High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[HowardGWR]

Ah, the toll road is another story. Lovely road, but only empty because clearly a lot of people won't/can't use it over the horrible 'old' road.

I gather that the adjective 'lovely' can be applied to a motorway now. Clearly beauty is in the eye....etc.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Maybe because NR are now based there?

I meant discussions on this forum.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Reading some of the posts in this thread, you'd think we should be building a direct, high-speed rail link between Stoke, Coventry and Milton Keynes.

Sounds like a winner to me. Hold on, what about Leek and Tamworth?

 

[jon0844]

I gather that the adjective 'lovely' can be applied to a motorway now. Clearly beauty is in the eye....etc.

I enjoy driving. The M6 toll road is almost like a private road at times.

 

[HowardGWR]

I enjoy driving. The M6 toll road is almost like a private road at times.

Oh great! (I'll withhold any comment on social exclusion. Oops, I just did.)

 

[edwin_m]

I enjoy driving. The M6 toll road is almost like a private road at times.

Extend it to Prestbury quick, so Paul S can use it...

 

[Francis]

• 
  
  
  The Chiltern region isn't densely populated enough and the route HS2 follows is far from existing transport links. If they want a station, they wouldn't want the traffic changes that would result. They would by a large margin use HS2 to commute to London, even though the trains are going to be when they run on Phase 1 and no one will be getting off at this Chiltern Parkway. They would benefit much more overall by upgrading the Chiltern mainline with electrification and speed increases.
  
  
  .

• 
  
  
  The population of the three Buckinghamshire areas of Chiltern, Wycombe and Aylesbury Vale in 2011 was 438,416, forecasted to rise to about 467,000 by 2026. Seems like quite a potential market to me.
  438,000 makes this area larger than Bristol city or Manchester city (not GM), and slightly smaller than Liverpool city and Edinburgh.

 

[The Ham]

Don't recall the existing train service improving much since we moved there......

I wasn't really suggesting that MK would be getting a better service from HS2 because of NR (not that MK shouldn't get a better service because NR are there either), rather the fact that there's proberbly a lot of discussions about HS2 in MK because of NR.

 

[AndyLandy]

The population of the three Buckinghamshire areas of Chiltern, Wycombe and Aylesbury Vale in 2011 was 438,416, forecasted to rise to about 467,000 by 2026. Seems like quite a potential market to me.
438,000 makes this area larger than Bristol city or Manchester city (not GM), and slightly smaller than Liverpool city and Edinburgh.

But what's the geographic size ratio? We're comparing all the major population centres of an entire county against the centre of a single city. Where could you put an HS2 station that would serve the entire of Bucks, without requiring two thirds of the users to have to drive to reach it?

 

[edwin_m]

The population of the three Buckinghamshire areas of Chiltern, Wycombe and Aylesbury Vale in 2011 was 438,416, forecasted to rise to about 467,000 by 2026. Seems like quite a potential market to me.
438,000 makes this area larger than Bristol city or Manchester city (not GM), and slightly smaller than Liverpool city and Edinburgh.

As well as being geographically spread out, this population's main destination will be London, which is relatively close so few of them would save much time once the time to access a single HS2 station is taken into account. It also has a pretty good service to Birmingham Moor Street which would offer excellent interchanage to HS2 for journeys beyond to the north. And in relation to the capacity argument Chiltern is probably the least used of the main lines out of London with plenty of scope to add capacity by lenghthening trains or restoring track that has been taken out.

On the other hand a station in the Chilterns would delay passengers to/from further north, and unless most of the trains stopped each stopping train would require two paths on the busiest section of HS2 which is expected to be full from day 1.

 

[The Ham]

As well as being geographically spread out, this population's main destination will be London, which is relatively close so few of them would save much time once the time to access a single HS2 station is taken into account. It also has a pretty good service to Birmingham Moor Street which would offer excellent interchanage to HS2 for journeys beyond to the north. And in relation to the capacity argument Chiltern is probably the least used of the main lines out of London with plenty of scope to add capacity by lenghthening trains or restoring track that has been taken out.

On the other hand a station in the Chilterns would delay passengers to/from further north, and unless most of the trains stopped each stopping train would require two paths on the busiest section of HS2 which is expected to be full from day 1.

It is also worth remembering that there are a number of passengers who use the Chilterns line who could switch to HS2 once its open, which would free up more space on the existing services. Personally I would rather have a service which runs more frequently but is slower so that I could spend more time where I needed to be.

For example I would rather have a choice of 2 or 3 services an hour which took an hour than 1 or 2 which take 40 minutes. As for the most part the more frequent slower services are going to better timed for the majority of trips.

 

[Geezertronic]

If you want HS2 to serve locations south of Birmingham, surely that enhances the requirement to 4 track HS2 Phase One?

 

[edwin_m]

If you want HS2 to serve locations south of Birmingham, surely that enhances the requirement to 4 track HS2 Phase One?

You'd probably have to, but one of the HS2 studies says it would be better to build a separate two-track high speed line approximately following the ECML instead (route and London terminus undefined). If nothing else, where would you find even more room around Euston to terminate twice as many trains?

 

[Francis]

But what's the geographic size ratio? We're comparing all the major population centres of an entire county against the centre of a single city. Where could you put an HS2 station that would serve the entire of Bucks, without requiring two thirds of the users to have to drive to reach it?

That's not the entire county of Bucks, as a quick look at an atlas or Wikipedia would show you. There are 5 admin areas in Bucks, and I omitted for obvious reasons South Bucks (Slough etc) and Milton Keynes in the north.

I did say a Chilterns Parkway station. It's a very high car-owning part of the country, and I think a majority of travellers would expect to drive to their local high-speed station.

If you want to see where such a station could be built, just look at a map of HS2 and a road atlas. A spot about 2 miles south of Aylesbury between Stoke Mandeville and Little Kimble would be well accessible by road for all three main centres: High Wycombe, Aylesbury and Amersham-Chesham.

An HS2 station here would obviously not be intended for commuters into London, (put a little s and a little u in the timetable for southbound and northbound services respectively - hardly rocket science) but for long-distance travel to/from Birmingham and points further north.

The HS2 project is getting a lot of flak from the Chilterns, because they pay a lot of the price in terms of construction disruption and - I think to a lesser degree - environmental damage - but they get absolutely none of the benefits. In political terms, it might be no bad thing to try to buy them off with a high-speed station which means they don't have to plough through London to get to points north of Birmingham. OK, High Wycombe is well served by Chiltern Railways as regards Banbury - Leamington - Warwick and Birmingham, but not for further afield.

I don't think we can afford to be doctrinaire in trying to sell HS2 and make it more palatable to the objectors. And to me it seems plain silly to pass through an area with 430,000 potential customers, most of them within 30 mins drive of a possible railhead, and give them no way at all of using the service!

 

[HSTEd]

If you want HS2 to serve locations south of Birmingham, surely that enhances the requirement to 4 track HS2 Phase One?

Four tracking would be stupid, if you were going to do that you would build the local route on a different alignment.
For traffic to Birmingham, and hence beyond, the current alignment is near optimal.
Althoughu if we are going all out perhaps it would be best to go for entirely tunneled and proceed directly to Birmingham Airport from OOC in a straight line.

That would make it immune from poor weather.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The HS2 project is getting a lot of flak from the Chilterns, because they pay a lot of the price in terms of construction disruption and - I think to a lesser degree - environmental damage - but they get absolutely none of the benefits. In political terms, it might be no bad thing to try to buy them off with a high-speed station which means they don't have to plough through London to get to points north of Birmingham. OK, High Wycombe is well served by Chiltern Railways as regards Banbury - Leamington - Warwick and Birmingham, but not for further afield.

I don't think we can afford to be doctrinaire in trying to sell HS2 and make it more palatable to the objectors. And to me it seems plain silly to pass through an area with 430,000 potential customers, most of them within 30 mins drive of a possible railhead, and give them no way at all of using the service!

This is repeated ad nauseum but it is simply not true. HS2 is going to do one thing and do it well - making a lot of people get between the London and the North very quickly. There are millions of people who fit in this category and there are plenty, but fewer, people who don't. For them, they will no longer have to compete for seats against London-West Midlands travellers.

In the HS2 timescale the Chiltern Main Line will only be improved: electrification, 4-tracking, linespeed increases etc and it's perfectly possible and indeed pretty likely that at either end the London-West Midlands classic lines may be reconfigured in order to connect them better to the HS2 interchanges. Likewise I cannot see the WCML truly returning to a 110mph railway given all the works spent on making it 125, the only difference being that it would stop much more often than at the moment. The step change in capacity provided by HS2 will allow, given relatively minor infrastructure changes, services which are neither physically or operationally possible at the moment. All of this provides much more benefit to society and the country as a whole than any single little parkway station right in the middle of the 208/225mph running section of HS2. (HS2 services are only timetabled for 208 but can go to 225 to make up lost time). If this ridiculous station were ever going to be built it would almost certainly have to be at the Infrastructure Maintainence Depot at Calvert, where East-West will cross over.

 

[tbtc]

I did say a Chilterns Parkway station. It's a very high car-owning part of the country, and I think a majority of travellers would expect to drive to their local high-speed station.

If you want to see where such a station could be built, just look at a map of HS2 and a road atlas. A spot about 2 miles south of Aylesbury between Stoke Mandeville and Little Kimble would be well accessible by road for all three main centres: High Wycombe, Aylesbury and Amersham-Chesham

Sounds like this would need a fairly large "footprint" in an area of natural beauty, and impact upon those quaint rural lanes that they have in the Chilterns...

 

[MidlandMainlie]

This is repeated ad nauseum but it is simply not true. HS2 is going to do one thing and do it well - making a lot of people get between the London and the North very quickly. There are millions of people who fit in this category and there are plenty, but fewer, people who don't. For them, they will no longer have to compete for seats against London-West Midlands travellers.

In the HS2 timescale the Chiltern Main Line will only be improved: electrification, 4-tracking, linespeed increases etc and it's perfectly possible and indeed pretty likely that at either end the London-West Midlands classic lines may be reconfigured in order to connect them better to the HS2 interchanges. Likewise I cannot see the WCML truly returning to a 110mph railway given all the works spent on making it 125, the only difference being that it would stop much more often than at the moment. The step change in capacity provided by HS2 will allow, given relatively minor infrastructure changes, services which are neither physically or operationally possible at the moment. All of this provides much more benefit to society and the country as a whole than any single little parkway station right in the middle of the 208/225mph running section of HS2. (HS2 services are only timetabled for 208 but can go to 225 to make up lost time). If this ridiculous station were ever going to be built it would almost certainly have to be at the Infrastructure Maintainence Depot at Calvert, where East-West will cross over.

Exactly, building a Chilterns Parkway and stopping 3 trains per hour there would reduce the capacity of HS2 from 18 trains per hour to 15 then that would mean 1 less train to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds per hour. Given the Chilterns already heave a very good commuter link into London in the form of the Chiltern Mainline and post HS2 opening improved commuter services on the WCML as well then there is little benefit in adding an extra station on HS2 and reducing the number of services further north that will benefit more from HS2.

Electrification of the Chiltern Mainline should be a contender for CP6 as a large part of it from anhyo junction to Leamington Spa is being done as part of the governments electric spine.

 

[corfield]

The Chilterns interchange on the E-W at Calvert is an idea I've considered in the past, mainly because of the potential for passengers from the South Coast and South West to come up via Oxford (and the links from furhter East, which would likely extend all the way to Cambridge in this scenario) and then pick up fast trains to the Midlands and North/Scotland without the current pain in the arse that is going via London, and I think it would be much quicker than via Birmingham with XC as at present. Partly I also think the XC routes will never really be viable to significantly upgrade (on the non existing mainline sections, e.g. Wales/Bristol-Birm-Derby-EC sections and similarly from the South Coast), and so fast/high capacity transport on what is clearly a long distance inter-city route will never match what is on our core axis (e.g. GW/WC/MM/EC/HS2/HS1). Hence trying to intersect that with HS2 via an interchange.

The benefits to the Chilterns would indeed be small (existing lines to London are highly unlikely to be slower once travelling to the interchange is considered bar those that actually are local, which would be a tiny number in the scheme of things), but it would massively "sell the project", not against the determined antis of course, but to the vast majority of people who would feel vindicated and they were getting something. I do fear that such is the (rightful) nature of legal democracy, they will be able to derail (sorry !) or seriously delay/cost inflate the project.

I understand that adding a station impacts on capacity which presumably will be at a premium as with two branches of the Y, the stalk has to take both volumes. However, should a future East Coast branch be built one day to link London direct to the Eastern part of the Y and via some Eastern towns (as HSTed often suggests), then capacity may be released on this core part of HS2.


The one thing I don't quite get about HS2 is the stats the antis have been spreading, that neither Euston or the WCML are actually as busy as other lines, specifically the GWML/Paddington and SWML/Waterloo. Stats of 60% WC loadings and 90+ for the others are often promoted. Are these false/misleading and why ? Granted the GWML is being upgraded to deal with that and Crossrail of course is a huge project, but how does the WC compare to the SW/SC/SE lines for capacity ? - when parked up on a bridge over the WC it was many many minutes between trains - which surprised me as I expected, from the four tracks, a pretty continuous stream. Yet observation on the SWML is much more of a "stream". Very unscientific I know but I'd be interested in the facts.

 

[Francis]

Exactly, building a Chilterns Parkway and stopping 3 trains per hour there would reduce the capacity of HS2 from 18 trains per hour to 15 then that would mean 1 less train to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds per hour. Given the Chilterns already heave a very good commuter link into London in the form of the Chiltern Mainline and post HS2 opening improved commuter services on the WCML as well then there is little benefit in adding an extra station on HS2 and reducing the number of services further north that will benefit more from HS2.

Electrification of the Chiltern Mainline should be a contender for CP6 as a large part of it from anhyo junction to Leamington Spa is being done as part of the governments electric spine.

One train per hour stopping would be adequate, with connections northwards thereafter at Birmingham International. The French don't find it impossible stopping their TGVs at intermediate stations occasionally. The site I suggested is also within easy reach of Hemel Hempstead and Tring, giving them a much faster alternative northbound for certain destinations (Derby, Sheffield, Leeds, York) than London Midland.

A lot of people like to avoid central London if they can, and use Parkway stations not too far from the M25 where parking is available. Think Stevenage, Luton, Watford Jc ..... You can't blame the Chilterns for being so anti-HS2, when they get all the disadvantages and none of the advantages.

 

[tbtc]

The one thing I don't quite get about HS2 is the stats the antis have been spreading, that neither Euston or the WCML are actually as busy as other lines, specifically the GWML/Paddington and SWML/Waterloo. Stats of 60% WC loadings and 90+ for the others are often promoted. Are these false/misleading and why ? Granted the GWML is being upgraded to deal with that and Crossrail of course is a huge project, but how does the WC compare to the SW/SC/SE lines for capacity ? - when parked up on a bridge over the WC it was many many minutes between trains - which surprised me as I expected, from the four tracks, a pretty continuous stream. Yet observation on the SWML is much more of a "stream". Very unscientific I know but I'd be interested in the facts.

I think that a lot of it is to do with how passenger demand will be in fifteen/ twenty years time (when HS2 becomes reality) - demand from London to Manchester/ Birmingham/ Leeds (etc) is expected to grow considerably. Bear in mind that HS2 is about freeing up "seats" at St Pancras/ Kings Cross too.

At the moment there's nine fast long distance (i.e. 390 operated) services from Euston each hour - a large number of these have recently been extended from nine coaches to eleven coaches (which means something like a third more Standard Class seats), which makes the "occupancy" figures look lower.

Crossrail should make a big difference at Paddington, as should 260m long IEPs.

Crossrail2 may well have happened at Waterloo by the time HS2 is operational - SWT are getting longer trains over the next few years (though getting fewer headlines than HS2 etc).

 

[MidlandMainlie]

The Chilterns interchange on the E-W at Calvert is an idea I've considered in the past, mainly because of the potential for passengers from the South Coast and South West to come up via Oxford (and the links from furhter East, which would likely extend all the way to Cambridge in this scenario) and then pick up fast trains to the Midlands and North/Scotland without the current pain in the arse that is going via London, and I think it would be much quicker than via Birmingham with XC as at present. Partly I also think the XC routes will never really be viable to significantly upgrade (on the non existing mainline sections, e.g. Wales/Bristol-Birm-Derby-EC sections and similarly from the South Coast), and so fast/high capacity transport on what is clearly a long distance inter-city route will never match what is on our core axis (e.g. GW/WC/MM/EC/HS2/HS1). Hence trying to intersect that with HS2 via an interchange.

A better alternative I've seen suggested for improving South coast to NW/NE servives was to link the Heathrow Spur (assuming it gets built) to the SWML near Woking by extending the tunnels further south from the airport. This would allow the HS2 Heathrow services to be extended to the south coast (and provide a southern link to Heathrow) without destroying capacity on the core section.

I understand that adding a station impacts on capacity which presumably will be at a premium as with two branches of the Y, the stalk has to take both volumes. However, should a future East Coast branch be built one day to link London direct to the Eastern part of the Y and via some Eastern towns (as HSTed often suggests), then capacity may be released on this core part of HS2.

If a second alignment were built then it would probably follow the M1 and have a parkway station near Leicester before joining the Eastern branch of the Y just south of Toton. That would take all the NE trains from Leeds/ Newcastle (excluding services to Heathrow/South coast) but propably would only be built as a phase 4 (phase 3 being an extension to Scotland).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

One train per hour stopping would be adequate, with connections northwards thereafter at Birmingham International. The French don't find it impossible stopping their TGVs at intermediate stations occasionally. The site I suggested is also within easy reach of Hemel Hempstead and Tring, giving them a much faster alternative northbound for certain destinations (Derby, Sheffield, Leeds, York) than London Midland.

A lot of people like to avoid central London if they can, and use Parkway stations not too far from the M25 where parking is available. Think Stevenage, Luton, Watford Jc ..... You can't blame the Chilterns for being so anti-HS2, when they get all the disadvantages and none of the advantages.

I carn't see the costs of a HS2 station and associated infrastructure including long sections of 4 tracking to allow trains to leave the main lines, slow down and stop at the platforms then get back up to speed and re-join the main lines being justified for 1 train per hour. As for connections further North the entrance to HS2 terminus as Curzon Street will be directly opposite Moor Street station so Chilterns passengers simply have board a train at their local station to Moor St, cross the road and board a HS2 train to so where further north.

I don't blame the Chilterns for being anti-HS2 because of the impact it will have on them locally but given a lot of the mis-truths they tend to perpetuate about the project to drum up histeria and opposition amongst an ill-informed public it makes it hard for me to have any sympathy for them.

 

[joeykins82]

The one thing I don't quite get about HS2 is the stats the antis have been spreading, that neither Euston or the WCML are actually as busy as other lines, specifically the GWML/Paddington and SWML/Waterloo. Stats of 60% WC loadings and 90+ for the others are often promoted. Are these false/misleading and why ? Granted the GWML is being upgraded to deal with that and Crossrail of course is a huge project, but how does the WC compare to the SW/SC/SE lines for capacity ? - when parked up on a bridge over the WC it was many many minutes between trains - which surprised me as I expected, from the four tracks, a pretty continuous stream. Yet observation on the SWML is much more of a "stream". Very unscientific I know but I'd be interested in the facts.

I think that the stats about aggregate Euston peak loadings are misleading. The majority of fast line services are VT LDHS that have been lengthened but do not call at the major commuter stations and therefore have sufficient capacity. As an occasional traveller to see the family in Northampton I can vouch that it's not the VT services that are crammed in but the LM semi-fast's most definitely are. And there aren't very many of them either. The choice is either to have Virgin stop everything at MKC which gives it all of the problems that Reading & FGW have, or to run more LM services on the fasts which can't be done without sending the VT services somewhere else. Which means HS2.

 

[corfield]

So if the long distance services are not that busy (and it must be by a decent margin to lower the average by such an amount vs. Waterloo and to a lesser extent Paddington), why are we building a new long distance route that duplicates much of the capacity ?

Especially as only a small number of the Pendo services seem to be freed up post HS2 anyway, so the scope for additional semi-fasts, or additional Pendo stops is not going to be revolutionary. Given the overall effort and expenditure, the antis may have a point?

I'm not a fan of "forecasts" and although you can only ever to work with the best figures you've got, you don't have to believe them and let them drive your plans.


Ref linking HS2 via Heathrow, yes that works for SWML services as you could run Southampton-Bstoke-Woking-Heathrow, although I think the problems faced by airtrack aren't addressed (capacity then getting to London); but my logic of a Calvert HS2 was that you could sweep up South West/Wales via GWML/Oxford and EWRL, plus similarly arc'ing across Bedford and out to Cambrdige - the focus being on Northbound passengers.

I can't see HS2 being useful for London bound Chiltern passengers as bar the very local, almost everyone else would have to head outbound to Calvert, and given the frequency/speed of Chiltern, it would be far better to just take Chiltern to MYB as at present.

 

[HSTEd]

There appear to be at least seven and probably more paths per hour on the WCML that will be rendered surplus to requirements by the construction of HS2.
Those paths will become available for outer-commuter services.
(And Coventry can only justify outer commuter by itself before anyone complains, even at 110mph with the WCML stopping pattern at current its an hour from London).

This is before the effect of reducing everything on WCML South to 110mph is taken into account, giving us at least another path or two per hour.

Then there is at least one and probably two paths per hour available on the ECML that will be made available.

Saying it is not revolutionary is dependent on insisting that Coventry can justify three trains per hour with full Intercity restaurant service and 125mph capability by itself, which is clearly nonsense.

 

[corfield]

The at least seven paths appears to be a new thing, I've not seen that referenced elsewhere. Plus the general consensus is that the WCML will not reduce to a 110mph railway so that gain will not exist.

As for wibble like "Saying it is not revolutionary is dependent on insisting that Coventry can justify three trains per hour with full Intercity restaurant service and 125mph capability by itself, which is clearly nonsense.", I really don't understand what you are talking about. Who even mentioned Coventry ?

Fairly limited gains on the WCML are not revolutionary. A perception is that something of the scale of HS2 should be.

You don't sell the idea very well, which may account for the scale of the opposition.

I'm still curious as to why we are spending so much on relieving the WCML when the evidence (albeit as produced by obvious antis) implies this is currently much less congested than other routes.

 

[tbtc]

So if the long distance services are not that busy (and it must be by a decent margin to lower the average by such an amount vs. Waterloo and to a lesser extent Paddington), why are we building a new long distance route that duplicates much of the capacity ?

As I said last night, its not just about figures in 2013, its about what we expect demand to be like in a generation. Motorways weren't crammed to capacity on the day that they opened, but the decision to build them has been proven right by how busy they are today.

Demand between London and Birmingham/ Manchester/ Leeds/ Glasgow/ Edinburgh (etc) has grown considerably over the past generation (e.g. London to Manchester was only one train an hour under BR, now there's three fairly busy services each hour) and shows no sign of stopping.

Meanwhile, whilst we've filled the WCML with more and more long distance services, there's not enough capacity to serve Milton Keynes, Northampton etc properly (or for more freight).

Multiply this effect when considering equivalent progress on the MML and ECML (Sheffield, Leeds, Nottingham etc have twice the service today that they had under BR, but this means less scope to serve intermediate destinations).

Waterloo and Paddington are also seeing a lot of money spent on them, but people don't use the same arguments against them that the anti-HS2 folk are so fond of using about spending money on freeing up capacity on the ECML/ MML/ WCML (e.g. why do we need Crossrail when high speed broadband will mean we are all working from home in ten years time? why are we building Crossrail when some other infrastructure programmes have been delayed/ gone over budget? why are we spending billions on Crossrail when the estimated passenger numbers may involve some guesswork?).

 

[NSEFAN]

The only reason 125mph operation was introduced onto the WCML was to increase intercity train capacity, no? Once the current WCML becomes effectively a commuter and freight railway, with expresses on running on HS2, there would be no need to run most trains at 125mph most of the time as they would be stopping more often.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I'm still curious as to why we are spending so much on relieving the WCML when the evidence (albeit as produced by obvious antis) implies this is currently much less congested than other routes.

There are still reasonably quick wins to be made on the GW and SW mainlines. Crossrail - specifically the electrification and train lengthening, and the effect of adding new platforms at Paddington - will sort out the local commuter side of the GWML for a fair few decades to come. Likewise the IEPs, for better or worse, mean that there isn't platform capacity taken up by power cars or by more vestibules per train length than necessary. On the SWML Crossrails 2 and 3 will take all the metro strain and then all that is left is for a tunnel for long-distance services to bypass the metro tracks in south London. A wee bit more could be squeezed out possibly by conversion to OHLE since the power constraints would be nullified.

There simply isn't any single scheme which would fix the WCML in anywhere near the same way. Platform capacity at Euston could be fixed by putting locals into Crossrail 3 but then you still have the same problems with the mixing of LDHS and local services.

 

[Philip Elliott]

The only reason 125mph operation was introduced onto the WCML was to increase intercity train capacity, no? Once the current WCML becomes effectively a commuter and freight railway, with expresses on running on HS2, there would be no need to run most trains at 125mph most of the time as they would be stopping more often.

No, 125mph was introduced to reduce journey times. Next you'll claim that APT was designed to increase capacity:roll:

 

[NSEFAN]

No, 125mph was introduced to reduce journey times. Next you'll claim that APT was designed to increase capacity:roll:

Even so, in speeding up the intercity trains and allowing a higher tph on for most of the route, is the capacity on the intercity routes not increased?

And put that handbag down, this isn't WNXX.