High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[jon0844]

Some people seem (not on here, I might add - but read comments on the BBC and other forums/papers) to be thinking that HS2 is going to replace the existing WCML, which it obviously isn't.

It doesn't matter surely that it won't go to all the same stations you can get to on the WCML.. as it's not simply adding some more tracks to the WCML! The people on the WCML will enjoy more services without having fast trains eating up paths, so what's the problem?

I do sometimes feel rather embarrassed that I live in a country where people (who really just want to protect their back gardens) are suddenly slagging off the railway and claiming that high speed rail isn't needed (and ignoring the capacity benefits that are probably more important, but don't secure headlines).

Given everyone, including Labour, are behind this I cannot see how it can fail because of the NIMBYs who would no doubt have loved the scheme if they changed the route, or they got a station that suddenly increased the value of their homes.

It is also sad that even now people claim the fares will be sky high and that it's only saving a few minutes to Birmingham. Are people not aware that it's only 'part 1'? Also, how can people suggest running more, longer, trains on the WCML. Do they think that there's loads of capacity being ignored to make HS2 seem more viable?!

 

[HSTEd]

Are people not aware that it's only 'part 1'?

Many people (including myself actually) doubt that 'Part 2' will ever be built, especially if the massive cost overruns almost everyone expect with projects of this scale appear.

EDIT:

Additionally thanks to all opposition focussing on the Chilterns being despoiled and all that, there has been little public discussion about whether we want High speed lines along the lines of France or wherever with no stations for vast distances and eye catching top speeds or whether we want fast accelerating trains with more common stations and operational top speeds in the range of 170-180mph (like Japan).

Most people arguing for the French model tend to resort to the strawman that we might as well have hundreds of stops and run at 30mph with names like "No Speed 2" if we have one.
Clearly the Shinkansen runs at 30mph top speed?

The two models need not even be mutually exclusive these days with the advent of very high velocity pointwork.

 

[jon0844]

If this country is to have any future, given we're talking about 20 years from now, I am sure the next part will have to be built - along with other major upgrades around the country.

If it isn't viable then we've either found another solution (emission free vehicles and a solution to traffic, no need to travel as we all work from home etc) or we're totally buggered and it won't matter!

 

[HSTEd]

By way of an example I cite the prototypical and most successful High Speed Line ever built, the Tōkaidō Shinkansen.
In the first 180km of the line [roughly comparable to London-Birmingham] it has 8 stations.
Some trains stop at all eight and manage the distance in roughly 1hr25, which is comparable to the current service with its five stations total.
At the same time, on the same two line system, other trains could run the distance in only 40-50 minutes (the timetable doesnt have them do this but this is apparently a geographical issue rather than a capacity one), comparable to the HS2 service planned.

There is no reason that we cannot provide both "fast" and "semi fast" services which would allow intermediate trains to run without preventing an express service from existing (especially as people are proposing 400m double deck units that will rapidly saturate any reasonable London-Birmingham-Manchester/Leeds traffic flow, even at 2tph to each end point).

But no, we must instead chase 200+mph top speeds.

As for HS2 being "necessary for our development as a nation", this could be solved by things other than HS2 if the political will was to develop, such as a further shift to the right in government after 2015 (additional airline traffic or whatever), especially if HS2a starts costing some obscene amount of money.

 

[jon0844]

I wouldn't be wanting to bet on air travel for short distances as being the way forward in 20-30 years.

I'm surprised that, given many successful high speed trials (like the French test that managed over 500kph) that we're even discussing whether to build them - beyond the actual route and other logistical stuff.

 

[HSTEd]

I wouldn't be wanting to bet on air travel for short distances as being the way forward in 20-30 years.

I'm surprised that, given many successful high speed trials (like the French test that managed over 500kph) that we're even discussing whether to build them - beyond the actual route and other logistical stuff.

Well it would appear that the speed has plateaued, the Japanese have come to the conclusion that 360kph is not worth it and I think the Chinese do it (if they still do after that accident?) to prove they can do it.

It all depends if the next election sees the Conservative party driven further to the right by the likes of UKIP which would see a relaxation in any resistance to further infrastructural development at airports and a subsequent restriction on any public money being made available to the likes of railways.

But anyway, Im worried that we are not having a discussion about the nature of the line instead of a discussion of whether or not to build it in the first place.
My own opinion is that our population distribution favours the Japanese model and that the arrival of high speed pointwork would make it possible for slower trains with similar stop concentrations to the Shinkansen to coexist with the non stop expresses that will cut the current travel time.

Even with 2+2 and 2+1 seating, a 400m double deck could be looking at 1300 seats, so 4tph to Birmingham (2tph to Manchester and Leeds respectively) would create insane additional capacity and still leave plenty of space for said slower trains if the intermediate stations have refuge loops.#

For the record: a 1300 seat train is triple that of a 9 carriage Pendo, so would be looking at the equivalent of 6 current trains-per-hour to Manchester/Leeds each with the only intermediate stop being Birmingham.

 

[jon0844]

I agree that the capacity will be extremely high if they build it for long, and possible double deck, rolling stock - which will be wider too.

There's not much chance that there would need to be a train running every few minutes. Even 4tph would be ample at most times of the day, so I am sure you could have semi fast services too.

With a lot of capacity, as well as speed, I don't even foresee fares being so high that you would need to remortgage your house (which I've seen written more than once). I'd hardly expect any operator(s) not to offer advance tickets and other promotions, even if there may be some high walk-up fares in first class.

 

[WatcherZero]

By way of an example I cite the prototypical and most successful High Speed Line ever built, the Tōkaidō Shinkansen.
In the first 180km of the line [roughly comparable to London-Birmingham] it has 8 stations.
Some trains stop at all eight and manage the distance in roughly 1hr25, which is comparable to the current service with its five stations total.
At the same time, on the same two line system, other trains could run the distance in only 40-50 minutes (the timetable doesnt have them do this but this is apparently a geographical issue rather than a capacity one), comparable to the HS2 service planned.

Its not really comparable though because the Japanese rail network before that time was incredibly slow, express trains ran at 40mph! The original intended speed of the line was just 93mph and when it opened it was operating at speed of 131mph..... Almost identical to the West Coast and East Coast 125mph! Do you know how many stations there are on the West Coast Main line between London and Birmingham eight! yes again identical to the Shinkansen.

The Japanese model you suggest would be just building another standard WCML.

 

[HSTEd]

Its not really comparable though because the Japanese rail network before that time was incredibly slow, expressed ran at 40mph! The original intended speed of the line was just 93mph and when it opened it was operating at speed of 131mph..... Almost identical to the West Coast and East Coast 125mph! Do you know how many stations there are on the West Coast Main line between London and Birmingham eight! yes again identical to the Shinkansen.

The Japanese model you suggest would be just building another standard WCML.

So a "standard" WCML that can put in three additional stops and still match the current London-Birmingham times?
A route where the slows can go from zero to 170mph in three minutes has far fewer capacity issues with non stop expresses than one where they do 100.
If there are only eight station between London and Birmingham why does a London Midland train from London to Birmingham make a total of 21 stops including terminii?

EDIT:
Note this would have no effect on the fast non stop express trains, it would simply make use of the almost certain to exist additional paths.
It would increase the effect of the lines construction by shifting the "fast" WCML intermediate passengers to "semi fast" HS services, freeing the existing fast trains to be rescheduled to stop only at stations that get nothing but slows at the current time.

 

[WatcherZero]

Because its a Suburban service,

You have a service running Euston-Watford-Coventry-Birmingham Int-Birmingham NS taking 1hr26m and one which adds Rugby and MK taking 1hr37m


Edit after seeing above edit:
Are you now arguing for a new slow speed line to be built so your existing WCML service can be speeded up?
Sheesh talk about self interest.

 

[HSTEd]

Because its a Suburban service,

You have a service running Euston-Watford-Coventry-Birmingham Int-Birmingham NS taking 1hr26m and one which adds Rugby and MK taking 1hr37m

Except if we were to use the Japanese model, we get Euston-Watford-Amersham?-Rugby-MKC-Coventry-Birmingham Int-Birmingham NS (or equivalent) for the same time as the existing 1hr26 "fast" train.

At the same time we still get the fast train that does the trip in ~50 minutes.
This means that the stop all Virgin stations train is made redundant and can be made to stop at an entirely different list of stations while preserving end to end travel time, ditto the fast train as that is now matched by the non stop express and the semi-fast HS train in combination.

EDIT:
No
I am arguing that adding additional stations to use "semi fast" high Speed services means that towns so served can loose the WCML "fast" or "semi fast" trains as they will be made redundant.
Then additional towns that currently only get London Midland trains can gain a combination fo the existing "fast" and "semi fast" trains.

This doesn't damage the express HS services as this is making use of otherwise unused paths.

And I live split between Manchester and Grantham so this makes little difference to me.

 

[WatcherZero]

The speed advantage comes from avoiding the destinations, just adding Heathrow alone adds 10 min to journey times, how much more does adding half a dozen extra towns add? They have also already reserved 10 of 18 possible pathsfor phase 1 (3/4 London-Birmingham, 1 West Midlands 3 Manchester, 2 Liverpool) without accounting for Scotland services or other services that would be required for phase two.

 

[HSTEd]

The speed advantage comes from avoiding the destinations, just adding Heathrow alone adds 10 min to journey times, how much more does adding half a dozen extra towns add?

Nothing, as presumably the London-Birmingham (or beyond) passengers would be on the train that stops nowhere rather than on the stopper.

That's like complaining that the London Midland train is too slow to reach Birmingham because it stops at all those intervening stations.
I'm also talking about using near fully axle motored trains (like Shinkansen sets) rather than European style HSR sets with half or fewer of the axles motored.

 

[WatcherZero]

Ok your not comprehending line design.

You have a start point and an end point, the fastest route between them is a straight line, when you add diversions to other towns you increase the length of that line as its no longer as the crow flies. This means the time taken to travel this line has also increased. You cant add extra stops with zero time penalty and just say 'well it wouldnt call there therefore it takes no longer'.

 

[HSTEd]

Ok your not comprehending line design.

You have a start point and an end point, the fastest route between them is a straight line, when you add diversions to other towns you increase the length of that line as its no longer as the crow flies. This means the time taken to travel this line has also increased. You cant add extra stops with zero time penalty and just say 'well it wouldnt call there therefore it takes no longer'.

Alright, sorry, the line will be slightly longer, but being as the extra length would effectively be in the middle of the journey and the train would thus be travelling at its design speed, the extra distance would be eaten up at 5km/minute (or more)

So we are looking at 5-10 minutes tops for the additional distance on non stop trains, which still leaves us with sub hour travel times, especially with the huge acceleration of Shinkansen style sets.

EDIT:
High speed 2 is already "Not as the crow flies" so its a bit of a fallacious argument, I'm not wanting it to be sent by Leicester or anything ridiculous.

EDIT #2:
The published HS2 route (not including Heathrow) comes up to 175km according to Google earth, if htis line was rerouted to run through Central Coventry, Rugby, Northampton, Milton Keynes and to provide an interchange with Chiltern/Met at Amersham, this would increase the length of the line to roughly 189km.

This would require considerable additional tunnelling but as TBMs will already be purchased for the Chiltern work this is not an enormous extra expense considering the size of the entire project.
This provides the 8 station "semi fast" service going Birmingham-Birmingham International-Coventry-Rugby-Northampton-Milton Keynes-Amersham-Euston and increases the length of the non stop service by three minutes, assuming that the original estimate was done with fast accelerating Shinkansen sets rather than a TGV or whatever.

Note that on the Sanyō Shinkansen trains cover the 218km from Hiroshima to Kokura in 47 minutes, which is further than London-Birmingham.

 

[WatcherZero]

But thats a straight line then takes a bypass inland of three stations along the coast. Its not passing through those intermediate stations without stopping its totally avoiding them.
Its akin to a train from Preston to Birmingham not taking a diversion into and out of Liverpool or Manchester.

 

[Invincibles]

Surely if we go down the many station route (which I think we should) then the answer is to have all but a couple of headline trains stop at one or two of them.

With the right amount of thought to the timetable this should mean that all the stations can have a half hourly timetabled HS service to London.

Yes, it means that there will not be all the local journey combinations possible, but then this is supposed to be HS2.

Roughly speaking you would have (assuming 5 minute gaps)

Birmingham International 1 2 3 4 5 6
A.................................................6
B...............................................5
C............................................4
D.........................................3
E......................................2
F...................................1............6
Old Oak Common...........1............6
Euston...........................1 2 3 4 5 6

Now if I am right based on that you can have trains 5 and 6 leave Birmingham closer together (maybe 4 minutes apart) loop train 6 at the first station, allowing train 7 to overtake it at station A.

Train 7 now continues non stop to London, possibly having to overtake train 1 (not sure about that one)

1 would then be following close behind 6 (4 minutes again) and so 6 might have to avoid F but that should be no big loss. (Maybe this allows 1 to call at B or C)

I have no idea where A-F are, I hope by leaving them as letters it will not lead to too many arguments about where they should be and allow more criticism of the idea of so many stations. Similarly I do not say where 1-7 come from, simply assume that this gives me 7 trains per half hour.

This seems to be the model my local HS lines use, where there are a huge number of stations and trains are commonly overtaken to allow a half hourly headline Shanghai - Nanjing service.

 

[JohnCarlson]

Ok your not comprehending line design.

You have a start point and an end point, the fastest route between them is a straight line, when you add diversions to other towns you increase the length of that line as its no longer as the crow flies. This means the time taken to travel this line has also increased. You cant add extra stops with zero time penalty and just say 'well it wouldnt call there therefore it takes no longer'.

This isn't just about getting people from one end of the line to the other slightly faster than the existing line. You have to pick up some people long the way as you would just end up with a very long line with not very many passengers on it. HS2 doesn't have a blank slate. The political clout of cities on the way has to be allowed for as well as the natural features of the land.

Traveling from the extremities of Birmingham to London via HS2 dose not really mean the traveler doing anything new. They just get the Car/train/bus/taxi to roughly the same place then get the HS2 train. Luckily there is a huge amount of space in Birmingham city center for a terminal. There is also an existing line that the people in between can continue to use.

Adding a line to Manchester probably doesn't change that situation very much . There is a gaping big space right next to Piccadilly where you can build whatever you want.

However striking out to the north east the situation seems to me more complicated. The existing Leeds to Birmingham service seems slow and there would be a huge time advantage for anyone in Leeds and north of Leeds gained to by bypassing every town and city in between on a high speed line. Looking at the map on my wall the existing line via Derby and Sheffield seems to go in a curve and as the crow flies line could offer huge speed improvements.

Where you put the HS2 station in Leeds is as conundrum. To my mind it would have to be very close to the existing central station but as that is already very full and getting fuller and there is no clearly identifiable empty space then what do you do????

But Hs2 would get easier further north. York has a huge amount of underused railway land right next to the existing station where and HS2 station could be built, Darlington has very long platforms and if you stand on the castle keep at Newcastle you can easily see how the existing platforms could be extended m massively northwards with some rebuilding work on the junction.

Then there would seem to be plenty of fairly flat space to build and HS2 line between Newcastle and Edinburgh with trains using the, by then, existing commuter lines to get to Glasgow.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well it would appear that the speed has plateaued, the Japanese have come to the conclusion that 360kph is not worth it and I think the Chinese do it (if they still do after that accident?) to prove they can do it.

It all depends if the next election sees the Conservative party driven further to the right by the likes of UKIP which would see a relaxation in any resistance to further infrastructural development at airports and a subsequent restriction on any public money being made available to the likes of railways.

But anyway, Im worried that we are not having a discussion about the nature of the line instead of a discussion of whether or not to build it in the first place.
My own opinion is that our population distribution favours the Japanese model and that the arrival of high speed pointwork would make it possible for slower trains with similar stop concentrations to the Shinkansen to coexist with the non stop expresses that will cut the current travel time.

Even with 2+2 and 2+1 seating, a 400m double deck could be looking at 1300 seats, so 4tph to Birmingham (2tph to Manchester and Leeds respectively) would create insane additional capacity and still leave plenty of space for said slower trains if the intermediate stations have refuge loops.#

For the record: a 1300 seat train is triple that of a 9 carriage Pendo, so would be looking at the equivalent of 6 current trains-per-hour to Manchester/Leeds each with the only intermediate stop being Birmingham.

Of course if the pricing of the seats on the double deck trains was half that on the equivalent Pendelino o service you would probably generate huge amounts of extra passengers.

"If" being the word of course.

 

[Greenback]

The only reason I would support HS2 is for the extra capacity. Given that, then as far as I can see the best way to proceed is to tranfer the longer distance WCML services to HS2 at Birmingham for a fast run into London with a maxim,um of one stop.

Once the lines to Leeds and Manchester have been completed, then services from north of those points will be able to use those lines and run straight into London.

This will leave the ECML with services to Doncaster, York, Hull, Lincoln and maybe even Sheffield/Nottingham. The WCML, which is full at the southern end despite many years of disruption and upgrading, will be able to provide a lot more capacity and better services to towns such as Rugby and Nuneaton.

There really is little point as far as I can see to start building five or six intermediate stations on the London to Birmingham line, but I am happy to be persuaded. It would, of course, be much easier to justify such stations if the line was to be 4 track throughout...

 

[JohnCarlson]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...50m-lesson-for-Britains-rail-enthusiasts.html

 

[YorkshireBear]

Well i think its safe to say that the telegraph dont want it.
The line in holland certainly is damming eveidence against it :/ but i would like to point out that our conventional rail is far worse than theirs. I think the making or breaking of HS2 will be ticket prices. If they can get the pirces down to similar conventional rail levels then it will probably have good patronage. Surely making less a ticket but the train is full is always going to be better than high ticket prices but 85% empty!

 

[Tiny Tim]

Inevitably, HS2 cannot be all things to all men. Diverting the line to take in more towns merely slows down what is supposed to be a high speed line. Running fast services alongside stopping trains is a system more appropriate to a Victorian railway than a 21st century one. Putting stopping trains into loops whilst expresses pass by? Why not go the whole hog and make it steam-hauled and light everything with oil lamps. Mixing fast and slow trains (as our great-grandparents knew) only works if you've got four tracks to play with. As this is unlikely to happen, we're stuck with a high speed line with limited stops. Judging by the Dutch experience of this as mentioned in the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...50m-lesson-for-Britains-rail-enthusiasts.html

We could be in trouble.

 

[jon0844]

Andrew Gilligan hasn't said anything positive, at any time, so it smacks of personal bias for desperately seeking new (indirect) ways to attack HS2. Does anyone know where he lives?

 

[Waverley125]

I can see where of there were to be a a high speed bypass of Dalington a parkway station could be built for Tees valley but I think its a terrible idea .

Its right on the the edge of Darlington and even further from the centre. Again what would anyone e from the Middlesbtrough area want to travel to a station on the edge of Darlington, presumably by bus or their own car when they can get a cheaper and probably faster grand central service from Egglescliff.

HS2 trains would also have to stop at York. The city has quite a bit of clout and no one from that area is going to get a local train to Leeds and then change onto an HS2 service which gives an even longer and more expensive journey than the existing services.

Best

John

I'd have proposed the Tees Valley station for the present site of Tees Valley airport. With the Tees Valley Bishop Auckland-Saltburn line electrified it'd be about 12 minutes out of Middlesbrough & 6 minutes out of Darlington, so probably quicker either way, but then again, HS2 will allow both Darlington & Middlesbrough to get a much better ICEC service.

As for York, no. Firstly, because it's massively out of the way, adding at least 15 miles to the line, and all the costs with it. Secondly because it actually doesn't have that much 'clout'. York is probably the UK's most glorified commuter town, certainly up there with Bath. Both great tourist destinations, but most of the people who live there are commuters, which is why every train into Leeds during the day is so rammed. Besides, like Darlington, York will still have a very good direct ICEC service to London, and given the TPE electrification will allow journeys into Leeds in about 20 minutes (express) or 35 minutes (stopper), I think the number changing for a southbound service might actually be pretty good, especially if the 'South Orbital Connection' Amersham-Heathrow-Ashford line I proposed gets built.

Oh, and the line definitely should serve Sheffield, because of the huge regional benefits of doing Leeds-Sheffield in 20 minutes, rather than 45.

 

[yorksrob]

I was quite interested that the article mentioned my home town of Ashford in Kent. It notes that it's economic growth has been much less than the SE average, but to give a bit of background, Ashford has always been a bit poorer than some of the leafy commuter areas of west Kent. By contrast, it's probably a bit wealthier than some of the industrial areas in East Leeds.

I think it has probably been successful for commuters though.

I wonder whether HS2 users will be expected to pay a premium for speed, as has been the case for HS1. I suspect that it won't be as successful as hoped if they are.

 

[MK Tom]

I imagine there will be a 'premium for speed' seeing as the WCML and Chiltern Birmingham-London services will still operate.

As for HS2 local services, there is an interesting possibility of the link to EWR allowing services from MK and Northampton to chip across onto HS2, but it's not clear if that would make any real time saving. The main thing I want to see happen on a self-interested level is for MK to gain direct connections to the cities of the north (especially Liverpool and Glasgow). What I don't want to see and what put me off HS2 for a long time was MK losing fast services to have them replaced with non-intercity-quality stopping services without buffets etc - from the provisional timetable that doesn't seem to be the case thankfully.

 

[HSTEd]

Inevitably, HS2 cannot be all things to all men. Diverting the line to take in more towns merely slows down what is supposed to be a high speed line. Running fast services alongside stopping trains is a system more appropriate to a Victorian railway than a 21st century one. Putting stopping trains into loops whilst expresses pass by? Why not go the whole hog and make it steam-hauled and light everything with oil lamps. Mixing fast and slow trains (as our great-grandparents knew) only works if you've got four tracks to play with. As this is unlikely to happen, we're stuck with a high speed line with limited stops. Judging by the Dutch experience of this as mentioned in the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...50m-lesson-for-Britains-rail-enthusiasts.html

We could be in trouble.

Again with the strawman?
The Japanese manage to mix high speed expresses and "slow" stopping trains, the reason why mixing fast and slow trains on two track lines doesnt normally work is because you are mixing freights with 60mph top speeds and awful acceleration characteristics with fast trains doing 125mph with very good acceleration.

In this case we would be mixing "slow" trains with 170mph-200mph operational top speed and awesome acceleration characteristics and "fast" trains with top speeds of.... 170-200mph and awesome acceleration characteristics.
Refuge loops are hardly something from "the Victorian era" when we consider that they exist at almost all intermediate high speed stations, and when you consider that the line will likely be equipped with moving block signalling it would allow the stopping train to start rolling immediately after the fast train passes.

As I have demonstrated diverting the line will not significantly lengthen the journey for non stop trains and I dont see how "fast" trains to points north of Birmingham could possibly use up the entire lines capacity, unless we are going to do idiotic things like run 7 coach classic compatible trains on the line independently?

 

[Chafford1]

The only reason I would support HS2 is for the extra capacity. Given that, then as far as I can see the best way to proceed is to tranfer the longer distance WCML services to HS2 at Birmingham for a fast run into London with a maxim,um of one stop.

Once the lines to Leeds and Manchester have been completed, then services from north of those points will be able to use those lines and run straight into London.

This will leave the ECML with services to Doncaster, York, Hull, Lincoln and maybe even Sheffield/Nottingham. The WCML, which is full at the southern end despite many years of disruption and upgrading, will be able to provide a lot more capacity and better services to towns such as Rugby and Nuneaton.

There really is little point as far as I can see to start building five or six intermediate stations on the London to Birmingham line, but I am happy to be persuaded. It would, of course, be much easier to justify such stations if the line was to be 4 track throughout...

If Government and operators are prepared to fund those extra services - a big 'if'

 

[Greenback]

If Government and operators are prepared to fund those extra services - a big 'if'

Indeed. There many if's and but's about HS2, which merely helps to reinforce my scepticism about the whole project.

The Telegraph report referred to above also highlights one of my major worries, that it will be a premium line with higher fares that will simply not attract sufficient numbers of passengers.

It also refers to data that suggests that such lines do not, in fact, regenerate the regions at all, but simply abstract further business to the capital.

My final big worry is that the objections will lead to public inquiries, planning enquiries and the like which will be very costly in terms of time and money which will inevitably lead to the whole scheme going massively overbudget.

 

[HSTEd]

Using moving block signalling uniform path capacities approaching 45tph are possible, however as a semi fast/fast mix would require paths for trains to slip into at each station stop, ~20tph including slows would seem to be the maximum possible.

If we assume 2tph slow, this gives us 18tph for fasts over the core section.
2tph Manchester via Birmingham (400m DD sets, ~1300 seats and triple a 9 car Cl390)
2tph Leeds via Birmingham (400m DD set as above)
1tph CC fast to Leeds (400m of CC trains in whatever formation is convenient)
1tph CC fast to Manchester (400m CC train as above)
1tph Fast to Birmingham (2 x 200m DD sets, train splits at Birmingham and proceeds Semi Fast to Manchester and Leeds)

This leads to eleven additional trains per hour for growth over further extensions, which translates to ~30tph of the Current Cl390 fleet, which is ample for reasonable expansions if we allow for another High Speed route over the east coast.

This gives an average of four additional current trains per hour capacity to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds assuming that people do not use the Semi fasts or the CC trains and all Fast trains are used equally.

A starting fast timetable of 7tph may not sound that impressive but if all the trains involved are 400m long it gives a drastic capacity improvement over the current WCML settup.

EDIT: Emergency brake distance for an E5 Shinkansen travelling at 320kph is just under 4km, which is under a minute of travel time, if we allow 30 seconds for safety and identifying that a train has crashed/failed that allows for enormous train frequencies.
This also doesn't use Linear Eddy Current brakes or the rather more esoteric air brake technology developed for the "Fasttech 360" project.

Likewise, since these are Shinkansens that can accelerate extremely rapidly a slow train can start to accelerate immediately upon the fast train passing, as it would be able to stop short of the train ahead easily as it is going far more slowly, this allows the acceleration time to be partially used "before" the trains nominal path catches up with it.