Future of HS2 2b (Eastern Leg deprioritised)

[Ianno87]

Absolutely, and that is why they should start the NPR work in the north first.

No it isn't. The greatest capacity need is on the southern WCML, to benefit the good folk of Watford, Milton Keynes, Northampton, Rugby etc. None of which are "London".

 

[BrianW]

No it isn't. The greatest capacity need is on the southern WCML, to benefit the good folk of Watford, Milton Keynes, Northampton, Rugby etc. None of which are "London".

I find the continuing opposition to HS2 in the Chilterns fascinating. They should benefit greatly from the removal of passengers to/from Birmingham freeing up seats to/from the stations you identify plus eg Coventry, Leamington, Banbury, Bicester, ...
Maybe an HS2 station around Wendover would have placated opposition, in a similar way to Ashford and Stratford International.

 

[Jozhua]

Your thoughts apply perfectly fine to the HS2 service pattern. The problem now is that we're looking at a very different set of services. The HS2 model of HSR means that certain optimisations are possible. For instance, the East Midlands Hub makes sense because journey time reductions and capacity increases will be so enormous that people will justify switching to a different railhead or using a metro-like service to get there. Access to the trunk road network is also critical to serve the wider area, as there is no possibility of service improvements elsewhere.

Applying that sort of pattern onto NPR doesn't work anywhere near as well. The distances involved are much shorter, and the service pattern will be much more complex. Having a few fast services an hour can be useful but if they then require you to go to a different station to use them, their usefulness really does diminish. If you need to use other non new line NPR services on the same journey, then the total benefit of NPR might be fairly marginal unless those other lines see the same sort of radical improvements. But, because of the complex grid of cities and towns in the north, you won't ever be able to justify spending the cash on new build alignments for all of them. You'd end up needing to do much more traditional upgrades.

The starting point for most InterCity rail links in the north is so poor (other than pure north-south on existing mainlines) that getting up to a consistent 160-249km/h fast line speed with independent pathing would be transformational. That wouldn't even count as the traditional definition of high speed rail but it would do wonders.

For example, on the Clay Cross to Doncaster axis we have pretty much just two tracks acting as the primary passenger link between the major urban areas of South Yorkshire. As far as I can tell (Covid timetables notwithstanding) Sheffield to Doncaster sees only 3 trains per hour with 2 fast and 1 slow. The lack of independent pathing means that you can't have fast and slow trains running at the same time. The timetable only works if a slow train can run sufficiently ahead that it's out of the way by the time the fast train behind it catches up. This means a poor service for the major regional flows as well as a poor service for the local stops.

It would be nice to get a TBM out and bypass the whole thing, but short of major reductions in tunnelling journey costs I don't expect this is at all likely. However, the majority of the route appears to be compatible with surface upgrades due to the railway alignment being wider in the past. Where it isn't wide enough, then you have the power of compulsory purchase. We are used to CPO being a power of last resort on the very busiest and most valuable routes (i.e. in London and surroundings, where CPO costs are also going to be as high as possible). CPOing some industrial estates or fairly crap industrial terrace housing (it's pretty easy to replace these houses with something manifestly better) near the railway will not be as difficult up in the north. So you take up, CPO and bulldoze your way to a proper modern four track alignment all the way from Dore and Totley through Sheffield Midland, Meadowhall and Rotherham on the existing track alignment. With that wider alignment you drop in local stations where they currently aren't possible for timetabling reasons. Yes, the curve into the former Masborough station in Rotherham isn't that good for express running. If it's worth it, you solve that problem by getting the TBM out and cutting a little bypass of that section only. North of Rotherham you might want to use the TBM again to cut the corner towards Doncaster, maybe even to leave the existing alignment altogether and head up to the M18 to follow what would be the end of the HS2 mainline as it enters Doncaster on a new alignment. The result is a complete fast pair of tracks suitable for HS2 classic compatible service as well as any other sort of expresses, including just electric Northern services using 160km/h EMUs like the CAF 331s which have no pretentions of being HSR.

That would be a really quite different style of project than what appears to be in the minds of the NPR folk. You apply the same basic thinking (provide a fast mainline route between each principal railway node) to all of the main routes in the north. Once you do this, you can almost certainly justify an expensive tunnel under the Pennines as that part would then be the primary bottleneck across the entire North.

I get you in some respects - linking places outside of HS2/NPR is important.

I.e linking Sheffield with Leeds, considering HS2 also needs to work as an effective bypass for the ECML, a new high speed alignment is going to be nessacery for that leg. The plus side is most XC passengers now who bypass Sheffield anyway, coming up from Birmingham/Derby/Notts will have a much faster journey.

It is worth considering the limitations on speed for these alignments aren't purely the number of tracks - the Huddersfield line is awfully twisty and there's a number of spots where trains slow to a crawl to navigate the curves. The same applies to the Hope Valley, although I'd argue there is more room for straightening out some of the more extreme curves on that line vs Huddersfield.

Widespread CPO'ing along a rail corridor is not going to work if you need to do it in a town centre. Also consider that these are historic areas in a national park.

No it isn't. The greatest capacity need is on the southern WCML, to benefit the good folk of Watford, Milton Keynes, Northampton, Rugby etc. None of which are "London".

Honestly, absolutely yes I'm sure these areas are in need, but it's best not to get into the debate as to which areas are more or less "deserving".

I think HS2 as planned, in combination with NPR is a fantastic plan and will benefit massive swathes of the country, many of which are desperately overdue improvements. Investment in the existing infrastructure to adapt to a more local/regional role will amplify this greatly.

Our real enemy, is a lack of vision and long term transport planning by government. I'd even say London (pre-pandemic project cancellations) was getting about the right level of investment. There's absolutely no reason that couldn't be repeated in the rest of the country, considering this is the norm for many of our international peers. More for London shouldn't mean less for "us", and vice-versa.

In fact, much of London's widespread mass transit is little to do with investment in recent decades, but rather inheriting a very comprehensive historical system. Similar to how Liverpool has an underground, yet larger cities like Manchester and Birmingham don't. A lot of this stuff already existed and has little to do with investment in recent years.

I find the continuing opposition to HS2 in the Chilterns fascinating. They should benefit greatly from the removal of passengers to/from Birmingham freeing up seats to/from the stations you identify plus eg Coventry, Leamington, Banbury, Bicester, ...
Maybe an HS2 station around Wendover would have placated opposition, in a similar way to Ashford and Stratford International.

Absolutely, especially as I'm pretty sure HS2 will be tunnelling under most of the Chilterns. However, as HS2 rebellion shows, much of this is not driven by logic.

 

[The Ham]

Absolutely, and that is why they should start the NPR work in the north first.

Almost every example you can find of improved communications between a centre and more distant places will show younger people following the road/rail/seaway out of the more distant parts towards the centre, be it London, Edinburgh, Manchester or Leeds - or the capitals in Scandinavia. Dick Whittington was just one. At least NPR would build the Northern hub before HS2 opens the way for more wealth to be drawn down to the south. It's inevitable that will happen unless we can have the north better connected internally first.

I note that few commute out of London to even places within 25-50 miles, and business meetings gravitate to the centre. HS2 will merely add to that pressure.

Whilst few may well commute out of London, that doesn't mean that there aren't companies which are located outside of London which draw money outwards by means of working on projects which could have otherwise been done within London.

Whilst such companies don't offer the same levels of pay they are attractive to stay by the staff not needing to travel so far or at least not have the travel cost (time and money) of getting to London.

They can also more easily get support staff and have lower rents, making them more able to bid more cheaply for projects.

Being about an hour out from London means that a 9am meeting is achievable, but if it's a bit later the trains aren't so busy and any staff making that trip aren't likely to be doing so on a daily basis.

How do I know that this happens? Well I've been working for companies like this for the last 20 years and they do fairly well out of the setup.

You also just need to look at the number of businesses which exist in Milton Keynes, Reading, Basingstoke, Guildford, etc. Many of whom are doing the same sort of thing (i.e. key staff going into London as needed but bringing work outwards for them and the rest of the staff to do).

However once you've got enough companies doing that it then creates more companies to support those first companies, be that Accountants, Office suppliers, IT support, cleaning companies and the like or those companies which the staff then use in their lunch breaks such as cafes, hair dressers, dry cleaners, etc.

You can then sometimes see large organisations copying this by having a small Central London office with a larger office based further out. It's when that starts to happen that you then start to see those towns and cities then acting as a hub for other smaller towns and cities drawing work and projects out still further.

It's this which is why the South East is so prosperous and why good connectivity is key to other areas doing better.

Yes you may get some travel to London to work. However, even in doing so they are likely to add to their local economy (and certainly a lot more than if they moved to London) by buying houses/renting, spending on leisure, and even just getting their food shopping all moves money from London outwards.

Yes there's a need for better rail services across the whole country, however investment in rail could happen a lot faster without impacting negatively on the government's books (yes the debit would go up, but there would be increases in the economy to pay for it).

However if we want to reach net zero carbon emissions then we're going to have to travel less, walk and cycle for as much of the rest as possible and then use rail and other public transport more.

Currently, if we all traveled equally by the different modes of travel, for every 10,000 miles we traveled 8,000 would be by car and 1,000 would be by rail.

If we reduced by 50% all travel (4,000 by car and 500 by rail) and then shifted 15% of that from road to rail (3,600 by car and 1,100 by rail) we'd end up needing more rail capacity than we had before, even though we're travel a lot less overall.

Why, well because those occasional journeys that we make (going on holiday, visiting friends and relatives, etc.) may not be very frequent but can add a fortnight's with of travel in a single weekend or a months worth in a week. As such changing only a few long trips to rail can make a big difference to the amount of rail travel we undertake.

However such long trips can also be the main reason that people own a car, which then leads then to use that car for a lot of other travel where other modes may well be better. This is especially true where travel to work is reduced (be that WFH or because they live and work in close proximity).

 

[Purple Orange]

Whilst few may well commute out of London, that doesn't mean that there aren't companies which are located outside of London which draw money outwards by means of working on projects which could have otherwise been done within London.

Whilst such companies don't offer the same levels of pay they are attractive to stay by the staff not needing to travel so far or at least not have the travel cost (time and money) of getting to London.

They can also more easily get support staff and have lower rents, making them more able to bid more cheaply for projects.

Being about an hour out from London means that a 9am meeting is achievable, but if it's a bit later the trains aren't so busy and any staff making that trip aren't likely to be doing so on a daily basis.

How do I know that this happens? Well I've been working for companies like this for the last 20 years and they do fairly well out of the setup.

You also just need to look at the number of businesses which exist in Milton Keynes, Reading, Basingstoke, Guildford, etc. Many of whom are doing the same sort of thing (i.e. key staff going into London as needed but bringing work outwards for them and the rest of the staff to do).

However once you've got enough companies doing that it then creates more companies to support those first companies, be that Accountants, Office suppliers, IT support, cleaning companies and the like or those companies which the staff then use in their lunch breaks such as cafes, hair dressers, dry cleaners, etc.

You can then sometimes see large organisations copying this by having a small Central London office with a larger office based further out. It's when that starts to happen that you then start to see those towns and cities then acting as a hub for other smaller towns and cities drawing work and projects out still further.

It's this which is why the South East is so prosperous and why good connectivity is key to other areas doing better.

Yes you may get some travel to London to work. However, even in doing so they are likely to add to their local economy (and certainly a lot more than if they moved to London) by buying houses/renting, spending on leisure, and even just getting their food shopping all moves money from London outwards.

Yes there's a need for better rail services across the whole country, however investment in rail could happen a lot faster without impacting negatively on the government's books (yes the debit would go up, but there would be increases in the economy to pay for it).

However if we want to reach net zero carbon emissions then we're going to have to travel less, walk and cycle for as much of the rest as possible and then use rail and other public transport more.

Currently, if we all traveled equally by the different modes of travel, for every 10,000 miles we traveled 8,000 would be by car and 1,000 would be by rail.

If we reduced by 50% all travel (4,000 by car and 500 by rail) and then shifted 15% of that from road to rail (3,600 by car and 1,100 by rail) we'd end up needing more rail capacity than we had before, even though we're travel a lot less overall.

Why, well because those occasional journeys that we make (going on holiday, visiting friends and relatives, etc.) may not be very frequent but can add a fortnight's with of travel in a single weekend or a months worth in a week. As such changing only a few long trips to rail can make a big difference to the amount of rail travel we undertake.

However such long trips can also be the main reason that people own a car, which then leads then to use that car for a lot of other travel where other modes may well be better. This is especially true where travel to work is reduced (be that WFH or because they live and work in close proximity).

Your point about companies performing work outside of London has essentially been my world for the past 5 years now. Professional services firms win new contracts in London, while the work is performed by accountants, lawyers, consultants etc outside of London, often with focus on Manchester, Leeds & Birmingham. That model necessitates regular interaction with a client in person still, but the cost of the train fare and hotel once a week is offset by cost savings made within a couple of hours.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I get you in some respects - linking places outside of HS2/NPR is important.

I.e linking Sheffield with Leeds, considering HS2 also needs to work as an effective bypass for the ECML, a new high speed alignment is going to be nessacery for that leg. The plus side is most XC passengers now who bypass Sheffield anyway, coming up from Birmingham/Derby/Notts will have a much faster journey.

It is worth considering the limitations on speed for these alignments aren't purely the number of tracks - the Huddersfield line is awfully twisty and there's a number of spots where trains slow to a crawl to navigate the curves. The same applies to the Hope Valley, although I'd argue there is more room for straightening out some of the more extreme curves on that line vs Huddersfield.

Widespread CPO'ing along a rail corridor is not going to work if you need to do it in a town centre. Also consider that these are historic areas in a national park.

It is difficult for XC and similar non-London flows because you can't fill a train on a branch, then run at max HS2 speeds on a mainline for an hour or two, and then drop them all off at OOC and Euston. The passenger numbers just aren't there for point-to-point links to work in most cases. Without enough passenger demand you can end up in a spiral where you need to cut frequency so that each train is still busy enough, but then you end up with longer overall journey times so demand drops further.

I don't think there's going to be a way to resolve that without making it possible to take the current basic XC model of trains running through major cities and rail hubs and make it better. Sure, you won't get the same chance at top-line speed but the combination of demand and frequency will probably be more useful overall. This I think is a crucial reason why the government is still so much less sure about the Phase 2b East plans. On the western side of the Pennines, these intermediate flows will work just fine on the WCML which is a high quality 200km/h express line which largely has a fast/slow track split that allows for high frequency, high speed mixed traffic operation. On the eastern side that baseline doesn't really exist since the only current good quality mainline (the ECML) tacks off to the east and avoids most of the major urban areas. Reimagining Phase 2b East so that it can be used by a wider range of services would satisfy that without really damaging its usefulness for HS2 services.

The lack of independent pathing, which can be solved by having extra tracks but also by running different services on different routes, seems a bit easier to solve for services that stay on the eastern side of the Pennines. I do agree that there are major limitations for the east-west infrastructure and these very likely will require major new tunnelling. However, I think it is still going to be extremely difficult to build a business case for such a tunnel if it's going to be used by only a small number of NPR services that otherwise pretend to be HS2-like and run point to point to a limited set of destinations.

CPO in a town centre isn't impossible by any means. The benefits just need to be obviously worth the costs. Demolishing a few run-down shops to do the biggest rail upgrade to the town and region in a century isn't going to be unpopular. In denser urban areas it'll depend more on the economics. If the new rail investment means property owners are keen to redevelop then they really won't mind taking down otherwise useful buildings.

 

[Purple Orange]

Reimagining Phase 2b East so that it can be used by a wider range of services would satisfy that without really damaging its usefulness for HS2 services.

What would the end result be here? Reimagining the eastern branch means making more stops on the line and running more services along the line. The question therefore is where do the trains go? Running them in to Curzon Street or Euston immediately means compromising the planned operation for HS2 survices and pushes the stations to being over capacity. Changes would need to be made in Birmingham to accommodate additional services, with either more platforms at Curzon Street or a junction to take trains in to New Street.

 

[Jozhua]

It is difficult for XC and similar non-London flows because you can't fill a train on a branch, then run at max HS2 speeds on a mainline for an hour or two, and then drop them all off at OOC and Euston. The passenger numbers just aren't there for point-to-point links to work in most cases. Without enough passenger demand you can end up in a spiral where you need to cut frequency so that each train is still busy enough, but then you end up with longer overall journey times so demand drops further.

I don't think there's going to be a way to resolve that without making it possible to take the current basic XC model of trains running through major cities and rail hubs and make it better. Sure, you won't get the same chance at top-line speed but the combination of demand and frequency will probably be more useful overall. This I think is a crucial reason why the government is still so much less sure about the Phase 2b East plans. On the western side of the Pennines, these intermediate flows will work just fine on the WCML which is a high quality 200km/h express line which largely has a fast/slow track split that allows for high frequency, high speed mixed traffic operation. On the eastern side that baseline doesn't really exist since the only current good quality mainline (the ECML) tacks off to the east and avoids most of the major urban areas. Reimagining Phase 2b East so that it can be used by a wider range of services would satisfy that without really damaging its usefulness for HS2 services.

The lack of independent pathing, which can be solved by having extra tracks but also by running different services on different routes, seems a bit easier to solve for services that stay on the eastern side of the Pennines. I do agree that there are major limitations for the east-west infrastructure and these very likely will require major new tunnelling. However, I think it is still going to be extremely difficult to build a business case for such a tunnel if it's going to be used by only a small number of NPR services that otherwise pretend to be HS2-like and run point to point to a limited set of destinations.

CPO in a town centre isn't impossible by any means. The benefits just need to be obviously worth the costs. Demolishing a few run-down shops to do the biggest rail upgrade to the town and region in a century isn't going to be unpopular. In denser urban areas it'll depend more on the economics. If the new rail investment means property owners are keen to redevelop then they really won't mind taking down otherwise useful buildings.

I don't understand what you are getting at here? XC has never been about serving branch lines, instead it's one of the primary non - London intercity operators.

Services for XC passengers will be improved by HS2 as some of the services will run into Birmingham Curzon Street from both the Eastern and Western legs. This will cut journey times towards Birmingham significantly. Any passengers going to the South West can then change onto an existing XC service at Birmingham, with the overall journey time savings still being significant.

Basically my point isn't that XC will somehow hop onto HS2, rather that the planned HS2 services will be useful for passengers that currently use XC.

In regards to CPO, I absolutely wish you luck doing it in a town centre. You've seen the resistance to HS2 and they're mostly tunneling under their affected cities/towns. A few "run down shops" are the centre of many communities and I wouldn't be suprised if many of them are listed buildings, at the very least historic.

 

[NotATrainspott]

What would the end result be here? Reimagining the eastern branch means making more stops on the line and running more services along the line. The question therefore is where do the trains go? Running them in to Curzon Street or Euston immediately means compromising the planned operation for HS2 survices and pushes the stations to being over capacity. Changes would need to be made in Birmingham to accommodate additional services, with either more platforms at Curzon Street or a junction to take trains in to New Street.

What the government seem to have pulled back from is building a lot of new infrastructure dedicated solely for HS2 services north of the East Midlands Hub. I think that has happened because putting Sheffield on a city centre spur, then trying to accommodate NPR as well, just doesn't stack up on the HS2 base. The result could be a quite different plan which treats HS2, NPR and improved classic rail services as equal priorities. The core HSR spine can still exist but it would be shrunk back and Leeds would end up as a classic-compatible destination like Sheffield. Then you focus on major upgrades, including new line sections, which would speed up all express trains running on the classic spurs those HS2 services would use. It may mean that the headline journey times aren't as spectacular for London services but it means that each kilometre of track built would be able to benefit as many train services as possible, likely resulting in a greater aggregate reduction in journey times across the entire area.

The post-Sheffield spur plans are for a full HS2 spec mainline heading due north from where the Clay Cross/Sheffield branch splits off, following the M18 and then essentially ending up halfway between Leeds and York before splitting towards those two directions. The value of building all of that mainline to full HS2 spec seems rather ropey when there's no realistic plans to continue it due northwards up to Northallerton, as was originally considered in the first 2012 report. HS2 trains will need to slow down to 230km/h before taking the Leeds junction. Add in the NPR-like services that could rejoin that route after running through the (currently not-to-be-upgraded) Sheffield loop and you have an expensive fast route not really being used by fast trains. The York services also end up heading quite far west to then turn east again, when the current alignment from Doncaster to York is one of the consistently fastest on the entire network. What we seem to be left with is a fairly suboptimal Sheffield to Leeds line which doesn't properly integrate with the rest of the network, a fast south to York line which goes on a little bit of a dogleg, and a fast south to Leeds service which might still need to call at an M18 Parkway station to wash its face economically anyway. It's a mess, and you'd only get there if your starting point was a plan for running captive 400m trains into Leeds which also could soak up South Yorkshire passengers at Meadowhall.

I don't understand what you are getting at here? XC has never been about serving branch lines, instead it's one of the primary non - London intercity operators.

Services for XC passengers will be improved by HS2 as some of the services will run into Birmingham Curzon Street from both the Eastern and Western legs. This will cut journey times towards Birmingham significantly. Any passengers going to the South West can then change onto an existing XC service at Birmingham, with the overall journey time savings still being significant.

Basically my point isn't that XC will somehow hop onto HS2, rather that the planned HS2 services will be useful for passengers that currently use XC.

In regards to CPO, I absolutely wish you luck doing it in a town centre. You've seen the resistance to HS2 and they're mostly tunneling under their affected cities/towns. A few "run down shops" are the centre of many communities and I wouldn't be suprised if many of them are listed buildings, at the very least historic.

HS2 works well on the western side because it has a branch-and-mainline network. Build a mainline from Preston-ish to London and you can very, very efficiently run full trains between London, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool/Merseyside, Lancashire (in general) and Scotland. Each destination is large enough to justify its own services. We'll probably be able to fill up a 2tph 200m HS2 train from Birmingham to Manchester calling at Crewe and the Airport, no problem. It might well be possible to do that with Liverpool too if it gets its own captive branch. Each urban area really just needs one branch off the mainline and trains don't need to loop through one on the way to the other. Scotland to Birmingham services, for instance, don't need to run through the middle of Manchester. The destinations are all sufficiently far away from one another that there would be real journey time savings from running at HS2 speeds between them.

On the eastern side of the Pennines there are a much larger number of smaller urban areas. The only way to efficiently run a train service is therefore to run in and out of each one. That means the HS2 model of spurs off a high quality mainline route doesn't work as well, as you'd need more spurs and some services would basically just run from one spur to the other without needing the mainline route. NPR is the same - you would need to run a Liverpool to Newcastle service through the middle of Manchester and Leeds for it to have enough passengers to get the frequency high enough to make it actually worth running. It's doubtful that a Sheffield to Leeds service would spend any significant amount of time running any faster than 249km/h even if it did rejoin the currently planned HS2 mainline. As soon as you can actually limit speeds to 249km/h (this being the magic number where TSI standards don't apply, hence it is common for domestic-only express rail plans in Europe) the case for not allowing other express trains to share the tracks does fade away quite a bit.

I explained above that the places HS2 is having trouble with are also places which don't perceive any real benefit from HS2. While London might pose problems, it's been successfully able to CPO to make way for Crossrail and other local schemes. At Abbey Wood they had to take down some terrace homes to fit in the wider four-track station footprint. People around there aren't going to complain about a little bit of CPO when they know the result is a world-class railway (when eventually finished) right on their doorstep.

 

[Purple Orange]

What the government seem to have pulled back from is building a lot of new infrastructure dedicated solely for HS2 services north of the East Midlands Hub. I think that has happened because putting Sheffield on a city centre spur, then trying to accommodate NPR as well, just doesn't stack up on the HS2 base. The result could be a quite different plan which treats HS2, NPR and improved classic rail services as equal priorities. The core HSR spine can still exist but it would be shrunk back and Leeds would end up as a classic-compatible destination like Sheffield. Then you focus on major upgrades, including new line sections, which would speed up all express trains running on the classic spurs those HS2 services would use. It may mean that the headline journey times aren't as spectacular for London services but it means that each kilometre of track built would be able to benefit as many train services as possible, likely resulting in a greater aggregate reduction in journey times across the entire area.

The post-Sheffield spur plans are for a full HS2 spec mainline heading due north from where the Clay Cross/Sheffield branch splits off, following the M18 and then essentially ending up halfway between Leeds and York before splitting towards those two directions. The value of building all of that mainline to full HS2 spec seems rather ropey when there's no realistic plans to continue it due northwards up to Northallerton, as was originally considered in the first 2012 report. HS2 trains will need to slow down to 230km/h before taking the Leeds junction. Add in the NPR-like services that could rejoin that route after running through the (currently not-to-be-upgraded) Sheffield loop and you have an expensive fast route not really being used by fast trains. The York services also end up heading quite far west to then turn east again, when the current alignment from Doncaster to York is one of the consistently fastest on the entire network. What we seem to be left with is a fairly suboptimal Sheffield to Leeds line which doesn't properly integrate with the rest of the network, a fast south to York line which goes on a little bit of a dogleg, and a fast south to Leeds service which might still need to call at an M18 Parkway station to wash its face economically anyway. It's a mess, and you'd only get there if your starting point was a plan for running captive 400m trains into Leeds which also could soak up South Yorkshire passengers at Meadowhall.



HS2 works well on the western side because it has a branch-and-mainline network. Build a mainline from Preston-ish to London and you can very, very efficiently run full trains between London, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool/Merseyside, Lancashire (in general) and Scotland. Each destination is large enough to justify its own services. We'll probably be able to fill up a 2tph 200m HS2 train from Birmingham to Manchester calling at Crewe and the Airport, no problem. It might well be possible to do that with Liverpool too if it gets its own captive branch. Each urban area really just needs one branch off the mainline and trains don't need to loop through one on the way to the other. Scotland to Birmingham services, for instance, don't need to run through the middle of Manchester. The destinations are all sufficiently far away from one another that there would be real journey time savings from running at HS2 speeds between them.

On the eastern side of the Pennines there are a much larger number of smaller urban areas. The only way to efficiently run a train service is therefore to run in and out of each one. That means the HS2 model of spurs off a high quality mainline route doesn't work as well, as you'd need more spurs and some services would basically just run from one spur to the other without needing the mainline route. NPR is the same - you would need to run a Liverpool to Newcastle service through the middle of Manchester and Leeds for it to have enough passengers to get the frequency high enough to make it actually worth running. It's doubtful that a Sheffield to Leeds service would spend any significant amount of time running any faster than 249km/h even if it did rejoin the currently planned HS2 mainline. As soon as you can actually limit speeds to 249km/h (this being the magic number where TSI standards don't apply, hence it is common for domestic-only express rail plans in Europe) the case for not allowing other express trains to share the tracks does fade away quite a bit.

I explained above that the places HS2 is having trouble with are also places which don't perceive any real benefit from HS2. While London might pose problems, it's been successfully able to CPO to make way for Crossrail and other local schemes. At Abbey Wood they had to take down some terrace homes to fit in the wider four-track station footprint. People around there aren't going to complain about a little bit of CPO when they know the result is a world-class railway (when eventually finished) right on their doorstep.

So what I read from your comments is that HS2 eastern branch services (from a Birmingham) are more like NPR, than HS2 services are imagined to be. That is true to the extent that XC and TPE are essentially the same model, but covering different geographies. However that doesn’t apply to eastern branch London services, where 2 tph can be justified to Newcastle, Leeds & Sheffield quite easily on a basis of mainline and branch, as you describe the western branch.

 

[NotATrainspott]

So what I read from your comments is that HS2 eastern branch services (from a Birmingham) are more like NPR, than HS2 services are imagined to be. That is true to the extent that XC and TPE are essentially the same model, but covering different geographies. However that doesn’t apply to eastern branch London services, where 2 tph can be justified to Newcastle, Leeds & Sheffield quite easily on a basis of mainline and branch, as you describe the western branch.

Pretty much. Once Sheffield got put on a classic-compatible spur, the notion of HS2 Phase 2b being able to be a captive line disappeared a bit. That's especially true if the Birmingham-Leeds services would start running via Sheffield too, leaving only the London-Leeds services able to be run with captive trains. If the plan is for the northern Crewe connection to also be classic-compatible only (I hope not deliberately, so that future works could change it) then I think the idea of HS2 using captive trains at all is dead.

If you now tolerate Leeds services being classic-compatible then you can look a bit more broadly at what sort of infrastructure investments are needed. Captive routes might be nice but they would mean not making use of classic stretches of track which might actually be alright (e.g. the Selby bypass between Doncaster and York).

By cutting out some unnecessary sections of new route you can spend the same money instead on the classic line areas where you can benefit a wider range of services. And, like with the Chesterfield stop, you have an opportunity to more cheaply make use of existing railheads and add demand, where capacity allows. A stop like Chesterfield would never be justifiable on the main line, and probably not on a captive branch either, but it makes perfect sense if the trains will be running through there anyway.

 

[Ianno87]

Basically my point isn't that XC will somehow hop onto HS2, rather that the planned HS2 services will be useful for passengers that currently use XC.

And the Eastern leg in particular will attract passengers who currently do not use XC services because of the perceived slow journey time and lack of capacity.

East Midlands Hub to Birmingham City Centre in 20 minutes, 3 times per hour? Yes, please!

 

[edwin_m]

So what I read from your comments is that HS2 eastern branch services (from a Birmingham) are more like NPR, than HS2 services are imagined to be. That is true to the extent that XC and TPE are essentially the same model, but covering different geographies. However that doesn’t apply to eastern branch London services, where 2 tph can be justified to Newcastle, Leeds & Sheffield quite easily on a basis of mainline and branch, as you describe the western branch.

However the case is less good than on the west side because there are fewer big cities that can be served in that way. Also the time saving between London and the North East is much less than on the west side, because of the indirect route of HS2 via Birmingham.

And the Eastern leg in particular will attract passengers who currently do not use XC services because of the perceived slow journey time and lack of capacity.

East Midlands Hub to Birmingham City Centre in 20 minutes, 3 times per hour? Yes, please!

That routeing via Birmingham does actually mean that journeys such as Birmingham to Leeds and beyond are some of the main beneficiaries from HS2.

 

[Jozhua]

Pretty much. Once Sheffield got put on a classic-compatible spur, the notion of HS2 Phase 2b being able to be a captive line disappeared a bit. That's especially true if the Birmingham-Leeds services would start running via Sheffield too, leaving only the London-Leeds services able to be run with captive trains. If the plan is for the northern Crewe connection to also be classic-compatible only (I hope not deliberately, so that future works could change it) then I think the idea of HS2 using captive trains at all is dead.

If you now tolerate Leeds services being classic-compatible then you can look a bit more broadly at what sort of infrastructure investments are needed. Captive routes might be nice but they would mean not making use of classic stretches of track which might actually be alright (e.g. the Selby bypass between Doncaster and York).

By cutting out some unnecessary sections of new route you can spend the same money instead on the classic line areas where you can benefit a wider range of services. And, like with the Chesterfield stop, you have an opportunity to more cheaply make use of existing railheads and add demand, where capacity allows. A stop like Chesterfield would never be justifiable on the main line, and probably not on a captive branch either, but it makes perfect sense if the trains will be running through there anyway.

Basically, the issue with giving Leeds a classic-compatible service isn't actually how well Leeds is served, but how well destinations North of it are.

Also considering how overcapacity Leeds Station is, and that most ECML services North of it bypass it as is, trying to route all of Newcastle, Edinburgh, etc's services through the existing Leeds station & junctions is just a non-starter.

Also, your idea of running combined infrastructure that all trains run on is nice in theory, but in practice, with conflicting moves, etc it becomes a nightmare. It is best to simplify and segregate as much as possible. Then if an issue occurs on the classic network, it has less change of knocking out HS2. (With the way HS2 is designed, things happening the other way round are actually very unlikely)

And the Eastern leg in particular will attract passengers who currently do not use XC services because of the perceived slow journey time and lack of capacity.

East Midlands Hub to Birmingham City Centre in 20 minutes, 3 times per hour? Yes, please!

Absolutely! This is something I will personally be taking advantage of. Seeing friends and family in the South West has always been uncomfortable, expensive and long. Hopefully after HS2 the uncomfortable and long will be cut... expensive possibly too, as the HS2 network should be much cheaper to run per seat, due to the simpler infrastructure, electric trains, reduced staffing requirements per pax, etc.

 

[daodao]

Basically, the issue with giving Leeds a classic-compatible service isn't actually how well Leeds is served, but how well destinations North of it are.

Also considering how overcapacity Leeds Station is, and that most ECML services North of it bypass it as is, trying to route all of Newcastle, Edinburgh, etc's services through the existing Leeds station & junctions is just a non-starter.

Also, your idea of running combined infrastructure that all trains run on is nice in theory, but in practice, with conflicting moves, etc it becomes a nightmare. It is best to simplify and segregate as much as possible. Then if an issue occurs on the classic network, it has less change of knocking out HS2. (With the way HS2 is designed, things happening the other way round are actually very unlikely)

Absolutely! This is something I will personally be taking advantage of. Seeing friends and family in the South West has always been uncomfortable, expensive and long. Hopefully after HS2 the uncomfortable and long will be cut... expensive possibly too, as the HS2 network should be much cheaper to run per seat, due to the simpler infrastructure, electric trains, reduced staffing requirements per pax, etc.

Should the eastern arm of HS2 ever be built, journeys to Birmingham itself from Yorkshire and the North-East may be accelerated, but journeys to reach the South West will require a change of trains and stations, including a 15-20 minute walk from Curzon Street to New Street. If one has luggage, that really is a non-starter. I once made a trip from Stratford to Macclesfield with an overnight bag, which involved a walk from Moor Street to New Street, and I would not recommend such a connection. Building separate stations for HS2 that do not connect well with existing public transport (e.g. OOC, Curzon Street and the proposed EM hub) does not necessarily improve overall end-to-end journey times, and may be very inconvenient for many potential travellers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

a 15-20 minute walk from Curzon Street to New Street. If one has luggage, that really is a non-starter. I once made a trip from Stratford to Macclesfield with an overnight bag, which involved a walk from Moor Street to New Street, and I would not recommend such a connection.

How is it not? Do you not have a wheely case or rucksack?

The distance between the two is barely any different from the distance you will walk with your bag in most airports. OK, if you go via the Bullring it's a massive hill, but if you go through the road tunnel (admittedly this needs cleaning up somewhat) it's not.

And watch the trail of people between Liverpool Lime St and Central, which is again a similar distance. And there's a rail connection there, people mostly choose not to use it and walk unless it's absolutely tipping down.

 

[Ianno87]

Should the eastern arm of HS2 ever be built, journeys to Birmingham itself from Yorkshire and the North-East may be accelerated, but journeys to reach the South West will require a change of trains and stations, including a 15-20 minute walk from Curzon Street to New Street. If one has luggage, that really is a non-starter. I once made a trip from Stratford to Macclesfield with an overnight bag, which involved a walk from Moor Street to New Street, and I would not recommend such a connection. Building separate stations for HS2 that do not connect well with existing public transport (e.g. OOC, Curzon Street and the proposed EM hub) does not necessarily improve overall end-to-end journey times, and may be very inconvenient for many potential travellers.

But yet people happily cross London by tube with luggage day in, day out...

Even with the walk that plenty of people do today (or short tram ride), it will still be transformational in journey time terms.

 

[The Ham]

How is it not? Do you not have a wheely case or rucksack?

The distance between the two is barely any different from the distance you will walk with your bag in most airports. OK, if you go via the Bullring it's a massive hill, but if you go through the road tunnel (admittedly this needs cleaning up somewhat) it's not.

And watch the trail of people between Liverpool Lime St and Central, which is again a similar distance. And there's a rail connection there, people mostly choose not to use it and walk unless it's absolutely tipping down.

I would also add that the XC services are likely to carry on running, so for those who wished to use them would still be able to do so.

However even for those taking 20 minutes to transfer between stations (and there's suggestions that XC may move away from New Street to improve connections with HS2) with journey time savings of about an hour you could catch a HS2 service half an hour later than the XC service and still have time to buy a coffee at New Street before catching your XC service.

Even if you still use the XC services then there'll be fewer people on the trains, so you're more likely to have a better journey experience.

Whilst I agree that there'll be some for whom HS2 is of little benefit, that's only an issue if we're going to cut the existing services. That's not currently the case, so I don't understand the issue.

 

[daodao]

I would also add that the XC services are likely to carry on running, so for those who wished to use them would still be able to do so.

However even for those taking 20 minutes to transfer between stations (and there's suggestions that XC may move away from New Street to improve connections with HS2) with journey time savings of about an hour you could catch a HS2 service half an hour later than the XC service and still have time to buy a coffee at New Street before catching your XC service.

Even if you still use the XC services then there'll be fewer people on the trains, so you're more likely to have a better journey experience.

Whilst I agree that there'll be some for whom HS2 is of little benefit, that's only an issue if we're going to cut the existing services. That's not currently the case, so I don't understand the issue.

HS2 is the equivalent of the TGV lines in France. Over the decades since the TGV was introduced, conventional intercity services there, particularly between provincial cities, have gradually been whittled down or withdrawn altogether. Ditto in Spain. The same tendency will prevail in the UK. For example, I expect that XC would withdraw all trains between Manchester and Birmingham once HS2 provides the main direct link, with just stopping/semi-fast services between Birmingham and Stoke and between Manchester and Stoke. Places like Macclesfield will have a worse train service post HS2.

 

[Ianno87]

HS2 is the equivalent of the TGV lines in France. Over the decades since the TGV was introduced, conventional intercity services there, particularly between provincial cities, have gradually been whittled down or withdrawn altogether. Ditto in Spain. The same tendency will prevail in the UK. For example, I expect that XC would withdraw all trains between Manchester and Birmingham once HS2 provides the main direct link, with just stopping/semi-fast services between Birmingham and Stoke and between Manchester and Stoke. Places like Macclesfield will have a worse train service post HS2.

That is an incorrect logical leap.

Conventional main lines in France tend to serve sparse populations, with small centres spread some distance apart.

In the UK, could you really imagine cutting the service between, say, Derby and Birmingham from 4tph to, say, 1tph? The local flows that still need to be served in the UK on classic lines are far denser than in France.

Taking Brum-Manchester, the 2tph XC is effectively *already* a semi-fast service! And Stoke etc aren't laid out to split the service in two.

 

[daodao]

That is an incorrect logical leap.

Conventional main lines in France tend to serve sparse populations, with small centres spread some distance apart.

In the UK, could you really imagine cutting the service between, say, Derby and Birmingham from 4tph to, say, 1tph? The local flows that still need to be served in the UK on classic lines are far denser than in France.

Taking Brum-Manchester, the 2tph XC is effectively *already* a semi-fast service! And Stoke etc aren't laid out to split the service in two.

Local services would remain, and might become slightly more frequent, but longer distance through services are likely to disappear. For example, there are likely to be 2 tph Manchester to Stoke by Northern Rail, stopping or skip-stopping, terminating in the bay platform at Stoke, but that would become the entirety of the service between these 2 points. Through passengers from Manchester to the South West would have to change stations in Birmingham, although passengers for Oxford could conceivably change at Birmingham International (I am presuming that passengers for Reading and the South Coast would be advised to travel via London).

 

[Ianno87]

Local services would remain, and might become slightly more frequent, but longer distance through services are likely to disappear. For example, there are likely to be 2 tph Manchester to Stoke by Northern Rail, stopping or skip-stopping, terminating in the bay platform at Stoke, but that would become the entirety of the service between these 2 points. Through passengers from Manchester to the South West would have to change stations in Birmingham, although passengers for Oxford could conceivably change at Birmingham International (I am presuming that passengers for Reading and the South Coast would be advised to travel via London).

That doesn't correspond at all with any of the released capacity assumptions published to date in support of the HS2 economic case. For example: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIAxAC&usg=AOvVaw0AB_N7xaaPSxYFX0_p1hlI

I mean, it's not even close.

That proposal (Scenario 5) suggests Stoke keeps 3 long distance non-HS2 services:

1 x fastish to Euston
1 x semi-fast to Euston
1 x semi-fast to/via Birmingham

 

[NotATrainspott]

Basically, the issue with giving Leeds a classic-compatible service isn't actually how well Leeds is served, but how well destinations North of it are.

Also considering how overcapacity Leeds Station is, and that most ECML services North of it bypass it as is, trying to route all of Newcastle, Edinburgh, etc's services through the existing Leeds station & junctions is just a non-starter.

Also, your idea of running combined infrastructure that all trains run on is nice in theory, but in practice, with conflicting moves, etc it becomes a nightmare. It is best to simplify and segregate as much as possible. Then if an issue occurs on the classic network, it has less change of knocking out HS2. (With the way HS2 is designed, things happening the other way round are actually very unlikely)

Absolutely! This is something I will personally be taking advantage of. Seeing friends and family in the South West has always been uncomfortable, expensive and long. Hopefully after HS2 the uncomfortable and long will be cut... expensive possibly too, as the HS2 network should be much cheaper to run per seat, due to the simpler infrastructure, electric trains, reduced staffing requirements per pax, etc.

You've missed my point. York, Newcastle, Edinburgh trains from the south wouldn't go anywhere near Leeds. If you cut the HS2 mainline short and send it over to Doncaster the journey time would be pretty much the same. That line between Doncaster and York is one of the fastest stretches of classic railway in the UK and it is used only by 200km/h express services with no intermediate stops. It's timetabled to take about 20 minutes.

The vision of HS2 (at least the northern parts) as a Shinkansen service that would be totally isolated from the problems of the classic rail network appears to be fading before our eyes. Politicians are very keen to make the best use of all that new infrastructure spending and it's impossible to create a captive network for all the other services they want to run. Once you accept that that vision is gone, it is appropriate to re-evaluate whether it's the best use of money to bypass the entire rail network in the north, or whether you can use some of the money to enhance the classic line sections as well as building new lines and get more overall benefit.

Yes, today, the fact that Clay Cross through to Sheffield and beyond is largely a two-track railway means that any problems on this stretch could create timetabling problems on HS2. Does that mean the most cost effective solution is to bypass it all? Probably not. Spend the money instead on widening out the railway to provide a modern four-track alignment (including the separation required for one pair to be closed off for maintenance) and you reduce the risk by quite a lot. If there are specific junctions which can be a particular bottleneck, then spend the money fixing that junction by adding grade separation or whatnot.

It also doesn't mean that Leeds couldn't get a huge upgrade to its station. While you might no longer get the block of 400m platforms at right angles, you might get a set of 260-320m long platforms that are accessible by all InterCity rail services including NPR and HS2. New approach tracks are also entirely possible, as are tunnels and viaducts and so on. It'd be pretty much the same sort of thing that was planned for the Leeds spur, albeit now designed to be used by a wider range of express train services.

It's not surprising that HS2 did try to follow the same model as Phase 1 when they were designing Phase 2. Phase 1 is a very different beast because it'll be full and the lines it's bypassing are also completely full. It really isn't an option to make use of any of the classic tracks there. If they had planned for the higher classic-compatible:captive service balance we're watching develop now, then it may have been more difficult to persuade people that only full segregated tracks would do. However, we are where we are, and Phase 1 is happening as a full captive railway. It's now entirely legitimate to look more closely at what the north of England needs from its HS2 service.

 

[21C101]

In the end the reason HS2 is needed is because three huge new towns were built between London and Rugby meaning an extra pair of tracks are needed.

It makes far more sense to me to combine it with Northern Powerhouse (the trans Pennine "HS3") and run it to Leeds via Manchester.

The eastern leg always looked like a white elephant to me, neither learning the lessons of the Great Central (and even replicating its Chesterfield Loop in Sheffield) nor learning the lessons of the East Midlands Parkway failure but instead doubling down on it with a high speed duplicate at Toton.

The biggest flaw to my mind is operational. Running all the principal trains on the ECML, MML and WCML on one pair of tracks from Birmingham to London is asking for trouble.

If the East Leg is canned, I hope that will release funds for MML electrification along with an ECML upgrade to four track Welwyn, close level crossings and install in cab ECTS which would enable a major speed upgrade turning ECML into HS4.

 

[Ianno87]

The biggest flaw to my mind is operational. Running all the principal trains on the ECML, MML and WCML on one pair of tracks from Birmingham to London is asking for trouble.

Is it? How often does HS1 (or any high speed line) go down completely?

And if HS2 does go down, the WCML, MML and ECML (plus the Chiltern route) are all still there as backups.

 

[The Ham]

HS2 is the equivalent of the TGV lines in France. Over the decades since the TGV was introduced, conventional intercity services there, particularly between provincial cities, have gradually been whittled down or withdrawn altogether. Ditto in Spain. The same tendency will prevail in the UK. For example, I expect that XC would withdraw all trains between Manchester and Birmingham once HS2 provides the main direct link, with just stopping/semi-fast services between Birmingham and Stoke and between Manchester and Stoke. Places like Macclesfield will have a worse train service post HS2.

However the UK isn't France.

For starters the predicted passenger numbers for HS2 are the same for the whole of the TGV network.

The other thing to consider is that whilst HS2 will have an impact on XC services that needs to be viewed within the context of a doubling of passenger numbers. As such of there was justification for the service in 2000 then there's a good chance that the service would still be viable on a post HS2 world.

There's even the potential that there could be an uplift, which wouldn't otherwise is expected, as passengers from the intermediate stations use the XC services to get to HS2 services.

That's before you consider the number of people who are put off using XC because the trains are overloaded, reduce the numbers and some of those will then use the services.

Also there's the fact that we could set XC services running to locations beyond the HS2 core which wouldn't justify a HS2 service or require the use of non electric traction. Such services (without a through service) would be split into two which, given the length of turn around times, may not actually save much in terms of costs and would eat up a lot of capacity at key stations.

Whilst I could understand that you may argue the cut of South Coast to Manchester XC north of Birmingham, the case for doing so for the SW service is a lot less clear cut.

Other than Oxford, Reading and South would be quicker via Old Oak Common and Banbury North would be more frequent via other services. However even then it could well be that if XC were able to have a timetable recast (due to HS2) it could allow XC to run a South Coast service to Manchester soon after the SW/NE service and the SW to Manchester service just before a South Coast to NE service to provide a near 2tph between SW and Manchester/NE. Although the 2nd train would take 10-15 minutes longer due to the change, it's still going to be faster than waiting for the next XC service.

However no such arguments exist from SW of Birmingham and the journey time saving isn't as significant and so more people would probably still continue to use the XC services for through services.

Whilst it will impact on the numbers going Birmingham/Manchester overall there's still going to be enough going between the stations served by XC but not HS2 that it's unlikely there would be much in the way of cuts (maybe a few early/late services, but almost certainly nothing when most people would be wanting to make such trips as are cited as an example as to why services may be cut).

 

[daodao]

That doesn't correspond at all with any of the released capacity assumptions published to date in support of the HS2 economic case. For example: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIAxAC&usg=AOvVaw0AB_N7xaaPSxYFX0_p1hlI

I mean, it's not even close.

That proposal (Scenario 5) suggests Stoke keeps 3 long distance non-HS2 services:

1 x fastish to Euston
1 x semi-fast to Euston
1 x semi-fast to/via Birmingham

Stoke would retain some fast services to the south, and I understand that there is a proposal to run 1 tph high-speed service from London to Stoke via HS2. However, the use of the ex-NSR for fast trains from Manchester to points south of Stoke would surely cease as trains via this route would be so slow relative to those on the proposed HS2 line from Manchester that they would be of minimal use, and Macclesfield on its own cannot justify such services.

 

[21C101]

Is it? How often does HS1 (or any high speed line) go down completely?

And if HS2 does go down, the WCML, MML and ECML (plus the Chiltern route) are all still there as backups.

Often enough.

When the Bournemouth direct line was built, the LSWR gave similar assurances to towns on the old line.

Initially the trains divided into Bournemouth and Weymouth portions at Brockenhurst.

Then this stopped but some Weymouth Trains still went the old way.

Over the years it reduced and after World War 1 Southern ditched all of them and left the line with an infrequent push pull service from Bournemouth to Brockenhurst via Ringwood.

Then the Southern stopped manning the lines signalboxes at night so the freight and newspaper trains stopped going that way.

Then Dorset Council emarked the towns on the line for major growth and Beeching promptly shut the line.

Routes bypassed by TGVs seem to be on a similar trajectory.

Stoke would retain some fast services to the south, and I understand that there is a proposal to run 1 tph high-speed service from London to Stoke via HS2. However, the use of the ex-NSR for fast trains from Manchester to points south of Stoke would surely cease as trains via this route would be so slow relative to those on the proposed HS2 line from Manchester that they would be of minimal use, and Macclesfield on its own cannot justify such services.

 

[NoRoute]

In the end the reason HS2 is needed is because three huge new towns were built between London and Rugby meaning an extra pair of tracks are needed.

But that requirement doesn't justify HS2, you solve that problem with some targeted, cost effective measures, like adding some extra conventional tracks, or if that's not possible, you re-open closed lines to add back capacity, like the Great Central Mainline upto Rugby and move all the long distance WCML traffic from north of Rugby off the south section of the WCML.

One point I notice missing from much of this discussion, do we know what the ticket prices are likely to be on the HS2 ? I see quite a few posts talking about the benefits and the time savings, I don't see many talking about what it will cost to actually buy a ticket and use it and how much more this will be over existing services. Ultimately cost matters because a lot of people will trade speed for price.

 

[Ianno87]

Stoke would retain some fast services to the south, and I understand that there is a proposal to run 1 tph high-speed service from London to Stoke via HS2. However, the use of the ex-NSR for fast trains from Manchester to points south of Stoke would surely cease as trains via this route would be so slow relative to those on the proposed HS2 line from Manchester that they would be of minimal use, and Macclesfield on its own cannot justify such services.

Stoke can justify a semi fast service to Birmingham. But you can't terminate at Stoke easily, so it might as well start at Manchester and call at Macclesfield anyway (and keeping up the fastish Stoke-Manchester service)

Often enough.

When the Bournemouth direct line was built, the LSWR gave similar assurances to towns on the old line.

Initially the trains divided into Bournemouth and Weymouth portions at Brockenhurst.

Then this stopped but some Weymouth Trains still went the old way.

Over the years it reduced and after World War 1 Southern ditched all of them and left the line with an infrequent push pull service from Bournemouth to Brockenhurst via Ringwood.

Then the Southern stopped manning the lines signalboxes at night so the freight and newspaper trains stopped going that way.

Then Dorset Council emarked the towns on the line for major growth and Beeching promptly shut the line.

Respectfully, citing examples from decades ago is hardly relevant to today's transport planning or railway politics.

Nor is Ringwood comparable to Stoke or Derby in demand terms.

But that requirement doesn't justify HS2, you solve that problem with some targeted, cost effective measures, like adding some extra conventional tracks, or if that's not possible, you re-open closed lines to add back capacity, like the Great Central Mainline upto Rugby and move all the long distance WCML traffic from north of Rugby off the south section of the WCML.

One point I notice missing from much of this discussion, do we know what the ticket prices are likely to be on the HS2 ? I see quite a few posts talking about the benefits and the time savings, I don't see many talking about what it will cost to actually buy a ticket and use it and how much more this will be over existing services. Ultimately cost matters because a lot of people will trade speed for price.

All those points have been to death on this forum already.

HS2 effectively *is* a reopening of the Great Central (it even uses as stretch of it) Just tying in further north on the WCML, suitable for high speeds, somewhere to go once you get to London, and none of the faff of following the old alignment.

Fares: No one knows, but remember the current Pendolino service is already a premium priced railway in the peak (which everybody forgets)