High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[LE Greys]

The most sensible way to reach Scotland has to be via Leeds and Newcastle, that way you connect the largest possible population with the minimum track required and thus minimum cost. (You also get a new high speed Edinburgh-Glasgow line for free with possible 19 minute journey times centre-to-centre)

The extra distance to Glasgow calculates as roughly 11 minutes extra on a journey of 2hr30 or more.

I quite agree. Lots of nice flat ground, no Beattock, no Lune Gorge, no Lake District National Park. The other way is possible, but expensive. There are still problems, but those mostly relate to accessing Newcastle and Edinburgh, since you can bypass Durham and Chester-le-Street by using the Leamside/A1 alignment and rejoining at Tyne Yard, and the question of whether to run via Berwick or Coldstream. It also allows you to link to Teesside with a station at Darlington, one of several possible options for a decent service from King's Cross so that the southern ECML does not get cut off.

And I quite agree about the Edinburgh-Glasgow line as well.

 

[Chris125]

A new line between Liverpool and Crewe, for instance, leaving the existing line for Virgin and freight. There's then a possibly of having a proper interchange station between Chester-Altrincham services and Liverpool-Crewe services improving local/regional connections as well as increasing capacity at a lower cost than HS2.

Great, but how does this help alleviate the capacity crisis on the southern WCML?

Its not difficult to increase capacity elsewhere on the network at a lower price than HS2 - the Northern Hub will do exactly that - but improving regional services wont address the capacity issues that HS2 does.

Chris

 

[giblets]

Not sure if this has been answered already (86 pages were a bit much for me to trawl through), but was wondering about Manchester- Glasgow.

Currently there are no plans to make this part of the HS2 Network, but are there any plans to upgrade this part of the line, perhaps to 140Mp/h, (or God forbid, the APT's 155Mph), as per the original west coast upgrade?

 

[Zoe]

I'd rejoin the WCML at Motherwell for the final run into Glasgow Central, unless there is a plan for a new station and a through line towards Stirling for North of Scotland services.

I'm not sure about this, the last thing you are going to want after a high speed run from London is to get stuck behind a stopper for the last few miles.

 

[Donny Dave]

That's what they do in France. From Gare de Lyon, the TGVs run on classic lines for 17 miles (I think it is) before running on the HS line, which then rejoins the classic line several miles short of Lyon station.

 

[HSTEd]

That's what they do in France. From Gare de Lyon, the TGVs run on classic lines for 17 miles (I think it is) before running on the HS line, which then rejoins the classic line several miles short of Lyon station.

The French did not have to undertake massive gauging work to permit this though, as TGV sets are in gauge on normal French railways.

Fitting Glasgow-Motherwell for GB+ would be... fun.

 

[northwichcat]

Great, but how does this help alleviate the capacity crisis on the southern WCML?

Its not difficult to increase capacity elsewhere on the network at a lower price than HS2 - the Northern Hub will do exactly that - but improving regional services wont address the capacity issues that HS2 does.

Chris

I'm less familiar with the southern parts of the WCML which is why I chose a North West example but I'm sure something could be done to allow Virgin to run more trains and have fewer services held up without LM losing paths by building more tracks.

 

[ole man]

Re-open the GCR from Sheffield use entire route to Marylebone, build new station at Rugby and possibly a M1 Parkway station near Leicester.
Improve capacity on the route into Marylebone, and electrify the whole route from Sheffiled linking up with any other electrification plans for Yorkshire

 

[HSTEd]

Re-open the GCR from Sheffield use entire route to Marylebone, build new station at Rugby and possibly a M1 Parkway station near Leicester.
Improve capacity on the route into Marylebone, and electrify the whole route from Sheffiled linking up with any other electrification plans for Yorkshire

The only way to improve capacity of the route into Marylebone is to six track the entire thing, and that sounds like a ludicrously expensive proposition, there is also the problem that Marylebone is only half the size it would have to be.

And there is the problem with Leicester being in the way of the new track.

 

[ole man]

You can run the old GCR right into Leicester ive walked the old trackbed, the only snag would be at Bede Park where a flyover or a diversion from the old trackbed would be needed.
As far as Rugby nothing is blocking the line, re-build the bridge at Rugby.
There is 6 platforms at Marylebone with a better layout you could have maybe 7 or 8, then use certain platforms for HS2 and some for Chiltern

 

[brianthegiant]

If you check this link, YouGov has asked what people think about HS2

Pretty much evenly split across the board!

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/ql7jtsp04v/YG-Archives-Pol-ST-results-15-170612.pdf

Interesting, so you're more likely to oppose it if you're over 60 or out of work.

 

[HSTEd]

You can run the old GCR right into Leicester ive walked the old trackbed, the only snag would be at Bede Park where a flyover or a diversion from the old trackbed would be needed.
As far as Rugby nothing is blocking the line, re-build the bridge at Rugby.
There is 6 platforms at Marylebone with a better layout you could have maybe 7 or 8, then use certain platforms for HS2 and some for Chiltern

Even if it is possible to utilise the GCR trackbed, there is a problem in that we would almost certainly be limited to 200m trains with the conventional British loading gauge thanks to lack of space at Marylebone and the extensive use of LU metals to get out of London.

This gives us a third of the capacity of the proposed model, even assuming 18tph could be maintained. (200m single decks instead of 400m double decks, its actually worse if the 400m trains are singel units and not coupled 200m units).

 

[Zoe]

Even if it is possible to utilise the GCR trackbed, there is a problem in that we would almost certainly be limited to 200m trains with the conventional British loading gauge thanks to lack of space at Marylebone and the extensive use of LU metals to get out of London.

You would not have to use the Met route, the Great Wesern and Great Central joint line was built to avoid this and to provide the GWR with a more direct route to Birmingham. There is not likely to be any capacity on this route though due to the Chiltern services.

 

[LE Greys]

That's what they do in France. From Gare de Lyon, the TGVs run on classic lines for 17 miles (I think it is) before running on the HS line, which then rejoins the classic line several miles short of Lyon station.

The French did not have to undertake massive gauging work to permit this though, as TGV sets are in gauge on normal French railways.

Fitting Glasgow-Motherwell for GB+ would be... fun.

Hence my idea of using cascaded Eurostars, trading some capacity to reduce costs by not having to run miles and miles of new railway into city centres. Still, this is intended to be a temporary solution until new wider-guage lines can be put in place alongside the existing ones, using revenue generated by getting the initial service up and running quickly. This model has been used before, hence my pictures of Eurostars cantering through Orpington.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Even if it is possible to utilise the GCR trackbed, there is a problem in that we would almost certainly be limited to 200m trains with the conventional British loading gauge thanks to lack of space at Marylebone and the extensive use of LU metals to get out of London.

This gives us a third of the capacity of the proposed model, even assuming 18tph could be maintained. (200m single decks instead of 400m double decks, its actually worse if the 400m trains are singel units and not coupled 200m units).

It is possible to access St Pancras from Neasden using current lines, although they are quite busy with freight, so another extensive rebuild of the St Pancras approaches would be necessary. There is also no real need for trains to be limited to 200m, a 2+14 Eurostar is longer than that (270-300m I think), and that's about the longest practical passenger train through the current network. Really though, it would be necessary to use new line between Neasden and Aylesbury. I believe that Neasden-Marylebone used to be four-track, but that section isn't really so important except as a diversionary route. Considering that, building a new four-track main line into London, with trains divided roughly equally between Euston and HS1 is probably cheaper.

However, this gets closer to my multiple-route model, which serves more people, but takes a heck of a lot longer to build. Thing is, the really expensive urban bits are all cut out, because the trains use existing infrastructure to access cities. It also serves a lot more people, for instance those who live in and around Berwick, Darlington, York, Doncaster, Chester, Peterborough, Leicester, Rugby, Brackley, Buckingham, Wolverhampton, Coventry, Cheltenham, Worcester, Swindon, Reading, etc.

 

[dggar]

I believe that Neasden-Marylebone used to be four-track, but that section isn't really so important except as a diversionary route. .

I don't believe this is correct. I travelled regularly between West Harrow and Baker Street in the late 50s, early 60s.
The Met(underground) had 4 tracks between Harrow on the Hill to where the Old Bakerloo (now Jubilee) joined at Wembley Park.
The BR tracks were only 2 track until the approaches to Marylebone

 

[Chris125]

Sorry but there is simply no case to rebuild the GCR - continental loading gauge is an urban myth, the route mostly mirrors the MML which still has plenty of scope for upgrading, most of the expensive urban bits would be massively expensive and controversial to rebuild, the Euston rebuild would still be needed as Marylebone isnt suitable, it would little to no affect on long distance services using the WCML... i could go on.

Of coure you could save a few billion rebuilding the GCR instead, but you'd have almost none of the benefits.

Chris

 

[ole man]

And what benefits are they?

 

[tbtc]

Interesting, so you're more likely to oppose it if you're over 60 or out of work.

Makes sense.

Those over 60 won't see the full benefit of decades of HS2 operation, those unemployed will want the money invested in more "immediate" things.

As for the other recent posts on this thread, we need to get away from following the Victorian lines.

If HS2 is focussed on linking the biggest cities then forget about stations at towns like Darlington.

 

[Chris125]

And what benefits are they?

As well as the journey time benefits, a large increase in capacity - not just on HS2 itself and the destinations it serves, but on the WCML, MML, ECML and even the Chiltern Mainline by transferring services and long distance passengers onto it, allowing existing lines to cater for growing regional, commuter and freight traffic.

A rebuilt GCR would be to the MML what the Chiltern Mainline is to the WCML - nice to have if it was still open, but certainly no substitute for upgrading it and irrelevant to HS2.

Chris

 

[HSTEd]

And what benefits are they?

The ability to move 18 1300 seat trains per hour during Rush hour... and throughout the day for that matter..... 23400 people per hour per direction.

And that is with an intercity interior, I hate to think what a southern region style 3+2 with 2+2 in first layout would yield in terms of passenger numbers.....

 

[Philip Elliott]

As well as the journey time benefits, a large increase in capacity - not just on HS2 itself and the destinations it serves, but on the WCML, MML, ECML and even the Chiltern Mainline by transferring services and long distance passengers onto it

the route mostly mirrors the MML which still has plenty of scope for upgrading,

So we need HS2 to release capacity on the MML even though it has plenty spare? No inconsistency there then:roll:

In actual fact, post Thameslink the MML will really struggle for capacity south of Bedford for EMT services. HS2 will not release train path capacity as it neither serves anywhere the MML does and the main demand for fast paths is from Leicester southwards which HS2 takes a long route to avoid.

What services will transfer from the Chiltern line to HS2 ?!! Stop promoting it as some wonder project when it isn't anywhere near.

You say HS2 is needed because the WCML is busy south of Rugby. The GCR went through Rugby so how would it not help to relieve capacity? Yes new tracks are needed south of Aylesbury but that doesn't mean we need a brand new alignment north of it. The GCR has the added benefit of massive scope for CrossCountry services (which was always a key part of the express services).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The ability to move 18 1300 seat trains per hour during Rush hour... and throughout the day for that matter..... 23400 people per hour per direction.

And that is with an intercity interior, I hate to think what a southern region style 3+2 with 2+2 in first layout would yield in terms of passenger numbers.....

The capacity won't be anywhere near that much - Liverpool, Glasgow, Edinburgh & Newcastle services will use the single sets (that is at least 6 out of 18 paths) and the trains won't get any more than 1,000 seats for the double sets - 12x1000 + 6x500 = 15,000 or a third less than suggested.

 

[LE Greys]

Makes sense.

Those over 60 won't see the full benefit of decades of HS2 operation, those unemployed will want the money invested in more "immediate" things.

As for the other recent posts on this thread, we need to get away from following the Victorian lines.

If HS2 is focussed on linking the biggest cities then forget about stations at towns like Darlington.

What we really need her are some figures. Do most people who travel by train actually make journeys between the biggest cities, or do they use the intermediate stops? If it's just the big cities, why do express trains even stop at smaller stations when local trains could handle that level of traffic?

The Victorians built their lines following a combination of 'natural' routes, mostly river valleys, and old road-based trading routes. Some, such as the Settle & Carlisle, did carve their own path, but they do not see anything like the traffic of those that followed the existing routes. Along these routes are chains of settlements, which resulted in quite a few intermediate stations. Many of the smaller ones have closed, but the bigger ones often see two or three trans per hour, going up to six or eight if you include places such as Reading where two or three of these routes meet.

As I see it, and remember this is purely opinion, this is what generates traffic. It's surprisingly rare to find people who travel from one end to the other on a train. Examine the reservation labels next time you are on any express. How many London-Edinburgh ones do you see? It's less than 25% (anecdotally at least). The other 75% are Peterborough-York, Doncaster-Newcastle, Darlington-Berwick and so on. Intermediate traffic drives inter-city routes. Without that, it's a waste of time having a line at all.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So we need HS2 to release capacity on the MML even though it has plenty spare? No inconsistency there then:roll:

In actual fact, post Thameslink the MML will really struggle for capacity south of Bedford for EMT services. HS2 will not release train path capacity as it neither serves anywhere the MML does and the main demand for fast paths is from Leicester southwards which HS2 takes a long route to avoid.

What services will transfer from the Chiltern line to HS2 ?!! Stop promoting it as some wonder project when it isn't anywhere near.

You say HS2 is needed because the WCML is busy south of Rugby. The GCR went through Rugby so how would it not help to relieve capacity? Yes new tracks are needed south of Aylesbury but that doesn't mean we need a brand new alignment north of it. The GCR has the added benefit of massive scope for CrossCountry services (which was always a key part of the express services).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


The capacity won't be anywhere near that much - Liverpool, Glasgow, Edinburgh & Newcastle services will use the single sets (that is at least 6 out of 18 paths) and the trains won't get any more than 1,000 seats for the double sets - 12x1000 + 6x500 = 15,000 or a third less than suggested.

The MML, let's be honest, also has a relatively poor service. It still uses diesel trains (some 30+ years old) at 110mph with a relatively low service frequency compared to 125mph new electrics with a high service frequency. Manchester-London - 3tph, Sheffield-London, 2tph. Birmingham-London - 6tph (including Chiltern), Nottingham-London, 2tph. Which line is in most need of relief and modernisation? Derby won't be happy if the new line avoids it, and I admit there are a lot more people in Birmingham than in Nottingham, but stops at Leicester and a Javelin-style service from Rugby should make up for that - hence the need for four tracks on some sections.

 

[HSTEd]

So we need HS2 to release capacity on the MML even though it has plenty spare? No inconsistency there then:roll:

The reason the MML has always been last in the queue for major upgrades and received its HSTs only after the ECML was electrified is because it doesn't really go anywhere. The largest city it serves is Nottingham really, Sheffield is the only other major one.
It has been like this since the decision was taken to concentrate Leeds trains onto the ECML.
The MML could take tonnes more passengers if there was any demand for it, like with all those five coach intercity trains.

In actual fact, post Thameslink the MML will really struggle for capacity south of Bedford for EMT services. HS2 will not release train path capacity as it neither serves anywhere the MML does and the main demand for fast paths is from Leicester southwards which HS2 takes a long route to avoid.

Well if done properly HS2b will eliminate all demand for Intercity traffic on the MML from Sheffield and probably most of the traffic from Nottingham too.

What services will transfer from the Chiltern line to HS2 ?!! Stop promoting it as some wonder project when it isn't anywhere near.

All those pointless loco hauled services to Birmingham that Chiltern has put on in recent years and that are always trumpeted on this forum?
The market for London-Birmingham travel by conventional rail will be almost obliterated.

You say HS2 is needed because the WCML is busy south of Rugby. The GCR went through Rugby so how would it not help to relieve capacity? Yes new tracks are needed south of Aylesbury but that doesn't mean we need a brand new alignment north of it. The GCR has the added benefit of massive scope for CrossCountry services (which was always a key part of the express services).

Look at the GCR alignment, creating a flying junction with the WCML at Rugby is a nightmare that would involve demolishing vast amounts of very nice looking, from Google Earth anyway, property which is thus probably very expensive and owned by people with connections.
And really, the expensive part of the alignment is probably the bit we need new bits of, the bit south of Aylesbury as it needs to be in tunnels.

The capacity won't be anywhere near that much - Liverpool, Glasgow, Edinburgh & Newcastle services will use the single sets (that is at least 6 out of 18 paths) and the trains won't get any more than 1,000 seats for the double sets - 12x1000 + 6x500 = 15,000 or a third less than suggested.

Well I can immediately discount Glasgow, Edinburgh and Newcastle from being used as CC destinations in the aftermath of the "Y" being constructed for reasons that have been gone over again and again.
There is no reason that CC services could not transit the core in 400m formations formed by a pair of coupled 200m units anyway.

As for the Captive trains only having a thousand seats... you foolishly assume that we would have double sets if we wanted capacity. The V150 test train proved, among other things, that the TGV Grande Capacité proposal was possible from an engineering sense.

This means a 400m formation of 18 Duplex trailers with only two power cars, giving us rather more than 2x565 people (the capacity of a single Duplex set is around 565 apparently) as we can get away with only a single bar, can shrink down the amount of first class compared to two trains that might have to run independently and can get those two extra trailers.
Would you like a detailed breakdown of capacity in each carriage and a kit-bashed seating plan?

And once the HS2 network is extended to reach Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow? We can just extend the 400m set operations to the North.
As for filling that many seats off peak, thanks to reduction in train crew requirements by having corridor connections through the entire train, we can afford to sell the extra seats so ludicrously cheap that off peak loading factors can be kept high by what would normally be considered "frivolous" travel.

 

[LE Greys]

The reason the MML has always been last in the queue for major upgrades and received its HSTs only after the ECML was electrified is because it doesn't really go anywhere. The largest city it serves is Nottingham really, Sheffield is the only other major one.
It has been like this since the decision was taken to concentrate Leeds trains onto the ECML.
The MML could take tonnes more passengers if there was any demand for it, like with all those five coach intercity trains.

In other words, it's seen a lot of under-investment and could do with some help, unlike the WCML, which has seen lots of investment and is doing OK, thanks.

Well if done properly HS2b will eliminate all demand for Intercity traffic on the MML from Sheffield and probably most of the traffic from Nottingham too.

And Derby and Leiceter, what happens to them?

All those pointless loco hauled services to Birmingham that Chiltern has put on in recent years and that are always trumpeted on this forum?
The market for London-Birmingham travel by conventional rail will be almost obliterated.

No it won't. Yes, Euston/Marylebone-International/New Street/Moor Street will, but that accounts for about half the people on those trains. The other half still have to travel, indeed more of them will if they have to go into Birmingham to go into London. It might dilute the market, but will it provide a useful service for the other 50%. No, it will slow down their trains and lead to their lines being run down. Providing an alternative that might be useful for the people of Rugby, Milton Keynes, Northampton, Warwick, Leamington, Banbury and all the rest would be very useful. That's why I'm pushing a Javelin-style service for those areas.

Look at the GCR alignment, creating a flying junction with the WCML at Rugby is a nightmare that would involve demolishing vast amounts of very nice looking, from Google Earth anyway, property which is thus probably very expensive and owned by people with connections.
And really, the expensive part of the alignment is probably the bit we need new bits of, the bit south of Aylesbury as it needs to be in tunnels.

A better model would be that Rugby Central could poach passengers from Rugby North Western. That seems to be the model for Curzon Street after all. Of course, a link for p/way trains would be nice.

Well I can immediately discount Glasgow, Edinburgh and Newcastle from being used as CC destinations in the aftermath of the "Y" being constructed for reasons that have been gone over again and again.
There is no reason that CC services could not transit the core in 400m formations formed by a pair of coupled 200m units anyway.

As for the Captive trains only having a thousand seats... you foolishly assume that we would have double sets if we wanted capacity. The V150 test train proved, among other things, that the TGV Grande Capacité proposal was possible from an engineering sense.

This means a 400m formation of 18 Duplex trailers with only two power cars, giving us rather more than 2x565 people (the capacity of a single Duplex set is around 565 apparently) as we can get away with only a single bar, can shrink down the amount of first class compared to two trains that might have to run independently and can get those two extra trailers.
Would you like a detailed breakdown of capacity in each carriage and a kit-bashed seating plan?

And once the HS2 network is extended to reach Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow? We can just extend the 400m set operations to the North.
As for filling that many seats off peak, thanks to reduction in train crew requirements by having corridor connections through the entire train, we can afford to sell the extra seats so ludicrously cheap that off peak loading factors can be kept high by what would normally be considered "frivolous" travel.

It might help if they could stop at more places to collect more people instead of relying on them to get to Curzon Street or wherever by another means of transport. Or perhaps doing some useful inter-urban services while collecting passengers from (say) Wolverhampton and Sandwell & Dudley before their central-Birmingham call. But that would mean they would have to be classic-compatible. So, do you want to trade capacity for a useful service, or just link two central business districts?

 

[Zoe]

The market for London-Birmingham travel by conventional rail will be almost obliterated.

Depends how the fares compare. If HS2 ends up as a book in advance or pay through the roof service then people that want flexbility may still opt for Chiltern if the walk-up fares are cheaper.

 

[HSTEd]

In other words, it's seen a lot of under-investment and could do with some help, unlike the WCML, which has seen lots of investment and is doing OK, thanks.

The MML doesn't really have that much of a customer base as I have said, the electrification, if it ever happens, will help but can't overcome that problem. And the problem of the lack of 125 running throughout.

And Derby and Leiceter, what happens to them?

Well Derby and Leicester's situation will likely be unchanged although the trains they currently have will be less heavily loaded.

No it won't. Yes, Euston/Marylebone-International/New Street/Moor Street will, but that accounts for about half the people on those trains. The other half still have to travel, indeed more of them will if they have to go into Birmingham to go into London.

I thought that was what the enormously expensive interchange at Old Oak Common and the less enormously extensive interchange at Birmingham International was going to help with?

It might dilute the market, but will it provide a useful service for the other 50%. No, it will slow down their trains and lead to their lines being run down.

Well actually I doubt the stopping patterns that are currently around will change much, although some of the fastest current diagrams may gain a handful of extra stops. Far more likely is the loco hauled sets will be replaced with 3/4 coach Turbostars that are far cheaper to run and have superior acceleration, possibly leading to a net improvement in travel times.

Providing an alternative that might be useful for the people of Rugby, Milton Keynes, Northampton, Warwick, Leamington, Banbury and all the rest would be very useful. That's why I'm pushing a Javelin-style service for those areas.

How much do we spend to provide the population of these towns with a slightly faster service than the one they receive today? Do we sacrifice a national High Speed network for it? Do we continue to inflate ticket prices at insane rates?

A better model would be that Rugby Central could poach passengers from Rugby North Western. That seems to be the model for Curzon Street after all. Of course, a link for p/way trains would be nice.

So we build a line simply to serve Rugby and stations leading to it because they cannot run through onto the WCML? I'm not sure that is viable as a diesel operated railway operating half hourly as an extension of the existing Aylesbury trains, let alone as an electrified railway line with a dedicated right of way into the capital.

It might help if they could stop at more places to collect more people instead of relying on them to get to Curzon Street or wherever by another means of transport. Or perhaps doing some useful inter-urban services while collecting passengers from (say) Wolverhampton and Sandwell & Dudley before their central-Birmingham call. But that would mean they would have to be classic-compatible. So, do you want to trade capacity for a useful service, or just link two central business districts?

Again how much are you willing to pay for this enormous system that will connect all these places together while carrying less passengers, thus leading to higher ticket prices?
It would be cheaper to build the proposed network and then subsidise the current service patterns on the WCML until the end of time.....

 

[LE Greys]

The MML doesn't really have that much of a customer base as I have said, the electrification, if it ever happens, will help but can't overcome that problem. And the problem of the lack of 125 running throughout.

My argument is (and remember it's an opinion) that the MML's customer base has been undermined by lack of investment. The people will come back if a GCR-based HS2 follows the MML, then extends to Leeds and Manchester. Some of them will have been poached from other lines, though. The rest will have been poached from the M1.

Well Derby and Leicester's situation will likely be unchanged although the trains they currently have will be less heavily loaded.

For how long, though? I can forsee Derby and Leicester being cut back, just like the GCR was, to a semi-fast service, then probably a local service carrying fewer people and forcing more changes since it will be put in more to serve HS2 than direct travel to London. HS2 stations at Leicester and Nottingham would make integration far easier, rather than carting people to East Midlands Parkway or Toton, and might help to support rather than replace the MML service.

I thought that was what the enormously expensive interchange at Old Oak Common and the less enormously extensive interchange at Birmingham International was going to help with?

Which still forces people to change trains a lot.

Well actually I doubt the stopping patterns that are currently around will change much, although some of the fastest current diagrams may gain a handful of extra stops. Far more likely is the loco hauled sets will be replaced with 3/4 coach Turbostars that are far cheaper to run and have superior acceleration, possibly leading to a net improvement in travel times.

And then starved of investment while HS2 grows and grows, because it's no longer a priority. They'll still have 3/4 coach Turbostars in the 2060s, no electrification, no new trains.

How much do we spend to provide the population of these towns with a slightly faster service than the one they receive today? Do we sacrifice a national High Speed network for it? Do we continue to inflate ticket prices at insane rates?

Conversely, do we sacrifice the local networks for the sake of high speed?

So we build a line simply to serve Rugby and stations leading to it because they cannot run through onto the WCML? I'm not sure that is viable as a diesel operated railway operating half hourly as an extension of the existing Aylesbury trains, let alone as an electrified railway line with a dedicated right of way into the capital.

The way I see it, HS2 goes via Rugby and includes slow lines up to that point for local traffic. The trains on the slow lines ('slow' being a comparative term) would be 395s operated by Chiltern or Southeastern. Most HS2 traffic would zoom through, first stop Nottingham, but a lot of XC traffic from Banbury would stop, giving Rugby services north and south.

Again how much are you willing to pay for this enormous system that will connect all these places together while carrying less passengers, thus leading to higher ticket prices?
It would be cheaper to build the proposed network and then subsidise the current service patterns on the WCML until the end of time.....

About the same as the cost of HS2. By keeping costs down and using current facilities wherever convenient, especially by making all stock classic-compatible, possibly second-hand Eurostars for the first decade or so, you eliminate a lot of duplication of facilities. Remember, it also serves more people, and spreads its benefits better. For example, the Manchester connection from Sheffield takes pressure off Virgin's route. The Leeds-York connection absorbs some EC services (those that run non-stop from York), allowing the southern ECML an extra path, so probably expanding Hull and Lincoln services. It also doesn't terminate at London, it goes right through and onto HS1, finally giving regular, direct links to the Continent.

If I had all night, I could give you a complete breakdown of what relieves what, what absorbs what and where the extra paths from diverted services come from.

 

[Waverley125]

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.

 

[Chris125]

So we need HS2 to release capacity on the MML even though it has plenty spare? No inconsistency there then:roll:

Your putting words in my mouth.

I was making the point that compared to spending billions rebuilding the GCR the MML *does* have plenty of scope for achieving similar benefits at far less cost with a WCRM-type project... but by removing much (but not all) long distance traffic on the MML it allows service patterns and future upgrades to be concentrated on improving freight and regional/commuter services without the conflicts caused by a high frequency long distance intercity service on the same line.

What services will transfer from the Chiltern line to HS2 ?!! Stop promoting it as some wonder project when it isn't anywhere near.

While i probably should've been clearer, you'll notice that i said both services and "long distance passengers" will transfer - the latter being applicable in the case of Chiltern whose intercity service's will already be compromised (if not killed off entirely) by increased demand on their regional and commuter services.

You say HS2 is needed because the WCML is busy south of Rugby. The GCR went through Rugby so how would it not help to relieve capacity?... new tracks are needed south of Aylesbury but that doesn't mean we need a brand new alignment north of it

If your building 'new tracks' south of Aylesbury at vast cost why bother about reusing a bit of GCR that still leaves long distance intercity traffic clogging up New St and the 'Coventry Corridor'?

The expensive bits of HS2 are the bits through urban areas, whether London, Birmingham or Manchester, that relieve congestion on existing lines and termini - reusing a section of GCR out in the countryside is irrelevant given the relatively low cost but high return of building new lines as HSL.

Chris

 

[Padav]

@tbtc
Makes sense.

Those over 60 won't see the full benefit of decades of HS2 operation, those unemployed will want the money invested in more "immediate" things.

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!