Midlands Rail Hub 20m extra seats

[swt_passenger]

Just focussing on this statement (from post #213), I’m a bit confused:

• Four additional trains per hour towards the East Midlands, one of which will also serve the North East, subject to future funding decisions…

Is that a 3rd long distance XC service to somewhere like Newcastle via York? The sort of journey that has currently been cut to about 2 hourly because there’s no suitable ECML paths?

 

[The Planner]

Am I correct that the east chord and more services to East Midlands mainly came to life as an alternative to HS2 spur to East Midlands parkway?

No. It was always about more local services towards Leicester, and to a smaller extent towards Burton.

 

[quantinghome]

Just focussing on this statement (from post #213), I’m a bit confused:

Is that a 3rd long distance XC service to somewhere like Newcastle via York? The sort of journey that has currently been cut to about 2 hourly because there’s no suitable ECML paths?

This is the schematic of additional services. Looks like the additional service to the NE would in fact be going to Leeds. If so, it wouldn't touch the ECML proper and presume would take over the slot of the 'Yorkshire Flyer' between Sheffield and Leeds so not require any infrastructure to be upgraded north of Derby.

 

[swt_passenger]

View attachment 207388
This is the schematic of additional services. Looks like the additional service to the NE would in fact be going to Leeds. If so, it wouldn't touch the ECML proper and presume would take over the slot of the 'Yorkshire Flyer' between Sheffield and Leeds so not require any infrastructure to be upgraded north of Derby.

Thanks for digging that diagram out so quickly. So “north east ish”, but not quite north east of England…

 

[Palmerston]

The document says construction not due to start until 2030 and take about 4 years, so nothing would open before 2034! They don't seem to be in a hurry.

 

[Farigiraf]

A minor point, but isn't it counterintuitive for the 2 restored Cross-City paths to be split between Redditch and Bromsgrove, rather than having both allocated to Redditch?
Redditch is a sizeable town which could certainly justify a 4tph service (especially by 2035 or whenever it's complete), while Bromsgrove will get an additional 2-3 train services to Birmingham anyway, assuming the extra Hereford/Cardiff trains stop there. Would be rather strange for Bromsgrove to go up from 3tph to Birmingham to 6 or 7, while Redditch only gets 1 extra train.

I'm guessing the main limiter is the single-tracked sections of the branch, as presumably even with the loop at Alvechurch, it couldn't support an every 15 mins service. But then shouldn't this be the time to enable such a thing, when you're already investing hundreds of millions in the Birmingham-Worcester/Cheltenham line anyway?

 

[cle]

Also, am I remembering the additional train path incorrectly? There seems to be mention of Birmingham-Swindon, whereas I thought there was meant to be an extra Bristol train at one point in the plans?

I had thought so too - seemingly Swindon is the replacement to that. I am assuming it will run via Worcester if it is shown via Bromsgrove (vs an extension of the mentioned Oxford-Moor St service).

In turn, I wonder if the Cardiff service may now run via Bristol Parkway - vs via Gloucester. So it at least adds a service to the Bristol metro area. The Chepstow route has 2tph in some hours but unsure if it needs more.

This is the schematic of additional services. Looks like the additional service to the NE would in fact be going to Leeds. If so, it wouldn't touch the ECML proper and presume would take over the slot of the 'Yorkshire Flyer' between Sheffield and Leeds so not require any infrastructure to be upgraded north of Derby.

Makes sense - curious if this is going to run express (B'ham - Derby - Sheffield - Wakefield - Leeds only) - or if it works better to mop up the Tamworth, Burton, Chesterfield calls and local flows, and cut some from XC. Operating it out of Moor St will be weird too.

 

[The Planner]

A minor point, but isn't it counterintuitive for the 2 restored Cross-City paths to be split between Redditch and Bromsgrove, rather than having both allocated to Redditch?
Redditch is a sizeable town which could certainly justify a 4tph service (especially by 2035 or whenever it's complete), while Bromsgrove will get an additional 2-3 train services to Birmingham anyway, assuming the extra Hereford/Cardiff trains stop there. Would be rather strange for Bromsgrove to go up from 3tph to Birmingham to 6 or 7, while Redditch only gets 1 extra train.

I'm guessing the main limiter is the single-tracked sections of the branch, as presumably even with the loop at Alvechurch, it couldn't support an every 15 mins service. But then shouldn't this be the time to enable such a thing, when you're already investing hundreds of millions in the Birmingham-Worcester/Cheltenham line anyway?

You already have part answered it. Your assuming more will stop at Bromsgrove. You can't do 4 to Redditch because of junction capacity at Barnt Green with MRH as well as the single line.

 

[quantinghome]

Makes sense - curious if this is going to run express (B'ham - Derby - Sheffield - Wakefield - Leeds only) - or if it works better to mop up the Tamworth, Burton, Chesterfield calls and local flows, and cut some from XC.

Surely all Birmingham-Leeds/NE services would be under the XC banner (or whatever form of intercity service it becomes under GBR).

It would be logical to have fewer stops on the longer distance train.

Operating it out of Moor St will be weird too.

Yes. I'm really not sure how it would work. Would all XC services from the Water Orton direction use Moor Street? From the look of it you couldn't put all XC trains through Moor Street because there's no connection through Wolverhampton. So they would have to be split between stations. Which Birmingham station do you head to if you want the next train to ___? Fine for those who are confident searching online but not great for someone unfamiliar with rail travel.

 

[The exile]

Yes. I'm really not sure how it would work. Would all XC services from the Water Orton direction use Moor Street? From the look of it you couldn't put all XC trains through Moor Street because there's no connection through Wolverhampton. So they would have to be split between stations. Which Birmingham station do you head to if you want the next train to ___? Fine for those who are confident searching online but not great for someone unfamiliar with rail travel.

Already the case if you want the next train to Leamington Spa or Banbury, surely.

 

[Zomboid]

Unless there's some insane megaproject to consolidate all services into a single station in Birmingham, there will always be some destinations served from both New St and Moor St.

Though would it be complete lunacy to wonder whether the increase in capacity at Moor St could take enough away from New St to enable all the longer distance trains - including Chiltern - to go there, leaving Moor St for purely local travel? I suspect the answer to that would be "no", though!

 

[ABB125]

A few observations I have:

• There seems to be rather a lot of new infrastructure proposed for what is, is the grand scheme of things, not that many additional services (unless the plan is to divert some trains from New Street in addition to new services). Notably, six tracks along the approach into Moor Street - rather more generous than at New Street!. Apparently 4 and 5 track options were considered but not taken forward - but no further detail is given. I don't object to this in principle, but it does feel rather gold-plated compared to what we're used to in the UK. Two approach tracks and 3 bay platforms for the 3tph service proposed on the west chord seems particularly excessive (assuming that Chiltern trains run through to Snow Hill so no longer need to use the bays)
• The "original" plans from maybe a decade ago had both chords landing on the south side of the approach into Moor Street and using the same tracks. This had the benefit of allowing through services between the two chords, should that be desirable (and arguably could allow more efficient infrastructure utilisation). There is no mention of this anywhere, and there don't appear to be any immediately obvious engineering obstacles to this setup (though I appreciate this would require some more creative viaducts). Actually, this is very briefly mentioned in the FAQ document
• The consultation brochure uses weasly words in order to avoid mentioning "electrification" (or lack thereof) anywhere (except in reference to works south of Longbridge). Interestingly, the exact same two paragraphs are used in the main brochure and the FAQs, whereas for at least some other topics the text is different between the two documents
• I find it very interesting that they repeatedly mention "new retaining walls" but almost gloss over the new viaducts
• The existing Digbeth viaduct is around 20m wide and can easily fit 4 tracks with room to spare. So the proposed 15m width of the new viaduct to the north seems, again, a little gold-plated (and yes, I know there are standards to be met etc)
• The scheme will kill off (likely permanently) a large amount of Digbeth's nightlife due to the land acquisition along Lower Trinity Street
• The land acquisition map implies that Network Rail doesn't currently own the bit of "spare" viaduct where the never-completed curve towards the ex-LNWR lines leaves the ex-GWR lines
• The base mapping shown in the drawings is somewhat out of date in places
• Moor Street station is already somewhat elevated above the surrounding area (except at the tunnel end, obviously) - was some form of underpass considered at any point instead of a new footbridge? I can't recall coming across any elevated stations elsewhere in Europe that use a footbridge - they all have underpasses...
• It's not mentioned anywhere that I could immediately see, but the proposed extension to the P4/5 island appears to be around 40m. The Sectional Appendix says the current lengths are 202m, but measurements on Google Maps would suggest the usable length is closer to 190m (since the buffer stops take up some of the length)
• I would argue that repeatedly mentioning the reinstated 2tph Cross City services is somewhat disingenuous
• They very specifically don't say whether there will be extension to the 4 tracks south of Longbridge (yes, I know that's not part of this consultation) but I would hope that the plan is 4 tracks all the way to Barnt Green with the Redditch branch taking one pair and Bromsgrove the other. A quick glance at satellite imagery suggests that historically this was the case, although the electrification masts appear to have been placed in part of the vacant trackbed as well as what looks like some electrification switching equipment a bit north of Barnt Green station. (Who remembers the grade-separated diagrams which featured in whichever Route Strategy document covered this area a decade ago?!)
• The FAQs state that construction of the Midland Metro extension through Curzon Street to link up with the already built (but currently isolated) bit through Digbeth will be completed before 2030. We'll see about that! And even if construction work is finished, I bet there won't be any trams running until HS2 opens...
• [pedant mode] A few grammar and spelling issues that I would have expected to be corrected, given the number of checks the documentation will have gone through. For example, "one of the cities busiest... stations", and "a new footbridge and lift to serve all platforms" - must be a very fancy lift if there's only one but it somehow manages to serve all the platforms! Also, the FAQs seemingly don't realise that P5 is the opposite face of P4 and therefore to get between the two you don't, in fact, have to use the new footbridge... [/pedant mode]

I'm hoping I might be able to go along to one of the in-person consultations, but at the moment it looks like I won't have time unfortunately

 

[Palmerston]

A few observations I have:

• There seems to be rather a lot of new infrastructure proposed for what is, is the grand scheme of things, not that many additional services (unless the plan is to divert some trains from New Street in addition to new services). Notably, six tracks along the approach into Moor Street - rather more generous than at New Street!. Apparently 4 and 5 track options were considered but not taken forward - but no further detail is given. I don't object to this in principle, but it does feel rather gold-plated compared to what we're used to in the UK. Two approach tracks and 3 bay platforms for the 3tph service proposed on the west chord seems particularly excessive (assuming that Chiltern trains run through to Snow Hill so no longer need to use the bays)

The west chord would have 5 tph (the 3tph for longer distance services and 2tph on the Camp Hill line). I presume they all terminate at Moor Street.

 

[The exile]

• I find it very interesting that they repeatedly mention "new retaining walls" but almost gloss over the new viaducts

Might this in part be due to the fact that the viaducts will be entirely on railway land (by the time they’re being built, at least), whereas retaining walls could well have someone else’s land on the other side of them - ie their direct impact on 3rd parties is greater. The impact the viaducts will have is at the land acquisition stage (and temporary disruption during construction) - in the case of the retaining walls, its permanent.

 

[TheDavibob]

There seems to be rather a lot of new infrastructure proposed for what is, is the grand scheme of things, not that many additional services (unless the plan is to divert some trains from New Street in addition to new services). Notably, six tracks along the approach into Moor Street - rather more generous than at New Street!. Apparently 4 and 5 track options were considered but not taken forward - but no further detail is given. I don't object to this in principle, but it does feel rather gold-plated compared to what we're used to in the UK. Two approach tracks and 3 bay platforms for the 3tph service proposed on the west chord seems particularly excessive (assuming that Chiltern trains run through to Snow Hill so no longer need to use the bays)

I assume the plan is for, at least, all of the existing Cross Country "locals" to be rediverted to Moor Street (so two Nottingham, two Leicester (possibly) and a Cardiff), which is 5 + 4 based on the uplift on these routes alone.

If (as would probably be sensible) all services to Hereford and via Water Orton are pulled to Moor Street then the main capacity release is actually at New Street, which isn't mentioned directly here (the Cross City uplift isn't constrained by New Street capacity at the moment anyway).

 

[cle]

What I’ve not seen is a plan for which services, other than Cross City - would be added to New St due to relocation to Moor St.

As such, I think it’s fair to say that the Cardiff, Hereford, Bristol/Swindon and the Leeds - plus additional to Leicester/Nottingham - would all be net new services from Moor St as opposed to relocation and as such, we’d have many locations where services were served from both.

Ultimately it might be better to consolidate for frequency, certainly Leicester which will be more turn up and go (if at 3-4tph) and local, than Cardiff or Leeds which are further afield.

 

[The Planner]

What I’ve not seen is a plan for which services, other than Cross City - would be added to New St due to relocation to Moor St.

As such, I think it’s fair to say that the Cardiff, Hereford, Bristol/Swindon and the Leeds - plus additional to Leicester/Nottingham - would all be net new services from Moor St as opposed to relocation and as such, we’d have many locations where services were served from both.

Ultimately it might be better to consolidate for frequency, certainly Leicester which will be more turn up and go (if at 3-4tph) and local, than Cardiff or Leeds which are further afield.

You assume you are going to back fill.

 

[Palmerston]

You assume you are going to back fill.

Can you expand on what you're getting at here?

 

[ABB125]

Can you expand on what you're getting at here?

I think something along the lines of "the services diverted from New Street won't be replaced with anything else". Or at least, not as many replacements. Primarily to improve punctuality id have thought

 

[cle]

I think they would be publicising the new unlocked New St services, surely. So I can only assume these new ones are on top of the existing ones. Unless the 2x Cross City are the entirety of it! And they are already doing so.

There is no way they would not replace them, just to ease up reliability.

For relocations, it would make sense to remove terminating services, and shorter-forms (although they have permissive working) - and so ones like Hereford and Leicester do make sense to get into Moor St.

New St will likely lose a Pendo per hour too.

For New St - it's the wrong 'pair' of lines, but you'd want to add longer XC services (2tph x 8 car EMUs to Liverpool and Manchester, maintain a long Lancs/Scotland) - even as some of these might shift to Curzon St in time.

 

[The Planner]

Can you expand on what you're getting at here?

I think something along the lines of "the services diverted from New Street won't be replaced with anything else". Or at least, not as many replacements. Primarily to improve punctuality id have thought

This.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Jul 2026 ==

I think they would be publicising the new unlocked New St services, surely. So I can only assume these new ones are on top of the existing ones. Unless the 2x Cross City are the entirety of it! And they are already doing so.

There is no way they would not replace them, just to ease up reliability.

Why not?

New St will likely lose a Pendo per hour too.

Why? Thats HS2 related if that happens, not MRH.

 

[cle]

Why not?

Because there isn't really a net gain. It's money for nothing... reliability isn't that bad that things are cancelled all the time. All this investment for some 'what if...' breathing space at New St? Instead of net-new capacity (eg Ely) - nope. A luxury to be lambasted, much like investing for diversionary purposes often is on here.

Or, this is all for the Cross City reinstatement - which it sounds like in your view.

We don't even use what we have, but this board pretends we do - many routes are not even at pre-pandemic levels, let alone growth on top of that, and in this case, the service to Manchester Airport, the Camp Hill paths...various other changes via Tame Bridge - it has happened within the 'footprint'.


Pendo - yes I meant HS2 of course but might impact New St in the same time-frame.

 

[andyjhatton]

Transport Matters YouTube video on the Midlands Rail Hub project

 

[BrianW]

Transport Matters YouTube video on the Midlands Rail Hub project

These things should carry a date- then we could see and measure progress, or delay, backsliding etc.
Interesting historical document. Thank you.

 

[overthere 2]

You can now tell Midlands Rail Hub directly what you think of their plans:

Comments invited for major changes to Birmingham’s railways

An eight-week consultation has opened into proposals by the Midlands Rail Hub Alliance for a major upgrade to railways around Birmingham.

www.railadvent.co.uk

Comments invited for major changes to Birmingham’s railways​

• Roger Smith
• Posted: 2 weeks ago
• Add a comment

• Last updated: 8th July, 2026 at 11:32 am

Share:

Chiltern Trains service at Birmingham Moor Street // Credit: Chiltern Railways

An eight-week consultation has opened for proposals by the Midlands Rail Hub Alliance for a major upgrade to railways around Birmingham.
The Midlands Rail Hub is designed to deliver faster, better, and more frequent journeys in the region, boost economic growth, create regeneration opportunities, and improve access to HS2 at Curzon Street.
An additional benefit will be that better integration between the railway, buses and trams will improve journeys by public transport across the West Midlands.

During the consultation, views and comments will be sought on plans to upgrade the railway and transform Birmingham Moor Street station he trains that use it.

Link to consultation here:

https://www.mrhalliance.co.uk/home

 

[172007]

The last week has seen a lot of chatter on social media and also legecy news outlets like the BBC over the Rail Hub plans. The majority of which focuses on the proposed additional platforms A & B on the Curzon Street side. These platforms will it seems require the conpulsory purchase and demolition of various nightlife venues and alsp the West Midlands branch of Friends of the Earth.

Digbeth demolition fears amid rail upgrade

Rail plans promise growth but could wipe out the Warehouse and Night Owl, in Birmingham's Digbeth.

www.bbc.co.uk

Two well-known Digbeth community venues say they are worried about their future as plans for a major rail upgrade could see their buildings demolished within the decade.
The Night Owl music venue and The Warehouse, home to Birmingham Friends of the Earth, are among properties potentially affected by the £1.75bn Midlands Rail Hub project between Birmingham Moor Street and Bordesley stations.
The concerns come as Digbeth undergoes major regeneration, including the extension of the West Midlands Metro and the BBC's move into the former Typhoo Tea Factory.
Shannon Davies, who works in events and marketing at The Night Owl, said the venue played an important role in Birmingham's cultural scene.
"People are telling us how much of a safe space it is for them, how they value it as a third space, how they've built community and they've made friends.
"We've had weddings at the Night Owl.
"People have had life moments, I submitted my dissertation in the Night Owl, and it means a hell of a lot to people."

Image source,Karen Leach
Image caption,
The Warehouse could be demolished by 2030
As part of plans for the Midlands Rail Hub, sections of the Bordesley Viaduct would be widened but some businesses in the area say as a result they will have to close by 2030 because their premises will have been demolished.
The Night Owl has hosted live music, club nights and community events for more than a decade, becoming a fixture of the city's independent nightlife.
Davies said the loss of the venue would leave a huge gap in the area.
"Whether we are flattened, used as a construction site, or impossible to get to, we won't survive it.
"All of us that work at the Night Owl are shocked, stressed, heartbroken by everything."

Image source,Connor Madehell
Image caption,
Shannon Davies said staff were "shocked, stressed and heartbroken" by the news
Karen Leach, chief executive of Birmingham Friends of the Earth, said The Warehouse was more than an office building, serving as a community space for environmental groups, charities and local organisations.
"It's not just our property, this building. So many different groups from the city meet in that building.
"We've just got this building into the perfect state to do what we need it to do, and now this comes along and derails us," Leach said.
She said uncertainty over the building's future had left organisations concerned about what could be lost if demolition goes ahead.
"We strongly support the rail proposals… but we don't think that this is the right way to do it."
The rail scheme is intended to increase capacity and improve services across the Midlands, with new infrastructure planned between Birmingham Moor Street and Bordesley.
A spokesperson for the Midlands Rail Hub Alliance said it recognised the potential impact on businesses and organisations in the area.
"Midlands Rail Hub is a major investment in the region's railway which will unlock access to opportunities, create jobs, boost economic growth, and enable new houses to be built, benefiting local people, businesses, and communities."
The spokesperson said further consultation would take place as the project developed, with efforts being made to balance improvements to the rail network with the needs of the local community.

 

[ABB125]

The last week has seen a lot of chatter on social media and also legecy news outlets like the BBC over the Rail Hub plans. The majority of which focuses on the proposed additional platforms A & B on the Curzon Street side. These platforms will it seems require the conpulsory purchase and demolition of various nightlife venues and alsp the West Midlands branch of Friends of the Earth.

Digbeth demolition fears amid rail upgrade

Rail plans promise growth but could wipe out the Warehouse and Night Owl, in Birmingham's Digbeth.

www.bbc.co.uk

I thought it interesting that, in their social media postings, The Night Owl (one of the venues mentioned) said they knew no more than what was already public. MRH claim to have engaged with potentially affected businesses etc. Is one party bending the truth slightly? Of course, both positions could be true at the same time...
Curiously, I haven't come across anything from other venues that will be in a similar position.

 

[172007]

Other business are affected. The Custard Factory owners are Oval (https://ovalrealestate.com) and have major plans for the area. International Waqf Fund (https://waqf.org) located Sansome St North will believe will lose there premesis for the project. Neither make any refference to the project. The current owners of the old Tesla dealership at the end of the A45 road will also lose part of their site.

The former Dowding Mills / Sulzer site is now a construction site for 190 Camp Hill project (https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/complex/4840) of which parts are semi built and the 26 story tower is a concrete core only. This construction site appears to have ground to a halt since the Midland Rail Hub has had 11 Downing street allocate funds to the Midland Rail Hub project. The flyovers pass immediately in front of probably floors 1-4 of this project and may be why construction has stopped; may be they didn't think it would happen.

Plenty of sites affected yet a google search and media only pickup on the Owl.

 

[BrianW]

Other business are affected. The Custard Factory owners are Oval (https://ovalrealestate.com) and have major plans for the area. International Waqf Fund (https://waqf.org) located Sansome St North will believe will lose there premesis for the project. Neither make any refference to the project. The current owners of the old Tesla dealership at the end of the A45 road will also lose part of their site.

The former Dowding Mills / Sulzer site is now a construction site for 190 Camp Hill project (https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/complex/4840) of which parts are semi built and the 26 story tower is a concrete core only. This construction site appears to have ground to a halt since the Midland Rail Hub has had 11 Downing street allocate funds to the Midland Rail Hub project. The flyovers pass immediately in front of probably floors 1-4 of this project and may be why construction has stopped; may be they didn't think it would happen.

Plenty of sites affected yet a google search and media only pickup on the Owl.

Oh dear, an omelette to be made without breaking eggs?? Is no compensation paid these days? Is every business a going concern that cannot be moved. If it was me, I would complain of course.

 

[Palmerston]

The last week has seen a lot of chatter on social media and also legecy news outlets like the BBC over the Rail Hub plans. The majority of which focuses on the proposed additional platforms A & B on the Curzon Street side. These platforms will it seems require the conpulsory purchase and demolition of various nightlife venues and alsp the West Midlands branch of Friends of the Earth.

Digbeth demolition fears amid rail upgrade

Rail plans promise growth but could wipe out the Warehouse and Night Owl, in Birmingham's Digbeth.

www.bbc.co.uk

We strongly support the rail proposals… but we don't think that this is the right way to do it.

Helpful of them to suggest a detailed alternative way to expand rail capacity.