I would expect Stevenage (and by the way also Peterborough) to be significant beneficiaries in terms of frequency. There are currently 5 Virgin-East-Coast trains an hour from Kings Cross, of which typically only two stop at Stevenage and 3 at Peterborough. A very plausible timetable post-HS2 phase 2 would see all 5 trains stopping at both stations. Since Stevenage-London passengers would now be better catered for by those trains, that may imply some existing Thameslink/Great Northern services being slightly slowed down between London and Stevenage, so stations like Welwyn Garden City see more frequent services.
I appreciate it's hard to sell that to people when it is based on educated-speculation about timetables that will not be actually determined for many years yet, but I'd be very surprised if overall service levels didn't improve at stations like Stevenage.
Stevenage currently sees up to two tph stopping by LNER, sometimes within 5 minutes of each other.
Post-HS2, I would imagine that the long(er) distance services on the ECML would become a standard stopping pattern 15-minute frequency (or better) service i.e. London-Stevenage-Peterborough-Grantham-Network-Retford-Doncaster, then the service splits to Wakefield, York and Hull. To this you could add a semi-fast service London-Finsbury Park-Stevenage-Huntingdon-Peterborough. Just one example, doubtless could be improved upon.
So broadly speaking, Stevenage residents might get an extra three trains an hour, but possibly lose some of the existing faster services because a few(?) of the stations further south might get some extra stops. This doesn't feel like a step-change in service provision that might be expected from a £100bn+ project.
I picked Stevenage for a specific reason. Capacity constraints on the main line south of there means freight usually goes via the Hertford Loop, which in turn potentially restrains the ability to improve passenger services along that route.
If the paths for the ex-LNER fasts have been repurposed for stopping passenger trains, where are all the additional freight trains going to squeeze in? The same question applies to the WCML and MML. Or should we not take the promises of additional freight capacity too seriously?
Those questions are largely rhetorical. The point I want to make is that whilst the design details of HS2 can be examined in depth, everyone is just guessing about what might happen on the classic network - despite the additional capacity creation being a fundamental justification for HS2.
Have another look at the video camflyer posted. At 4:38 the following comment is made.
Pretty much every problem there is in the rail industry and there are plenty can run back to the fact there isn't a strategy. There is no big plan. So that means you don't have a nice rolling programme of upgrades, you don't have the right skills to deliver stuff. And so there is only one glimpse of that I've seen in all my time in the railways and that's HS2...
HS2 is
not a big
plan. It is a very big scheme. Without an overarching strategy for rail then HS2 sits in isolation as something that sounds like a good idea, but nobody is quite sure (or can agree)
why. It can achieve a lot, but what is it we want to achieve?
And it isn't good enough to say that the scheme won't be ready for another 10 years so there is plenty of time to plan the other network changes. 10 years is nothing when it comes to strategic transport planning.
To convince people that HS2 is a good idea you need to be able to give them concrete answers to questions like "how does it benefit me?". Vague promises of a sunny future just doesn't do it.