Curzon Street HS2 Railway Station

[Noddy]

That is more than twice the length in route terms?
And reopenings in cases where the line is long gone aren't really much cheaper than new alignments, virtually everything needs rebuilding anyway.

All valid points and yes it is about twice your 25km but it was mostly single track, you already had an alignment, and it was a generally popular project. The opposite would be true for your proposed route.

Given that your 25km direct route between the top of the Lickey route to Interchange passes through the middle of Solihull and/or the surrounding settlements (Dorridge, Knowle, etc) at the central/eastern end of your route and the topography to the west is undulating to put it mildly you’d need it to be either more than 25km, or have it in some serious tunnelling to the east and a series tunnels, embankments and viaducts to the west. None of which is cheap. For political reason you’d probably want it all in tunnels.

Well the specifics of the timetable are up to the people operating the railway.
But the Bromsgrove-International option does rather well in both of those cases for obvious reasons.

But is it actually much quicker for the price than through non-stop trains via Camp Hill?

Taking Bromsgrove(not stopping)-East Midlands Parkway as an example

Currently I estimate Bromsgrove to Saltley at about 16min (the 1V55 12.05 Manchester-Exeter on 30/01/20 did St Andrews Junction-Bromsgrove in 15.5min) and Curzon S-East Midlands is due to be 20min. So Bromsgrove-East Midlands is probably easily doable in 34min non-stop given electric traction.

Your route-let’s say 9min Bromsgrove to Interchange. Interchange to East Midlands is due to be 17 min. Allow a 1 min stop that’s 27min. OK that’s a 7min saving for those passengers compared to the Camp Hill line.

However using your route for trains that call in Birmingham that’s 9min (Bromsgrove-Interchange) plus 9min (Interchange-Curzon St) plus 20min (Curzon St-East Midlands). So that’s 38min before accounting for any stops at all and one of those involves a reversal. You’re probably talking closer to 45min-which you could almost do via New Street.

Do you see what I’m getting at? It’s all very well to say the specifics are up to the people operating the railway but you need to be able justify spending billions on a new route that would maybe see 4-6 trains per hour (2-3 each way) and wouldn’t serve anyone who lives in the vicinity of the route.

 

[HSTEd]

Given that your 25km direct route between the top of the Lickey route to Interchange passes through the middle of Solihull and/or the surrounding settlements (Dorridge, Knowle, etc) at the central/eastern end of your route and the topography to the west is undulating to put it mildly you’d need it to be either more than 25km, or have it in some serious tunnelling to the east and a series tunnels, embankments and viaducts to the west. None of which is cheap. For political reason you’d probably want it all in tunnels.

Going to tunnels with access shafts every 1000m in open terrain and a secondary bore under Solihull is the quickest and frankly probably cheapest way to get it built.

HS2 teaches a valuable lesson about how difficult it is to build anything on the surface in the UK any more.

But is it actually much quicker for the price than through non-stop trains via Camp Hill?

Taking Bromsgrove(not stopping)-East Midlands Parkway as an example

Currently I estimate Bromsgrove to Saltley at about 16min (the 1V55 12.05 Manchester-Exeter on 30/01/20 did St Andrews Junction-Bromsgrove in 15.5min) and Curzon S-East Midlands is due to be 20min. So Bromsgrove-East Midlands is probably easily doable in 34min non-stop given electric traction.

Your route-let’s say 9min Bromsgrove to Interchange. Interchange to East Midlands is due to be 17 min. Allow a 1 min stop that’s 27min. OK that’s a 7min saving for those passengers compared to the Camp Hill line.

If we aren't stopping at Bromsgrove will be passing through the station at whatever the line speed is.
NESA is not working for me at the moment, but it will have a significant impact on the time.
9 minutes is reasonable if you are stopping at Bromsgrove, its about 4km up the incline and 25km of new route.

30km in ten minutes is actually a time on the Tokaido Shinkansen that I use as a reference case, and that is with only 270km/h top speed.
It's an average speed of about 110mph.

So clearly starting the distance at even 70mph will have a big impact on the timing (since we will presumably provide suitably fast turnouts at the top of the incline).
I would have to do modelling which I can't do until I found out what the speed limit on the incline actually is.

However using your route for trains that call in Birmingham that’s 9min (Bromsgrove-Interchange) plus 9min (Interchange-Curzon St) plus 20min (Curzon St-East Midlands). So that’s 38min before accounting for any stops at all and one of those involves a reversal. You’re probably talking closer to 45min-which you could almost do via New Street.

Well given that one of the rationales for Curzon Street is there are no paths available at New Street for an expansion in services......

Do you see what I’m getting at? It’s all very well to say the specifics are up to the people operating the railway but you need to be able justify spending billions on a new route that would maybe see 4-6 trains per hour (2-3 each way) and wouldn’t serve anyone who lives in the vicinity of the route.

2-3 is possibly an underestimate.
Even with calling at Birmingham on both trains you would end up with the 2 trains we have now, plus another for serving Leeds.
As we can't serve Leeds and York with the same train due to the absence of anorth facing exit at Leeds.

So at least 3.

Then the potential for "local" trains between the XC route and Interchange
But that depends on available platform space at Interchange.

Judging by foreign exemplars, and the scaling caused by going to a single bore tunnel with access shafts (since we are not in a mountain range and mostly in open terrain), I think we can probably manage for about £4bn.
Which is a lot, but allowing both lines to Bromsgrove to go to Metro operation might be worth it to the PTE (whatever it calls itself these days).

EDIT:

Linespeed through Bromsgrove is 90mph, then drops to 80 on the incline itself.
So the 4km on the incline would be 1.9 minutes, then 25km with 200mph top speed.

I think about 8 minutes is probably achievable.
But it depends

Given the dead straight nature of the incline, it would benefit substantially from a 125mph differential for high speed units........

 

[Noddy]

Going to tunnels with access shafts every 1000m in open terrain and a secondary bore under Solihull is the quickest and frankly probably cheapest way to get it built.

HS2 teaches a valuable lesson about how difficult it is to build anything on the surface in the UK any more.

Absolutely. Although I do hope (maybe it vain) that once HS2 is running that people can see the benefits of new railway lines and become more amenable to them.

If we aren't stopping at Bromsgrove will be passing through the station at whatever the line speed is.
NESA is not working for me at the moment, but it will have a significant impact on the time.
9 minutes is reasonable if you are stopping at Bromsgrove.

I was assuming not stopping (as per existing services I was comparing it too) but I can’t see it being less than 7min given that long distance non-stop XC trains are timed 2min to Blackwell. It would depend on exactly where your junction was. I’m not sure going into a tunnel at the top of the lickey incline is very practical though! EDIT: 8 min then. It saves 1min on what I suggested above. So an 8min saving for Birmingham avoiding trains. And only a very marginal saving for trains routed via Birmingham - maybe 8-10min as well.

As we can't serve Leeds and York with the same train due to the absence of anorth facing exit at Leeds.

I must confess I’d not realised they’d done this (I’m sure it was in earlier proposals?). Looking at the map it looks fairly straight forward to put one back in. Although we’re back to reversals then...

 

[HSTEd]

I was assuming not stopping (as per existing services I was comparing it too) but I can’t see it being less than 7min given that long distance non-stop XC trains are timed 2min to Blackwell. It would depend on exactly where your junction was. I’m not sure going into a tunnel at the top of the lickey incline is very practical though!

From the point of view of minimising journey times, this is actually the best place to do it!

Given a high speed unit can stick to the speed limit on the up slope, this would allow trains to accelerate to 320km/h whilst descending into the tunnel!
Although descending down a 2.5% slope under full power might be unnerving for the traincrew!

I must confess I’d not realised they’d done this (I’m sure it was in earlier proposals?). Looking at the map it looks fairly straight forward to put one in.

I think it dissapeared about the same time the original hybrid bill came out.
Might have been an attempt to have more cost control.

 

[MarkyT]

I think it dissapeared about the same time the original hybrid bill came out.
Might have been an attempt to have more cost control.

The north-facing chord at the Manchester spur junction disappeared when the north-western arm rolling stock depot was relocated away from the Wigan area I think. Was the Leeds spur junction modified for similar reasons? As far as I know, there have never been any passenger service proposals for either of these chords.

 

[MarkyT]

Here are the SA pages for the Lickey area:

 

[Bald Rick]

Going to tunnels with access shafts every 1000m in open terrain and a secondary bore under Solihull is the quickest and frankly probably cheapest way to get it built.

You don’t need access shafts every 1000m. However access shafts do need, err, access. That means building a half decent road to each one from the nearest public road. Usually the same one built to build th etching. That’s where it starts to get interesting.

 

[HSTEd]

You don’t need access shafts every 1000m. However access shafts do need, err, access. That means building a half decent road to each one from the nearest public road. Usually the same one built to build th etching. That’s where it starts to get interesting.

My reading of the appropriate TSI requires either access shafts allowing exit or entry to the tunnel every 1000m, or cross passages to a secondary tunnel bore every 500m.

If you have access to the surface land, the access shaft option seems likely to be cheaper than driving a second bore.
The access shaft/drift model has been used in Germany when constructing multi-km tunnels.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Use a steam-era solution: the loco provides traction and the coaches use their regeneration capability with battery backup to generate hotel power from the train's motion.

Funnily enough HS2 Ltd had a fairly similar idea for the classic-compatible spec. The plan is to run 2x200m double sets fairly long distances along the WCML and possibly other classic lines. The risk that the OHLE wouldn't like double pantographs at speed is being mitigated by using the excess power available on 360km/h trains to pull another one dead weight. The train being pulled will then use its regenerative braking capability to power its hotel services. I don't imagine this is the most efficient possible power arrangement but it would mean only a single pantograph for a 400m set despite no AC power bus being possible between coupled units.

 

[Eddd]

Funnily enough HS2 Ltd had a fairly similar idea for the classic-compatible spec. The plan is to run 2x200m double sets fairly long distances along the WCML and possibly other classic lines. The risk that the OHLE wouldn't like double pantographs at speed is being mitigated by using the excess power available on 360km/h trains to pull another one dead weight. The train being pulled will then use its regenerative braking capability to power its hotel services. I don't imagine this is the most efficient possible power arrangement but it would mean only a single pantograph for a 400m set despite no AC power bus being possible between coupled units.

Interesting. I had wondered about the double pantograph issue.

I guess the difference on classic electrified lines is the other pan can go up if the train stops so less need for battery power.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Interesting. I had wondered about the double pantograph issue.

Is it actually an issue? 5-car 80x run in pairs on GWR with both pantographs up at 125mph.

 

[MarkyT]

Funnily enough HS2 Ltd had a fairly similar idea for the classic-compatible spec. The plan is to run 2x200m double sets fairly long distances along the WCML and possibly other classic lines. The risk that the OHLE wouldn't like double pantographs at speed is being mitigated by using the excess power available on 360km/h trains to pull another one dead weight. The train being pulled will then use its regenerative braking capability to power its hotel services. I don't imagine this is the most efficient possible power arrangement but it would mean only a single pantograph for a 400m set despite no AC power bus being possible between coupled units.

So similar trains procured by a future XC operator might also be equipped for that possibility. In the HS2 Ltd case, can the powered unit be the rear one pushing, with the front cab acting as an unpowered control car to keep things running in case of some partial failure on board?

 

[Eddd]

Is it actually an issue? 5-car 80x run in pairs on GWR with both pantographs up at 125mph.

I can't recall the exact details. Something to do with different tensions in classic and high speed systems?

I thought it came up in the Eurostar because they didn't have the full-length high voltage bus of the TGV due to the emergency splitting requirement. Was there going to be an associated speed limit on north-of-London services maybe?

 

[MarkyT]

I can't recall the exact details. Something to do with different tensions in classic and high speed systems?

I thought it came up in the Eurostar because they didn't have the full-length high voltage bus of the TGV due to the emergency splitting requirement. Was there going to be an associated speed limit on north-of-London services maybe?

Maybe on GWR it's not a problem due to the new catenary being designed for it, while older lighter equipment on parts of W/ECML could be more of a concern.

 

[Bald Rick]

Maybe on GWR it's not a problem due to the new catenary being designed for it, while older lighter equipment on parts of W/ECML could be more of a concern.

It’s not a problem on the ECML either, given the 2x5car I was on in electric mode earlier this week.

 

[HSTEd]

Has it even been issue?
My understanding was the speed limit on the White Rose Eurostars was merely the power supply not being able to cope rather than two pantographs being up.

 

[Bald Rick]

Has it even been issue?
My understanding was the speed limit on the White Rose Eurostars was merely the power supply not being able to cope rather than two pantographs being up.

It was something to do with the type of pantograph they used, IIRC. Power supply may well have been an issue, but I doubt it.

 

[Chris125]

Funnily enough HS2 Ltd had a fairly similar idea for the classic-compatible spec. The plan is to run 2x200m double sets fairly long distances along the WCML and possibly other classic lines. The risk that the OHLE wouldn't like double pantographs at speed is being mitigated by using the excess power available on 360km/h trains to pull another one dead weight.

Surely this must be some kind of mistake or misunderstanding? With pantographs on the end vehicles they'd be around 350m apart, a vast distance.

 

[hwl]

Surely this must be some kind of mistake or misunderstanding? With pantographs on the end vehicles they'd be around 350m apart, a vast distance.

The final rolling stock ITT had pans on each unit circa 340m* apart when coupled up. Non issue...

* Pans on the outer ends of 2nd /7th vehicles

 

[city dweller]

Here's a timelapse from April 2nd - 7th Curzon Street

 

[Cowley]

Thread reopened for @Baxenden Bank to update.

 

[swt_passenger]

I think in the nearly 4 years since this thread was closed there‘s also been a fair amount of coverage of the slow Curzon St in the main HS2 Birmingham thread:

HS2 Construction Updates - Birmingham Area

Interesting also to see the observation about the 2nd TBM having already launched despite no official announcement. Are there just so many now they don’t consider it news? That TBM is now on it 3rd launch having done both Long Itchington tunnels already

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Hi all,

I had the thread reopened to report that construction work on the station has commenced. Earthworks at the moment. As @swt_passenger mentions above, there is already a general HS2 Birmingham area thread but as HS2 is such a big project I thought it may be appropriate to concentrate discussion on the station here.

There is an HS2 page here covering the station. The following I have taken from that page:

Station construction​

HS2’s contractor Mace Dragados Joint Venture (MDJV) have been in Stage One of the contract since 2021, working with HS2 Ltd to develop the detailed programme. Starting January 2024, they will deliver major earthworks to prepare the site for piling and foundations work in the Spring, with construction of the main station building due to start in the Summer.

Work on the station façade will begin in Summer 2025, with construction of concourse steelwork and the roof due to start in Autumn 2025. The internal fit-out of the station will start towards the end of 2025 and finish at the end of 2028. Operational testing and commissioning will run from Summer 2026 to Autumn 2028.

There is a Youtube video linked from the HS2 page here.

 

[chris2]

Good footage of Curzon St approaches.

 

[Snow1964]

New drone views of Curzon Street Station 28th April 2024

 

[Geezertronic]

Post on the HS2 website about the first completed sections of the HS2 Viaduct into Curzon Street

First completed sections of HS2 Curzon Street station viaduct revealed

New images released of the first completed sections of the viaduct that will bring high speed trains into Birmingham’s new Curzon Street station View and download photos here

mediacentre.hs2.org.uk

First completed sections of HS2 Curzon Street station viaduct revealed

The completed sections mark the next step on the programme to build a series of viaducts to carry the railway through Birmingham’s industrial heartland and into the city centre.

Some additional pics on their LinkedIn post:

HS2 (High Speed Two) Ltd on LinkedIn: #birmingham #westmidlands #highspeedrail

The first completed section of Curzon 3 viaduct. High speed trains will travel out of the west portal of the 3.5 mile Bromford Tunnel at Washwood Heath…

www.linkedin.com

The first completed section of Curzon 3 viaduct.

On the approach into Birmingham, the five viaducts are Duddeston, Curzon 1, Curzon 2, Lawley Middleway and Curzon 3 - which links to Curzon Street station.