HS2 Phase 2 or NPR

[HSTEd]

No, because that would require all five Manchester services to run through Wilmslow, with the addition of the Wales service and commuter trains. It’s essentially asking for an additional 4 fast services to be funnelled down that line, which would crowd out everything else.

Sorry misread the timetable, stand by.

You could run the Scotland service from Birmingham this way though, so there would be 4 tph running in to a 7 platform station.

Has the connection at the end of Phase 1 been abandoned?
Or is it still being built, because that makes platforms at Curzon Street useful for a rather wide range of services.

You could certainly imagine extending all three Curzon Street-London trains to various places in the North, for example taking over the Liverpool-Birmingham New Street stoppers etc.

 

[Purple Orange]

Sorry misread the timetable, stand by.


Has the connection at the end of Phase 1 been abandoned?
Or is it still being built, because that makes platforms at Curzon Street useful for a rather wide range of services.

You could certainly imagine extending all three Curzon Street-London trains to various places in the North, for example taking over the Liverpool-Birmingham New Street stoppers etc.

I don’t think it is abandoned, but it is only useful for London bound trains. The only benefit to Birmingham would be freeing up capacity in New Street, but not much of a time advantage.

 

[The Planner]

Sorry misread the timetable, stand by.


Has the connection at the end of Phase 1 been abandoned?
Or is it still being built, because that makes platforms at Curzon Street useful for a rather wide range of services.

You could certainly imagine extending all three Curzon Street-London trains to various places in the North, for example taking over the Liverpool-Birmingham New Street stoppers etc.

Handsacre is still being built.

 

[edwin_m]

Handsacre is still being built.

However it's been de-scoped hasn't it? Originally it was going to carry all the Liverpool/Manchester/Scotland services after Phase 1, then it was going to carry them for a year or two between Phase 1 and 2a, now I think even that's gone (sounds like an unnecessary cost to build the full spec for that short a time) it just carries the Macclesfield and I think one other every hour.

 

[The Planner]

However it's been de-scoped hasn't it? Originally it was going to carry all the Liverpool/Manchester/Scotland services after Phase 1, then it was going to carry them for a year or two between Phase 1 and 2a, now I think even that's gone (sounds like an unnecessary cost to build the full spec for that short a time) it just carries the Macclesfield and I think one other every hour.

Nope, design has changed to join the slows instead on landing on the fasts but its not descoped per se. It will be only 1tph and I agree keeping it is a bit tenuous but its probably slightly political in keeping Stoke happy.

 

[Bevan Price]

I accept that the early parts of HS2 will be built, but I remain unconvinced about some of the other related projects.

1. A NPR/HS2 route between Liverpool & Manchester might reduce journey times by about 10-15 minutes - and be very expensive. It is the cross-Pennine journey times that need most improvement, especially Manchester to Leeds / York, and Manchester to Sheffield. Unless at least Manchester to Leeds gets a high speed line, I am doubtful of the value of NPR.

2. Experience has shown repeatedly that passengers prefer through services to connections - even at the expense of slower journeys. With a proposed interchange station in the East Midlands (Toton, or wherever), HS2 East is unlikely to attract huge amounts of traffic between London and Derby or Nottingham - the majority are likely still to prefer the MML. Likewise, many Birmingham to Derby or Nottingham, and Derby & Nottingham to Sheffield & Leeds, passengers are likely to prefer the current through services.

3. London to Leeds may be marginally faster by HS2 East than ECML; only Birmingham to Leeds will see substantial reductions in journey time. (And maybe also Birmingham to Sheffield)

4. HS2 avoids some large cities, notably Coventry & Wolverhampton. I predict that many passengers will continue to prefer existing conventional services, rather than face the inconvenience of changing stations in Birmingham.

5. Just how much will existing services on WCML, MML, ECML change if a full HS2 & HS2 East programme is completed ? Not everybody wishes to travel to or from London, Birmingham, Manchester or Leeds. There will be much political flak if attempts are made to withdraw (or slow down) many of the existing services.

6. Although there are probably too many vested interests to have allowed it to happen, a much easier - and cheaper way of increasing capacity would have been to abolish first class. In a typical Pendolino, they could have got an almost instant increase of at least 20-30% in the numbers of standard class seats, more than enough to cater for many years of anticipated (pre-Covid) growth.

 

[HSTEd]

2. Experience has shown repeatedly that passengers prefer through services to connections - even at the expense of slower journeys. With a proposed interchange station in the East Midlands (Toton, or wherever), HS2 East is unlikely to attract huge amounts of traffic between London and Derby or Nottingham - the majority are likely still to prefer the MML. Likewise, many Birmingham to Derby or Nottingham, and Derby & Nottingham to Sheffield & Leeds, passengers are likely to prefer the current through services.

This is somewhat true, but at some point the time savings do overwhelm the "convenience".

We see people change on the Underground rather than ride the circle all the way around, as an example.

For example, if we had a Maglev that did Edinburgh Park to OOC in 77 minutes, I doubt many people would take a direct train from Glasgow to avoid the change!

3. London to Leeds may be marginally faster by HS2 East than ECML; only Birmingham to Leeds will see substantial reductions in journey time. (And maybe also Birmingham to Sheffield)

Assuming HS2 Phase 2, or some sort of proper NPR solution is built, journey times from London to Leeds via HS2 will absolutely crush the classic times, by 50 minutes or more.

 

[Meerkat]

With a proposed interchange station in the East Midlands (Toton, or wherever), HS2 East is unlikely to attract huge amounts of traffic between London and Derby or Nottingham - the majority are likely still to prefer the MML. Likewise, many Birmingham to Derby or Nottingham, and Derby & Nottingham to Sheffield & Leeds, passengers are likely to prefer the current through services.

Depends where they live. Unless they are fairly central it will Probably be quicker and easier to get to Toton than to a city centre station.
That was one of the negatives of HS2 for me - I can see it leading to more driving as people drive to the parkways rather than using their local station.

 

[class26]

6. Although there are probably too many vested interests to have allowed it to happen, a much easier - and cheaper way of increasing capacity would have been to abolish first class. In a typical Pendolino, they could have got an almost instant increase of at least 20-30% in the numbers of standard class seats, more than enough to cater for many years of anticipated (pre-Covid) growth.

and most likely reduce revenue due to loss of first class fares.

 

[The Ham]

I accept that the early parts of HS2 will be built, but I remain unconvinced about some of the other related projects.

1. A NPR/HS2 route between Liverpool & Manchester might reduce journey times by about 10-15 minutes - and be very expensive. It is the cross-Pennine journey times that need most improvement, especially Manchester to Leeds / York, and Manchester to Sheffield. Unless at least Manchester to Leeds gets a high speed line, I am doubtful of the value of NPR.

However it will also increase the number is services which can run, NPR and HS2 are about the same thing capacity. One of the criticisms of HS2 is that the argument for it has changed from speed to capacity, the problem is that just isn't true. It's always been about capacity, the speed is just that it makes it more attractive to more people.

For example there would be no point building it as a 100mph railway as everyone would carry on using the existing services.

2. Experience has shown repeatedly that passengers prefer through services to connections - even at the expense of slower journeys. With a proposed interchange station in the East Midlands (Toton, or wherever), HS2 East is unlikely to attract huge amounts of traffic between London and Derby or Nottingham - the majority are likely still to prefer the MML. Likewise, many Birmingham to Derby or Nottingham, and Derby & Nottingham to Sheffield & Leeds, passengers are likely to prefer the current through services.

This is partly true, however it does depend on the frequency.

Direct trains win when they could beat the time if a connection is missed and the price isn't much more.

However given the choice between a train taking 2 hours and one taking 3 with a frequency at the change point of 2tph (so a missed connection makes it 2.5 hours) the direct service wouldn't be more popular (yes people would still use it, but not all).

If, in addition, the direct service cost £150 whilst making a change would cost £75 there would be even fewer people using the direct service.

I'll give you an example, would you rather spend 5 hours on a Voyager between Southampton and Newcastle, or would you rather change twice (Reading and Old Oak Common, so both modern stations with lifts and staff to help) and spend most of your time on an electric train and the journey take 4 hours (at least 2tph at each change point)?

I suspect that there would be a majority that (assuming prices were similar) would opt for the faster service.

3. London to Leeds may be marginally faster by HS2 East than ECML; only Birmingham to Leeds will see substantial reductions in journey time. (And maybe also Birmingham to Sheffield)

However only if you are starting in Central London, for some areas of London getting to Old Oak Common would be faster.

However even that misses the point, HS2 doesn't need everyone to use it over the existing route. In fact for those who aren't going end to end the fact that some carry on using the existing route means that they could have a better frequency than would be the case.

For instance if some still use it, there'll be a desire to not to stop at too many extra stations, so whilst a journey may show by (say) up to 9 minutes (2 or 3 extra stops) it is unlikely to slow by between that and up to 30 minutes (4 to 9 extra stops). However if there were to be assumed to be no end to end passengers than significant extra stops would be added.

4. HS2 avoids some large cities, notably Coventry & Wolverhampton. I predict that many passengers will continue to prefer existing conventional services, rather than face the inconvenience of changing stations in Birmingham.

Indeed, Coventry is likely to see slightly slower services (i.e. 1 or 2 extra stops added), however whilst that would add up to 6 minutes to the journey time for navy there would also be quite a few for whom it makes it easier to get by train to other places.

As an example, after East West Rail being fully open, a stop at Bletchley would make rail travel to Bedford or Cambridge easier to do. It would also make rail travel to Oxford more reliable as there would be a fairly easy alternative route.

5. Just how much will existing services on WCML, MML, ECML change if a full HS2 & HS2 East programme is completed ? Not everybody wishes to travel to or from London, Birmingham, Manchester or Leeds. There will be much political flak if attempts are made to withdraw (or slow down) many of the existing services.

Probably the changes wouldn't be as bad as many fear. Let's take Coventry as an example, the fact that in 2019 it had about 8 million passengers using it would likely mean that it keeps a decent level of service to London.

In comparison, whilst much closer to London passenger numbers are much smaller, Hook (0.8 million passengers) sees 4tph in the morning peak and 2tph off peak towards London. In the morning peak the trains call at 4 or 5 other stations before running fast to London. With the 3 other stations which aren't Working (which sees other services as well), total passenger numbers only equal about 8 million.

3tph all day may be reduced, however I'd be surprised if it saw less than 2tph and during the peaks it may even see an increase. Especially if the proposed from the North through the Trent Valley Nuneaton, Coventry and on to London service comes about.

6. Although there are probably too many vested interests to have allowed it to happen, a much easier - and cheaper way of increasing capacity would have been to abolish first class. In a typical Pendolino, they could have got an almost instant increase of at least 20-30% in the numbers of standard class seats, more than enough to cater for many years of anticipated (pre-Covid) growth.

Whilst it's possible to add 20-30% to the first class coaches, you're not going to get a 20-30% increase across the whole train.

The 11 coach trains have 589 seats whilst the 9 coach trains have 469 seats. To see a 10% increase would require and extra 59 seats added to the 145 first class seats (+1 for every 2.5 seats) to 47 seats added to the 99 first class seats (+1 for every 2.1 seats), which might be possible, but certainly not double that number of extra seats.

Wow would, however, gain 30% on the 9 coach trains if you did away with first class and lengthened then to 9 coaches. However that would only be on 40% of the fleet, the other 60% may gain 10%, giving a total fleet uplift of 18%.

HS2 gives a per service up lift in capacity of between 86% and 134%.

If we hadn't been planning to build HS2 in 2009, chances are it would have been planned to have happened within a few years of that due to seeing year on year growth of around 4%.

Tinkering with train capacity we could have eeked out a few more years but the need for a new line would have become inevitable.

 

[daodao]

@ the Ham

France and Spain have far more experience with high speed lines than most other European countries. They have revolutionised train travel there between the places served by the high speed trains, but inevitably the train services to places (e.g. Limoges) served only by the bypassed classic lines have reduced markedly. I expect that the same will be true in England. For example, I don't expect Coventry to retain more than 1 semi-fast train to London, to be run by WMR/LNWR and probably taking at least 90 minutes, as all services by the premier WCML operator (currently Avanti) would presumably transfer to HS2. At least Stoke and Macclesfield will have 1 fast tph to London via HS2.

 

[Bald Rick]

For example, I don't expect Coventry to retain more than 1 semi-fast train to London, to be run by WMR/LNWR and probably taking at least 90 minutes, as all services by the premier WCML operator (currently Avanti) would presumably transfer to HS2.

It is very clear that Coventry will retain two fast trains to Euston, calling at MK and Watford, taking around an hour. Plus further LNWR type services via Northampton.

 

[edwin_m]

2. Experience has shown repeatedly that passengers prefer through services to connections - even at the expense of slower journeys. With a proposed interchange station in the East Midlands (Toton, or wherever), HS2 East is unlikely to attract huge amounts of traffic between London and Derby or Nottingham - the majority are likely still to prefer the MML. Likewise, many Birmingham to Derby or Nottingham, and Derby & Nottingham to Sheffield & Leeds, passengers are likely to prefer the current through services.

This is partly true, however it does depend on the frequency.

Direct trains win when they could beat the time if a connection is missed and the price isn't much more.

However given the choice between a train taking 2 hours and one taking 3 with a frequency at the change point of 2tph (so a missed connection makes it 2.5 hours) the direct service wouldn't be more popular (yes people would still use it, but not all).

If, in addition, the direct service cost £150 whilst making a change would cost £75 there would be even fewer people using the direct service.

I'll give you an example, would you rather spend 5 hours on a Voyager between Southampton and Newcastle, or would you rather change twice (Reading and Old Oak Common, so both modern stations with lifts and staff to help) and spend most of your time on an electric train and the journey take 4 hours (at least 2tph at each change point)?

I suspect that there would be a majority that (assuming prices were similar) would opt for the faster service.

In the specific case of London to Nottingham or Derby I can't see HS2 being that attractive.

End to end journey times to central Nottingham or Derby will be around 1hr20min by changing at Toton, depending on the connection time there, which could be poor considering how many other classic services those connections have to be woven around (and connecting trains to both places can't leave Toton at the same time unless a new curve is built to link to the route via Radford). It is logical to re-arrange the MML timetable so the fastest services are London-Nottingham, probably calling only at Leicester, with London-Sheffield now making more stops for intermediate traffic. Thus the London-Nottingham time would be around 1hr 30min, and will probably remain every 30min because of the need to serve Leicester. Many people will prefer a 10min longer through journey than one with a change.

The risk is that Toton is seen as the primary route for Nottingham and Derby rather than the existing line being seen as an equal. This does two things: encouraging access by car rather than public transport, and creating a situation where the service is attractive to local residents travelling out, but not to arriving visitors who won't have a car at destination and will be dropped at the nearest the UK will have to the French "beetroot stations". This will tend to drain economic activity out of the region rather than bringing it in.

Ironically if HS2 is only built as far as the Trent/Toton area it would probably have through services from London to Nottingham and Derby, so these regions would benefit from truncation of the eastern leg.

NPR and the other HS2 stations don't suffer from this issue, because they all serve city centre stations, even when an out-of-town alternative is also proposed.

It is very clear that Coventry will retain two fast trains to Euston, calling at MK and Watford, taking around an hour. Plus further LNWR type services via Northampton.

If for no other reason than that some trains will need to use the two WCML fast tracks that avoid Northampton, so these will most likely serve the likes of Coventry as well as the semi-fast services to further north.

 

[The Ham]

@ the Ham

France and Spain have far more experience with high speed lines than most other European countries. They have revolutionised train travel there between the places served by the high speed trains, but inevitably the train services to places (e.g. Limoges) served only by the bypassed classic lines have reduced markedly. I expect that the same will be true in England. For example, I don't expect Coventry to retain more than 1 semi-fast train to London, to be run by WMR/LNWR and probably taking at least 90 minutes, as all services by the premier WCML operator (currently Avanti) would presumably transfer to HS2. At least Stoke and Macclesfield will have 1 fast tph to London via HS2.

Limoges has a population of half that of Coventry, and is not that close to anywhere of great significance (unlike Coventry which is very close to Birmingham).

Assuming 1tph (and remembering that there's already talk of the via Nuneaton and Coventry service, which would likely be in addition to this), are you really saying that Rugby only deserves 2tph (down from 4) semi fast to Birmingham and Coventry 3 (down from 6)?

If not where would they stop at the southern end, given that the likes of Milton Keynes would likely justify more services as well.

In 2007, when station usage at Coventry was 3 million, then I would have been inclined to agree that 1tph (with a few peak services) was likely, however at 8 million it is much more likely to see 2tph with peak hour services, if for no other reason than to provide a good level of service to Birmingham.

 

[Aictos]

Seeing as HS2 Phase 2 will enable NPR more then if only NPR was built, I think HS2 Phase 2 should be built first then build on that infrastructure with NPR.

 

[ohgoditsjames]

HS2 east in full. The HS3 route does absolutely nothing for Sheffield. Sheffield and Leeds need the HS2 line for the NPR’s aspirations to better connect the two cities.

 

[Gareth]

Well, I wouldn't lose sleep over Northern Powerhouse Rail. It isn't going to happen. At least not in any meaningful sense.

The silly name should give it away, really.

 

[Purple Orange]

I think there will be a short section of new-build line east of Manchester, but I highly doubt there will be anything built in to Liverpool, with HS2 built in full. Essentially that will result in the trans-pennine services from Liverpool running fast to Manchester Victoria then semi-fast to Leeds with calls at Stalybridge, Huddersfield, Dewsbury. I think the fast Leeds-Manchester services will result in two running on to the HS2 line to Birmingham Curzon Street and another 2 services running fast between Leeds & Crewe, then semi-fast to Birmingham New Street. These services will compliment the HS2 Birmingham-Leeds & Birmingham-Newcastle services.

NPR via HS2 track:

• 2 tph Birmingham Curzon Street, Manchester Airport, Manchester Piccadilly HS2, Huddersfield, Leeds
• 2 tph Birmingham New Street, Wolverhampton, Stafford, Crewe, Manchester Airport, Manchester Piccadilly HS2, Huddersfield, Leeds, York, Darlington, Durham, Newcastle

NPR (current TPE route)

• 1 tph Liverpool Lime Street, Manchester Victoria, Stalybridge, Huddersfield, Dewsbury, Leeds, Selby, Hull
• 1 tph Liverpool Lime Street, Manchester Victoria, Stalybridge, Huddersfield, Dewsbury, Leeds, York, Middlesbrough

HS2 east in full. The HS3 route does absolutely nothing for Sheffield. Sheffield and Leeds need the HS2 line for the NPR’s aspirations to better connect the two cities.

With that attitude people on the western branch might say: scrap HS2 east, it does nothing for Liverpool, Manchester, Crewe, Preston, Glasgow or Edinburgh. Plus the HS2 line north of Sheffield to Leeds is the NPR line through Yorkshire.

 

[RobShipway]

I think there will be a short section of new-build line east of Manchester, but I highly doubt there will be anything built in to Liverpool, with HS2 built in full. Essentially that will result in the trans-pennine services from Liverpool running fast to Manchester Victoria then semi-fast to Leeds with calls at Stalybridge, Huddersfield, Dewsbury. I think the fast Leeds-Manchester services will result in two running on to the HS2 line to Birmingham Curzon Street and another 2 services running fast between Leeds & Crewe, then semi-fast to Birmingham New Street. These services will compliment the HS2 Birmingham-Leeds & Birmingham-Newcastle services.

NPR via HS2 track:

• 2 tph Birmingham Curzon Street, Manchester Airport, Manchester Piccadilly HS2, Huddersfield, Leeds
• 2 tph Birmingham New Street, Wolverhampton, Stafford, Crewe, Manchester Airport, Manchester Piccadilly HS2, Huddersfield, Leeds, York, Darlington, Durham, Newcastle

NPR (current TPE route)

• 1 tph Liverpool Lime Street, Manchester Victoria, Stalybridge, Huddersfield, Dewsbury, Leeds, Selby, Hull
• 1 tph Liverpool Lime Street, Manchester Victoria, Stalybridge, Huddersfield, Dewsbury, Leeds, York, Middlesbrough

With that attitude people on the western branch might say: scrap HS2 east, it does nothing for Liverpool, Manchester, Crewe, Preston, Glasgow or Edinburgh. Plus the HS2 line north of Sheffield to Leeds is the NPR line through Yorkshire.

So would the Trans Pennine services be using existing tracks or HS2? If Trans Pennine would be using HS2, then TPE is going to have to get a new fleet of trains that can be used on classic lines, but also on HS2 as any current units they have in their fleet would not be able to operate on HS2 I believe.

 

[LOL The Irony]

So would the Trans Pennine services be using existing tracks or HS2? If Trans Pennine would be using HS2, then TPE is going to have to get a new fleet of trains that can be used on classic lines, but also on HS2 as any current units they have in their fleet would not be able to operate on HS2 I believe.

Will what is the TPE franchise even exist by the time phase 2 fully opens?

 

[Purple Orange]

So would the Trans Pennine services be using existing tracks or HS2? If Trans Pennine would be using HS2, then TPE is going to have to get a new fleet of trains that can be used on classic lines, but also on HS2 as any current units they have in their fleet would not be able to operate on HS2 I believe.

By the time this all happens, new fleet would be required regardless and it will all be under the umbrella of Great British Rail (assuming there isn’t another fundamental change to the railways).

To summarise, I think the 4 fast services running between Leeds & Manchester will also run on to HS2 track from Piccadilly - 2 all the way to Curzon Street and 2 as far as Crewe before rejoining the WCML (this will give far better connections between towns like Crewe & Stafford to Manchester Airport, Leeds, York & Newcastle too). I think the 2 semi-fast services between Leeds & Manchester will run solely on the existing track and then run fast to Liverpool.

Perhaps traction could be 200m classic compatible trains for the 4 fast services and the equivalent of 8-car 350s for the 2 semi-fast services.

 

[BrianW]

Oh well. How sad. Never mind.

HS2 is a gross scandal beyond all measure, and its cancellation would make me exceptionally happy.


Trains are still running into Euston, yes? Then there is capacity.

Scrap HS2, and do it now. Do it yesterday.

Still not answering it.

This is a strange comment. Do you believe that, once the line is at capacity, all trains will come to a halt? The crucial things are: Are the existing trains overcrowded? Is it possible to fit more, or longer, trains on the existing lines and would this result in more passengers travelling?

So which member of Stop HS2 are we dealing with here?

Hmmmh. It looks to me like the first contribution from Aoin was on 4 April, #69 on a thread about Burscough Curve started on 1 April.
There are contributions from Established Member AOwen in between, who tends to 'tell it as it is' somewhat directly. A missed connection? Just a thought ?

 

[PR1Berske]

Hmmmh. It looks to me like the first contribution from Aoin was on 4 April, #69 on a thread about Burscough Curve started on 1 April.
There are contributions from Established Member AOwen in between, who tends to 'tell it as it is' somewhat directly. A missed connection? Just a thought ?

Very Poirot of you not I'm not AOwen

 

[RobShipway]

Will what is the TPE franchise even exist by the time phase 2 fully opens?

Fair point. Although, I cannot see there being much change in the routes any current TOC's operate, but yes TPE may not exist but the same routes would be operated by a TOC.

By the time this all happens, new fleet would be required regardless and it will all be under the umbrella of Great British Rail (assuming there isn’t another fundamental change to the railways).

To summarise, I think the 4 fast services running between Leeds & Manchester will also run on to HS2 track from Piccadilly - 2 all the way to Curzon Street and 2 as far as Crewe before rejoining the WCML (this will give far better connections between towns like Crewe & Stafford to Manchester Airport, Leeds, York & Newcastle too). I think the 2 semi-fast services between Leeds & Manchester will run solely on the existing track and then run fast to Liverpool.

Perhaps traction could be 200m classic compatible trains for the 4 fast services and the equivalent of 8-car 350s for the 2 semi-fast services.

True. The new trains would have to be trains capable of 200mph plus potentially if used on HS2, so I cannot see an equivalent of a class 350 being able to achieve that kind of speed.

 

[Gareth]

I think there will be a short section of new-build line east of Manchester, but I highly doubt there will be anything built in to Liverpool, with HS2 built in full.

Which is Liverpool buggered, of course. But I fear your prediction will turn out to be correct.

 

[Purple Orange]

Which is Liverpool buggered, of course. But I fear your prediction will turn out to be correct.

Well from an HS2 perspective yes, but the new build line east of Manchester may just bring the journey times for Leeds-Manchester proportionally equivalent to the Liverpool-Manchester leg.

 

[LittleAH]

1. A NPR/HS2 route between Liverpool & Manchester might reduce journey times by about 10-15 minutes - and be very expensive. It is the cross-Pennine journey times that need most improvement, especially Manchester to Leeds / York, and Manchester to Sheffield. Unless at least Manchester to Leeds gets a high speed line, I am doubtful of the value of NPR.

The biggest advantage of utilising HS2 for whatever NPR ends up being called, is unlocking capacity in Manchester - most notably Castlefield corridor, but also Victoria. Not to mention by allowing fast services to Warrington/Liverpool, you also free up capacity on the CLC/Chat Moss.

Although there are probably too many vested interests to have allowed it to happen, a much easier - and cheaper way of increasing capacity would have been to abolish first class. In a typical Pendolino, they could have got an almost instant increase of at least 20-30% in the numbers of standard class seats, more than enough to cater for many years of anticipated (pre-Covid) growth.

It doesn't provide A) The capacity that is required B) The option of First Class, which some love to use C) Journey time enhancements.

 

[ohgoditsjames]

Plus the HS2 line north of Sheffield to Leeds is the NPR line through Yorkshire.

Exactly, HS2 has to happen for Leeds to Sheffield NPR to happen but that wasn’t the original question. If the question had said ‘Leeds to Sheffield NPR’ then yes.

 

[edwin_m]

In reality if there was a decision to build (all of) NPR "without" HS2, then those bits of HS2 that are essential to NPR would be built at the same time, without the rest of HS2. So the argument that NPR "needs" HS2 doesn't really stand up.

Personally Leeds to Sheffield NPR looks like an afterthought to HS2 Eastern leg, added in to the already-defined HS2 route when someone decided it was a good idea, but it still leaves about half the journey on slow and busy conventional lines. If they had treated both as equals then the HS2 route would have been modified to bring the junction closer to Sheffield.

 

[The Ham]

In reality if there was a decision to build (all of) NPR "without" HS2, then those bits of HS2 that are essential to NPR would be built at the same time, without the rest of HS2. So the argument that NPR "needs" HS2 doesn't really stand up.

Personally Leeds to Sheffield NPR looks like an afterthought to HS2 Eastern leg, added in to the already-defined HS2 route when someone decided it was a good idea, but it still leaves about half the journey on slow and busy conventional lines. If they had treated both as equals then the HS2 route would have been modified to bring the junction closer to Sheffield.

NPR doesn't truly need HS2, as you highlight, however if HS2 builds then thru are built and don't need funding by NPR.

If NPR has to fund more to provide the same level of service, as such it could mean the the cost benefit becomes worse. If that means that NPR isn't good value for money then it could be that it doesn't get built.

In that regard, to make it cheap enough that it gets built, then it could be argued that NPR needs HS2.