High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

HSTEd · 11 Jan 2012

brad465 said:
Any other stations would cost more and would not have much time saved compared to using the classic line, plus would restrict service frequency towards faster services, and gives less leeway time in case of delay.

But I keep getting told that the speed is just a bonus for additional capacity.
The additional stations I have outlined along that alternative route would provide incredible local service capacity, freeing more of the classic line paths for the freight and London Midland style multiple unit services that are required for the stations that are not served by these intermediate stations.
(Perhaps even Cl390 services to secondary stations on the way to destinations like Liverpool or wherever).

20tph fast is hardly a "restriction", that would make it one of the most heavily used high speed lines in the world, beating even the Shinkansen, especially as you consider the number of "stopping" paths available (~5-10tph) which would also be useful for ECS movements (since you are unlikely need moer than 2-3tph of a 16 carriage double decker set for any of these places, even in rush hour).

Extension of the "stopping" trains over other parts of the network as "semi-fast" services (running fast from Birmingham Int. to Leeds or whatever) would also provide connectivity that would not be available otherwise.

Likewise as to the journey time, the most comparable service for the "stopping" train would arguably be one operated London Midland with regards to the number of stops (ie. a "fast" stopping train and not a "slow" express) at which point it thrashes it. (~1hr25 versus going on 2hr).

RailUK Forums

GingerSte · 11 Jan 2012

JohnCarlson said:
If you look at Leeds station on Google earth at about the seven o clock position there is a long disused two track viaduct running from the Wakefield line to the entrance to Leeds station with a lot of disused and semi used industrial land around it. I wonder if an HS2 station could be built there?

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/11967/

I had a similar idea. Assuming that it was coming from a similar direction to the Leeds-Wakefield line. The new line would cross the existing viaduct gaining elevation towards Leeds City Centre. It would then cross over the Western throat into Leeds City Station, turning right and the new station would be in the space currently used by the staff and multi-storey car parks.

Piccy

This would mean having to move the existing car parks, but the area to the North (on the other side of the River Aire) would be suitable for an MSCP.

HSTEd · 11 Jan 2012

GingerSte said:
I had a similar idea. Assuming that it was coming from a similar direction to the Leeds-Wakefield line. The new line would cross the existing viaduct gaining elevation towards Leeds City Centre. It would then cross over the Western throat into Leeds City Station, turning right and the new station would be in the space currently used by the staff and multi-storey car parks.

Piccy

This would mean having to move the existing car parks, but the area to the North (on the other side of the River Aire) would be suitable for an MSCP.

That would cause issues with turning it into yet another terminus station.

Nym · 11 Jan 2012

GingerSte said:
I had a similar idea. Assuming that it was coming from a similar direction to the Leeds-Wakefield line. The new line would cross the existing viaduct gaining elevation towards Leeds City Centre. It would then cross over the Western throat into Leeds City Station, turning right and the new station would be in the space currently used by the staff and multi-storey car parks.

Piccy

This would mean having to move the existing car parks, but the area to the North (on the other side of the River Aire) would be suitable for an MSCP.

You mean pretty much like what I posted a few pages back?

Also, it's not long enough in that drawing, it needs to go all the way from the main concourse building to the end of that viaduct (430m long)

YorkshireBear · 11 Jan 2012

Nym said:
You mean pretty much like what I posted a few pages back?

Also, it's not long enough in that drawing, it needs to go all the way from the main concourse building to the end of that viaduct (430m long)

Yeah ive been doing some looking for last few days went down there to have a nosy this morning. Yes it could work easily. My only thought on trying to get onto that viaduct though would be to try follow the leeds midland road (FL depot) to leeds line and with the industrial waste area around it build emabnkments/viaducts and go up over the line and into the station you suggested maybe slightly over p0/1 (the future p0) on a two level station. Excellent interchange. This would also if you branch off at leeds midland road give you a chance to go down the m1 corridor down to horbury where you can go where you want to sheffield.

Thats my current thoughts anyway. Not sure if it has been said but thats what i think. Not entirely sure how i would get us out of leeds though to head to the NE... unless its back where we came from and round after leaving at around leeds midland road again. You would have to have drivers pull in then a changover of drivers with second driver already waiting for platform to minimize turn-around times. Or build a 6km tunnel..... bit tricky to be honest.

Just to add then that gives you an almost perfect route into meadowhall area for interchange station to be built there. My thoughts on sheffield are not so good, i dont know, if building it opposite of sheffield to the most wealthy areas will work. Thinking EMU shuttle running Dore (maybe another station built there is room as it used to be 4 track dore sheffield) sheffiled meadowhall HS2 interchange.

IanXC · 11 Jan 2012

Badger said:
Using the following site: http://www.daftlogic.com/projects-google-maps-distance-calculator.htm

New Street to Moor Street: 250m
New Street to proposed Curzon Street entrance: 300m
New Street to former Curzon Street entrance: 650m
New Street to Millenium Point: 700m

You can see therefore where the confusion may lie, the former Curzon Street station is a fair distance away - but the new station's doors much closer.

Which is why I think the mooted name of "Birmingham Fazeley Street" is much better - avoids this confusion and is clearly new and different.

HSTEd · 11 Jan 2012

jimmyowl1992 said:
Yeah ive been doing some looking for last few days went down there to have a nosy this morning. Yes it could work easily. My only thought on trying to get onto that viaduct though would be to try follow the leeds midland road (FL depot) to leeds line and with the industrial waste area around it build emabnkments/viaducts and go up over the line and into the station you suggested maybe slightly over p0/1 (the future p0) on a two level station. Excellent interchange. This would also if you branch off at leeds midland road give you a chance to go down the m1 corridor down to horbury where you can go where you want to sheffield.

Thats my current thoughts anyway. Not sure if it has been said but thats what i think. Not entirely sure how i would get us out of leeds though to head to the NE... unless its back where we came from and round (which could work)

Just to add then that gives you an almost perfect route into meadowhall area for interchange station to be built there. My thoughts on sheffield are not so good, i dont know, if building it opposite of sheffield to the most wealthy areas will work. Thinking EMU shuttle running Dore (maybe another station built there is room as it used to be 4 track dore sheffield) sheffiled meadowhall HS2 interchange.

Build new classic terminus platforms at Leeds over the carpark and shift as much traffic into them as possible, allowing the through platforms to be rebuilt to High Speed gauge.
Either that or just double deck the entire trainshed and extend the platforms over the current approaches.

I would not use that viaduct as it comes ni too close to the existing station for 400m platforms to be practical, I would divert the Wakefield Line onto the line through Cottingley using a cutting, then use the Wakefield Line right of way to approach the station with the viaduct continuing over the existing approach lines and into the new station above the current one.

The line would continue south towards Sheffield along a route similar to the one you describe with a short tunnel under one of the suburbs near Wakefield to get into open country (cant remember the name, its in that KMZ of mine).

brad465 · 11 Jan 2012

HSTEd said:
But I keep getting told that the speed is just a bonus for additional capacity.
The additional stations I have outlined along that alternative route would provide incredible local service capacity, freeing more of the classic line paths for the freight and London Midland style multiple unit services that are required for the stations that are not served by these intermediate stations.
(Perhaps even Cl390 services to secondary stations on the way to destinations like Liverpool or wherever).

20tph fast is hardly a "restriction", that would make it one of the most heavily used high speed lines in the world, beating even the Shinkansen, especially as you consider the number of "stopping" paths available (~5-10tph) which would also be useful for ECS movements (since you are unlikely need moer than 2-3tph of a 16 carriage double decker set for any of these places, even in rush hour).

I can see this possible now, although I think a fair few passing loops will be needed, many of which being at stations, to allow trains that will run fast all the way to keep up speed, and as someone said earlier I believe, would need to be quite long to help much of the train's deceleration to an intermediate station off the main section.

YorkshireBear · 11 Jan 2012

HSTEd said:
Build new classic terminus platforms at Leeds over the carpark and shift as much traffic into them as possible, allowing the through platforms to be rebuilt to High Speed gauge.
Either that or just double deck the entire trainshed and extend the platforms over the current approaches.

I would not use that viaduct as it comes ni too close to the existing station for 400m platforms to be practical, I would divert the Wakefield Line onto the line through Cottingley using a cutting, then use the Wakefield Line right of way to approach the station with the viaduct continuing over the existing approach lines and into the new station above the current one.

The line would continue south towards Sheffield along a route similar to the one you describe with a short tunnel under one of the suburbs near Wakefield to get into open country (cant remember the name, its in that KMZ of mine).

Now that is a good idea.... I like that quite a lot. (the build classic terminus platforms on car park.... ) Wuold have to think about TPE services though and XC cant just go taking up all the line out of the back of leeds for HS2

HSTEd · 11 Jan 2012

brad465 said:
I can see this possible now, although I think a fair few passing loops will be needed, many of which being at stations, to allow trains that will run fast all the way to keep up speed, and as someone said earlier I believe, would need to be quite long to help much of the train's deceleration to an intermediate station off the main section.

Actually High Speed trains can brake extremely rapidly, and with the availability of 100mph diverging path swingnose crossings, I calculated that the train could brake, clear the line and allow the points to set back to the through route before the train behind has to start emergency braking to avoid derailing if the points do not interlock. (At 2 minute headways)

Thanks to moving block signalling it can also start moving the second points gain interlock after a fast train passes and can accelerate up to line speed as its "path" catches up with it.
This is feasible because my proposal suggested trains with 75% or more of its axles motored in the style of Shinkansen, which are capable of 0-170mph in three minutes.

This would however require the line to effectively operate under computer control with the driver merely waiting with his hand over the emergency brake control (well it would be a dead man's handle but you get the idea) for most of the time.

Nym · 11 Jan 2012

My Leeds plans are for a terminus station, any through services use Classic Compatable stock and the main shed at Leeds City after pushing onto the Wakefeild Line further out.

Services onto Bradford etc, would either approach from the other side (not likely) or reverse with a link toward the airdale etc. lines available by reversal at the HS2 station (on some platforms)

ECML North services would not call at Leeds initally but leave the HS2 route at 'Sheffeild Parkway' and head for Doncaster, if there's space, on their own lines into a pair of 400m platforms at Doncaster where services would split for two destinations off Doncaster, including Edinbrugh, Newcastle, Hull, Harrogate, Leeds via Wakefeild (Keeping fast services to there) etc.

So effectively Leeds terminates the captive network at City, and a branch off to Doncaster is provided at Sheffeild. When the HS2 route continues onwards at full gauge, Leeds station will be remaining the same, but the track to the south will be re-configured so that Leeds sits at the end of a Delta junction, the same as Manchester and Birmingham. A much larger delta than Birmginham for both Manchester and Leeds though.

Leeds to the North would run through Strouton alongside the current lines (mainly industrial land) then turn North, meeting the extended 'main route' from the south this would come in from East of Wakefeild, either using the Stroton approach again, with a tighter delta junction, laid out from opening stage 2. Stage 2 will also see the 'Doncaster Link' in place, proberbly branching just south of Sheffeild, running up between Maltby and Tickhill to connect into the ECML, or, running onto the lines via Rotherham at Sheffeild, depending on the speeds desired. Sheffeild's station depends on if you want to try and shoehorn the mainline into Nunnery Square or not

If it's there you can reverse out for the Rotherham lines, running onwards on the route through Victoria (not at all sudgesting woodhead here, although it would be nice) and then cut North for Leeds. (If woodhead where being incorperated, run this again with another Delta Junction north of Sheffeild with one line to Sheffeild Nunnery Square, one to Woodhead and one to Leeds (And links into the old network for services that wouldn't be running HSCC stock) OK, getting adventorous now.

Anywho, theres a couple of routes through Sheffeild. Leeds I'd approach through Stourton, delta junction around Woodlesford, with the link line at Doncaster serving York, Hull, Harrogate via York, etc. (Similar to the 'old' Rugley link on the West Side for Stafford, Crewe and Chester) when the line to Newcastle is built, it will be built from here. Possibly have a tempoary join in at Micklefeild.

YorkshireBear · 11 Jan 2012

Nym said:
Cba quoting its massive!

Im so stupid, i originally thought that going in nunnery square was good idea then up towards stocksbridge but turning off much earlier than that though. You would have to tunnel under grenoside (im from here i know the woodhead area very well from sheffield to deepcar) .

My only concern is the impact this would have on local services up the woodhead (i am 99% these will have been introduced by 2026 as the demand is there now let alone in a 15 years time)

Nym · 11 Jan 2012

You think that post's massive??

It would be possible to share tracks from near stocksbridge to victoria / nunnery square, although I'm wondering if there would be enough space for 4 track on that route, 2 for HS2bL and two for 'Woodhead', with woodhead taking both Classic Compatable HS stock for High Speed transpennine services (running via Leeds) and faster services to Sheffeild from Manchester and Liverpool via HS2 & Manchester S Parkway (But using Classic Compatable Stock displaced from the opening of phase 2)

HSTEd · 11 Jan 2012

A high speed transpennine line definitely should be on the table at some point, there is certainly demand between Manchester and leeds to justify the double decker train capability, especially if HS2 reaches Scotland.

My only issue is that having Leeds be a terminus on a spur like Birmingham is that you will end up with having non stop point to point trains to everywhere which would be an inefficient use of stock thanks to the time lost reversing a 400m train (driver has to walk the entire length).
Especially as if you were to double deck the existing station you can get easy access to open country to the east by using only about two miles of the classic right of way

brad465 · 11 Jan 2012

If HS2 is indeed going to have at least 20tph running, then Euston, and Birmingham especially will need a large number of platforms more to cope with traffic. Does anyone know how many will be needed roughly? :idea:

Based of Victoria having around 25tph using 19 platforms well, and how HS trains may need more loading time at Termini, 19 would be a decent number to add to Euston and slightly less to Birmingham as less services would either reach there, and/or terminate there (which won't happen until extension opens obviously).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

HSTEd said:
My only issue is that having Leeds be a terminus on a spur like Birmingham is that you will end up with having non stop point to point trains to everywhere which would be an inefficient use of stock thanks to the time lost reversing a 400m train (driver has to walk the entire length).
Especially as if you were to double deck the existing station you can get easy access to open country to the east by using only about two miles of the classic right of way

Do you think the trains should also have a PE qualification to enable them to run from one end to the other, and Eurostars manage alright at the moment at just under 400m, so the timing to walk the distance should be near enough the same.

HSTEd · 11 Jan 2012

brad465 said:
Do you think the trains should also have a PE qualification to enable them to run from one end to the other, and Eurostars manage alright at the moment at just under 400m, so the timing to walk the distance should be near enough the same.

Where does Eurostar reverse in the middle of the service?

brad465 · 11 Jan 2012

HSTEd said:
Where does Eurostar reverse in the middle of the service?

It doesn't, sorry. :oops:

But the driver could still jog the distance as I also said.

JohnCarlson · 11 Jan 2012

Nym said:
You mean pretty much like what I posted a few pages back?

Also, it's not long enough in that drawing, it needs to go all the way from the main concourse building to the end of that viaduct (430m long)

NO NO NO that not what I meant at all.

hock: Actually what I meant was use the viaduct area inslef for the platforms. :lol:

The car park area is I believe already earmarked for additional local platforms.

I might consider double decking the station but as others have pointed out that might lead to weight problems on the existing structure, and of course your having construction going on above a station already packed to the rafters. .

Using the viaduct would mean that your building mist of it on a brownfield sight giving less disruption to the existing station.

And there is also lad free for car parks station buildings. The two stations would abut a bit like the old Manchester Victoria-Exchange platforms.

SuperOwl86 · 11 Jan 2012

Regarding Sheffield I would think they would be 3 sites to maybe look at for HS2 if it even comes this way could still end up with the Brum - Manc - Lds routes.

First site this is no order by the way, would be at Waverly in Rotherham, This would need to be looked at now before they put 10.000 homes on the site, easy access to M1 J33, with a massive P+R included, would also build the train station that SYPTE didnt have the balls to build. Think this could be a plus point for the routing coming up through Beighton would then be able to head back towards the M1 and head north towards Leeds without having to weave into Sheffield.

Second Sheffield Victoria would more or less be the same as above although this would follow the Lincoln line and head towards Deepcar, I also think you could four track this route only, Pros and cons to this one, having to battle city traffic and not sure if their is the space around Wicker for the things the come with a station of its kind.

Third finally is Meadowhall where in Meadowhall is a different matter think the Viaduct and the current rail lines make this one tricky, I would guess if it was Meadowhall it would be on the Rotherham side of the viaduct, but then you would have a huge tunnel going under Kimbleworth i think.

This is just my thoughts on any possible location for a South Yorkshire station

HSTEd · 11 Jan 2012

The viaduct in question is quite distant from the main line station when all things are considered, so I would advise reserving it and using it or a pair of international platforms should a market for such services develop, the international concourse and security being built atop the viaduct between the two components. (Perhaps with a mezzanine for cafes and the like)

As for the problems associated with double decking the platforms in the main station, it will probably be up for a complete reconstruction before then (this is 25 years in the future) and improvements to the structure could be made ahead of time, perhaps even including the structural elements for the double decking during this work.

If that is impractical, how about demolishing the current concourse and turning the terminus platforms into through platforms for HS2, adding new terminus platforms over the current car park?

Waverley125 · 11 Jan 2012

with regard to Leeds NO NO NO NO NO NO.

Honestly, does no-one read my posts?

Approach Leeds via the existing South eastern approach (Pontefract/Hallam lines) through Stourton & Hunslet. If necessary this could be widened to 6 lines (4 classic, 2HS) without too much difficulty. Take this approach until you reach the old junction point for Crown Point goods yard (now a retail park). Swing north onto the site of the current retail park (LS10 1ET for anyone who wants to map it).

The station would be here, on a north-south alignment, with platforms swinging northeast, as well as dropping down on a fair gradient from the south to the north. Hunslet Lane (the main road) would have to be rebuilt as a bridge through the roof of the trainshed (as at Victoria, Brighton side). The line would continue to drop down, and enter a Tunnel portal just before passing under Waterloo Street.

The main station building would be located on the corner of Salem Place & Waterloo Street, with a new pedestrian boulevard & footbridge to take arrivals across Meadow Lane, the Aire & across to Sovereign Street, where they can access City station.

The line would then tunnel under the Aire, turning sharply northeast and continuing under Quarry Hill & East End Park, before rising in what's currently the disused yard south of Neville Hill depot (maximum length of 1.5 miles). This would then allow it to access the east leeds line (which could easily be increased to four tracks out to Cross Gates. The HS line can then swing northwest, before heading due North, on to Newcastle (when that section's built, till then trains can head to York via the existing line).

JohnCarlson · 11 Jan 2012

Waverley125 said:
Firstly, I never said the line would serve Durham, you're strawmanning me. The line very specifically would not serve Durham, it would probably head northwest, bisecting Durham & Chester le Street, and end up using the (now abandoned, but extant) eastern approach to Newcastle Central north of the Tyne.

I also have never said trains would serve Tees Valley Parkway (Durham Tees Valley airport is so called because it is in county Durham, not Durham itself, as I have said before, it's equidistant between Middlesbrough and Darlington) and Darlington Bank Top, I have said HS services would serve Tees Valley Parkway only, and all conventional services that currently serve DBT would still serve it. This is a pretty horrific argument John, given you're effectively saying 'If you did it this way, it would be bad'. But I'm not arguing to do it 'that way', I'm arguing to do it the way I've written it down.

Unless further clarification is needed, HS2 would be completely separate between Cross Gates (Leeds, where it leaves the ELL) & Newcaslte Central station. Tees Valley would have split-level interchange between the Tees Valley Metro & HS2, the line would not serve DBT or Durham, or use the ECML to get into Newcastle.

As for using DBT on it's own, that's great for Darlington, it's bugger all use for Teeside. which is why DTV is the best site for TVP. As for platforms being moved, bingo! Yes, this is quite clearly what I've said. the airport station is being moved closer to the terminal anyway, but I'd just assumed a very short tunnel under the runway & a station in a cutting with escalator/traveltor interchange.

As for Teeside not being particularly wealthy, yes. By bringing it onto the HS2 network you make the region as a whole more accessible, you create jobs, and you free up space on the classic lines for direct Middlesbrough-London services on a clockface timetable. Much better than the status quo. As for the good people of Guisborough, well, they might not use it to go south, but going North (To Newcastle) it would be of huge benefit, and would give Teeside the benefit it needs in fully integrating it into the northeast, which, because it's quite far away from Tyne & Wear (in a local sense), it currently isn't.

The line north of Leeds would firstly serve Newcastle as well, so at least 3tph there, plus a much quicker service to Scotland (90 minutes as opposed to 3.5 hours) would justify an increase in frequency. I don't imagine capacity would be used up straight away, but it would certainly go up after the line was built. Leeds-Newcastle in 30 mins, Sheffield-Newcastle in 50 mins and Nottingham-Newcastle in 80 mins would also create new journey markets which currently don't exist up the east coast.

As for the city centre station site, no. An exit on the corner of Meadow Lane & Waterlo street would be perfectly positioned for a pedestrian boulevard across Meadow Lane, and a new footbridge across the Aire, leading to a new southeastern City station entrance in the area bounded by Sovereign Street. A 2 minute walk maximum, Leeds City & Leeds Waterloo (HS) would be separate stations, but they'd be easily accessible from one to the other (rather like Wigan Wallgate & Wigan North Western). Yes, this would require slow speeds, but so does any station, and the benefits of city centre stations (see France) are much greater than those that are Parkways. So while there'd be a timeloss, the journey would be quicker, compensating for all those people who'd have to spend extra time on a slow train getting to your proposed parkway.

This is summed up nicely in your last paragraph, where 'getting York' for a time saving trades off the loss of the 3rd biggest city in the country. I'll say it again, York is 1/6th the size of Leeds, has about 20% the business population, and is mainly a tourist destination. Go to York station on a morning (or in fact any time of day) and see the sardine-tin trains heading into Leeds. Leeds is the major economic centre of Yorkshire, and it makes far more sense to serve Leeds than to serve York, especially given that you'd lose time to stop at York, so the overall time loss of stopping at Leeds (compared to stopping elsewhere) is pointless. Because really John, HS2 needs to stop where the people are. Because that's how railways get passengers. And while a faster connection to London would be good, a faster connection to Scotland would, to my mind, be much more beneficial.

I used Durham as an example to show that if you built a Tesside parkway station it would be difficult for people from Durham to access HS2 unless they doubled back on themselves and went to Newcastle. Darlinton Bank Top would get all the trains your parkway station would get plus a lot more. You wouldn't have the building costs of a parkway station and you wouldn't have the extra running costs. Indeed I wonder how much demand there would be at a Tesside Parkway station if all the existing trains still went to Bank Top?

I would guess a maximum of two trains per hour which means such a parkway station would incur hefty running costs when the whole thing need not be there at all. Using Bank Top as the HS2 station wouldn't significantly detract from Teessiders using it as its only about 5 minutes extra away on the same train you propose them using and of course five minutes less of your coming in from Bishop Auckland. And I suspect other connections for Teessiders such as buses would be much better at Bank Top.

If you not going to reduce the about of trains running through Bank Top you cant free up space for Middlesbrough London Trains.

Not sure how your parkway station would regenerate Teesside. Parkway stations can be good for people living in their area to get somewhere else but but much good for others coming the other way Teesside already has good connections to and from Leeds and London. Any time savings gained by using HS2 would be destroyed by having to change onto something else before getting into Teesside, so your Parkway station is really "Bugger all use isn't it. .

You say HS2 needs top go where the people. Yes I agree. Who wouldn't. And Yes I would go to Leeds. But then you say go to the middle of a field vaguely near an area which is vaguely in economic decline in the vague hope of triggering regeneration but defiantly don't go to York which would be very close to the HS line and while it may not have to the population of Leeds does have a reasonably wealthy one, is in growth and has a huge existing tourist market.

You route plan seems strange. Heading north after Crossgates brings you near to Darlington but on the west side, but to to get to Teesside Airport airport you have to swing strongly east, how strongly depending on how much of Middleton st George you want to demolish, then to come in along the Tyne from the west you would need a major easterly turn, and although I am not that clued up on the terrain, would presumably need to run near to Connsett which I am guessing would involve some major gradients and power consumption and then through Swallwell unless your gong to demolish a huge amount of Gateshead. Finally make a sharp right turn before running along the Tyne which should slow things down nicely.

This route makes no sense whatsoever. But you don't want to run to York because its a few mikes out the way and packed with commuters and tourists.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

HSTEd said:
The viaduct in question is quite distant from the main line station when all things are considered, so I would advise reserving it and using it or a pair of international platforms should a market for such services develop, the international concourse and security being built atop the viaduct between the two components. (Perhaps with a mezzanine for cafes and the like)

As for the problems associated with double decking the platforms in the main station, it will probably be up for a complete reconstruction before then (this is 25 years in the future) and improvements to the structure could be made ahead of time, perhaps even including the structural elements for the double decking during this work.

If that is impractical, how about demolishing the current concourse and turning the terminus platforms into through platforms for HS2, adding new terminus platforms over the current car park?

The mezzanine floor and the cafes are the bit I like,

Agree with you about the reconstruction but don't forget its a modern building on an old viaduct things so not sure if it would take the extra weight and not sure how complicated it would be to put extra supports through it.

Not sure if the terminal building is listed although it looks like there were tracks under part of it at some point.

HSTEd · 11 Jan 2012

If you approach York on the existing ECML alignment from the South you can build a station on a viaduct above the NRM car park and then have the line use the alignment of that branch line to exit, this means that trains can pass through York at full linespeed if not stopping, reducing the cost to a matter of minutes.

Invincibles · 12 Jan 2012

What about upgrading Wakefield Kirkgate and using that as the hub?

If any through route does not miss Leeds to the south and east (similarly York to the west) I would consider it a waste of taxpayers money.

There is simply no reason not to use classic lines for the final few miles into cities.

Nym · 12 Jan 2012

Asside from the're too small to fit UIC GC gauge trains on, too congested, and most platfoms aren't long enough, yeah, sure...

GingerSte · 12 Jan 2012

Nym said:
You mean pretty much like what I posted a few pages back?

Also, it's not long enough in that drawing, it needs to go all the way from the main concourse building to the end of that viaduct (430m long)

Sorry - I missed your post. Also I didn't measure the distances so it could well be short as shown on my sketch. In that case the multi-storey may have to be removed. This would also present the opportunity for a facade facing the drop-off area (and Wetherspoons) and allow the scheme to make a grand entrance into Leeds.

I also agree with your later post about using the main shed for through trains. I imagine Platform 8 would be long enough for this, but I'm sure someone would know if it isn't. The platform is currently mainly used by EC services to London KX, and these could be transferred over to the new station building (we are already talking of a link between HS whatever and the Leeds-Wakefield line, it might as well be both ways).

Assuming international services are provided to Leeds (ie HS1-HS2 is built as currently proposed), these could be dealt with in the new station mentioned above. If international services are provided to stations north of Leeds (eg York or Newcastle on existing railways), then these would have to run through Leeds non-stop or avoid the station altogether (as you couldn't provide passport control or customs for platform 8) and meet up with the ECML somewhere else. There would also be the issue of passport/customs at these stations, but that's for another post.

LNW-GW Joint · 12 Jan 2012

While this is all very interesting for a Y-life post-2032, I'm more exercised by the services likely from 2026.
This is not mentioned in the new DfT stuff, so all we have to go on is the original HS2 spec of March 2010 (3.10).

This quotes a 3tph new fleet of HS2-dedicated trains for London-Birmingham, and then 7tph classic-compatible trains for the WMCL (3 for Manchester, 2 for Liverpool, 1-2 for Preston/Glasgow) with few stops.
Other WCML services will stay on the current route via Rugby (quoted as Stoke, Wolverhampton, Chester/North Wales, Lancaster etc) and make extra stops.

This means a new fleet of classic-compatible trains (200m or 9-car) to run on the WCML at NON-TILT speeds (currently 110mph max) as well as HS2.
Sounds like about 30 sets, which is going to be more than the initial HS2-dedicated fleet.

The only current trains coming close to the spec are class 373 Eurostars, otherwise a big new build will be required.
These will have to interwork with tilting Pendolinos/Voyagers on the same routes north of Lichfield (and eventually on services beyond the Y).

Some of the projections imply a doubling of frequency on some routes (ie trains via both HS2 and Rugby).
Sounds like an operational nightmare to me, particularly at places like Colwich.
Not sure it has been thought through properly.

dickdarlington · 12 Jan 2012

Why doesn't the HS2 route near the Northern end have a link in to the Cross Country route? A simple junction at Tamworth or Lichfield would provide High Speed services to Sheffield and Derby.

cle · 12 Jan 2012

The first stage will include a link to the Trent Valley line at around Lichfield but yes I agree, that would be a good idea.

I wonder if Leeds would be competitive that way. Would be excellent for Derby and Sheffield - maybe 20 mins less?

Nym · 12 Jan 2012

HS2a (Stage I) will include a link to the XC route at Tamworth, and MAY include the electrification of this route as part of the HS2 programme, or in conjunction with the MML and XC electrification. The inital plans have always been for a connection at Tamworth and Rugley in stage I

High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Emeritus Moderator

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member