Parkway at Junction 8 of the M40. Most of these would be parkway station and would probably be on passing loops. I'm expecting that there would be some opposition to this from local people because of the potential for new towns to spring up around these stations, especially Daventry and Southam.

The line between Birmingham and Coventry would need to be four tracked and some local services diverted from New Street to Moor Street via the Bordesley Cord with major changes to the layout at Proof House Junction.

But the main problem with a line like that is that it only provides a limited amount of extra capacity and little in the way of improved journey times. It does however provide direct links to HS1 and Hethrow (which HS2 is seriously lacking in), but the HS2 plans that the government have adopted have the potential to achieve so much more and to are able to act as a far bigger catalyst for growth.

 

[Chris125]

If the prime purpose of HS2 is to free up capacity on the WCML south of Rugby (which I believe it is), it is possible to do it on the cheap.

Where's this whole 'south of Rugby' thing come from? The southern WCML, at the very least south of Crewe, would be more accurate as there are plenty of long term capacity issues further north the stretch between Rugby and Birmingham probably being one of the most pressing on the whole line. Quadruping through Coventry might sound easy but the reality would be far, far harder.

Its pretty simple really - the expensive interventions required to produce a long term capacity solution into London, Birmingham and Manchester require new lines through urban areas into new or rebuilt stations - and you get a far greater return on that infrastructure investment by connecting them up with a segregated HSL allowing contintental size rolling stock than a conventional speed railway.

Chris

 

[Batman]

Where's this whole 'south of Rugby' thing come from? The southern WCML, at the very least south of Crewe, would be more accurate as there are plenty of long term capacity issues further north the stretch between Rugby and Birmingham probably being one of the most pressing on the whole line. Quadruping through Coventry might sound easy but the reality would be far, far harder.

Its pretty simple really - the expensive interventions required to produce a long term capacity solution into London, Birmingham and Manchester require new lines through urban areas into new or rebuilt stations - and you get a far greater return on that infrastructure investment by connecting them up with a segregated HSL allowing contintental size rolling stock than a conventional speed railway.

Chris

Exactly, I agree with you. That's why I said that an actual High Speed line, rather than just a conventional speed relief line offers far greater benefits.

 

[LE Greys]

Where's this whole 'south of Rugby' thing come from? The southern WCML, at the very least south of Crewe, would be more accurate as there are plenty of long term capacity issues further north the stretch between Rugby and Birmingham probably being one of the most pressing on the whole line. Quadruping through Coventry might sound easy but the reality would be far, far harder.

Its pretty simple really - the expensive interventions required to produce a long term capacity solution into London, Birmingham and Manchester require new lines through urban areas into new or rebuilt stations - and you get a far greater return on that infrastructure investment by connecting them up with a segregated HSL allowing contintental size rolling stock than a conventional speed railway.

Chris

Why would it be harder? Examining the route from overheads, it looks as though there would be two lines' width of space south of the route (the fast line side) for most of the way. It's relatively straight, capable of 200 mph in places but with a ruling speed of 125 or so. The biggest two problems would be Coventry itself and Grand Junction, where you would require grade-separation to avoid conflicts. However, that needs doing anyway to improve capacity. International already has four platforms, demolishing the westernmost one and moving it over to allow more space for through lines would certainly be cheaper than an all-new station (with some loss of car parking). Crucially, though, that would deliver the line directly to New Street (or a potential re-sited 'Grand Central' with New Street closing for good). It would also lead to a vast reduction in land purchase (most of this is railway land anyway). The final problem would be bridges, mostly overbridges in this case.

A bigger concern would be quadrupling the line through to Wolverhampton, which is equally important, since it would be an advantage if trains could reverse there as well as New Street/Grand Central. That would take a lot more effort and money. An alternative would be to divert some services onto the old GWR route, but that presents the problem of Midland Metro. Thing is, HS2 conveniently bypasses this problem - by not serving Wolverhampton! :roll:

East of Coventry, there's not much to stop the new line swinging away from the old and carving a new route to London. It's threading it through cities that causes the greatest problem.

 

[Geezertronic]

Capacity on the lines into the south of New Street plus the tunnel between Tile Hill & Berkswell have always been sticking points to quad tracks between Cov and BHM as far as I am aware.

 

[Chris125]

Why would it be harder? Examining the route from overheads, it looks as though there would be two lines' width of space south of the route (the fast line side) for most of the way.

Its far harder in reality than some make it sound. Trying to squeeze two extra tracks through cuttings and over embankments through a series of built-up areas would be a huge challenge, making HS2's initial (and highly controversial) proposals for building alongside the Chiiltern Mainline through Ruislip look very tame indeed.

Even where there is room between the existing boundaries, the disruption and controversey would be massive yet still leave the approach into New St, New St itself and the various other flat junctions and stations en-route as major limitations on capacity.

A new route into Birmingham, running into its own terminus, would be far cheaper and less disruptive.

Chris

 

[tbtc]

A new route into Birmingham, running into its own terminus, would be far cheaper and less disruptive

The disruption is a very important thing to consider.

A lot of the alternatives to HS2 that get suggested would involve closing down existing main lines for long periods (remember how the WCML upgrade turned it into a five day a week railway at best, buses every weekend and no direct Euston - Manchester service for some time).

 

[Padav]

@jcollins: YouGov have a huge number of participants of varying ages and backgrounds around the country. They don't go around a couple of streets near a proposed development to ask people's opinions on it.

.....errrrr - what has YouGov got to do with STOPHS2, HS2AA & AGHAST - answer: ZIP all!!!

YouGov is a public opinion sampling organisation - the aforesaid campaign groups I've referred to are all based in an around the approved ROUTE3 pathway. Jerry Marshall is chair of AGHAST, he lives in Burton Green - I understand his house is just metres from the new line's route, Penny Gaines, Social Media Director of STOPHS2 lives in Quainton, just a stones throw from where the new line will pass, Hilary Wharf of HS2AA lives in Great Missenden - guess where that is - yep, you've got it in one, very close to where the new line will pass.

When will the public comprehend what is going on here - a carefully crafted campaign of misleading half truths is underway, pursuing a relentless war of attrition to undermine public and political support for HS2 policy - a policy that we should recall boasts a clear democratic mandate - 88% of votes cast in the last general election for the three mainstream national parties, all of them carrying a clear and unequivocal commitment to High Speed Rail in their manifestos (HS2 was already in the public domain by 2010). The UK electorate had a choice and they made it - build a new high speed line. HS2 is that new line.

No single new line can hope to benefit the entire UK population but by my reckoning HS2, phases 1&2 makes a damn good fist of it, with approx 17 million UK citizens being served directly by planned stations along the route. HS2 is merely the first building block in a strategy to roll out a comprehensive UK wide network - time to stop prevaricating and start building!

 

[Philip Elliott]

but by removing much (but not all) long distance traffic on the MML

Very, very little. The main demand is from Leicester. Traffic from London to Nottingham and Sheffield will not use HS2 as the poor passenger will have to negotiate another 4-8 miles to actual get to where they want to go.

A new route into Birmingham, running into its own terminus, would be far cheaper and less disruptive.

You do actually realise that the "new" route into Birmingham is actually a widened Water Orton route? All the bridges will need to be rebuilt, a couple of massively complicated viaducts to get to Curzon Street, diverting a river and rebuilding the M6 viaduct - hardly un-disruptive.:roll:


I trust all the HS2 supporters know that the East-West Rail line from Quainton to Calvert will be restricted to single track...?

 

[Yew]

There is currently very little scope for extra trains on the MML south of leicester, platforms at St Pancras are full - and electification of the full MML is needed as it means 2 extra passenger carrying cars per set would replace diesel HSTs taking up passenger space.

I imagine you are talking about the leading vehicles of each set of an EMU? I have done calculations before showing that at this length, a DMU can have less capacity than LHCS, mainly due to the 'Cabinets' at each end of every car, and that realistically, only 1.3333 extra carriages are put in each set.

 

[tbtc]

Very, very little. The main demand is from Leicester. Traffic from London to Nottingham and Sheffield will not use HS2 as the poor passenger will have to negotiate another 4-8 miles to actual get to where they want to go

You are assuming that all the people going to Nottingham and Sheffield are wanting to go to the current stations.

I don't know about the location of a Nottingham station but if the Sheffield one is Meadowhall (as has been rumoured) then that's going to be more convenient for some (inc Rotherham).

 

[Batman]

You do actually realise that the "new" route into Birmingham is actually a widened Water Orton route? All the bridges will need to be rebuilt, a couple of massively complicated viaducts to get to Curzon Street, diverting a river and rebuilding the M6 viaduct - hardly un-disruptive.:roll:

If you look at the detailed maps (available on the DfT website) you'll see the HS2 will run beneath the M6 viaduct. It does not need to be rebuilt. The support columns that hold up the M6 are spaced far enough apart to allow each HS2 train to run between them. Considering that the Castle Vale viaduct is now over 40 years old there may be issue to do with vibrations, but I'm sure the engineers will take that into account.

The viaduct getting into Curzon Street will be a problem. I dread to think how much disruption will be caused to the Cross City line.

 

[Philip Elliott]

How many people from London are going to want to go to Rotherham? I doubt Meadowhall is going to be useful for the World Snooker Championship or the two universities.

 

[LE Greys]

Then (as I've been trying to make clear) there is the question of supporting infrastructure. Taking Birmingham as one case, Curzon Street may not exactly be 'in splendid isolation', but it's still inconveniently sited compared with running into New Street. There are ways around this, travolators running under the streets for instance, but the real answer is to move some local and regional services into Curzon Street - and that will not be easy (to say the least). That might mean, for instance, having to put in through platforms for the Cross-City Line, and then the trains will still have to call at New Street to make connections there. Exactly the same problem as the Picc-Vic tunnel in Manchester, and just as expensive to sort out.

International can't be used for this. While it can be used as a cross-platform interchange for Wolverhampton (of sorts), it is nowhere near the Cross-City Line. And that's not all, suddenly XC no longer makes good connections with WC services at Birmingham.

There are three other ways of solving this.

1. Masses of travolators or a people-mover system to New Street and Moor Street (which is what we will probably end up with)
2. Run HS2 into new platforms at New Street (and the only place to put them is underneath - so very expensive and massively disruptive to traffic)
3. Forget Curzon Street and go for the Grand Central idea (also very expensive and disruptive to traffic, but it completely clears out New Street, which can be levelled and turned into a grade-separated junction west of Grand Central)

At least the Euston end can take care of itself, since Euston has plenty of connections anyway.

 

[6Gman]

You are assuming that all the people going to Nottingham and Sheffield are wanting to go to the current stations.

I don't know about the location of a Nottingham station but if the Sheffield one is Meadowhall (as has been rumoured) then that's going to be more convenient for some (inc Rotherham).[/QUOTE]

Just bad luck if you want to go to ... er, Sheffield!

 

[Batman]

Then (as I've been trying to make clear) there is the question of supporting infrastructure. Taking Birmingham as one case, Curzon Street may not exactly be 'in splendid isolation', but it's still inconveniently sited compared with running into New Street. There are ways around this, travolators running under the streets for instance, but the real answer is to move some local and regional services into Curzon Street - and that will not be easy (to say the least). That might mean, for instance, having to put in through platforms for the Cross-City Line, and then the trains will still have to call at New Street to make connections there. Exactly the same problem as the Picc-Vic tunnel in Manchester, and just as expensive to sort out.

International can't be used for this. While it can be used as a cross-platform interchange for Wolverhampton (of sorts), it is nowhere near the Cross-City Line. And that's not all, suddenly XC no longer makes good connections with WC services at Birmingham.

There are three other ways of solving this.

1. Masses of travolators or a people-mover system to New Street and Moor Street (which is what we will probably end up with)
2. Run HS2 into new platforms at New Street (and the only place to put them is underneath - so very expensive and massively disruptive to traffic)
3. Forget Curzon Street and go for the Grand Central idea (also very expensive and disruptive to traffic, but it completely clears out New Street, which can be levelled and turned into a grade-separated junction west of Grand Central)

At least the Euston end can take care of itself, since Euston has plenty of connections anyway.

I've argued before on here for the need for some local trains to be routed into Curzon street, but to a smaller scale than what you're suggesting.

The biggest problem with you're suggestion is what to do with New Street. The government won't be keen for it to be fully re-developed yet again for the second time in a decade, it would cause massive disruption and there is the question of what to do with the land once New Street closes. You've suggested a grade separated junction, but something will have to be built on top of it. You can't just have a massive void in the middle of the second city. A shopping centre or office or apartment buildings might be an answer, but there is now starting to be an over-supply of all of those in Brum city centre. But that's largely down to poor economic performance.

And moving Birmingham's main station out towards east side will isolate some parts of the city centre. I know the main focus of city centre development is moving east with the station being a magnet for new developments, places like Paradise Circus, Broad Street and Brindley Place are a long walk from East side. These are major centres for employment and economic activity and can't be forgotten about.

You could argue that theses areas are relatively close to Five Ways station, but the idea of having to change at Curzon Street to go one stop on the Cross City line to Five ways doesn't look attractive to people from outside the West Midlands.

My suggestion is to leave the HS2 station at Curzon Street (But rename it Birmingham Eastside) but add 3 extra terminus platforms for local trans form the east of the city coming from Water Orton (trains from Tamworth/Leicester/Sutton Park locals etc...) thus freeing up enough extra paths at New Street for Camp Hill line locals to run into New Street rather than Moor Street, meaning that the Bordesley Cord is no longer needed.

 

[jon0844]

Paday

There is no point in speaking truth to liars. They will just reply with more lies and by repeating their own 'solutions' (which oddly all involve railways being built other than near where they live) no matter how many times serious investigation proves them to be utterly fictitious

Or, if the railways ARE near to where they live, it probably means they want improvements at their local station or the traisn they use. They don't give a toss about people who get a faster line with more capacity if there's no station for them to use (when I bet a lot of the NIMBY's would suddenly want HS2 if only for the increase in property values by being close to a high speed line to a number of big cities).

Pure jealousy in my opinion.

 

[Waverley125]

Curzon Street will have direct Interchange with Moor Street (which it's next door to). While it might be a good idea to upgrade the lines through Moor St (i.e. Birmingham Crossrail, Stratford/Leamington-Stourbridge/Worcester). it'll have fine connections, as well as being only a few minutes from New St.

 

[tbtc]

How many people from London are going to want to go to Rotherham? I doubt Meadowhall is going to be useful for the World Snooker Championship or the two universities.

The University of Sheffield would be a tram ride from Meadowhall, so pretty similar to the current situation.

The Cruicible is a five minute walk from Sheffield Midland, but that's an annual event (which may move to China in a few yeas time), hardly a deal breaker.

Meadowhall is bad for me, as I live on the western side of Sheffield, but for a lot of the city it'd be no worse (or better). Plus for Rotherham/ Barnsley etc it's a more attractive proposition.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Just bad luck if you want to go to ... er, Sheffield!

Yeah, it's not as good for the city centre (frequent trams and trains into central Sheffield though), and Meadowhall is worse for me personally, but for quite a few of the people who use the Sheffield - London trains it's going to be better/ no worse.

With all the connections available at Meadowhall it's not the "parkway station in a field" that some people have suggested (like Ebbesfleet?)

 

[LE Greys]

I've argued before on here for the need for some local trains to be routed into Curzon street, but to a smaller scale than what you're suggesting.

The biggest problem with you're suggestion is what to do with New Street. The government won't be keen for it to be fully re-developed yet again for the second time in a decade, it would cause massive disruption and there is the question of what to do with the land once New Street closes. You've suggested a grade separated junction, but something will have to be built on top of it. You can't just have a massive void in the middle of the second city. A shopping centre or office or apartment buildings might be an answer, but there is now starting to be an over-supply of all of those in Brum city centre. But that's largely down to poor economic performance.

And moving Birmingham's main station out towards east side will isolate some parts of the city centre. I know the main focus of city centre development is moving east with the station being a magnet for new developments, places like Paradise Circus, Broad Street and Brindley Place are a long walk from East side. These are major centres for employment and economic activity and can't be forgotten about.

You could argue that theses areas are relatively close to Five Ways station, but the idea of having to change at Curzon Street to go one stop on the Cross City line to Five ways doesn't look attractive to people from outside the West Midlands.

My suggestion is to leave the HS2 station at Curzon Street (But rename it Birmingham Eastside) but add 3 extra terminus platforms for local trans form the east of the city coming from Water Orton (trains from Tamworth/Leicester/Sutton Park locals etc...) thus freeing up enough extra paths at New Street for Camp Hill line locals to run into New Street rather than Moor Street, meaning that the Bordesley Cord is no longer needed.

The original Grand Central proposal by Arup. I actually quite like this, although it would be expensive.

http://www.arup.com/_assets/_download/download488.pdf

 

[Batman]

The original Grand Central proposal by Arup. I actually quite like this, although it would be expensive.

http://www.arup.com/_assets/_download/download488.pdf

I've seen those plans before, and I do like them. But I don' think the cost could be justified considering how much potential Curzon Street has, if you add local platforms to it.

 

[Kettledrum]

The original Grand Central proposal by Arup. I actually quite like this, although it would be expensive.

http://www.arup.com/_assets/_download/download488.pdf

The Grand Central Plan was a once in a lifetime opportunity for a new station in central Birmingham to replace New Street. It didn't happen. The City Council in particular did not support it. Perhaps it wasn't central enough, perhaps it didn't give a big enough return on the City Council's land. Perhaps they thought it was so ambitious it would never get the funding and would never happen. Whatever funding was available is currently being spent at Birmingham New Street.

I think some of the land at Eastside needed for a Grand central station may now have been built on, and the Curzon Street HS2 station uses the rest of the space. This leaves very limited opportunities for additional platforms for conventional rail.

 

[Chris125]

You do actually realise that the "new" route into Birmingham is actually a widened Water Orton route? All the bridges will need to be rebuilt, a couple of massively complicated viaducts to get to Curzon Street, diverting a river and rebuilding the M6 viaduct - hardly un-disruptive.:roll:

Did i, or anyone else, suggest that HS2 would cause no disruption? :roll:

A degree of disruption is avoidable, but that caused by quadrupling the Coventry Corridor would be on a whole different scale to the relatively small amount caused by the HS2 route - especially as anyquadrupling would still require more capacity into New St and the station itself if a station at Curzon St was to be avoided.

Regarding East-West Rail, i dont see the relevance.

If i remember correctly the plans for EWR south of Calvert were single track before HS2 - hardly surprising for the suggested service frequency of 1tph - but i've seen nothing to suggest that another track couldnt be provided if need be, either using the existing formation or widening it.

That said, its hard to see enough demand (or capacity further south) to justify doubling the other single line sections used by London services on EWR, let alone worry about widening the section alongside HS2.

Chris

 

[LE Greys]

Did i, or anyone else, suggest that HS2 would cause no disruption? :roll:

A degree of disruption is avoidable, but that caused by quadrupling the Coventry Corridor would be on a whole different scale to the relatively small amount caused by the HS2 route - especially as anyquadrupling would still require more capacity into New St and the station itself if a station at Curzon St was to be avoided.

Of course you didn't. I'm just pointing out that the 'low disruption' scenario is unlikely to be very useful to passengers who want to go to (say) Reddich or Aston. It would require a high-disruption scenario of diverting the Cross-City Line to do this.