Where should HS3 go and why?

[The Ham]

Thats true but we also need to think about journeys that originate in the West Midlands.

However if there are more local services it could be quicker post HS2 to get to many parts of the west midlands to other locations, even not using HS2 services and even if services from Birmingham New Street are a little slower than at present.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

One of the justifications for HS2 is that it'll free up capacity for local services (on lines currently dominated by non-stop high speed services).

But there are very few local services west of Reading (until you get to Newport/ Bath), it becomes a lot harder to justify separate infrastructure for fast services. Better to focus on upgrading the existing lines west of Reading.

I'd stick to something like Central London - Stratford - Stansted - Cambridge - Peterborough - Nottingham - Meadowhall - Wakefield - Leeds - Bradford (at the expense of an eastern arm of HS2) - since that could free up space for more local services at places that currently see a lot of fast services running non-stop through (like Stevenage)

That sounds like a good idea but because as you mention tbtc the eastern arm of HS2 makes such a route unlikely so any eastern HS2 alignment I believe will broadly follow the M1 northwards and link to the eastern arm of HS2 just south of Toton station possibly with parkway stations for Leicester and Northampton.

A separate HS3 could then be built similar to what you describe as far as Peterborough to reive the southern ECML, WAML and GEML?

 

[Ironside]

I am going to assume that an extension from either Leeds or Manchester to edinburgh/glasgow would be HS2 phase 3.


I would like to see a south west route. Ideally London to Exeter non stop in less than 45 mins, then direct to Plymouth, St Austell, Truro and Penzance. The aim being to bring Devon and Cornwall much closer to London. I think this would probably get watered down with an extra stop at either Reading, Basingstoke, or Bristol, which would add more connectivity. As the demand for this service would not be high enough to fill the line some classic compatable routes using the line for a while then diverting to other places like Southampton would be fine too.

I would also want an extra line conne ting London to Bristol, Cardiff and Swansea and another connecting Cardiff to Birmingham to allow Swansea and Cardiff to the HS2 route.

 

[59CosG95]

My proposal would be for one parallel to the South Coast linking into HS1 at Folkestone, following the planned route of the M27 from Folkestone, through Dover, Eastbourne, Brighton, Pompey, So'ton, Bournemouth, Weymouth, Exeter, Plymouth, Truro and Penzance. Could finally get (very indirect) services to Mont-St-Michel from St Michael's Mount if work was done on the French side!

 

[cle]

- A Javelin spec tunnel from the Bermondsey/New Cross Gate area to just south of Redhill - with one four platform underground station in Croydon.
- Platform 8 to be built at Gatwick.

- A second tunnel from Three Bridges to just north of Brighton.
- A single track curve between Preston Park and London Road (Brighton).

All Thameslink Brighton, Gatwick Express, Brighton expresses and E/W Coastway services to use it - sub-20 min journey times to Gatwick. Most to run through to Thameslink - some possibly up to Corby if on nicer, suitable stock. That's 14 tph, but more could be found.

Current infrastructure to be used to double up all inner/semi-fast workings (Horsham/Reigate/Tonbridge/Three Bridges terminators). Additional peak expresses from Hayward Heath to cover that being bypassed by fast trains - although if the curve to London Roasd wasn't possible, Lewes trains might use the current route after the first long tunnel and serve HH.

Would do so much more for more people than a Stansted spine. Busier airport, busier destinations (Brighton/Cambridge) and all along the coast too. It might even make Hastings quicker than via Tunbridge Wells.

Could allow a lot more capacity out of Victoria for the semi-fasts but also more local services.

 

[RichmondCommu]

However if there are more local services it could be quicker post HS2 to get to many parts of the west midlands to other locations, even not using HS2 services and even if services from Birmingham New Street are a little slower than at present.

I think you're missing the point here which is that connections between Curzon Street and the rest of the West Midlands network are not the best. Hence my plan for connecting the Cross Country network to HS2 through low level platforms at New Street.

 

[Daz28]

HS3 should be built somewhere that currently has no population and little demand. Then we should build a series of new towns along the route to solve the housing crisis.

History shows that where stations are built, houses will follow.

 

[RichmondCommu]

HS3 should be built somewhere that currently has no population and little demand. Then we should build a series of new towns along the route to solve the housing crisis.

History shows that where stations are built, houses will follow.

There's one heck of a difference between Bucks (I'm thinking of Milton Keynes here) and Powys! If we start squandering money on a high speed line to Powys I'll pack up and leave.

 

[Bonemaster]

One of the justifications for HS2 is that it'll free up capacity for local services (on lines currently dominated by non-stop high speed services).

But there are very few local services west of Reading (until you get to Newport/ Bath), it becomes a lot harder to justify separate infrastructure for fast services. Better to focus on upgrading the existing lines west of Reading.

I'd stick to something like Central London - Stratford - Stansted - Cambridge - Peterborough - Nottingham - Meadowhall - Wakefield - Leeds - Bradford (at the expense of an eastern arm of HS2) - since that could free up space for more local services at places that currently see a lot of fast services running non-stop through (like Stevenage)

A very sensible suggestion, if a little costly to build for geographical reasons in some places. Interesting number of stations being more than on the whole Y network of HS2, and 5 stations within 100 miles at the southern end of the route, something that has been soundly dismissed as part of HS2 and distances between stations close enough to win hearts and minds along the route, and solve capacity issues.

 

[glbotu]

I think a High-Speed service London - Cambridge calling at Stanstead and Stratford might take longer than the current London - Cambridge fast trains via the Cambridge Line, not stopping, it obviously depends on your speed, but at 150 mph, which has been suggested here, that won't make for much of a time reduction as it'll spend half its time accelerating/decelerating. 4 Tracking the WAML and sorting out problems like Digswell Viaduct/Ely North Junction are a far better use of money than HS3 to Cambridge.

I think HS3 to the South West is by far the better alternative.

 

[Will222]

Since this is a blue-sky thinking thread that requires no operational knowledge, I'll throw in my tuppence.

Looking purely from an economic growth point of view (and this is hardly a ground-breaking suggestion), it seems a no brainer for a fast cross-Pennines route linking Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Hull. Make those journey times the equivalent of catching a London tube and the passenger numbers will take care of themselves. Following on from KPMG's report, the brainpower is there - just that all the graduates currently move to London. And there's a swathe of land ripe for development if the planning laws were relaxed.

Secondly, and I'll no doubt be shot down from an engineering perspective, but continuing that line to Holyhead and re-emerging from a tunnel in Dublin (50% of Ireland's GDP) would be transformational for those cities and the Irish. Liverpool can finally get their HS2 spur to take the Irish to London too. As a UK taxpayer I'd happily stump up half the cost of the tunnel if the RoI/EU paid for the link as far as the Northern Irish border.

The tunnel and the connections to Liverpool/Belfast would no doubt be expensive but compared with funding NI's fiscal subsidy of £10bn/yr for the next 50yrs, it's got to be worth a look.

Beyond that, I'd have thought a line to Bristol, forking to South Wales and Cornwall would finish the job of shrinking the country, though it probably has a terrible financial case and might only work as a social transfer.

 

[The Ham]

How about HS3 running as two tracks through to just before Reading, where it becomes 4 tracks with the outer two tracks then allowing trains to slow to stop and Reading and then speeding back up again the other side before joing the through lines.

Then doing the same at Didcot and Swindon, but the outer lines then serve a spur to Oxford and Cheltenham respectively.

With the final route finishing at (or just before) Bristol.

Service pattern being something like.
1tph - London, Reading, Exeter and then onto Cornwall calling at most stations
1tph - London, Exeter, Newton Abbot, Plymouth
1tph - London, Reading, Bristol, Exeter, Newton Abbot, Plymouth
2tph - London, Oxford fast
2tph - London, Reading, Oxford
1tph - London, Reading, Swindon, Gloucester, Cheltenham
2tph - London, Bristol
2tph - London, Reading, Bristol Parkway, Newport, Cardiff

Of course there would still be some of the current services to fill in any gaps.

 

[DarloRich]

Yes, but HS2 was probably in planning way before HS1 came to fruition. The same is probably happening now with HS3.

That smacks of an integrated and planned transport network in this country! We will have none of that nonsense here! MUCH better just to make it up almost on the hoof as we have done for 200 years!

 

[JamesRowden]

Considering capacity issues are the core reason for building a new high speed line, one idea I came up with was to try and solve the Brighton Mainline and the London and South Western Mainline capacity problems in one:

Line Route

• Central London
• Dorking (Line Splits)
  • Basingstoke (Connection with Classic Network towards Southampton/Exeter)
  • Guildford (Connection with Classic Network towards Portsmouth)
  • Horsham (Connection with Classic Network towards Ford)
  • Shoreham (Connections with Classic Network towards Worthing & Brighton)
  • Haywards Heath (Connection with Classic Network towards Brighton/Lewes)

Obviously some of the branches could be made up of some of the same lines (e.g. Shoreham and Haywards Heath routes could run via Horsham).

If services ran through London to continue as semi-fast services up the WCML/MML/ECML/GEML rather than terminate at London it might be cheaper (through not needing to build as many London platforms) and offer greater connectability. The trains would only need to be 140 mph and with the short journey times to London that many services would have I do not think that the luxaries of the stock would need to be up to 'intercity' standard (with the Weymouth and Exeter services being notable exceptions for which limited terminating capacity in London could be provided).

But this is just an idea.

 

[Geezertronic]

I think you're missing the point here which is that connections between Curzon Street and the rest of the West Midlands network are not the best. Hence my plan for connecting the Cross Country network to HS2 through low level platforms at New Street.

I suppose a comparable integrated system is the London Underground and whilst I wouldn't dream of advocating an Underground system for Birmingham, the Metro extensions (and improvements on them) should aid in transfers from New Street, Moor Street and Curzon Street (especially if the tickets are integrated so passengers can use both train and Metro).

I guess Birmingham Interchange (Airport) could also be used to change onto Cross Country services as well (via Birmingham International)?

 

[LexyBoy]

If we're in the mood of claiming HSR will bring regional economic benefits, my suggestion would be a "new Cross Country Mainline" (on the German model of incorporating bits of existing lines):

Plymouth-Barnstaple - using the existing alignment as far as Gunnislake and on to Tavistock, with upgrades;
Barnstaple-Cardiff - either going through the top of Exmoor or a longer underwater tunnel if not viable;
Cardiff-Newport - on SWML;
Newport-Coventry-Leicester - connexion with Marches line before Hereford, and connexion with HS2 before Coventry. Coventry would probably have to be tunneled; use existing line from roughly Narborough.
Leicester-Toton - using existing line; connexion with HS2 NE branch at Toton.

A second Severn crossing to link Bristol would be good but the existing tunnel combined with a link in Gloucestershire or Worcestershire would be OK.

Roughly 200 miles of new HS line, with at least 20 miles tunneled. The tunnel between Devon and Wales would of course be expensive, but the alternatives would require lots of tunnelling through hilly terrain anyway and lose an important link. On the use of existing routes:

• Plymouth-Gunnislake is lightly used and would not cause massive disruption to be closed for a while for realignment & electrification
• The South Wales Main Line would not require work beyond new junctions east of Cardiff and west of Newport, already being a 125 mph electrified route
• A junction to the west of Hereford and electrification Hereford-Worcester-Birmingham would not require major disruption (ideally Hereford-Newport would be electrified too).
• Junctions & short stretches of electrification at Narborough and Toton would be quick to do; the MML north of Leicester would, I think, have capacity for some more trains - likewise HS2 and the northern ECML.

Services could be (not necessarily all end-to-end):

• Plymouth-Cardiff-Coventry-Leicester-Toton-Leeds-Newcastle-Scotland
• Plymouth-Cardiff-B'ham Int-Manchester/Liverpool
• Plymouth-Cardiff-Bristol
• Plymouth-Cardiff-London (via GWML)
• Bristol-B'ham Int-Manchester
• Bristol-Coventry-Leicester-Leeds
• Leicester-Coventry-London
• Leicester-Coventry-Manchester/Liverpool
• Birmingham-Worcester-Hereford-Cardiff-Plymouth

Benefits:

• An entirely new link between the far South West and South Wales, creating new journey & employment opportunities
• Faster journeys (and an alternative route) to London from Plymouth & Cornwall (I'd estimate around 2.5 hours from Plymouth)
• Pressure on the Cross Country Main Line reduced allowing for capacity increases on local services (& freight if there's demand)
• Hugely reduced journey times for Bristol, the SW & Wales to the Midlands & North
• Potential for HS services to London/Manchester from Leicester & Coventry

Although by building through Reading and beyond it would allow a better service to places like Swindon and Pangbourne, both of which could provide more passengers if the trains which called there weren't full and/or had a more frequent service.
[...]
New stations which could be built could include Grove (Wantage), possibly a second staion for Swindon, Wooton Bassett and Chipping Sodbury.

Capacity can and will be addressed with longer trains and electrification though - I don't think there's demand for a parallel to the GWML in the medium term at least. Four tracking from Didcot to Wooton Basset at least would be a great boost - and probably relatively inexpensive compared to the WCML (since the trackbed is already there).

Maybe I'm overoptimistic, but I don't see the GWML modernisation being a rerun of the WCML fiasco.

 

[Zoe]

Service pattern being something like.
1tph - London, Reading, Exeter and then onto Cornwall calling at most stations
1tph - London, Exeter, Newton Abbot, Plymouth
1tph - London, Reading, Bristol, Exeter, Newton Abbot, Plymouth
2tph - London, Oxford fast
2tph - London, Reading, Oxford
1tph - London, Reading, Swindon, Gloucester, Cheltenham
2tph - London, Bristol
2tph - London, Reading, Bristol Parkway, Newport, Cardiff

So Taunton will lose the current fast service to London and end up with just a semi-fast service calling at several stations on the Berks and Hants and extending the fastest journey times from Taunton to London by about 20 minutes? If you are running three high speed services per hour from London to Exeter then I'd have thought at least one of them could stop at Taunton. You could possibly remove Newton Abbot from the from one of the two Plymouth services per hour to create a "super fast" service which could then call only at Reading, Exeter, and Plymouth. The second service could then call at Reading, Bristol, Taunton, Exeter, Newton Abbot and Plymouth. I'm not sure there would actually be demand for two high speed services per hour to Plymouth though. I see the Penzance train would run non-stop to from Exeter to Cornwall. I'm not sure much time would be gained by not stopping at Plymouth although if the demand for 2 high speed Plymouth to London services is low then there certainly is not going to be demand for 3 trains per hour. You could of course build a new line bypassing Plymouth (would likely include a new Tamar bridge) to accelerate journey times to Cornwall although I'm not convinced there would be demand for this or even if there would be demand for an hourly service from London to Penzance. I'm also not sure even Exeter would have demand for 5 tph to London(3 high speed plus 1 semi fast via the Berks and Hants and 1 Waterloo).

 

[PR1Berske]

Well HS2 will reduce the number of direct services from major towns and cities in central England, so any service pattern for HS3 would invariably do the same (in the 40/50 years from now it will take to build it)

If even "enthusiasts" have to reduce direct services in a make believe projection, then what does that tell you about reality?!

 

[TheKnightWho]

Well HS2 will reduce the number of direct services from major towns and cities in central England, so any service pattern for HS3 would invariably do the same (in the 40/50 years from now it will take to build it)

If even "enthusiasts" have to reduce direct services in a make believe projection, then what does that tell you about reality?!

Do you really believe this stuff? I really do wonder what your motivation is sometimes.

 

[PR1Berske]

Do you really believe this stuff? I really do wonder what your motivation is sometimes.

It's all here - http://www.highspeedrailuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/hs2-and-north-south-divide.html

Services will be cut across the North, and particularly Scotland, as a consequence of HS2. It's there in the HS2 report as a direct consequence.

 

[The Ham]

So Taunton will lose the current fast service to London and end up with just a semi-fast service calling at several stations on the Berks and Hants and extending the fastest journey times from Taunton to London by about 20 minutes? If you are running three high speed services per hour from London to Exeter then I'd have thought at least one of them could stop at Taunton. You could possibly remove Newton Abbot from the from one of the two Plymouth services per hour to create a "super fast" service which could then call only at Reading, Exeter, and Plymouth. The second service could then call at Reading, Bristol, Taunton, Exeter, Newton Abbot and Plymouth. I'm not sure there would actually be demand for two high speed services per hour to Plymouth though. I see the Penzance train would run non-stop to from Exeter to Cornwall. I'm not sure much time would be gained by not stopping at Plymouth although if the demand for 2 high speed Plymouth to London services is low then there certainly is not going to be demand for 3 trains per hour. You could of course build a new line bypassing Plymouth (would likely include a new Tamar bridge) to accelerate journey times to Cornwall although I'm not convinced there would be demand for this or even if there would be demand for an hourly service from London to Penzance. I'm also not sure even Exeter would have demand for 5 tph to London(3 high speed plus 1 semi fast via the Berks and Hants and 1 Waterloo).

I did say "something like" implying that I was looking for feedback, so your point about Taunton is helpful, I'll think about where would be a good service to add it to.

With regards to numbers of services, we are likely to be talking about 20 years from now, so there could well be demand for a more frequent service to many locations.

 

[TheKnightWho]

It's all here - http://www.highspeedrailuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/hs2-and-north-south-divide.html

Services will be cut across the North, and particularly Scotland, as a consequence of HS2. It's there in the HS2 report as a direct consequence.

So because there has been talk of cutting additional services, the argument that HS2 creates additional capacity doesn't hold in and of its own right? Somehow I'm not seeing that.

 

[LexyBoy]

As I see it, The Ham's proposed services are basically exactly what is proposed for the GWML following IEP. Taking all of the intercity services off the GWML would leave an awful lot of capacity, which I doubt would be used.

The most beneficial part would be Reading-London, but this is of course the most difficult and expensive to do. If this could be done, then a much more intensive outer-suburban network could be provided to complement Crossrail.

 

[ainsworth74]

A reminder that this thread is not for discussing HS2 and the likelihood of it being built or it's value for money. There is already a dedicated thread for that.

 

[joeykins82]

A load of old tosh

Coventry: services cut from 3 to 2 per hour
An outright lie: there will be 2 fast London trains per hour originating from Birmingham New Street and a further fast train per hour originating from Liverpool, running via Birmingham. There will be 2 semi fast via Northampton in addition to the 3tph fast.

Stoke-on-Trent: cut from 2 to 1 per hour
1 fast direct London per hour but faster overall journey time by taking XC to Birmingham and changing to HS2 captive service

Stockport: cut from 3 to 1 per hour
Wilmslow: all intercity services to London axed
As above but changing at either Manchester or Crewe

Lancaster: cut from 1 per hour to 1 every 2 hours and journey time lengthened
Penrith: no services cut, but journey time of all London services lengthened
Carlisle: no services cut, but journey time of all London services lengthened
Oxenholme: cut from 1 most hours to 1 every 2 hours and journey time lengthened
Ignores proposed classic compatible service from Birmingham Curzon St which would give faster overall journey time even with a change of train.

Leicester: cut from 4 to 3 per hour
True, but offset by increase in other destinations served; 1tph each-way Newcastle-Bristol via Leicester & Nuneaton. Also ignores impact of less crowded trains as London-Nottingham/Derby/Sheffield flows transfer to HS2.

Nottingham (city centre): cut from 2 to 1 per hour
Derby: no services cut, but journey time of all London services lengthened
Chesterfield: cut from 2 to 1 per hour
Ignores that the fastest overall journey will be by changing to HS2 at Toton

Sheffield (city centre): cut from 2 to 1 per hour
Fastest overall journey by travelling via Meadowhall

Wakefield: cut from 2 to 1 per hour
Ignores that fastest journey is by taking XC to Meadowhall for HS2 interchange, also ignores new 2tph Leeds-Doncaster via Wakefield & South Elmsall service

Doncaster: 77 trains per day are predicted to run by the year 2033 if HS2 is not built, but only 48 per day with HS2 operational.
Does Doncaster need 6tph to London? If principal passenger flow is to/from Leeds then new 2tph Leeds-Doncaster shuttle accommodates turn up and go service, otherwise crowding eased by transfer of passenger flows from Leeds/York/Newcastle travelling via HS2 services.

In the small print of its document, HS2 Ltd suggests that all through trains from London to Dundee and Aberdeen would be axed, along with the daily train to Inverness and the service to Glasgow via Edinburgh on the East Coast line. Passengers travelling between London and stations north of Edinburgh would have to change at Edinburgh. This would mean all of the following losing their direct service to London: Aberdeen, Stonehaven, Montrose, Arbroath, Dundee, Leuchars, Kircaldy, Inverkeithing, Haymarket, Inverness, Aviemore, Kingussie, Pitlochry, Perth, Gleneagles, Stirling and Falkirk Grahamston.
Unless the lines to Inverness & Aberdeen are electrified the HS2 CC stock could not operate north of Edinburgh/Glasgow; fastest journey times to London will consequently be by changing at Glasgow or Edinburgh. This is perhaps the only area where I can see a valid argument as it is a total withdrawal of a direct, albeit slower service; it's possible that XC/EC will opt to run a 1tpd service or perhaps that an Open Access Operator will step in if there is a genuine gap in the market.

 

[SkinnyDave]

Coventry: services cut from 3 to 2 per hour
An outright lie: there will be 2 fast London trains per hour originating from Birmingham New Street and a further fast train per hour originating from Liverpool, running via Birmingham. There will be 2 semi fast via Northampton in addition to the 3tph fast.

Stoke-on-Trent: cut from 2 to 1 per hour
1 fast direct London per hour but faster overall journey time by taking XC to Birmingham and changing to HS2 captive service

Stockport: cut from 3 to 1 per hour
Wilmslow: all intercity services to London axed
As above but changing at either Manchester or Crewe

Lancaster: cut from 1 per hour to 1 every 2 hours and journey time lengthened
Penrith: no services cut, but journey time of all London services lengthened
Carlisle: no services cut, but journey time of all London services lengthened
Oxenholme: cut from 1 most hours to 1 every 2 hours and journey time lengthened
Ignores proposed classic compatible service from Birmingham Curzon St which would give faster overall journey time even with a change of train.

Leicester: cut from 4 to 3 per hour
True, but offset by increase in other destinations served; 1tph each-way Newcastle-Bristol via Leicester & Nuneaton. Also ignores impact of less crowded trains as London-Nottingham/Derby/Sheffield flows transfer to HS2.

Nottingham (city centre): cut from 2 to 1 per hour
Derby: no services cut, but journey time of all London services lengthened
Chesterfield: cut from 2 to 1 per hour
Ignores that the fastest overall journey will be by changing to HS2 at Toton

Sheffield (city centre): cut from 2 to 1 per hour
Fastest overall journey by travelling via Meadowhall

Wakefield: cut from 2 to 1 per hour
Ignores that fastest journey is by taking XC to Meadowhall for HS2 interchange, also ignores new 2tph Leeds-Doncaster via Wakefield & South Elmsall service

Doncaster: 77 trains per day are predicted to run by the year 2033 if HS2 is not built, but only 48 per day with HS2 operational.
Does Doncaster need 6tph to London? If principal passenger flow is to/from Leeds then new 2tph Leeds-Doncaster shuttle accommodates turn up and go service, otherwise crowding eased by transfer of passenger flows from Leeds/York/Newcastle travelling via HS2 services.

In the small print of its document, HS2 Ltd suggests that all through trains from London to Dundee and Aberdeen would be axed, along with the daily train to Inverness and the service to Glasgow via Edinburgh on the East Coast line. Passengers travelling between London and stations north of Edinburgh would have to change at Edinburgh. This would mean all of the following losing their direct service to London: Aberdeen, Stonehaven, Montrose, Arbroath, Dundee, Leuchars, Kircaldy, Inverkeithing, Haymarket, Inverness, Aviemore, Kingussie, Pitlochry, Perth, Gleneagles, Stirling and Falkirk Grahamston.
Unless the lines to Inverness & Aberdeen are electrified the HS2 CC stock could not operate north of Edinburgh/Glasgow; fastest journey times to London will consequently be by changing at Glasgow or Edinburgh. This is perhaps the only area where I can see a valid argument as it is a total withdrawal of a direct, albeit slower service; it's possible that XC/EC will opt to run a 1tpd service or perhaps that an Open Access Operator will step in if there is a genuine gap in the market.

Why hasn't there been people outspoken against this idea as I remember when the Scottish Government looked into trains terminating at Edinburgh, people hit the roof?
Doesn't affect me at the moment as I travel to Edinburgh or Central to get my connection however if Virgins proposed services to Stirling ever came off I'd use that

 

[SansPareil]

Since this is a blue-sky thinking thread that requires no operational knowledge, I'll throw in my tuppence.

Looking purely from an economic growth point of view (and this is hardly a ground-breaking suggestion), it seems a no brainer for a fast cross-Pennines route linking Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Hull. Make those journey times the equivalent of catching a London tube and the passenger numbers will take care of themselves. Following on from KPMG's report, the brainpower is there - just that all the graduates currently move to London. And there's a swathe of land ripe for development if the planning laws were relaxed.

This, this and this a dozen times over. (If you don't mind I'll ignore the second part of your proposal as that could be an entirely separate and altogether different project). At the moment it takes approximately an hour to travel between Manchester and Leeds or Liverpool, and around 2 hours between those cities respectively, quite frankly it's ridiculous.

If you tie all three of those cities together, all of which have been resurgent in the last two decades you would do a tremendous amount to re-balance the economy internally within the UK away from the South East.

The extension to Hull would be logical given the much easier terrain east of Leeds, and to perhaps allow for connections at the ECML. The economic benefits for Hull would be massive, perhaps an intermediate station and associated new town could be established at Selby.

I know this isn't the thread for discussing HS2 but I think in terms of money invested in High Speed Rail for economic and social return this would have been a much better bet and should have come first. I also think it would have been far less controversial.

If we're getting into fantasy land about route extensions etc then a spur from Manchester down to Meadowhall utilizing the former Woodhead route and then on to East Midlands interchange along HS2 phase 2, and a branch to Doncaster from Meadowhall would be my suggestions.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

A reminder that this thread is not for discussing HS2 and the likelihood of it being built or it's value for money. There is already a dedicated thread for that.

Are you really surprised that such HS2 matters have occured on this thread, with forum members using the HS2 project as a benchmark to fly their personal HS3 kite ideas...:roll:

 

[The Ham]

So Taunton will lose the current fast service to London and end up with just a semi-fast service calling at several stations on the Berks and Hants and extending the fastest journey times from Taunton to London by about 20 minutes? If you are running three high speed services per hour from London to Exeter then I'd have thought at least one of them could stop at Taunton. You could possibly remove Newton Abbot from the from one of the two Plymouth services per hour to create a "super fast" service which could then call only at Reading, Exeter, and Plymouth. The second service could then call at Reading, Bristol, Taunton, Exeter, Newton Abbot and Plymouth. I'm not sure there would actually be demand for two high speed services per hour to Plymouth though.

Ok, so slight amendment:
1tph - London, Reading, Exeter and then onto Cornwall calling at most stations (including Plymouth)
1tph - London, Exeter, Plymouth
1tph - London, Reading, Bristol, Taunton, Exeter, Newton Abbot, Plymouth
2tph - London, Oxford fast
2tph - London, Reading, Oxford
1tph - London, Reading, Swindon, Gloucester, Cheltenham
2tph - London, Bristol
2tph - London, Reading, Bristol Parkway, Newport, Cardiff

However even with an extra 2 or 3 stops on the B&H line the journey time may not be that much slower than at present as by the time of HS3 the B&H should have been electrified meaning that accerlartion is better.

I'm also not sure even Exeter would have demand for 5 tph to London(3 high speed plus 1 semi fast via the Berks and Hants and 1 Waterloo).

Firstly, there could be more demand in 2040 than at present.

Secondally the service to Waterloo and the service via B&H would likely only attract passegers which were going to places along those lines and not into London (e,g, Westbury, Newbury, Salisbury, Basingstoke, etc.), in the same way that you wouldn't argue that the Waterloo services should be cut if there are more services on the B&H.

Finally, it could well be that by the time this HS line is built that there could well be 2 services to Waterloo (plus 1 on the current service pattern) and 3 trains an hour along the B&H (plus 1 on the current service pattern), meaning that even with 3tph on the HS line, 2tph going to Waterloo (3 to 5 coaches), one semi fast via B&H (3 to 5 coaches rather than 9) and one slow via B&H (3 to 5 coaches rather than 9) that the increase in (viable) services to London wouldn't really be that much more than at present

 

[Altnabreac]

Why hasn't there been people outspoken against this idea as I remember when the Scottish Government looked into trains terminating at Edinburgh, people hit the roof?
Doesn't affect me at the moment as I travel to Edinburgh or Central to get my connection however if Virgins proposed services to Stirling ever came off I'd use that

Worth remembering that the published post HS2 timetable is merely indicative services used for modelling purposes and not what is actually likely to run.

There will be discussion and consultation closer to the time on actual service patterns.

For example in Scotland it is unlikely that Carstairs will actually end up with 2tph to London, if 400m CC services are splitting for Edinburgh and Glasgow its much more likely to happen at a rebuilt Carlisle station in my opinion.

With north of Edinburgh services there is no reason these should not be HS CC operated once Aberdeen and Inverness are electrified. It is very likely that this work will be complete by 2033 but as these projects are outwith the control of HS2 they have modelled for a situation where they have not been electrified.