If HS2 was cancelled?

[najaB]

I doubt it would destroy air, there are after all still plenty of flights to both Paris and Brussels.

Significantly fewer than would be 'expected' for those city pairs though. So 'decimate' rather than 'destroy'.

 

[HSTEd]

Well it depends on the definition.
Appears to be several successive decimations - using the historical meaning of the term.

 

[The Ham]

Give £2bn to each of the largest 25 cities to build or expand light rail/tram schemes taking over local rail lines and freeing up capacity for more inter-urban services

£2bn would get you very little in London.

However an important question is would it be the 25 largest cities or the 25 largest urban areas?

Under cities Southampton would get funding whilst Portsmouth wouldn't, however under urban areas they would have to share that funding.

Conversely under urban areas Derby would miss out but would get it if it was just on cities.

 

[quantinghome]

Give £2bn to each of the largest 25 cities to build or expand light rail/tram schemes taking over local rail lines and freeing up capacity for more inter-urban services

It's an interesting take, but this money couldn't be released all at once. If it was made available over the same time period as HS2 construction (15 years), this would equate to about £3bn per annum. I wonder how that compares to the current nationwide annual spend on local transport schemes?

Of course, in reality it's not an either/or issue. Plenty of countries have no problem investing in high speed rail and local transport systems at the same time.

 

[fowler9]

I think that the travel arrangements between the UK and the Republic of Ireland are different from the general ones between the UK and most EU countries. You don't need a Passport from Northern Ireland to the Republic.The train would still have to be really fast to compete with air between say Liverpool and Manchester and Ireland though. I'm not saying it is impossible by the way give a long enough timeline.

 

[6Gman]

If HS2 was cancelled I doubt very much that the railways will see any of the money.
With this government it will go towards tax cuts for business

One of the problems with discussing HS2 is that some people imagine the Govt has £50bn (or whatever figure they choose to use) burning a hole in its pocket and which - if not spent on HS2 - is available for other use - NHS, tax cuts etc.

That's not how it works.

The Govt is proposing to invest something like £50bn over a number of years (like, now to c.2033) so maybe £3bn pa. That money will be required to earn a return (track access charges). It is not money which can just be diverted to revenue spending.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What will be the service pattern of fast trains to London from places like Stoke and Coventry post HS2? Can they still expect the same 3 trains per hour with current journey times maintained?

No.

(And Stoke is 2tph)

 

[Ianno87]

The London HS2 services would presumably be replacing the existing 3 tph fast trains to London, with intermediate stations towards Coventry and beyond served by existing LM EMU services. If fast HS2 services were introduced to Liverpool and Manchester (say 1 tph each), these could replace the XC services between Manchester and Birmingham, with LM EMUs running 1 tph each to Liverpool (via Crewe) and Manchester (via Stoke) in the existing paths out of New St for the LM class 350 EMUs from Birmingham to Liverpool. Thus no more trains into New Street.

That would be a bit of a bummer for Coventry-Euston passengers who would have their journey times nearly doubled....

Also, where are the 400m platforms at New Street (which would be possible at Curzon St)?

 

[MidlandMainlie]

One of the problems with discussing HS2 is that some people imagine the Govt has £50bn (or whatever figure they choose to use) burning a hole in its pocket and which - if not spent on HS2 - is available for other use - NHS, tax cuts etc.

That's not how it works.

The Govt is proposing to invest something like £50bn over a number of years (like, now to c.2033) so maybe £3bn pa. That money will be required to earn a return (track access charges). It is not money which can just be diverted to revenue spending.

I try to imagine HS2 finance is like taking out a mortgage to buy a house. If you decide not to buy the house you don't get the mortgage.

No.

(And Stoke is 2tph)

Isn't 1tph proposed for Stoke calling at Stafford then joining HS2 at Handsacre.

 

[The Planner]

Thats the Liverpool train that calls at Stafford. Cov will still get quick services but not 3 an hour like they do now.

 

[Chris125]

Thus no more trains into New Street.

...and no more capacity, either in number or length of trains, destroying the case for building HS2. An utterly pointless exercise.

 

[The Ham]

...and no more capacity, either in number or length of trains, destroying the case for building HS2. An utterly pointless exercise.

...unless you build underground platforms at New Street, which would massively inflate the cost of HS2 as the cost of an underground station is much more expensive than straight tunnelling.

 

[HSTEd]

There would still be a slight capacity uplift since the shorter journey times would permit much higher density seating but yeah it would kind of wreck the entire point of the scheme.

 

[miami]

I doubt it would destroy air, there are after all still plenty of flights to both Paris and Brussels. It would destroy ferries, though.

A typical flight from London City to Dublin, say BA4468 leaving at 1800, 20 minute checkin, so 1730 arrival is more than comfortable enough, lands 1920, so out of the airport in taxi en-route home at 1930.

From Euston for an 1800 departure it would be a 1750 arrival to be comfortable. It's about 270 miles from there to Holyhead, so assuming a one-stop HS2 (at Crewe I imagine) running at 180mph all the way to Holyhead would be about 100 minutes. It's then at least 65 miles to Dublin, so even if you could maintain 180mph (rather than 100mph in the chunnel) you'd be adding 20 minutes more - 2000, with another 5 minutes to leave the station, that's 2h15 end to end, on the generous (for rail) assumption that
1) Euston and City Airport are equally inconvienient
2) Dublin city and Dublin airport are equally inconvienient
3) 180mph is doable for the entire stretch (this relies on HS2, which goes against this thread's premise, and relies on a HS2 extension to holyhead)
4) 180mph is doable on the bridge

Even then, you'd get home half an hour later than someone taking the flight.

A more realistic timing would be nearer 3 hours.

Flights from Dublin to Heathrow are mainly running for passengers to connect into long-haul flights, or from those in London suburbs heading to Dublin (rather than the Dublin suburbs heading to London). Euston can't compete with either of those cases.

 

[HSTEd]

Worth noting that 180mph is slow for modern high speed rail.

And everywhere else that rail comes close to matching the timeframe for air travel, rail has crushed the air travel.
People don't like planes if there is a reasonable alternative.

 

[boxy321]

It's possible Stoke, along with Stafford, Macclesfield and Stockport could get a classic compatible HS service, probably hourly, but perhaps half hourly if a half portion split could be arranged with another destination at Birmingham Interchange. Coventry could lose non-stop pendolinos but may gain a more frequent and evenly spaced limited stop service on the fast lines. using 110MPH stock.

That'll be the end of my train commutes then. Limited stops on LM 350s full of screaming kids, students playing tunes to their mates and backpackers blocking the aisles. 'The next station is Hampton in Arden. See how this train with 400 people on board halts to allow 2 pensioners to alight.'

Or, London bound: 'Let's play a game. Spot where the next station is on the map. London ETA, 3 hours'.

 

[miami]

That'll be the end of my train commutes then. Limited stops on LM 350s full of screaming kids, students playing tunes to their mates and backpackers blocking the aisles. 'The next station is Hampton in Arden. See how this train with 400 people on board halts to allow 2 pensioners to alight.'

Or, London bound: 'Let's play a game. Spot where the next station is on the map. London ETA, 3 hours'.

Would 2 trains an hour

:00 Birmingham/Airport/Coventry/Rugby/Milton Keynes/Watford/London
:30 Birmingham/Airport/Coventry/Rugby/Northampton/London

On a 12 car 350 really be a problem? Rugby to London would be about 1:05, so Coventry to London about 1h15 on the :00 or 1h30 on the :30.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would 2 trains an hour

:00 Birmingham/Airport/Coventry/Rugby/Milton Keynes/Watford/London
:30 Birmingham/Airport/Coventry/Rugby/Northampton/London

The demand from MK is so large and growing that running anything fast through there that serves Northampton (other than the nonsensical token commuter service put on to shut Northampton Council and local press up) is a no-go idea.

I would expect all post-HS2 south WCML services to call at MKC, and a lot more at WFJ than do at present.

 

[miami]

The demand from MK is so large and growing that running anything fast through there that serves Northampton (other than the nonsensical token commuter service put on to shut Northampton Council and local press up) is a no-go idea.

I would expect all post-HS2 south WCML services to call at MKC, and a lot more at WFJ than do at present.

Well it would only add 5 minutes, but 29 trains an hour (based on 1000-1059 today), or about 340 carriages an hour, seems a ridiculous number, well over twice the current capacity.

 

[The Ham]

A typical flight from London City to Dublin, say BA4468 leaving at 1800, 20 minute checkin, so 1730 arrival is more than comfortable enough, lands 1920, so out of the airport in taxi en-route home at 1930.

From Euston for an 1800 departure it would be a 1750 arrival to be comfortable. It's about 270 miles from there to Holyhead, so assuming a one-stop HS2 (at Crewe I imagine) running at 180mph all the way to Holyhead would be about 100 minutes. It's then at least 65 miles to Dublin, so even if you could maintain 180mph (rather than 100mph in the chunnel) you'd be adding 20 minutes more - 2000, with another 5 minutes to leave the station, that's 2h15 end to end, on the generous (for rail) assumption that
1) Euston and City Airport are equally inconvienient
2) Dublin city and Dublin airport are equally inconvienient
3) 180mph is doable for the entire stretch (this relies on HS2, which goes against this thread's premise, and relies on a HS2 extension to holyhead)
4) 180mph is doable on the bridge

Even then, you'd get home half an hour later than someone taking the flight.

A more realistic timing would be nearer 3 hours.

Flights from Dublin to Heathrow are mainly running for passengers to connect into long-haul flights, or from those in London suburbs heading to Dublin (rather than the Dublin suburbs heading to London). Euston can't compete with either of those cases.

You may be half an hour later hinge, but the arrival time at the station is 20 minutes later, that would enable more people to get there. As such that timing could be better for many.

Likewise, as long as the train doesn't go head to head on timings then there will always be people who will use one over the other as the timing is better.

I would also suggest that Euston is easier to get to for much of London, with the noticeable exception of from the DLR. As such, there could be a bigger market.

The final point is that with any extra stops the train will loose out a bit on the London flows, but will then pick up extra people and so could offset the loss from those who opt to fly from London.

 

[Ianno87]

Well it would only add 5 minutes, but 29 trains an hour (based on 1000-1059 today), or about 340 carriages an hour, seems a ridiculous number, well over twice the current capacity.

You are assuming today's capacity to be adequate and appropriate for a growing town the size of MK - the current peak 3-4tph won't cope for much longer (it only just about does today). Compare this with Reading's peak service...

 

[Comstock]

And everywhere else that rail comes close to matching the timeframe for air travel, rail has crushed the air travel.
People don't like planes if there is a reasonable alternative.

Yes. People seem prepared to take a small time penalty to go by rail rather than air. How small obviously depends on the individual.

In any event a Holyhead-Dublin bridge would be popular with motorists, especially if the car-trains started at Crewe. Add to that freight and people from the Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds conurbation and you get a very popular service without a single London passenger on board.

 

[The Planner]

Would 2 trains an hour

:00 Birmingham/Airport/Coventry/Rugby/Milton Keynes/Watford/London
:30 Birmingham/Airport/Coventry/Rugby/Northampton/London

On a 12 car 350 really be a problem? Rugby to London would be about 1:05, so Coventry to London about 1h15 on the :00 or 1h30 on the :30.

Futile argument anyway as you will still get 2 tph Virgin type services via Cov, there is no way they will all go.

 

[swt_passenger]

Futile argument anyway as you will still get 2 tph Virgin type services via Cov, there is no way they will all go.

There may even be a combined WCML(S) operator by then anyway, with the successors to LM using Pendolinos, or the successors to Virgin using 350s, or something in between...

 

[boxy321]

Just saying as I currently enjoy a superb service to Birmingham without having to use the LM 'mega(bus)trains'. I'm hoping even when the MPs and BBC directors use HS2 there'll still be enough demand for decent trains on the WCML. And they'll be faster up north too of course with tilt.

 

[Class 170101]

A typical flight from London City to Dublin, say BA4468 leaving at 1800, 20 minute checkin, so 1730 arrival is more than comfortable enough, lands 1920, so out of the airport in taxi en-route home at 1930.

From Euston for an 1800 departure it would be a 1750 arrival to be comfortable. It's about 270 miles from there to Holyhead, so assuming a one-stop HS2 (at Crewe I imagine) running at 180mph all the way to Holyhead would be about 100 minutes. It's then at least 65 miles to Dublin, so even if you could maintain 180mph (rather than 100mph in the chunnel) you'd be adding 20 minutes more - 2000, with another 5 minutes to leave the station, that's 2h15 end to end, on the generous (for rail) assumption that
1) Euston and City Airport are equally inconvienient
2) Dublin city and Dublin airport are equally inconvienient
3) 180mph is doable for the entire stretch (this relies on HS2, which goes against this thread's premise, and relies on a HS2 extension to holyhead)
4) 180mph is doable on the bridge

Even then, you'd get home half an hour later than someone taking the flight.

A more realistic timing would be nearer 3 hours.

Flights from Dublin to Heathrow are mainly running for passengers to connect into long-haul flights, or from those in London suburbs heading to Dublin (rather than the Dublin suburbs heading to London). Euston can't compete with either of those cases.

Worth noting that 180mph is slow for modern high speed rail.

And everywhere else that rail comes close to matching the timeframe for air travel, rail has crushed the air travel.
People don't like planes if there is a reasonable alternative.

You are looking at a three hour journey time for rail to be competitive over air travel. However even if Rail isn't quite there I would expect to have more chance of buying a rail ticket on the day than an air fare, never mind the cost.

180mph is indeed somewhat slow for High speed Rail though it should be noted that HS1 phase 2 (Ebbsfleet to St Pancras) is actually planned at 270kph due to the tunnels as where as Phase 1 (Ashford to Ebbsfleet) is built at 300kph - 186mph. The channel tunnel itself is built for 160kph running. It would be interesting to know whether a bridge or tunnel of the length of the Irish Sea could be built for speeds anywhere near 180mph.

EDIT
If such a journey was possible it would release landing slots at many airports to allow other more far flung destinations to be served.

 

[fowler9]

To do Liverpool to Dublin as quick as a plane and for it to be a sensible option you would need to have a 300kph route available for most of the journey. Since this is never going to happen without it being monumentally expensive in the near future perhaps we should stick with the planes and the ferries. HS2 makes a lot more sense in at least the short to medium term if we are going to invest in high speed rail.