Will HS2 make rail travel worse.

[The Planner]

King's Cross to St Pancras is also "not 10 minutes," Is one of the miraculous benefits of HS2 an increase in walking speed?

You are going to have to explain that one to me considering the topic was Moor St to Curzon St.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 May 2022 ==

To be pedantic: Extra platforms? What extra platforms? Moor Street already has 2 terminating platforms. I can see two in the picture, possibly three (it's not quite clear) , so isn't it either no change, or one extra platform?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 May 2022 ==

Plan is for new platforms on the up side as well.

 

[Bevan Price]

The "walk problem" is New St. to Curzon St., not Moor St. to Curzon St. Although maybe not too long for fit people, at night it passes through far from pleasant areas, with all sorts of "dubious" characters hanging around.

As for HS2, I don't "hate it", I just remain unconvinced that it is the best, and most economic, solution for a country the size of UK. And I think that some people may be grossly over-optimistic about the number of passengers it will attract. A lot of people value convenience or (low) fare levels more than speed.

 

[AM9]

Thanks for the pic - that's pretty clear. I'm somewhat surprised they're not proposing a canopy for the whole length of the link bridge. Even though it's a very short distance, that looks like it'll be a short but very unpleasant walk on rainy days (albeit very nice on sunny days).

I think that diagram shows why the two stations need to have different names and be treated as different stations: They may be next to each other, but they still have completely separate entrances. It would be pretty confusing to people arriving there if they were advertised as parts of the same station.

To be pedantic: Extra platforms? What extra platforms? Moor Street already has 2 terminating platforms. I can see two in the picture, possibly three (it's not quite clear) , so isn't it either no change, or one extra platform?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 May 2022 ==



I guess to be fair, the plan was for 400m long HS2 trains (is that still the plan?) So if you have a reserved seat in the front carriage of a train leaving Curzon Street...

It would still be 400m long if the platforms were right next to each other.

 

[peteb]

The "walk problem" is New St. to Curzon St., not Moor St. to Curzon St. Although maybe not too long for fit people, at night it passes through far from pleasant areas, with all sorts of "dubious" characters hanging around.

As for HS2, I don't "hate it", I just remain unconvinced that it is the best, and most economic, solution for a country the size of UK. And I think that some people may be grossly over-optimistic about the number of passengers it will attract. A lot of people value convenience or (low) fare levels more than speed.

Agree with New St to Curzon St comments. It's such a pity that with HS2, WCML, NE-SW, Chiltern/Snow Hill lines all more or less intersecting just east of Moor St that they didn't create one huge interchange there serving all lines, there's acres of space in which to do this. Additional stops at New St and Snow Hill for city centre could be factored in to services running through. As proposed, Wcml and ne-sw trains will run past Curzon Street and passengers changing to/from HS2 will have to double back.

 

[SynthD]

The tram may solve some of that.

 

[Nottingham59]

It's such a pity that with HS2, WCML, NE-SW, Chiltern/Snow Hill lines all more or less intersecting just east of Moor St that they didn't create one huge interchange there serving all lines, there's acres of space in which to do this.

I think that summarizes the main problem with HS2 as I see it. It was designed as a self-contained overlay to existing services, and not as an integrated part of the wider network.

 

[quantinghome]

I think that summarizes the main problem with HS2 as I see it. It was designed as a self-contained overlay to existing services, and not as an integrated part of the wider network.

I don't think you're seeing it correctly.

Could it be better integrated? Yes, in some cases - Birmingham in particular is a missed opportunity. But that's overlooking the good integration elsewhere - Euston, OOC, Crewe, Manchester.

The only 'self-contained' services are between London, Birmingham and Manchester. Every other destination makes use of the existing network.

Other than Birmingham which most people accept is a missed opportunity (although we shouldn't underestimate the cost), how would HS2 look different like if it were "an integrated part of the wider network"?

 

[david1212]

...
As for HS2, I don't "hate it", I just remain unconvinced that it is the best, and most economic, solution for a country the size of UK. And I think that some people may be grossly over-optimistic about the number of passengers it will attract. A lot of people value convenience or (low) fare levels more than speed.

This is how I view it too. The distances are not huge & current journey times against those proposed are not massive savings compared with mainland Europe. Using HS2 will for many require an extra stage in their journey to join a HS2 service reducing the benefit even if no additional cost. For others if services they currently use become semi-fast their end-to-end journey will be slower.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is how I view it too. The distances are not huge & current journey times against those proposed are not massive savings compared with mainland Europe. Using HS2 will for many require an extra stage in their journey to join a HS2 service reducing the benefit even if no additional cost. For others if services they currently use become semi-fast their end-to-end journey will be slower.

I'd say "for some", not "for many". And the paths freed up will allow many intermediate stations a better service, e.g. MKC, the Trent Valley etc.

There are two obvious losers - Stockport and Coventry. Coventry won't lose much as 2tph fast to London (though both calling at Rugby and MKC) are likely to remain. Stockport does lose two thirds of its London service, but it's worth bearing in mind that most users of Stockport to Euston don't live there, it's used as a South Manchester Parkway type station, a role which will be taken over by the Manchester Airport HS2 station. One train per hour direct to London (with a few more stops) doesn't strike me as unreasonable for Stockport as a place on its own.

The one big thing I would change would be to put the Birmingham station underground as a through station under New St and joined to New St as one station. The Curzon St thing is a minor inconvenience (not much more so than walking from Liverpool Central to Lime St) but it's still an inconvenience, and it would be easier to have through Euston-Brum-wherever services that way.

The rest of it is very similar to being a Swiss style Neubaustrecke - it's bypassing busy parts of the WCML, it just happens that the main bit needing bypassing is the south end. It's not really about speed per-se as a primary thing, but it'd be fairly pointless building it as a 125mph railway when you can build much faster for not all that much more cost. I could see an argument to build to 140mph, though, and possibly also for 265m or so* UK gauge rather than 400m Euro-gauge trains, but again I'm not sure how much going a bit faster and a bit bigger would really add.

* An 11-car Pendolino is roughly that

 

[quantinghome]

But even north Wales will profit from HS2, even though the railway doen not directly serve Wales.

Euston to Crewe via HS2 will be 30 minutes faster than the current services, so if you don't mind changing trains in Crewe you can shave off some time compared to today (assuming decent connections are provided).

Not only that, but Chester / North Wales is an obvious route for more frequent direct services using WCML capacity freed up by HS2. And you'd get more direct connections than the current direct service which only stops once between Crewe and London.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not only that, but Chester / North Wales is an obvious route for more frequent direct services using WCML capacity freed up by HS2. And you'd get more direct connections than the current direct service which only stops once between Crewe and London.

I seem to recall hourly to Chester non-stop from Euston to Crewe is the intention in order to compensate for those services not running onto HS2. But I believe there is a spare hourly half-train (200m) path on HS2 which could be sent to Holyhead if they get the wires up. It will be interesting to see if people prefer that or prefer changing to HS2 at Crewe, which should inform what is done long-term.

 

[quantinghome]

The distances are not huge

True.

& current journey times against those proposed are not massive savings compared with mainland Europe.

Not true. London-Manchester saves an hour. That's huge. London-Glasgow also reduces by nearly an hour which will make a severe dent in the air market.

Using HS2 will for many require an extra stage in their journey to join a HS2 service reducing the benefit even if no additional cost.

There are very few journeys currently served by direct trains which will no longer have direct trains post-HS2.

For others if services they currently use become semi-fast their end-to-end journey will be slower.

Yes, but they'll be more frequent and serve more locations. Great news if you're not travelling to London.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I seem to recall hourly to Chester non-stop from Euston to Crewe is the intention in order to compensate for those services not running onto HS2. But I believe there is a spare hourly half-train (200m) path on HS2 which could be sent to Holyhead if they get the wires up. It will be interesting to see if people prefer that or prefer changing to HS2 at Crewe, which should inform what is done long-term.

I can't imagine hourly Euston-(non-stop)-Crewe-Chester being worth doing post-HS2. Since HS2 isn't planned for bi-modes, it would have to run on the existing WCML, which makes it (a) pointless, other than for journeys to Chester, and (b) likely to conflict path-wise with slower WCML trains. There's no way that post-HS2, you're going to want to run non-stop Euston-Crewe services on the WCML. And I'm pretty sure Chester by itself doesn't generate enough demand for an hourly service to London: The pre-Covid London-Chester route was always very lightly loaded in my experience.

I could imagine an hourly London - (several stops) - Crewe - Chester, with some services being extended to North Wales - with most passengers being generated as local traffic between London-Crewe. And I can also see the attraction of wiring up North Wales to facilitate an hourly Holyhead-HS2-London service, although I suspect the rationale would be more political/regeneration: I'm not sure the route features any destinations that provide enough passengers to really justify an HS2 service.

 

[keithboddey]

Can someone explain to me how a trip from Wolverhampton to Euston will be better with HS2 ?

 

[takno]

I think that summarizes the main problem with HS2 as I see it. It was designed as a self-contained overlay to existing services, and not as an integrated part of the wider network.

Most of the trains are non-captive with destinations beyond the ends of the H2 network, virtually all of the stations are co-located with existing stations, and interchange between them has been considered. We don't yet have information about through-ticketing and operational matters, but the original plan for the current West Coast franchise was that that operator would run both. It's possible that it won't be give to Network Rail to operate (although that's definitely not a given), but in every other respect it's absolutely being planned as an integrated part of the existing network

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Can someone explain to me how a trip from Wolverhampton to Euston will be better with HS2 ?

Has someone told you that that particular journey would be better? I'd expect the effect of HS2 to be somewhat neutral for that journey - some positives, some negatives:

Off the top of my head:

On the + side...
If you are willing to change to HS2 at Birmingham, you could get a slightly a faster journey overall compared to today. And you have the option of getting off at Old Oak Common rather than Euston - that might be more convenient for you, depending where your final destination in London is.
Again if changing at Birmingham, you'll also have less crowded trains between Wolverhampton and Birmingham, since passengers travelling between Birmingham and Manchester/the North-West won't be on those trains any more: They'll be on the much faster HS2 trains.

On the - side...
If you want a direct train (and I'm guessing that there will still be an hourly direct train), it may stop at a few more places between Birmingham and London. Not so good if you're doing Wolverhampton-London, but much better for travel to the intermediate places.

 

[Halish Railway]

On the - side...
If you want a direct train (and I'm guessing that there will still be an hourly direct train), it may stop at a few more places between Birmingham and London. Not so good if you're doing Wolverhampton-London, but much better for travel to the intermediate places.

Once HS2 begins operation, it is planned that Wolverhampton to Euston via the WCML will be half-hourly.

Another benefit of Curzon Street is that you will be able to take the tram from Wolverhampton to Curzon Street. Whilst very few people would do the journey from Wolverhampton station to Curzon Street, it will be useful for other parts of Wolverhampton and the many settlements between Wolverhampton and Birmingham.

 

[tomuk]

Another benefit of Curzon Street is that you will be able to take the tram from Wolverhampton to Curzon Street.

Who would take a tram from Wolverhampton to Curzon Street? It would take ages.

 

[The Planner]

Has someone told you that that particular journey would be better? I'd expect the effect of HS2 to be somewhat neutral for that journey - some positives, some negatives:

Off the top of my head:

On the + side...
If you are willing to change to HS2 at Birmingham, you could get a slightly a faster journey overall compared to today. And you have the option of getting off at Old Oak Common rather than Euston - that might be more convenient for you, depending where your final destination in London is.
Again if changing at Birmingham, you'll also have less crowded trains between Wolverhampton and Birmingham, since passengers travelling between Birmingham and Manchester/the North-West won't be on those trains any more: They'll be on the much faster HS2 trains.

On the - side...
If you want a direct train (and I'm guessing that there will still be an hourly direct train), it may stop at a few more places between Birmingham and London. Not so good if you're doing Wolverhampton-London, but much better for travel to the intermediate places.

Probably quicker to go to Stafford to catch the HS2 service from Macclesfield.

 

[NoRoute]

Probably quicker to go to Stafford to catch the HS2 service from Macclesfield.

Which when you step back and look at the situation would be crazy, HS2 is meant to connect the West Midlands conurbation and its economy to the rest of the UK and yet a major West Midlands city like Wolverhampton (~250k people) is likely to get better access by having passengers jumping in the car, or taking a connecting train and travelling north to a modest town like Stafford (70k people) taking a service starting from a minor town like Macclesfield (51k people).

HS2 should have had a connection with the conventional network at Birmingham.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Which when you step back and look at the situation would be crazy, HS2 is meant to connect the West Midlands conurbation and its economy to the rest of the UK and yet a major West Midlands city like Wolverhampton (~250k people) is likely to get better access by having passengers jumping in the car, or taking a connecting train and travelling north to a modest town like Stafford (70k people) taking a service starting from a minor town like Macclesfield (51k people).

Not really crazy at all. Wolverhampton is almost equidistant from Birmingham and Stafford, so it's hardly surprising if, from some parts of Wolverhampton, it's quicker to get to Stafford than to Birmingham. Add to that, Wolverhampton to Birmingham is a rather slow, congested, train route. It'd probably be nice in principle to do something about that, but that's not got anything to do with HS2.

HS2 should have had a connection with the conventional network at Birmingham.

It practically does - it stops right next to Moor Street. In an ideal money-no-object World, it would have had a better connection, ideally to New Street, but that would've added another huge some of money (some £billions I imagine) to the cost of building the project.

 

[The Planner]

Which when you step back and look at the situation would be crazy, HS2 is meant to connect the West Midlands conurbation and its economy to the rest of the UK and yet a major West Midlands city like Wolverhampton (~250k people) is likely to get better access by having passengers jumping in the car, or taking a connecting train and travelling north to a modest town like Stafford (70k people) taking a service starting from a minor town like Macclesfield (51k people).

HS2 should have had a connection with the conventional network at Birmingham.

I know of a good few people who pre-pandemic would get on the Liverpool service from Euston and double back to Wolves.

 

[GoneSouth]

Which when you step back and look at the situation would be crazy,

Could be crazier, just ask the people of Leeds and Bradford how crazy the whole project is.

On the subject of Leeds, will HS2 improve a journey from Bristol to Leeds or Sheffield?

I suspect the answer I’m going to get on here in the usual dismissive style is that it doesn’t really matter because there’s only a tiny number of people making that particular point to point journey.

 

[The Planner]

Could be crazier, just ask the people of Leeds and Bradford how crazy the whole project is.

On the subject of Leeds, will HS2 improve a journey from Bristol to Leeds or Sheffield?

I suspect the answer I’m going to get on here in the usual dismissive style is that it doesn’t really matter because there’s only a tiny number of people making that particular point to point journey.

If the Bordesley chords are built and XC go into Moor St, potentially yes.

 

[peteb]

What's the journey time Euston to Stafford via HS2 going to be?

 

[mrmartin]

What's the journey time Euston to Stafford via HS2 going to be?

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_2, 0:55

 

[peteb]

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_2, 0:55

Hmm....so Kidderminster to Stafford 55 mins by car, 10 mins to park, then 55 mins to London......nah, I'll stick with Chiltern or going via Worcester and FGW.....
But from Wolverhampton, say 20 mins by car plus park plus 55 mins....possibly quicker, but a faff and it's still only marginally faster than driving to Wolverhampton station and getting Wcml from there.
The main beneficiaries will be places like Newport Shropshire which will be only 75 minutes from London, using Stafford as a railhead instead of Telford or Wolverhampton.

 

[JamesT]

Hmm....so Kidderminster to Stafford 55 mins by car, 10 mins to park, then 55 mins to London......nah, I'll stick with Chiltern or going via Worcester and FGW.....
But from Wolverhampton, say 20 mins by car plus park plus 55 mins....possibly quicker, but a faff and it's still only marginally faster than driving to Wolverhampton station and getting Wcml from there.
The main beneficiaries will be places like Newport Shropshire which will be only 75 minutes from London, using Stafford as a railhead instead of Telford or Wolverhampton.

Surely from Kidderminster if you were going to drive somewhere to get HS2 into London it would be Birmingham Interchange? 43 mins drive, 10 mins parking, 38 mins to Euston.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Hmm....so Kidderminster to Stafford 55 mins by car, 10 mins to park, then 55 mins to London......nah, I'll stick with Chiltern or going via Worcester and FGW.....
But from Wolverhampton, say 20 mins by car plus park plus 55 mins....possibly quicker, but a faff and it's still only marginally faster than driving to Wolverhampton station and getting Wcml from there.
The main beneficiaries will be places like Newport Shropshire which will be only 75 minutes from London, using Stafford as a railhead instead of Telford or Wolverhampton.

Fundamentally you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs, so there will be some minor losers in the likely big timetable reshuffles post HS2. However, so far as I can tell the only big loser will be Stockport (though Cov will lose 1tph fast to London with the remaining two likely to get Rugby, MKC and Watford stops, but I'd not call that a big loss, it'll only likely cost about 5-6 minutes). But as noted, Stockport is primarily a south Manchester parkway station, with that function moving to Manchester Airport 1tph will be entirely sufficient to serve people who actually live there, particularly given that some of those people will either drive/take the 199 bus to the Manchester Airport parkway station and some will double back via Piccadilly for HS2 there (with at least 11tph* of connections that isn't exactly prohibitive).

It's just like fare reform, you can't do it without someone losing, but the benefits of doing it are big enough that that has to be accepted.

* It's 13 now, so I've worked that just based on dropping two Avanti services, but there will be other tweaking and increases in local services most likely, so about that

 

[Rich McLean]

Surely from Kidderminster if you were going to drive somewhere to get HS2 into London it would be Birmingham Interchange? 43 mins drive, 10 mins parking, 38 mins to Euston.

During the middle of the day maybe, but not during the morning or evening rush, would be about double that via the M6 and M42.