If no links can be provided, I suggest he was just making it up. New Civil Engineer in October last year said HS2b land was going to start to be sold, with HS2a land being retained.
www.newcivilengineer.com
If no links can be provided, I suggest he was just making it up. New Civil Engineer in October last year said HS2b land was going to start to be sold, with HS2a land being retained.
DfT launches £8.5M tender to dispose of HS2 surplus land between Birmingham and Leeds | New Civil Engineer
The portfolio in question comprises land and properties previously acquired for the now-defunct HS2 Phase 2 development, which would have connected
Dream on.
He's not far off.
It would probably be negligible as dwell times would eat the performance gains.
The original plan just ignored Liverpool a city with a reach of two million. And Glasgow as well. They were to run non-tilting trains trundling from Crewe to Liverpool and Glasgow. If they had proposed tilting trains with Liverpool trains running under Crewe in a tunnel, upgrading the WCML from Crewe to Weaver junction to 4-tracks, from Crewe to Weaver on its own WCML tracks, and also the WCML spur to Liverpool and upgraded raising the lines speed substantially from Crewe, Liverpool's journey times would have be very good indeed.
Or perhaps they considered it and decided the tradeoffs weren't worth it? As already noted, Liverpool would have seen faster times to London than now thanks to Phase 1, and an improvement on those with 2a.
Remember the whole of HS2 was never going to be built all in one go. So it was inevitable that it would be split into stages. That meant that early stages might not look the best/most-logical as they were designed with the next stage in mind but had to wait.
They gave Liverpool a glance no more. Not one nut and bolt of HS2 went within 16 miles of the city's centre. Yet HS2 track would have been only a mile or so the city regions border. Tory managed decline was continuing. Liverpool accepted that was the way it was until a change of Westminster regime. The Liverpool to Birmingham train never used HS2 tracks, it was that bad, continuing on the lethargic scenic route. Glasgow seemed disinterested as it was just a little faster to London, but most used air to get to London, so not a big deal to them. HS2 did not improve Glasgow's access to the major English cities: Liverpool, Leeds, Manchester and Newcastle, and hardly made a dent getting to Birmingham.
The stations all have multiple loops, and the 2-track sections have no intermediate stops, it's capacity is pretty high. 4-track would have been lovely but increased costs even further.
Tilting trains would have been very marginal gains, probably net negative at 200mph.
The alternative to running HS track directly to the centre of Birmingham would have been to 4-track and grade-separate the Birmingham International-Birmingham New Street section, rebuilding both stations for 400m traffic. I struggle to see any option where rebuilding New Street for 400m comes out cheaper than building new. In all likelihood you'd have had to build a Birmingham Crossrail to release capacity on the classic lines.
First of all HS2 itself does not need tilting trains, they serve no purpose there. Once off the end of HS2 there are still some bendy sections but many argue not enough left to justify tilting trains. The newer trains will be faster than tilt capable trains on HS2 *AND* on the old routes there is less and less bendy route left where 125mph can be achieved. This was certainly the case with HS2 phase 1 and HS2 phase 2a. The whole point of HS2 is to get a nice straight route that avoids the need for tilting trains that cope with Victorian (1800s) lines.
Rebuilding Victoria into anything close to an appropriate "super station" would require tearing a huge amount of cityscape down.
He proposed 155mph tilting trains, not 186mph trains.
On what basis have you made any of these determination?
I think it might be the "make stuff up approach". See also complete lack of links to quoted documents, none of which could be found by anyone else.
Particularly when one considers door layout. 323s are designed to maximise circulation space, HS2 units will be designed to maximise passenger seating and comfort. They may even have only one door per vehicle, like many European high speed trains.
Yes, in abundance. Look at a rail map. Liverpool for example, has seven corridors into the city.
6 of those are dedicated to Merseyrail, there is no space for anything else on those lines.
Manchester does have a few corridors avaliable, but the Piccadilly throat is full, Oxford Road is full, Victoria is already crowded, so regardless of which 'corridor' you use, one of those is required.
Abundance refers to oversupply. All those corridors into Liverpool are full.
Liverpool has three lines to Manchester. It would have four if the Warrington to Timperly section was reinstated. There is a WCML spur to Lime St. The Merseyrail line from the Mersey rail tunnel to Chester had most of it 4-tracked at one time. It can use other trains to access the line and tunnel which is forty percent used. This straight line was proposed to take HS2 trains to Woodside, Birkenhead as terminus, or through the tunnel to a new underground Central station.
Reinstating the line will bypass Stockport reintroducing another corridor.
Tapping out at this point.
Intercity services were to go onto HS2. Chester was bumped off because of the two HS2 tracks south of Birmingham.
It doesn't matter about the number of lines from a capacity perspective. If anything the number of lines creates the capacity problems because there's a need for more services to serve the local stations on their lines.
That is very true. Off topic and I don't know if it will change anything in short term but I recently heard I think it was Andy Burnham call the hs3 or northerpowerhouse rail or whatever they call it now the Elizabeth line for the north as I assume people see the Elizabeth line as a good use of money and it probably between liverpool and manchester similar length as the Elizabeth line but serving 2 large population densities instead of which demand already exists.
Not sure if its the correct place to put here as its probably off topic however although I agree new trains shouldn't have the tilt do you think scotland bound trains could use some Pendos which they could take the limiter of from 125 to 140mph which is what they are designed for and run then up HS2 and have them tilting up as they currently do towards scotland?
Technically possible. But the 140mph Pendolinos would get in the way of the non tilting HS2 trains on HS2. The Pendolinos apparently hammer the track so another disadvantage. I think using the maximum speed of HS2 specific trains might save more time than is lost by not being able to tilt beyond Phase 2a to Scotland. Remember 807s do not tilt but the time lost is made up for by better acceleration apparently. So it looks like tilting trains is going out of fashion and that would allow a larger coach cross section so less claustrophobic for the passenger.