What, generally, is the best way forward for High Speed 2?

[Callumphillips]

Here's an idea of how I think HS2 should be:

Route

As much as it will add to the currently soaring cost, I believe it is necessary to complete HS2 & NPR in full with high speed lines extending HS2 to HS1, Heathrow Airport, Scotland, Newcastle and certainly Leeds by means of the Eastern Leg.

Not only this, but we also can't put this much pressure on 1 two track route. We need something more, to either quadruple the London to Birmingham section or to build something along the lines of what Greengauge 21 proposed with a line heading off to the east. We can't over-estimate two tracks between London and Birmingham.

Services

Here's an idea of how I think the service pattern should be:

• 2tph - 400m - London to Birmingham
• 1tph - 200m - London to Chester (6tpd continue to Holyhead via an electrified North Wales Main Line)
• 2tph - 400m - London to Liverpool
• 2tph - 400m - London to Manchester via Crewe
• 1tph - 200m - London to Manchester via Macclesfield
• 1tph - 200m - London to Blackpool (6tpd - 2 x 200m - London to Blackpool and Southport - dividing at Wigan Central)
• 2tph - 400m - London to Leeds
• 1tph - 200m - London to Hull
• 2tph - 400m - London to Newcastle
• 2tph - 400m - London to Glasgow
• 2tph - 400m - London to Edinburgh

Now I know what you're thinking, Wigan Central? I believe Wigan North Western and Wigan Wallgate should be merged into one station, Campaign for Better Transport say the same here.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

I believe the best way forward initially (other than scrapping it), would be to have HS2 run from Euston to New Street, and also to a point on the Trent Valley line, than most current West Coast Mainline trains could immediately speed up. Curzon Street as a terminal should be used for the stopping services such as the Chiltern Mainline aswell as the London to Birmingham only HS2.

If more money needs to be burned on the project, only one path north should be built (with tracks in and out of both Curzon Street and New Street), either; 1, Birmingham, Manchester, Bradford, Leeds, Darlington, or Nottingham, Sheffield, Manchester, Preston, Fleetwood.
Both of these routes would help more localised travel in those poorly served corridors, aswell as speed up the international services to Scotland.

Heathrow would not be worth the effort, for those off the plane from Cape Town for example, they might as well use a connecting flight the rest of the way to Manchester, it'll be cheaper.
HS1 doesn't need to be linked either, Eurostar services aren't exactly booming, and St Pancras isn't hard to get to from Euston, it's down the road, but billions to a rail project.

 

[Callumphillips]

I strongly agree with you regarding tracks to New Street as well as Curzon Street. Without more tracks to the existing network, there is poor integration between them, and complete isolation of HS2 from the existing network is not a good thing. I also see that they plan on building only some classic compatible trains for HS2, with the rest being confined to to
HS2 itself. This is completely pointless in my opinion.

Regarding a path North, a path including new dedicated high speed line into Scotland (as originally promised) would deliver much better value for money in my opinion, dramatically cutting journey times between London and Scotland, which is high up on the priority I think.

Regarding connections to Heathrow, as much as a connecting domestic flight would be cheaper, we shouldn't prioritise this kind of thing over a high speed line as the latter is much faster overall and much cleaner. Domestic flights aren't necessarily a good thing, and there are calls for them to be banned.

 

[Speed43125]

I strongly agree with you regarding tracks to New Street as well as Curzon Street. Without more tracks to the existing network, there is poor integration between them, and complete isolation of HS2 from the existing network is not a good thing. I also see that they plan on building only some classic compatible trains for HS2, with the rest being confined to to
HS2 itself. This is completely pointless in my opinion.

Initially all trains will be classic compatible. Larger loading gauage trains will be used when more network is build in phase 2b with GC fully self contained trains to Birmingham, Manchester etc

 

[The Planner]

People need to look at the current HS2 plans here. There will be no link from HS2 to New St, what would be the point, as New St is effectively full. Chiltern going into Curzon St is just daft, how big do you think Curzon St is? There is a link to the WCML in the Trent Valley, at Handsacre. Why would you quadruple it? how many trains are you expecting to run on it unless you are adding intermediate stations? All of this for phase 1 is effectively moot as its all under construction.

 

[Ianno87]

Here's an idea of how I think HS2 should be:

Route

As much as it will add to the currently soaring cost, I believe it is necessary to complete HS2 & NPR in full with high speed lines extending HS2 to HS1, Heathrow Airport, Scotland, Newcastle and certainly Leeds by means of the Eastern Leg.

Not only this, but we also can't put this much pressure on 1 two track route. We need something more, to either quadruple the London to Birmingham section or to build something along the lines of what Greengauge 21 proposed with a line heading off to the east. We can't over-estimate two tracks between London and Birmingham.

Services

Here's an idea of how I think the service pattern should be:

• 2tph - 400m - London to Birmingham
• 1tph - 200m - London to Chester (6tpd continue to Holyhead via an electrified North Wales Main Line)
• 2tph - 400m - London to Liverpool
• 2tph - 400m - London to Manchester via Crewe
• 1tph - 200m - London to Manchester via Macclesfield
• 1tph - 200m - London to Blackpool (6tpd - 2 x 200m - London to Blackpool and Southport - dividing at Wigan Central)
• 2tph - 400m - London to Leeds
• 1tph - 200m - London to Hull
• 2tph - 400m - London to Newcastle
• 2tph - 400m - London to Glasgow
• 2tph - 400m - London to Edinburgh

Now I know what you're thinking, Wigan Central? I believe Wigan North Western and Wigan Wallgate should be merged into one station, Campaign for Better Transport say the same here.

Hang on, you say up front you want services to Heathrow and HS1, but then list no such services in the service list?

 

[Callumphillips]

Hang on, you say up front you want services to Heathrow and HS1, but then list no such services in the service list?

My mistake, those were more so a list of ideas.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Oct 2021 ==

People need to look at the current HS2 plans here. There will be no link from HS2 to New St, what would be the point, as New St is effectively full. Chiltern going into Curzon St is just daft, how big do you think Curzon St is? There is a link to the WCML in the Trent Valley, at Handsacre. Why would you quadruple it? how many trains are you expecting to run on it unless you are adding intermediate stations? All of this for phase 1 is effectively moot as its all under construction.

New Street won't be as full as HS2 would free New Street of most current high speed services out of London, plus there required better integration with the current network than what there currently is in my opinion.

 

[stuu]

My mistake, those were more so a list of ideas.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Oct 2021 ==


New Street won't be as full as HS2 would free New Street of most current high speed services out of London, plus there required better integration with the current network than what there currently is in my opinion.

It won't, there are currently 3 per hour, the proposed new service pattern still has 2 fast wcml trains each hour, in each direction.

The best thing to do is to build it all in full. Delay sections according to budget and resource constraints, but don't do anything which restricts the ability to build future segments in full

 

[The Planner]

New Street won't be as full as HS2 would free New Street of most current high speed services out of London, plus there required better integration with the current network than what there currently is in my opinion.

Which you are suggesting then putting HS2 services in, it defeats the object.

 

[lachlan]

These suggestions feel like non starters unfortunately.

HS2 will hopefully add to the existing intercity services and allow them to stop more frequently,it won't replace them. Connectivity can be improved by diverting more trains into Moor Street which has space for extra platforms, though this would require additional connecting track.

Personally I don't think connecting to Heathrow is a good idea unless it was an intermediate stop and not a terminus. Even then, I feel Old Oak Common is a more useful intermediate stop than Heathrow would be.

Given phase one is already under construction, there's no way it'll be quadruple tracked now, you'd have to redesign the route. You'd be much better off continuing the two tracks further north or perhaps building a HS line to Bristol or Wales.

The one change I really wished happened was the HS1 connection, but even then it wouldn't be that useful unless we managed to run through Eurostar services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Get it built. If we can't get all of it built, get some of it built, as it is easier to extend than start from scratch.

Service pattern as per the original plan is fine though I would extend the Lancaster 200m slow to Carlisle.

 

[swt_passenger]

Sorry, but there’s absolutely no point in discussing the possibility of a branch to Heathrow or an HS1 connection. They’ve been quite correctly removed from the scheme quite a few years ago, because the potential passenger flows just don’t stack up. Every service will link to Heathrow via Old Oak Common.

But regarding the suggestion about Chiltern above, it’s completely pointless as the new (but badly named) Curzon St and existing Moor St station main entrances are very close next door neighbours, even closer than for example Kings Cross and St Pancras. It is an original idea though, I don’t think anyone has ever suggested it before…

 

[Callumphillips]

It won't, there are currently 3 per hour, the proposed new service pattern still has 2 fast wcml trains each hour, in each direction.

The best thing to do is to build it all in full. Delay sections according to budget and resource constraints, but don't do anything which restricts the ability to build future segments in full

I see what you mean but they still shouldn't bother with the 2 hourly West Coast Main Line fast services when HS2 comes into service. I strongly agree on building it in full.

Which you are suggesting then putting HS2 services in, it defeats the object.

Not necessarily, only one or two which would serve New Street and then go onto Wolverhampton.

Regarding Heathrow, I feel as though it would deliver great benefits to itself and the rest of the country. If it shouldn't be a terminus, I think it should be as HSUK proposed, Heathrow would be a calling point en route to Gatwick and potentially onto the Brighton Mainline and maybe, as HS4Air proposed, onto HS1.

 

[SynthD]

I like the service plans at the top of the page but isn’t 18tph manageable on two tracks, even with the headways at those speeds.

@#2 Sending the trains from an expanded Euston into the crammed New Street? No thanks, that just adds back enough of the bottleneck to make the rest of the project not worth it. The classic services only leave the new network at Crewe, a fair balance between connectivity and reducing the number of tracks.

 

[The Planner]

I like the service plans at the top of the page but isn’t 18tph manageable on two tracks, even with the headways at those speeds.

@#2 Sending the trains from an expanded Euston into the crammed New Street? No thanks, that just adds back enough of the bottleneck to make the rest of the project not worth it. The classic services only leave the new network at Crewe, a fair balance between connectivity and reducing the number of tracks.

Still one train that will come off at Handsacre to serve Stafford, Stoke and Macc.

 

[stuu]

I see what you mean but they still shouldn't bother with the 2 hourly West Coast Main Line fast services when HS2 comes into service. I strongly agree on building it in full.

There will still be a need for a fast service from places like Coventry and Milton Keynes, so those trains have to exist

 

[Callumphillips]

There will still be a need for a fast service from places like Coventry and Milton Keynes, so those trains have to exist

Yes of course, I think 2tph from Coventry to London Euston would do Coventry and Milton Keynes a favour.

I like the service plans at the top of the page but isn’t 18tph manageable on two tracks, even with the headways at those speeds.

@#2 Sending the trains from an expanded Euston into the crammed New Street? No thanks, that just adds back enough of the bottleneck to make the rest of the project not worth it. The classic services only leave the new network at Crewe, a fair balance between connectivity and reducing the number of tracks.

That's what I mean, we can't rely this much on two tracks, as much as costs are going through the roof as it is, we need to do more than just HS2 I think.

 

[gordonthemoron]

Yes of course, I think 2tph from Coventry to London Euston would do Coventry and Milton Keynes a favour.

These services should also call at Rugby and Watford

 

[Callumphillips]

These services should also call at Rugby and Watford

Of course, yes, especially if it is only going to run from Coventry.

 

[JonathanH]

Of course, yes, especially if it is only going to run from Coventry.

It isn't only going to run from Coventry because people in Milton Keynes also want to be able to travel to Birmingham without going via Northampton on a stopping train and people in Wolverhampton might need to go to London without changing in Birmingham.

 

[Callumphillips]

It isn't only going to run from Coventry because people in Milton Keynes also want to be able to travel to Birmingham without going via Northampton on a stopping train and people in Wolverhampton might need to go to London without changing in Birmingham.

Fair point actually.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The most recent plan I've seen was thus:

1 x Manchester (MKC, Rugby etc)
1 x Chester/North Wales (MKC only to keep it quick as it won't have a direct HS2 service)
2 x Birmingham (one WFJ one Rugby, all MKC), one continuing to Scotland

Personally I would have them all call Watford and Rugby, but it otherwise makes sense.

The other suggestion I saw was the Manchester extending to Scotland replacing the TPE, which makes some sense but may be an issue on Castlefield so probably won't happen.

 

[Ianno87]

Calling too many trains at Watford hits capacity. If everything stopped on the Fasts, then it'd be 12tph maximum (2 minute dwell, 3 minute reoccupation or thereabouts, so 1 train every 5 minutes).

Assuming you had something like:
2tph Manchester/Chester
2tph Birmingham
2tph Trent Valley local stations
2tph Northampton (Fast)
2tph Northampton (Fast to Leighton Buzzard)
2tph Northampton (Peak only, Fast to Leighton Buzzard)
...and you'd be full in the peaks.

 

[NoRoute]

People need to look at the current HS2 plans here. There will be no link from HS2 to New St, what would be the point, as New St is effectively full.

Where do you think most of the passengers boarding HS2 in Birmingham will be coming from? They're unlikely to be driving into the city centre, there's not enough residential development for them to live locally and walk in. Some might get the bus and walk over, but many will be getting the train into the city centre from the surrounding area, with most arriving at New Street.

It's a 10 minute walk from New Street over to the HS2 station, that's ignoring the time to get out and in the station. So 1/3 rd of the 30 minute Birmingham-London time saving on HS2 has evaporated immediately, just walking between the stations.

Then factor in that some trains to London start in other West Midlands towns, like Wolverhampton, but these can't join HS2 so passengers need to transfer, and not only is there 10 minutes gone, but probably a further 5-10 minutes of wait between arrival and departure. So that's half to two thirds of the HS2 time-saving gone.

If your goal is to reduce passenger journey times then having some link to the rest of the Birmingham rail system would have been rather useful.

 

[The Planner]

Where do you think most of the passengers boarding HS2 in Birmingham will be coming from? They're unlikely to be driving into the city centre, there's not enough residential development for them to live locally and walk in. Some might get the bus and walk over, but many will be getting the train into the city centre from the surrounding area, with most arriving at New Street.

It's a 10 minute walk from New Street over to the HS2 station, that's ignoring the time to get out and in the station. So 1/3 rd of the 30 minute Birmingham-London time saving on HS2 has evaporated immediately, just walking between the stations.

Then factor in that some trains to London start in other West Midlands towns, like Wolverhampton, but these can't join HS2 so passengers need to transfer, and not only is there 10 minutes gone, but probably a further 5-10 minutes of wait between arrival and departure. So that's half to two thirds of the HS2 time-saving gone.

If your goal is to reduce passenger journey times then having some link to the rest of the Birmingham rail system would have been rather useful.

How does that deal with the capacity issue? You are now dealing with residual classic services via the Cov corridor and HS2 into New St.

 

[NoRoute]

How does that deal with the capacity issue? You are now dealing with residual classic services via the Cov corridor and HS2 into New St.

If existing London bound services from the rest of the West Midlands already use capacity into New Street then having a link to HS2, to give the option for some of them services to travel to London via HS2 doesn't impact on capacity, it isn't using any more.

If there's a link between the existing network and HS2 then its possible to start services on the other side of the West Midlands conurbation, serving various large towns along the way and pick-up passengers, before dropping onto HS2 for the leg to London. Rather than going through the West Midlands, dumping everyone at New Street, where they need to get out, make their way across to HS2, wait around a while, before getting the HS2, thereby removing a significant proportion of the time saving.

Forget the needs of the railway for second, think about it from the perspective of a passenger making a journey. That journey doesn't begin at the HS2 station, it starts somewhere else.

 

[The Planner]

If existing London bound services from the rest of the West Midlands already use capacity into New Street then having a link to HS2, to give the option for some of them services to travel to London via HS2 doesn't impact on capacity, it isn't using any more.

If there's a link between the existing network and HS2 then its possible to start services on the other side of the West Midlands conurbation, serving various large towns along the way and pick-up passengers, before dropping onto HS2 for the leg to London. Rather than going through the West Midlands, dumping everyone at New Street, where they need to get out, make their way across to HS2, wait around a while, before getting the HS2, thereby removing a significant proportion of the time saving.

Forget the needs of the railway for second, think about it from the perspective of a passenger making a journey. That journey doesn't begin at the HS2 station, it starts somewhere else.

Of course its using more, you are only likely to lose one of the existing three fast services that are using the Cov corridor, so unless you are suggesting that only one of the three HS2 Birmingham services are using New St then it doesn't add up.

 

[gg1]

The most recent plan I've seen was thus:

1 x Manchester (MKC, Rugby etc)
1 x Chester/North Wales (MKC only to keep it quick as it won't have a direct HS2 service)
2 x Birmingham (one WFJ one Rugby, all MKC), one continuing to Scotland

Personally I would have them all call Watford and Rugby, but it otherwise makes sense.

The other suggestion I saw was the Manchester extending to Scotland replacing the TPE, which makes some sense but may be an issue on Castlefield so probably won't happen.

I'd be inclined to add a 2nd Manchester service, primarily for the benefit of those travelling to or from the intermediate stations rather than end to end journeys, something like:

Euston-Northampton-Stafford-Crewe-Wilmslow-Stockport-Manchester
Euston-MK-Rugby-Nuneaton-Tamworth-Lichfield-Stoke-Macclesfield-Stockport-Manchester

 

[NoRoute]

Of course its using more, you are only likely to lose one of the existing three fast services that are using the Cov corridor, so unless you are suggesting that only one of the three HS2 Birmingham services are using New St then it doesn't add up.

You've fixated on this issue of capacity at New Street when no one knows how services will evolve over the next decade or more and how that available capacity will be utilised, but you haven't addressed the original point which was why might you want a link between HS2 and New Street? Which I answered, to allow services on HS2 which extend, unbroken, into the rest of the West Midlands conurbation because many users will start their journeys outside Birmingham city centre, and I think there's a strong argument for that.

Afterall the location of a terminus station at Curzon Street was always a poor choice, which is why the original one closed and services moved to New Street.

 

[tomuk]

If existing London bound services from the rest of the West Midlands already use capacity into New Street then having a link to HS2, to give the option for some of them services to travel to London via HS2 doesn't impact on capacity, it isn't using any more.

If there's a link between the existing network and HS2 then its possible to start services on the other side of the West Midlands conurbation, serving various large towns along the way and pick-up passengers, before dropping onto HS2 for the leg to London. Rather than going through the West Midlands, dumping everyone at New Street, where they need to get out, make their way across to HS2, wait around a while, before getting the HS2, thereby removing a significant proportion of the time saving.

Forget the needs of the railway for second, think about it from the perspective of a passenger making a journey. That journey doesn't begin at the HS2 station, it starts somewhere else.

The only London bound service from the rest of the West Midlands is the 1tph from Wolverhampton. A billions of pounds junction from HS2 for that is a complete waste.

You will have nearly cross platform Interchange with the Snow Hill lines at Moor Street/Curzon Street even closer if the build the planned interchange bridge. All routes of the Midland Metro will stop under Curzon Street and there are also plans to improve the walking route tunnel under the Bull Ring.
Stafford will have its own 1tph HS2 via Handsacre.