...er blah, dunno why we're arguing - knowing the gov, much of it ain't likely to happen anyway. I'm betting they'll get as far as brum, preston if we're lucky... and even then it'll be grossly scaled down, with much lower line speed than they're quoting now...
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
NR High speed proposal
- Thread starter j0hn0
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
tbtc
Veteran Member
Going such a circuitous route around the country would be a really daft political muddle - a classic "compromise" that doesn't really solve anything (but ticks lots of boxes).
If you're going to go from London to Leeds/ Newcastle, there's no point in going via Birmingham/ Manchester - it's too much of a diversion. Similarly, Birmingham/ Manchester to Glasgow via Newcastle is a really strange way of doing it.
Much as it pains me (living in Yorkshrie), the best way to do it would be roughly alongside the WCML.
Trying to "tick all boxes" with one route would be a real mess, and would destroy the business case for a second route north. At least doing it this way gives scope for another route.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I'd agree with you there.
The business case gets weaker the further out of London you go. Whilst the initial route to the West Midlands has a firm case, the cost/ benefit ratio gets harder further north. Wouldn't be surprised if they run them on existing tracks north of Preston at "normal" speeds.
Put it another way - if you're going to build 400 miles of "High Speed" line, you'd be better doing a London - Preston route and a London - York route (with services running further north on conventional lines) than to build just one London - Scotland route.
I *think* the High speed 2 company were looking at 4 tracking parts of the HSL. I heard the bit about Network Rail saying 2 routes would be ideal - they would. But the problem as I see it is access to London - and so does the report. 'Identifying a suitable location for the New Line London terminus has been identified as one of the top three risks to the programme'
The most underused/easiest corridor is the Chilterns and Northolt into Old Oak, and this is one HS 2 are looking at.
The Network rail report identifies two options for accessing London:
- Displacing current intercity services from Euston, diverting the inner DCs to Crossrail via OOC.
Or
Displacing EMT services from St Pancras, replacing everything by HSR and making the MML into a Thameslink commuter route
All fine and dandy I'm sure, but a lot of smaller places will simply lose intercity services if they are not on the HSL - some of these could be quite substantial like Stafford or Crewe. Is that politically acceptable? I'm not so sure. What about loading gauge? Clearly no double deck services could service Euston or St Pancras very easily, so much for European interoperability.
The fact is there is no easy options putting new stations in any of the cities - which is why it costs so much. 1 line into London with a new terminus is just about possible with big expense, 2 would be a miracle.
The most underused/easiest corridor is the Chilterns and Northolt into Old Oak, and this is one HS 2 are looking at.
The Network rail report identifies two options for accessing London:
- Displacing current intercity services from Euston, diverting the inner DCs to Crossrail via OOC.
Or
Displacing EMT services from St Pancras, replacing everything by HSR and making the MML into a Thameslink commuter route
All fine and dandy I'm sure, but a lot of smaller places will simply lose intercity services if they are not on the HSL - some of these could be quite substantial like Stafford or Crewe. Is that politically acceptable? I'm not so sure. What about loading gauge? Clearly no double deck services could service Euston or St Pancras very easily, so much for European interoperability.
The fact is there is no easy options putting new stations in any of the cities - which is why it costs so much. 1 line into London with a new terminus is just about possible with big expense, 2 would be a miracle.
Id' have been more tempted to retain existing routes, although capacity and frequency could probably be greatly decreased.
Journeys for intermediate stations could easily be improved on the WCML alone by diverting all services to Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham and Scotland onto HS2, but retaining a much slower (but still 125mph tilting Pendo) stopping service for places like Rugby, Milton Keynes, Coventry... people from these cities will still want to go to Glasgow, Manchester and Birmingham and the opportunity should be there for them to do so on a direct train or, at the very least, up the track a bit to change onto a High Speed Train.
I don't see where there can't be an hourly Pendolino service London-Manchester by traditional WCML, calling at most intermediate stations of course, but it would still be good for people who live in between London and Manchester who may not have access to HS2.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I actually disagree. Glasgow and Edinburgh to London in just over 2 hours seriously competes with the air market. Whilst at the moment, city centre to city centre often wins it for rail, a lot of air travellers still choose planes because they can be quicker if you turn up late and don't check bags...
But 2 hours would really reduce people flying, and be really beneficial for Scotland (and indeed, for England as well). Passengers from across Scotland would choose this option over the plane. It's about 1 hour 20-30 minutes to fly to London, and by London I usually mean Heathrow, Stansted or Luton. So station door to station door will probably be quicker than airport door to airport door. I think there's definitely a strong case to serve Scotland, but the Scottish government (whoever they are at that time) would really need to fund at least all the track in Scotland, as we are the ones who benefit most from this link.
Journeys for intermediate stations could easily be improved on the WCML alone by diverting all services to Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham and Scotland onto HS2, but retaining a much slower (but still 125mph tilting Pendo) stopping service for places like Rugby, Milton Keynes, Coventry... people from these cities will still want to go to Glasgow, Manchester and Birmingham and the opportunity should be there for them to do so on a direct train or, at the very least, up the track a bit to change onto a High Speed Train.
I don't see where there can't be an hourly Pendolino service London-Manchester by traditional WCML, calling at most intermediate stations of course, but it would still be good for people who live in between London and Manchester who may not have access to HS2.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I actually disagree. Glasgow and Edinburgh to London in just over 2 hours seriously competes with the air market. Whilst at the moment, city centre to city centre often wins it for rail, a lot of air travellers still choose planes because they can be quicker if you turn up late and don't check bags...
But 2 hours would really reduce people flying, and be really beneficial for Scotland (and indeed, for England as well). Passengers from across Scotland would choose this option over the plane. It's about 1 hour 20-30 minutes to fly to London, and by London I usually mean Heathrow, Stansted or Luton. So station door to station door will probably be quicker than airport door to airport door. I think there's definitely a strong case to serve Scotland, but the Scottish government (whoever they are at that time) would really need to fund at least all the track in Scotland, as we are the ones who benefit most from this link.
Last edited:
DaveNewcastle
Established Member
Interesting!
There's actually a planning model which shows better cost-benefit outcomes by investing in those parts of a network which ARE MORE REMOTE from the hub/capital and which have LOWER passenger useage.
The 1st reason for this is simple - its so much cheaper to build (for example) 50 miles of new rail thru Lincolnshire, Somerset, Hampshire, Northumberland, Shropshire or Stirlingshire ; than 50 miles thru London or other any densely populated areas.
The 2nd reason is more complex - if we introduce the comparitively modest numbers of passengers over the more remote stretches, but realise that they are partly NEW passengers because of the increased speed, and then we add them to the long distance passengers who only become NEW passenger BECAUSE the further reaches of the journey have become accessible, then we get a massive increase in passengers per investment.
Simply put: if we create several 50-mile-long 300km/hr sections far away from London and just upgraded some of the existing links out of London, then we'd get lots and lots of new journey routes becoming attractive to passengers because of their speed, their availability and connectivity, at a much lower investment than new platforms in London and new routes thru London.
As 3 quick examples, think of the impact of just:
300 km/hr links between Bristol & Plymouth, Edinburgh & Perth, Leicester & Liverpool, Sheffield & Leeds. (these are just to illustrate the theory, not researched examples).
All cheaper than building anything in London, Birmingam & Glasgow.
There's actually a planning model which shows better cost-benefit outcomes by investing in those parts of a network which ARE MORE REMOTE from the hub/capital and which have LOWER passenger useage.
The 1st reason for this is simple - its so much cheaper to build (for example) 50 miles of new rail thru Lincolnshire, Somerset, Hampshire, Northumberland, Shropshire or Stirlingshire ; than 50 miles thru London or other any densely populated areas.
The 2nd reason is more complex - if we introduce the comparitively modest numbers of passengers over the more remote stretches, but realise that they are partly NEW passengers because of the increased speed, and then we add them to the long distance passengers who only become NEW passenger BECAUSE the further reaches of the journey have become accessible, then we get a massive increase in passengers per investment.
Simply put: if we create several 50-mile-long 300km/hr sections far away from London and just upgraded some of the existing links out of London, then we'd get lots and lots of new journey routes becoming attractive to passengers because of their speed, their availability and connectivity, at a much lower investment than new platforms in London and new routes thru London.
As 3 quick examples, think of the impact of just:
300 km/hr links between Bristol & Plymouth, Edinburgh & Perth, Leicester & Liverpool, Sheffield & Leeds. (these are just to illustrate the theory, not researched examples).
All cheaper than building anything in London, Birmingam & Glasgow.
tbtc
Veteran Member
The first sugestion makes sense - linking CrossRail to places like Watford could be a great idea, and there'd be plenty trains terminating at Paddington anyway that could easily be extended to the WCML.
The second suggestion would mean downgrading the MML to a commuter route (which wouldn't surprise me), but *would* mean having to wire the MML, which I can't see happening in the next 20 years at this rate
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
That's an interesting argument. I certainly agree it'd be a lot cheaper to build 100 miles of "High Speed" line in more "rural" areas. However, building 100 miles around London would free up a lot of capacity on other routes.
For example, the Virgin Trains bid for the ECML (with a "High Speed" line from London to Doncaster) would have meant a lot of spare paths on the "classic" ECML which they intended to use for new services line London - Retford - Sheffield.
So, a "High Speed" line from London to Preston would mean existing paths on the WCML could be used to provide better services to places like Milton Keynes...
...whereas a High Speed line from Preston to Glasgow would free up a few paths, but certainly not as valuable
Plus, a London - Preston line would benefit London - Birmingham, London - Manchester, London - Liverpool etc (meaning more markets benefit)
(I'm using Preston as somewhere roughly half way between the two, with the idea that building a "High Speed" line from London to Preston would have the same cut in journey times as a Preston - Glasgow one)
Waverley125
Member
the problem with saying 'well HS3 will serve the east coast' is that HS3 will, in my opinion, never get built.
The politicians are so in love with the WCMf*****gL that the fact it's just had a multibillion pounds upgrade doesn't seem to register.
If HS2 goes northwest, Leeds, Sheffield and Newcastle will get screwed over again, and never get HS rail, just as we never got supertram.
Euston ought to be the terminating point, it's got space to extend the platforms backwards to take HS trains, while present commuter services can be diverted away. Going via Milton Keynes will avoid building through the chilterns (which IIRC is a SSSI and an AoONB).
London-Birmingham-Manchester-Leeds-Newcastle-Edinburgh-Glasgow would be a compromise line, but the best long-term option for Britain as it would ensure the growth of the network e.g. Leeds-Sheffield-Nottingham-London to cut journey times from Yorkshire to London, Manchester-Preston-Carlisle-Glasgow to reduce northbound journey times. It would also include the two major east-west lines, Leeds-Manchester and Edinburgh-Glasgow, which would have massive benefits.
And it would also ease congestion on the WCML (which happens exclusively on the south of the line, as the number of trains using it fall sharply once past Stafford) and not abandon the east coast.
The politicians are so in love with the WCMf*****gL that the fact it's just had a multibillion pounds upgrade doesn't seem to register.
If HS2 goes northwest, Leeds, Sheffield and Newcastle will get screwed over again, and never get HS rail, just as we never got supertram.
Euston ought to be the terminating point, it's got space to extend the platforms backwards to take HS trains, while present commuter services can be diverted away. Going via Milton Keynes will avoid building through the chilterns (which IIRC is a SSSI and an AoONB).
London-Birmingham-Manchester-Leeds-Newcastle-Edinburgh-Glasgow would be a compromise line, but the best long-term option for Britain as it would ensure the growth of the network e.g. Leeds-Sheffield-Nottingham-London to cut journey times from Yorkshire to London, Manchester-Preston-Carlisle-Glasgow to reduce northbound journey times. It would also include the two major east-west lines, Leeds-Manchester and Edinburgh-Glasgow, which would have massive benefits.
And it would also ease congestion on the WCML (which happens exclusively on the south of the line, as the number of trains using it fall sharply once past Stafford) and not abandon the east coast.
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 19,652
Surely you are contradicting yourself here. You say to use Euston as the terminating point, then say its the most congested section. The reason its congested is that you cant often put anything else infront of Pendos as they get run down. The Slows have commuter and freight, so you move the existing Pendos to the slows, where does the commuter traffic go ??
It cant go into Paddington without some fancy grade seperation at Willesden and Acton, and its more or less full, and certainly will be by IEP and Crossrail. Marylebone, unless you find somewhere else for Chiltern to layover and build another couple of platforms, thats a no. St Pancras cant really cope with EMT traffic it has now, let alone anything more. Your only real option is to try and get it across to KX.
It cant go into Paddington without some fancy grade seperation at Willesden and Acton, and its more or less full, and certainly will be by IEP and Crossrail. Marylebone, unless you find somewhere else for Chiltern to layover and build another couple of platforms, thats a no. St Pancras cant really cope with EMT traffic it has now, let alone anything more. Your only real option is to try and get it across to KX.
Waverley, to go from London to Glasgow via Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle and Edinburgh is so convoluted that the Scots won't benefit it all from it, and to be honest benefits for Leeds and Newcastle will be significantly reduced as well. I believe that the best option would be a split at either Birmingham for Sheffield, Leeds and Newcastle or somewhere South of Birmingham for Leicester as well.
I also think that the WCML enhancement is still a worthwhile project. Speeds are now matching what the East Coast has had for many years before it. HS2 should not serve the smaller settlements along the line IMO, so the uphgrade will still benefit them and may even act as a feeder line for HS2.
I also think that the WCML enhancement is still a worthwhile project. Speeds are now matching what the East Coast has had for many years before it. HS2 should not serve the smaller settlements along the line IMO, so the uphgrade will still benefit them and may even act as a feeder line for HS2.
Waverley125
Member
Scotland would get an HS Edinburgh-Glasgow link though, which would reduce congestion & lower capacity times on what is effectively scotrail's flagship service.
My reasoning for supporting that route is that it provides the best base for further expansion by 'cutting the corners' and so will promote expansion. A single line shadowing the WCML will not do that, and will leave it open for government to back out and not fund the 'second line' that would serve the east Midlands, yorkshire & the northeast
And I'd reduce congestion on the Euston throat by building a new line to take all LM terminating services off, either into Marylebone or onto Thameslink. Certainly this should be the case with the DC electrics, Northampton & Tring services, if not the Birmingham trains.
My reasoning for supporting that route is that it provides the best base for further expansion by 'cutting the corners' and so will promote expansion. A single line shadowing the WCML will not do that, and will leave it open for government to back out and not fund the 'second line' that would serve the east Midlands, yorkshire & the northeast
And I'd reduce congestion on the Euston throat by building a new line to take all LM terminating services off, either into Marylebone or onto Thameslink. Certainly this should be the case with the DC electrics, Northampton & Tring services, if not the Birmingham trains.
According to whom? For the city regions + London, http://www.statistics.gov.uk ranks them:
1. London
2. West Midlands
3. Greater Manchester
4. West Yorkshire
2.9 million is a bit of an overestimate, National Statistics 2007 puts it at less than 2.2 million, again in 4th place.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The "Leeds City Region Partnership" may include places like York but extending the city to that area is a bit tedious given the rural nature of most of West Yorkshire at the moment. If we're going to swell up Leeds to include York then Bristol must include Swindon, Manchester would take in half of Merseyside and the West Midlands would encompass the best part of the middle England Shire counties!
Waverley125
Member
sensible.
Let's knock Bolton, Bury, Wigan, Oldham and Rochdale from Greater Manchester, and Coventry from 'West Midlands'. Makes West Mids about 2.5 million and Greater Manchester (i.e. Manchester, Salford & Stockport) 2 million, while leeds comes in about the same if you take away Harrogate, york & Barnsley.
Just showing that I'm not 'swelling them up'-they already are, Greater Manchester is a metropolitan county that's about 30 miles across.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_districts_by_population
Let's knock Bolton, Bury, Wigan, Oldham and Rochdale from Greater Manchester, and Coventry from 'West Midlands'. Makes West Mids about 2.5 million and Greater Manchester (i.e. Manchester, Salford & Stockport) 2 million, while leeds comes in about the same if you take away Harrogate, york & Barnsley.
Just showing that I'm not 'swelling them up'-they already are, Greater Manchester is a metropolitan county that's about 30 miles across.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_districts_by_population
Last edited:
West Yorkshire is far larger than Greater Manchester. In my opinion they got the former Metropolitan counties (plus Avon, now known as Greater Bristol or the West of England) pretty spot on when they were created.
tbtc
Veteran Member
...but Bolton/ Oldham etc are a lot closer to a station in central Manchester than Huddersfield/ Halifax/ Keighley etc would be to a station in central Leeds.
Much as I may hate to admit it (living in Yorkshire), but Manchester is more important and (since a "High Speed" line can only realistically serve one side of the Pennines) it makes much more sense to route it via Birmingham and Manchester.
Page 23 of the Strategic Business Case document says:
"This approach uses the existing MML corridor from the Greater London boundary near Elstree tunnel. From Elstree tunnel the New Line route shares the corridor with the M1 motorway. At Silkstream Junction the existing route becomes a six track corridor to West Hampstead junction. South of West Hampstead a new tunnel would take the line to a new terminus. This approach provides potential access to HS1 with a new link to HS1 or via reversal at St Pancras. Access to Heathrow could be achieved via an upgraded Dudding Hill line and the GWML from Acton."
I didn't read that as impacting the existing services on the MML - rather using the freight lines on the western side of the alignment from Silkstream Jnc thru to West Hampstead then onto the terminus of their choice (e.g. Euston) via the new tunnel.
When people have been talking before about the route following the M1, is it this option people have been talking about? Anyone know how much these freight lines were used previously? I know Dudding Hill is pretty lightly used.
Waverley125
Member
why can it only serve one side of the pennines? Lord Adonis has already said he wants an HS transpennine line, which this route would provide.
Anyway, don't know what wer'e arguing about, the consultation paper HS2 (company) are providing is to advise on a 'route to serve London, The West Midlands, Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire and Scotland'. Which the NR produced route would fail to do.
Anyway, don't know what wer'e arguing about, the consultation paper HS2 (company) are providing is to advise on a 'route to serve London, The West Midlands, Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire and Scotland'. Which the NR produced route would fail to do.
tbtc
Veteran Member
...because trying to serve both sides with one line falls between two stools - it doesn't offer a solution for either side - it'd be a classic compramise that zig zags round the country. People in Leeds want to go direct to London, not via Manchester/ Birmingham. People in Glasgow want to go direct to Manchester, not via Newcastle.
A high speed transpennine line should be just that - a transpennine line - and seperate to any London line (just like a high speed Edinburgh - Glasgow line should be seperate).
flymo
Established Member
As is Cardiff and Taunton. Still Edinburgh is on the East Coast 'cos Britain is on a bit of a slant.
As far as I'm concerned, a Scotland-London route needs to be as direct as possible. There's a reason they built the WCML and ECML as they are; they provide the most competitive journey times end to end. Glasgow-Edinburgh-Newcastle-Leeds-Birmingham-London is just an unnecessary diversion.
I strongly believe that the WCML shadow is the best option, although I would route a direct line London-Birmingham-Manchester-Scotland with a branch to Liverpool rather then what is suggested (everything's on its own branch) to allow travel opportunities on HS2 between the large centres of population.
I'm not excluding Yorkshire, but I do think it should be served by its own separate branch of the High Speed Line, or indeed by HS3, which could also efficiently serve Midland cities and Newcastle.
I also believe that future developments should include London-Newcastle via Sheffield and Leeds, Newcastle-Bristol via Birmingham and, ultimately, Bristol and South Wales to London. Not to mention Transpennine as one of many shorter routes. (And this isn't even considering Scotland, where we'll have our own money to play with to get HIgh Speed between Edinburgh, Glasgow and Newcastle). But it's a stupid idea to try to clump every city in the UK together with the new high speed route, which will simply see future high speed developments stymied by lack of forward thinking, and make journey times longer and less competitive.
I strongly believe that the WCML shadow is the best option, although I would route a direct line London-Birmingham-Manchester-Scotland with a branch to Liverpool rather then what is suggested (everything's on its own branch) to allow travel opportunities on HS2 between the large centres of population.
I'm not excluding Yorkshire, but I do think it should be served by its own separate branch of the High Speed Line, or indeed by HS3, which could also efficiently serve Midland cities and Newcastle.
I also believe that future developments should include London-Newcastle via Sheffield and Leeds, Newcastle-Bristol via Birmingham and, ultimately, Bristol and South Wales to London. Not to mention Transpennine as one of many shorter routes. (And this isn't even considering Scotland, where we'll have our own money to play with to get HIgh Speed between Edinburgh, Glasgow and Newcastle). But it's a stupid idea to try to clump every city in the UK together with the new high speed route, which will simply see future high speed developments stymied by lack of forward thinking, and make journey times longer and less competitive.
Last edited:
Kneedown
Established Member
Waverley125
Member
no, I'm just trying to compare equivalent figures.
Greater Manchester is more equivalent to the Leeds City region, both by distance and by time. West Yorkshire is highly rural to the east of leeds, and omits settlements such as Harrogate, Skipton, York, Selby and Barnsley which are all within an equivalent commuter time as Bolton and Wigan are to Manchester.
Greater Manchester is more equivalent to the Leeds City region, both by distance and by time. West Yorkshire is highly rural to the east of leeds, and omits settlements such as Harrogate, Skipton, York, Selby and Barnsley which are all within an equivalent commuter time as Bolton and Wigan are to Manchester.
gordonthemoron
Established Member
this route may involve a couple of tunnels 
London-Birmingham-Dublin-Belfast-Glasgow
London-Birmingham-Dublin-Belfast-Glasgow
Waverley125
Member
now you mention it, Michael O'Leary did make one good point about HS rail-that our connection to europe is a single tunnel that will very quickly become crowded. Also that a large number of 'internal' flights are actually going to Ireland.
What about building new tunnels on new routes e.g.
Liverpool-Holyhead-Dublin
Carlisle-Belfast
Colchester-The Hague
the latter, would give a much quicker journey to Amsterdam, via Rotterdam, instead of going via Lille and Brussels.
What about building new tunnels on new routes e.g.
Liverpool-Holyhead-Dublin
Carlisle-Belfast
Colchester-The Hague
the latter, would give a much quicker journey to Amsterdam, via Rotterdam, instead of going via Lille and Brussels.
- Status