Possible Alternatives to HS2

[Bald Rick]

Plus Newark Flat Crossing, Werrington(to be solved this year), Welwyn Tunnels, The River Nene Viaduct

And different stopping patterns of the long distance services south of Doncaster. And different stopping patterns of all services north of York.

 

[Harvey B]

The problem is that Jo Public see headline figures for the cost of HS2 and think its expensive, so then they turn around and say well lets just upgrade the existing lines without appreciating just how expensive, difficult and disruptive that will be. Then of course some of these people would be the first to complain if there journey was disrupted for years as we attempted major upgrades of these routes instead of HS2.

Apparently upgrading the 3 mainlines will cost twice as much (if not, More) than HS2 will

 

[D365]

Apparently upgrading the 3 mainlines will cost twice as much (if not, More) than HS2 will

Proponents of "upgrading our existing railways" seem to forget how much disruption the West Coast modernisation caused...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Proponents of "upgrading our existing railways" seem to forget how much disruption the West Coast modernisation caused...

Basically closed every weekend for about a year, wasn't it? And it never got to the aim of 140, just 125 over budget and late.

Definitely easier to build new.

 

[HST43257]

Basically closed every weekend for about a year, wasn't it? And it never got to the aim of 140, just 125 over budget and late.

Definitely easier to build new.

I thought I’d heard every weekend for 25 years, but I most certainly trust your judgement over mine.

 

[Harvey B]

I thought I’d heard every weekend for 25 years, but I most certainly trust your judgement over mine.

that 25 years is what it would be if upgrading each mainline would be if HS2 wasn't built

 

[class26]

that 25 years is what it would be if upgrading each mainline would be if HS2 wasn't built

and by the time these upgrades were completed it would no doubt be time for the next upgrade so permanent weekend closures?

 

[D365]

Funny thing is, I’ve been asking anti-HS2 people on Twitter what alternatives they propose to replace HS2. Not one of them has given me an answer, instead I’m just getting flooded with a barrage of hashtags, as if that will somehow lead to HS2 being suspended.

 

[Hadders]

Basically closed every weekend for about a year, wasn't it? And it never got to the aim of 140, just 125 over budget and late.

Definitely easier to build new.

Longer than that if I remember correctly. The disruption lasted for years.

 

[37424]

Funny thing is, I’ve been asking anti-HS2 people on Twitter what alternatives they propose to replace HS2. Not one of them has given me an answer, instead I’m just getting flooded with a barrage of hashtags, as if that will somehow lead to HS2 being suspended.

Well I suppose the argument would be that demand will be so suppressed by covid that our present infrastructure will be able to cope for the foreseeable future, but the fact that the government have gone ahead would suggest the government don't believe that particularly if we want to get more passengers and freight back onto rail.

The other not often mentioned benefit of HS2 which it will go some way to solve is the fact that the 3 main routes it relieves have very limited diversionary options at the southern end of the routes which at time of major engineering works usually ends up with very limited options for an alternate service and bus replacement, and increasingly a do not travel message, which of course would be a massive issue as already stated if major upgrades to these routes were attempted instead instead of HS2.

You only have to look at the disruption likely to be caused by the proposed major upgrade to the TPE route between Leeds and Huddersfield, not only is going to cause significant rail disruption for the duration but the rebuilding of the bridges is likely to cause some hefty traffic disruption between Huddersfield and Mirfield.

 

[Bald Rick]

Basically closed every weekend for about a year, wasn't it? And it never got to the aim of 140, just 125 over budget and late.

Definitely easier to build new.

During the upgrade, the WCML was closed somewhere every weekend for about 6-7 years. The Trent Valley was closed almost every weekend for about 3 years; @Ianno87 will remember the detail. On top of that were the short blockades and long blockades. Closing Proof House Junction for almost 3 weeks; closing South of MK for a week at a time, several times; closing Crewe - Cheadle Hulme for months, etc etc.

 

[D365]

Well I suppose the argument would be that demand will be so suppressed by covid that our present infrastructure will be able to cope for the foreseeable future, but the fact that the government have gone ahead would suggest the government don't believe that particularly if we want to get more passengers and freight back onto rail.

As you say. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that traffic levels will remain suppressed post-lockdown. As so many have pointed out, a move to true agile working may mean that people who commute two days a week are happy to travel longer distances to visit sites. Which is exactly where HS2 will come into its own.

 

[Ianno87]

Basically closed every weekend for about a year, wasn't it? And it never got to the aim of 140, just 125 over budget and late.

Definitely easier to build new.

During the upgrade, the WCML was closed somewhere every weekend for about 6-7 years. The Trent Valley was closed almost every weekend for about 3 years; @Ianno87 will remember the detail. On top of that were the short blockades and long blockades. Closing Proof House Junction for almost 3 weeks; closing South of MK for a week at a time, several times; closing Crewe - Cheadle Hulme for months, etc etc.

Trent Valley was basically shut every weekend 2005-2008. Fortuitously, those were the exact years I lived in Coventry...

 

[Harvey B]

Funny thing is, I’ve been asking anti-HS2 people on Twitter what alternatives they propose to replace HS2. Not one of them has given me an answer, instead I’m just getting flooded with a barrage of hashtags, as if that will somehow lead to HS2 being suspended.

When I ask. People either don't respond or say we should invest in more local rail services instead. How can we invest in local rail services if there are no available paths for them to run on?

 

[Purple Orange]

When I ask. People either don't respond or say we should invest in more local rail services instead. How can we invest in local rail services if there are no available paths for them to run on?

Perhaps the concept of a ‘path’ is not widely known and understood? It isn’t actually that intuitive either because if your opinion of transportation is loosely based on how a road operates, then why would you even know? On the road, you just send ever more cars, buses and lorries down it and the concept of a specific time slot to travel is not there.

Then when you look at a railway line and see nothing come for 10-15 minutes at all (as it appears on my part of the WCML), you can’t be blamed for assuming more trains can be run without new infrastructure.

 

[Irascible]

Perhaps the concept of a ‘path’ is not widely known and understood? It isn’t actually that intuitive either because if your opinion of transportation is loosely based on how a road operates, then why would you even know? On the road, you just send ever more cars, buses and lorries down it and the concept of a specific time slot to travel is not there.

Then when you look at a railway line and see nothing come for 10-15 minutes at all (as it appears on my part of the WCML), you can’t be blamed for assuming more trains can be run without new infrastructure.

Conceptually akin to airport slots, which I think a lot of people who've been delayed on a holiday trip will understand.

 

[Bald Rick]

Conceptually akin to airport slots, which I think a lot of people who've been delayed on a holiday trip will understand.

Indeed. With the same principle that you don’t want two trains occupying the same bit of track at the same time (exceptions apply!)

 

[37424]

Perhaps the concept of a ‘path’ is not widely known and understood? It isn’t actually that intuitive either because if your opinion of transportation is loosely based on how a road operates, then why would you even know? On the road, you just send ever more cars, buses and lorries down it and the concept of a specific time slot to travel is not there.

Then when you look at a railway line and see nothing come for 10-15 minutes at all (as it appears on my part of the WCML), you can’t be blamed for assuming more trains can be run without new infrastructure.

Well I remember a question time debate a few years ago on HS2 and a member of the GP just said lets run more trains on existing routes that's all we need unfortunately there wasn't anybody with sufficient knowledge to really challenge the fact that there isn't the capacity/paths available to do that and hence the whole reason for HS2.

Unfortunately the public have in their heads that its just about a quicker journey time. The fact that it will free up capacity both on long distance and local, and that in order to add capacity to existing routes will be highly expensive and disruptive is a much more difficult argument to get across.

The argument about improving local rail instead is a bit more difficult to argue against, yes it will improve local capacity in some cases but when you look at the garbage that is Northern rail certainly in terms of the quality of the rolling stock for instance well certainly up until recently then perhaps they do have a point in that respect.

 

[Purple Orange]

Well I remember a question time debate a few years ago on HS2 and a member of the GP just said lets run more trains on existing routes that's all we need unfortunately there wasn't anybody with sufficient knowledge to really challenge the fact that there isn't the capacity/paths available to do that and hence the whole reason for HS2.

Unfortunately the public have in their heads that its just about a quicker journey time. The fact that it will free up capacity both on long distance and local, and that in order to add capacity to existing routes will be highly expensive and disruptive is a much more difficult argument to get across.

The argument about improving local rail instead is a bit more difficult to argue against, yes it will improve local capacity in some cases but when you look at the garbage that is Northern rail certainly in terms of the quality of the rolling stock for instance well certainly up until recently then perhaps they do have a point in that respect.

The issue of released capacity is a bit of a masked problem in my view. HS2 (or the government) made the mistake of focusing on speed and journey time to Birmingham from London and then has tried in vain to switch the emphasis to capacity. However I think they have made yet another mistake here.

North of Birmingham, the primary HS2 benefit will be speed & journey time, rather than capacity on the existing lines. Take the WCML in to Manchester, there are 5 fast WCML services today but it might only be that 2 paths are freed up in to Piccadilly for commuter services. The other 3 paths might be retained to perform the same job as they do today, meaning very little additional capacity is released. However journey times between Manchester & Birmingham will half and journey times between Manchester & London will fall by almost half. Most people who commute on the WCML in to Manchester may not see an increase in frequency of their train service, some will see less and some will see a small increase in capacity on their line.

On the south WCML, capacity is clearly the primary benefit, but unless more than 2 additional commuter trains can be delivered in to Manchester & Leeds, the capacity uplift will be a false expectation.

 

[quantinghome]

The issue of released capacity is a bit of a masked problem in my view. HS2 (or the government) made the mistake of focusing on speed and journey time to Birmingham from London and then has tried in vain to switch the emphasis to capacity. However I think they have made yet another mistake here.

North of Birmingham, the primary HS2 benefit will be speed & journey time, rather than capacity on the existing lines. Take the WCML in to Manchester, there are 5 fast WCML services today but it might only be that 2 paths are freed up in to Piccadilly for commuter services. The other 3 paths might be retained to perform the same job as they do today, meaning very little additional capacity is released. However journey times between Manchester & Birmingham will half and journey times between Manchester & London will fall by almost half. Most people who commute on the WCML in to Manchester may not see an increase in frequency of their train service, some will see less and some will see a small increase in capacity on their line.

On the south WCML, capacity is clearly the primary benefit, but unless more than 2 additional commuter trains can be delivered in to Manchester & Leeds, the capacity uplift will be a false expectation.

HS2 have said for years that connectivity is the key benefit north of Birmingham, but even then the press narrative had been set. Journey time plays its part in that, the basic issue is that there are major northern cities connected only by very slow and infrequent services. Leeds-Sheffield-East Midlands-Birmingham should really have a transpennine service frequency but it can't with existing infrastructure.

Released capacity should be a far bigger driver. The problem is no-one owns it. It's not really HS2's job to decide how to use released capacity. Ideally you'd want to turn lines likes Leeds-Doncaster, Leeds-York and Manchester-Stockport into high frequency metro services, but the 'me too' effect from Stockport, Wakefield etc. to retain fast services may mean we get a like-for-like replacement rather than a fundamental change in timetabling. There's a risk we won't get the level of capacity we could from a standard pattern timetable.

 

[Purple Orange]

HS2 have said for years that connectivity is the key benefit north of Birmingham, but even then the press narrative had been set. Journey time plays its part in that, the basic issue is that there are major northern cities connected only by very slow and infrequent services. Leeds-Sheffield-East Midlands-Birmingham should really have a transpennine service frequency but it can't with existing infrastructure.

Released capacity should be a far bigger driver. The problem is no-one owns it. It's not really HS2's job to decide how to use released capacity. Ideally you'd want to turn lines likes Leeds-Doncaster, Leeds-York and Manchester-Stockport into high frequency metro services, but the 'me too' effect from Stockport, Wakefield etc. to retain fast services may mean we get a like-for-like replacement rather than a fundamental change in timetabling. There's a risk we won't get the level of capacity we could from a standard pattern timetable.

I’m not sure about the optics on the east side, but the issue of Stockport is null and void. It’s more about Stoke, Stafford & Macclesfield not having the same level of fast services as before.

The idea of a TPE service level on the eastern side on the classic lines is something worth having, but is that better than a higher frequency of stoppers on that line?

If HS2 have said ‘connectivity’ for years, what is that other than a catch-all word to mean capacity and speed?

 

[quantinghome]

The idea of a TPE service level on the eastern side on the classic lines is something worth having, but is that better than a higher frequency of stoppers on that line?

I was thinking TPE service level on HS2, this is pretty much what is planned considering plans for NPR and Midlands Enginer to utilise the infrastructure.

If HS2 have said ‘connectivity’ for years, what is that other than a catch-all word to mean capacity and speed?

All phases of HS2 provide capacity and speed. Phase 1 is there primarily to solve a capacity problem. The main lines between London and large conurbations have reasonable connectivity (speed and frequency) and provided a better journey option than the car - I suspect the number of people who drive from Leeds to London is heavily outnumbered by train passengers. But capacity constraints are a problem, which HS2 solves, with improved speed as a helpful by-product.

By contrast the regional connections between the midlands and north have much poorer speed and frequency and driving is often the preferred option over the train. HS2 provides more capacity of course but the journey time reduction and frequency increase is a much bigger deal as it will make the train a preferable option for regional intercity journeys as it is for London.

 

[Ianno87]

The issue of released capacity is a bit of a masked problem in my view. HS2 (or the government) made the mistake of focusing on speed and journey time to Birmingham from London and then has tried in vain to switch the emphasis to capacity. However I think they have made yet another mistake here.

North of Birmingham, the primary HS2 benefit will be speed & journey time, rather than capacity on the existing lines. Take the WCML in to Manchester, there are 5 fast WCML services today but it might only be that 2 paths are freed up in to Piccadilly for commuter services. The other 3 paths might be retained to perform the same job as they do today, meaning very little additional capacity is released. However journey times between Manchester & Birmingham will half and journey times between Manchester & London will fall by almost half. Most people who commute on the WCML in to Manchester may not see an increase in frequency of their train service, some will see less and some will see a small increase in capacity on their line.

"Realeased capacity" has two variants:

1) Taking a service that runs today and replacing it with an HS2 service, meaning that an entirely different service can run in its place on the existing network. E.g. a Manchester-Euston train diverted onto HS2 creates a path for (say) a Northampton-Euston train in its place.

2) Releasing on train capacity by taking *passengers* onto an HS2 service, but the service itself remains similar to how it qas before. E.g. more space for passengers travelling Stoke-Manchester because Birmingham-Manchester passengers are largely using HS2 services instead.

Approaches to Manchester will be a mix of both types. Stoke-Manchester is probably similar to Coventry-Euston post-HS2, gets a disproportionately good service due to being "on the way", so inevitably ends up a slight "loser" in making overall best use of the existing network post-HS2.

in both Stoke and Coventry's case, the "benefit" of the reduced frequency is that trains are, in theory less full due to longer distance passengers using HS2 instead.

I’m not sure about the optics on the east side, but the issue of Stockport is null and void. It’s more about Stoke, Stafford & Macclesfield not having the same level of fast services as before.

The idea of a TPE service level on the eastern side on the classic lines is something worth having, but is that better than a higher frequency of stoppers on that line?

If HS2 have said ‘connectivity’ for years, what is that other than a catch-all word to mean capacity and speed?

Commectiviy is defined as the combination of journey time and frequency ("opportunities to travel") between two distinct locations, stimulating propensity to travel by defining the generalised journey time (the "perceived" ease of travel). It is not the same thing as "Capacity" which is providing enough seats for all the folk who wish to travel.

 

[waverley47]

It is also very important to note the benefits from a more uniform stopping pattern and more uniform fleet performance.

By removing fast, non stop strains from both the Stockport and Coventry corridors, you allow more trains to run in those paths. One non stop train can be turned into two stopping trains in the former example especially. By making everything broadly the same, you gain much more proportionally by removing fast services than by trying to fit more trains down the same busy routes.

Coventry and Stockport are likely to lose their fastest trains to the big city, and journey times will proportionally increase, but the benefits are much greater than just the paths that have been vacated.

 

[Purple Orange]

It is also very important to note the benefits from a more uniform stopping pattern and more uniform fleet performance.

By removing fast, non stop strains from both the Stockport and Coventry corridors, you allow more trains to run in those paths. One non stop train can be turned into two stopping trains in the former example especially. By making everything broadly the same, you gain much more proportionally by removing fast services than by trying to fit more trains down the same busy routes.

Coventry and Stockport are likely to lose their fastest trains to the big city, and journey times will proportionally increase, but the benefits are much greater than just the paths that have been vacated.

I stand by the fact that people in Stockport will be getting a much faster service to London. People will use Piccadilly or the airport as their main station, in fact people living on the Cheadle side of Stockport have s very simple journey to the airport and the station is right by the M56.

 

[fishwomp]

I stand by the fact that people in Stockport will be getting a much faster service to London. People will use Piccadilly or the airport as their main station, in fact people living on the Cheadle side of Stockport have s very simple journey to the airport and the station is right by the M56.

I don't get why a Stockport passenger would get a faster service. Are you suggesting head North - so 15 mins extra plus a change up in Manchester, including navigation of Pic and connection time??

In Coventry, again, head North, 10 mins plus 10 mins transfer to (new) International, wait for connection? No way is that going to be faster!

 

[HST43257]

I don't get why a Stockport passenger would get a faster service. Are you suggesting head North - so 15 mins extra plus a change up in Manchester, including navigation of Pic and connection time??

I don’t see where Pic comes into this. I believe @Purple Orange was referring to the Airport HS2 station, which I think should have some sort of Public Transport connection from Stockport.

 

[Purple Orange]

This is really not a big deal. How do you start your journey?

1. You walk/bus to Stockport station or;
2. You drive to Stockport station or;
3. you walk/drive/bus to your nearest local station then change trains at Stockport.

If you are in category 1, you will probably still walk/bus to Stockport station. You then have a choice of a fast journey or a slower journey.

If you are in category 2, you will probably drive to the airport station.

If you are in category 3, you will probably change trains at Piccadilly. If you are in this category, and your starting station is:

• Cheadle Hulme or Handforth, you’ll likely go directly to the airport or change at Piccadilly
• Bramhall or Poynton, you’ll likely go directly to the airport or change at Piccadilly
• Hazel Grove, Davenport or other stations on the Buxton line you’ll likely change at to Piccadilly

All of these stations are geared towards Piccadilly and most people wouldn’t think twice about getting the train in to Manchester. It’s like people living in an outer London borough - they wouldn’t have a problem with getting the train to central London.

Stockport & Coventry are not like for like comparisons either. One is 5-6 miles from Manchester city centre and is part of the urban area, whereas the other is 17 miles from Birmingham city centre and not part of the urban area. A better comparison to Coventry is Macclesfield, which is a similar distance.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Mar 2021 ==

I don't get why a Stockport passenger would get a faster service. Are you suggesting head North - so 15 mins extra plus a change up in Manchester, including navigation of Pic and connection time??

In Coventry, again, head North, 10 mins plus 10 mins transfer to (new) International, wait for connection? No way is that going to be faster!

Most people on the Stockport line will have a 45 min time saving by changing at Piccadilly or the airport.

 

[fishwomp]

This is really not a big deal. How do you start your journey?

1. You walk/bus to Stockport station or;
2. You drive to Stockport station or;
3. you walk/drive/bus to your nearest local station then change trains at Stockport.

If you are in category 1, you will probably still walk/bus to Stockport station. You then have a choice of a fast journey or a slower journey.

If you are in category 2, you will probably drive to the airport station.

If you are in category 3, you will probably change trains at Piccadilly. If you are in this category, and your starting station is:

• Cheadle Hulme or Handforth, you’ll likely go directly to the airport or change at Piccadilly
• Bramhall or Poynton, you’ll likely go directly to the airport or change at Piccadilly
• Hazel Grove, Davenport or other stations on the Buxton line you’ll likely change at to Piccadilly

All of these stations are geared towards Piccadilly and most people wouldn’t think twice about getting the train in to Manchester. It’s like people living in an outer London borough - they wouldn’t have a problem with getting the train to central London.

Fair points - I think that makes sense. The 1 hour journey time reduction is significant enough that even with messing around at Pic (say) you still win on overall time.

 

[Purple Orange]

Fair points - I think that makes sense. The 1 hour journey time reduction is significant enough that even with messing around at Pic (say) you still win on overall time.

I wouldn’t even say it is a hassle at Piccadilly either. Greater Manchester is effectively one metropolis that has a very integrated economy. Stockport is a part of this in the same way that any London borough is a part of London.

If you live in Stockport borough, the western side is not actually ‘proper’ Stockport, but Cheadle, which covers Bramhall, Cheadle Hulme, Gatley and Heald Green stations. People in these areas are more inclined to head towards central Manchester than to go in to Stockport town centre, and only do so because Stockport station is useful. That usefulness is transferred to the airport post HS2.

On the eastern side, you’re on the Marple line which doesn’t go to Stockport station to begin with. These people are going to go to Piccadilly. If you live in ‘proper’ Stockport, which covers Heaton Chapel, Stockport ‘town’, Davenport & Hazel Grove and on to Buxton, you’re likely to just go to Piccadilly. People could also drive or taxi to the airport station too. Everything is very close by