Since the captive trains are 2 200 metre units (sensible since I am sure they will rarely run doubled up in practice) why can't the classic compatibles do likewise? That being the case, building new stations for HS2 becomes a much more flexible affair, needing only new platforms and mouth remodelling, arriving into cities on classic rails.
You would then need to build the same set of four 400m platforms at Piccadilly as are planned, and have to find out some way of connecting them to the lines south of the station without impeding capacity. All of this will have a cost and will cause disruption in a way that isn't caused by the HS2 plans. With the past few days' disruption at King's Cross making national news, I hope you are aware of just how difficult it actually is to do massive changes to the existing railway.
What this idea would mean is that the platform space currently used by the Pendolinos would become available but there would be no track capacity for it to be used by any other services, so the positives won't be as good as they are for HS2, as the scheme will allow there to be significantly more local services along the Stockport corridor.
That's very interesting, how much time could be saved and how? I wonder why HS2 didn't include this when they published the times for the destinations. Nearly one hour and forty minutes isn't much to get excited about, after all.
In their Route Engineering Options Report, MSG did have a map with various options for HS2 running into Liverpool. There were various chords or minor line readjustments suggested that would reduce journey times on existing tracks. However, I think it is sensible that none are being provided as they would cause disruption while being built, would only save a few minutes and would then become useless once a captive link must be built. HS2 infrastructure should be built properly from the very start, and making compromises in the short term can cause long term problems.
That seems so obvious.
I read 15 minutes max can be shaved off the Crewe to Liverpool run. This would take Liverpool to about 1hr 21 minutes from London via the Crewe Hub using CC lines; and Manchester about the same. So I can't see the logic in extending HS2 above Crewe to shave off about 16 minutes to Manchester. That few minutes will cost a fortune. I can't see that tunnel being used either. Manchester airport can only be accessed from the south with high-speed rail so Birmingham and London are served better than the North West towns and cities.
Which is why it's not being done to shave off the time to Manchester; it's being done to provide extra capacity and to allow the Stockport corridor to be used for other train services.
Oddly enough, as the current plans for high speed rail exist only to the south of Manchester it makes sense that Manchester Airport will only see high speed services to the south. Passengers from the Airport will be allowed to use the various HS2 services from Piccadilly so the line does have some utility for them, but more importantly it frees up capacity at Piccadilly and in other places for more local services from across the wider North West to then reach the Airport. Also, when HS2 is extended to Scotland via Preston, there will almost certainly be an hourly train alternating between Glasgow and Edinburgh heading to Manchester via the Airport, so the Airport will then be accessible from the North as well as the South of Great Britain. As it is centrally located, unlike Heathrow, it will flourish with the expansion of the high speed rail network.
What will determine taking HS2 directly to Manchester is HS3. If this is high-speed track from Liverpool to Manchester then this can be used to access both cities on HS2. If it is not high-speed rail track then there is a good probability that Manchester will not get full high-speed track from Crewe. This is why Higgins wants the Crewe Hub finished at the same time as phase 1, effectively a part of it.
Which is odd given that David Higgins plans to speed up construction of Phase 2 so that it opens in 2030. He plans that the station sites are built at the same time as the Phase 1 ones so that wider regeneration work can commence as soon as possible, even though the tracks won't reach the station for a few years. Higgins wants the entirety of Phase 2 speeded up but there are various components of the lines which will delay opening until 2030. However, the line between Handsacre and Crewe is simple and cheap to build, therefore it can be built for around the same time as Phase 1 and that's the sole reason it is being built that quickly. There is no hidden subtext.
An hour and twenty is a fair time to get to Manchester or Liverpool. I've personally never had a problem getting a seat on Manchester trains. Of course, projections for the future and all that, but doubling up classic compatibles seems a more sensible approach than these captive trains and dedicated lines all over the place.
A more sensible approach if you already have 400m platforms available in Manchester, which there aren't. There is no business case in providing 400m platforms to be used by classic-compatibles.
Dare I say that if the trains are 400 metres long, then you don't really need three of them an hour and thus can save capacity on the line that way?? Is there much difference to a passenger between a service every 20 minutes and a service every 30? I don't think so, particularly when most people book ahead rather than turn up and go these days.
You do need them at the same frequency as there is at the moment. If frequency is reduced, they become less popular and the business case for HS2 gets worse.
Having the Crewe Hub completed at the same time is not difficult to understand either, no matter what phase it is called.
You have not written why they cannot be 400m long. I cannot see what te cannot be full length.
Because there's no reasonable way to provide 400m platforms at Piccadilly for them. That kills that idea completely.
Will they? That is wild optimism.
As journey times decrease, more people want to do the journey. I cannot fathom why you believe this won't happen. When British Rail brought in the HSTs and 125mph running, did passenger numbers increase?
More wild optimism. So Manchester is going to increase threefold in population on 15-20 years?
Passenger numbers don't depend upon population. If that were true, there's no way that passenger numbers in the UK could have risen by so much in recent years even though population growth has not been that high.
Manchester was inexplicably given three London trains per hour when demand was not there or predicted to increase to three times the level. The empty trains blocked up the WCML and this was given as an excuse to justify HS2 as the WCML was "short of capacity".
If there's one problem everyone criticises the GB rail network for having it is that the trains between the largest cities are always full to the brim with fresh air.
Government needs to plan ahead, but predicting that Manchester to London rail traffic will increase about fourfold is pure madness.
Are you a professional planner? Do you have any experience in predicting things?
This section does not need three Virgin trains as they running full of empty seats. Three HS2 trains 400m long will carry one hell of bunch of people.
And the only truly relevant passenger number figure is during the peak.
Pendolinos can do 150mph with in-cab signalling. The line to Scotland can be ironed out in part. Freight can be run at night or diverted to the Settle to Carlisle line for a length of its run.
Freight can't all be run at night because maintenance has to be done and because some freight journeys take too long to stay wholly within the 'night'.
Glasgow to Liverpool and Scotland can had in about 1hr 40m using an uprated CC line and 150mph Pendolinos. That is highly acceptable and not fantasy.
Uh huh.
This my first time on this forum and I detect attitude when I come across it and you have it spades. I assume others have ripped you apart as well by your reaction when cornered. You are trying to justify the unjustifiable here.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
No one does. You will have problems getting seats on the Liverpool trains.
Doubling up classic compatibles does seem a more sensible approach than these captive trains and dedicated lines all over the place for sure.
You do have common sense. There is also the prospect of double decked high-speed trains, of which provision must be made. Of course bridges would need attention, etc, but the cost will be less less than high-speed track all the way.
Uh huh.
Pendolinos can only do a max of 140 mph with in cab signalling, 125 mph without. Where do you get the 150 mph figure from ?
150mph Pendolinos + Crewe Hub meaning no HS2 to Manchester + Liverpool = Mad John/tan.fastic from SkyscraperCity.
