Confirmed : HS2 West Midlands-Manchester line to be scrapped and replaced with other projects.

[Starmill]

They absolutely could. It'd involve not timing the Euston end quite as slackly as it is now, but it's not impossible.

It would if the Underground were directly accessible from the high speed platforms by lifts and escalators, and without any ticket gate delays. But that's not and never was the plan. Instead people will have to exit via the existing concourse and walk outside to the Underground entrance. Some people will take over 15 minutes to walk from the far end of a 400 metre platform to the current Underground entrance.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

NR - created under the privatisation process imposed by the Tories. Utter mismanagement of their oh-so-wonderful competitive privatised network, even if parts of it lie ostensibly in the public arena, they are still under the auspices of this dire shower in government.

Labour created it out of the Railtrack wreckage oh and they promised renationalisation but never delivered

 

[Fazaar1889]

I suppose that depends on whether you think that Birmingham is England's second city.

Sure but isn't hs2 meant to take high speed trains off the wcml? Is it even gonna do that at this point?

 

[Bletchleyite]

It would if the Underground were directly accessible from the high speed platforms by lifts and escalators, and without any ticket gate delays. But that's not and never was the plan. Instead people will have to exit via the existing concourse and walk outside to the Underground entrance. Some people will take over 15 minutes to walk from the far end of a 400 metre platform to the current Underground entrance.

Like they have to do now. We're just asking Euston to cope with what it has coped with since the mid 2000s.

As I said they are not additional services. All it's doing is freeing south WCML capacity and slightly speeding things up.

They also won't, other than the Birminghams, be 400m.

Sure but isn't hs2 meant to take high speed trains off the wcml? Is it even gonna do that at this point?

Yes.

 

[The Planner]

Not sure what you're on about. All nine electric classic WCML services would move onto HS2, and if North Wales is wired then the tenth will too.

These services can already be pathed on the Trent as they already run on it.

Depends what ends up left on the WCML south of Handsacre. If many residual services are kept then you'll start running into trouble.

 

[Starmill]

Like they have to do now.

No? Nothing like that? Rule of thumb an HS2 train will have around two current trains worth of people onboard.

 

[Herefordian]

Which of these items will draw a response from the Labour Party, stating that they have no manifesto promises on them?

These are Conservative "promises". Labour is under no obligation to deliver any of them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Depends what ends up left on the WCML south of Handsacre. If many residual services are kept then you'll start running into trouble.

Every proposal I've seen has been for 4 - one Manchester, two Brum (don't go near Handsacre) and the North Wales, so a net gain of 1.

No? Nothing like that? Rule of thumb an HS2 train will have around two current trains worth of people onboard.

No it won't. Phase 1 is all 200m except Birmingham. 400m trains don't fit existing stations.

 

[Starmill]

As I said they are not additional services.

Again wrong. Unless you're suggesting Coventry, Rugby and Milton Keynes to London will have no fast services at all?

 

[The Planner]

Every proposal I've seen has been for 4 - one Manchester, two Brum (don't go near Handsacre) and the North Wales, so a net gain of 1.

Id wager those proposals are going to be hastily re-written.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Again wrong. Unless you're suggesting Coventry, Rugby and Milton Keynes to London will have no fast services at all?

All the plans I've seen involve four:

2 Birmingham - don't go near Handsacre
1 Manchester - this is the only net increase
1 N Wales - same whether it's on HS2 or not

Euston can cope with adding one train per hour if it's gaining five platforms over what it currently has (16 will be lost to HS2).

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Sure but isn't hs2 meant to take high speed trains off the wcml? Is it even gonna do that at this point?

Its going to remove majority of Rugby to Euston AWC traffic which frees up plenty of capacity.

 

[Starmill]

No it won't. Phase 1 is all 200m except Birmingham.

It's plain that's no longer the plan since the Eastern leg was ditched.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Id wager those proposals are going to be hastily re-written.

Either way a significant increase in the number of IC trains into Euston is not proposed, and since the cancellation of the Eastern Leg never was.

It's plain that's no longer the plan since the Eastern leg was ditched.

No, it's not. No work is being done to extend platforms at Liverpool LS, Manc Picc, Glasgow Central etc, so only 200m (or a mid length) is possible. 400m doesn't fit. 400m trains will therefore only operate on captive services to Birmingham.

 

[Starmill]

All the plans I've seen involve four:

2 Birmingham - don't go near Handsacre
1 Manchester - this is the only net increase
1 N Wales - same whether it's on HS2 or not

Euston can cope with adding one train per hour if it's gaining five platforms over what it currently has (16 will be lost to HS2).

Not a chance, not without closing the station at peak times every single office commuting day. It all relied on the rebuild which is now not going to happen.

No, it's not. No work is being done to extend platforms at Liverpool LS, Manc Picc, Glasgow Central etc, so only 200m (or a mid length) is possible. 400m doesn't fit.

Yes, but the work is still being done to allow every train to divide at Birmingham Interchange, Crewe and Preston.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, but the work is still being done to allow every train to divide at Birmingham Interchange, Crewe and Preston.

There has never, ever been a proposal for every train to divide. Only one train was to do so, a split Liverpool/Lancaster. With 2A/2B and Golborne the Glasgow/Edinburgh was to split/join at Carlisle but that's long gone.

 

[Starmill]

There has never, ever been a proposal for every train to divide. Only one train was to do so, a split Liverpool/Lancaster. With 2A/2B and Golborne the Glasgow/Edinburgh was to split/join at Carlisle but that's long gone.

That was, again, the IRP proposal. A proposal which is now dead as can be and effectively irrelevant.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That was, again, the IRP proposal. A proposal which is now dead as can be and effectively irrelevant.

Given the performance implications of splitting and joining, and how many TOCs have abandoned it, a timetable involving every train splitting/joining is not going to happen, and has never been proposed in any of the proposals, not even the Phase 1 one.

 

[class26]

I suppose that depends on whether you think that Birmingham is England's second city.

without openeing that can of worms it is. End of story

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

What does this comment portend i wonder https://assets.publishing.service.g...work-north-transforming-british-transport.pdf

HS2 Ltd has indicated that its projected cost to deliver Phase 1 will significantly exceed the current Funding Envelope of £44.6 billion. The Department for Transport considers that the outturn cost of the current scope of Phase 1 should lie between £45 billion and £54 billion and has been clear that HS2 Ltd should deliver at the lower end of this range even if that entails difficult choices. However, the scope of Phase 1 will now need to be reviewed to make sure only what is required for the reduced HS2 scheme is being delivered, including the revised approach to Euston. Once this work has been done we will publish to Parliament a revised cost range for the revised HS2 scheme in 2023 values

Less trains, less depot space, increased headways, lower power provisions

 

[Snow1964]

Er not with six platforms they won't.

Rather depends if they mean six new platforms and couple of existing ones linked into new approach

 

[Starmill]

Given the performance implications of splitting and joining, and how many TOCs have abandoned it, a timetable involving every train splitting/joining is not going to happen, and has never been proposed in any of the proposals, not even the Phase 1 one.

Well when you've only got four to six services per hour to fit 9tph into, you don't really have much choice but to attach and detach nearly all of them. The ones that don't will be the Birmingham ones.

However you slice it though, it's not more capacity than today between Manchester and London. It's also potentially less capacity between Stafford and stations north thereof to Manchester.

 

[Austriantrain]

It's the value of the land which can be used for development. Six platforms (assuming P16 is included in this as per the original plan) will fit almost within the old station footprint, leaving a whole block to develop and sell for an absolute fortune - this is about as prime as UK building land gets.

I thought that was the reason. Doesn‘t make it a good decision though. You need a Station able to serve the capacity of the hugely expensive line you are building.

 

[Fazaar1889]

Its going to remove majority of Rugby to Euston AWC traffic which frees up plenty of capacity.

Great! At least it's something

 

[Snow1964]

Er not with six platforms they won't.

Rather depends if they mean six new platforms and couple of existing ones linked into new approach

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well when you've only got four to six services per hour to fit 9tph into

Where are you getting that from?

 

[Starmill]

Rather depends if they mean six new platforms and couple of existing ones linked into new approach

I suppose that's true, same goes for the tunnel they've just booted out of scope. "innovative" entrance solutions like a bus interchange on the northern end of the new platforms might help to add entry and exit capacity. But all of this is utterly unknown and nobody has had any advance notice, not even Network Rail, let alone done a formal study.

The whole point of the IRP Euston was that anything less would mean next to no new capacity available. And such it now is.

 

[LTJ87]

Worth noting that the government document alludes to the possibility of reopening the Maid Marian line:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/651d64646a6955000d78b2e0/network-north-transforming-british-transport.pdf

60. [...] and to reopen the Maid Marion [sic] Line to passenger rail services

And yet this was not put forward for a Strategic Outline Business Case by the Restoring Your Railways fund last year.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suppose that's true, same goes for the tunnel they've just booted out of scope. "innovative" entrance solutions like a bus interchange on the northern end of the new platforms might help to add entry and exit capacity. But all of this is utterly unknown and nobody has had any advance notice, not even Network Rail, let alone done a formal study.

Given that Network Rail's alleged study into the installation of those awful new departure screens has utterly knackered passenger flow through the station, I'm not sure it's them I'd let anywhere near any such study.

 

[Krokodil]

With the new line of HS2 now cut back to run only London/Birmingham, and the HS2 part of Euston only having 6 platforms, it will no longer need those hugely long and fast trains. Surprising the Government hasn’t cottoned on to this yet … or have they? Can we expect a further announcement that electrification of the new line is no longer justified and affordable, and the best use of it will be as a dedicated route for heritage steam and diesel services with refurbished old Mk 2 coaches?

Too expensive. Now that the NWC is going to be electrified (stop giggling at the back), some of TfW's 197s will displace their 153s from west Wales. You can have those.