High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[tbtc]

By better "Classic" service you mean slower trains stopping at all stations with fewer amenities that will all be truncated to Doncaster or York?

Sounds like a pretty crummy deal to me.

Retford/Newark/Grantham doesn't need additional "local" trains, because there is nowhere to run them to.

We are following the French model when our population density and distribution is far more suited to the German or Japanese model (more stations closer together).

I see it as allowing the existing ECML services to stop at Grantham/Newark etc and to run to Lincoln/ Grimsby etc (instead of running non-stop from London to York as some do).

 

[LE Greys]

I see it as allowing the existing ECML services to stop at Grantham/Newark etc and to run to Lincoln/ Grimsby etc (instead of running non-stop from London to York as some do).

That makes sense, considering that the fastest routes to London will be via HS2, and the main point of the "classic" Edinburgh service will be to serve the Towns Line. I'd predict that the current Edinburgh expresses will have extra calls at Peterborough and Doncaster, while the Newcastle semi-fasts will run to a similar pattern to the York semi-fasts, Stevenage, Peterborough, Grantham, Newark, Retford, Doncaster. We might get a few more sent away from the route to places such as Hull and Lincoln.

It'll be interesting to see which route the Aberdeen and Inverness trains use.

 

[sprinterguy]

Retford/Newark/Grantham doesn't need additional "local" trains, because there is nowhere to run them to.

What is wrong with additional trains from those locations (as well as between them) to Peterborough and London in the south, and Leeds and York in the north, giving more frequent connections into northbound Intercity services?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If we are talking of a high speed line south from Leeds then presumably there are going to be at least 8tph to make it viable. Although some of these services will be existing trains such as what are now Cross Country services but presumably there will be more and longer trains running through the station.

Best

John

The most recent DfT publication on HS2 makes reference to a proposed frequency of 5tph to Leeds on HS2; 3tph from London and 2tph from Birmingham. Separate to this and avoiding Leeds, 3tph are proposed to head north to Newcastle (2 from London and 1 from Birmingham), presumably with at least one continuing north to Edinburgh.

 

[JohnCarlson]

What is wrong with additional trains from those locations (as well as between them) to Peterborough and London in the south, and Leeds and York in the north, giving more frequent connections into northbound Intercity services?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The most recent DfT publication on HS2 makes reference to a proposed frequency of 5tph to Leeds on HS2; 3tph from London and 2tph from Birmingham. Separate to this and avoiding Leeds, 3tph are proposed to head north to Newcastle (2 from London and 1 from Birmingham), presumably with at least one continuing north to Edinburgh.

Do you mean a total of 8 tph?

Mind you we just have to wait another 20 years and it will all be clear.

John

 

[sprinterguy]

Do you mean a total of 8 tph?

Mind you we just have to wait another 20 years and it will all be clear.

John

Yep, a total of 8tph. There is intended to be a total of 9tph on the Leeds leg of HS2, with one train per hour terminating at the "South Yorkshire" station.

The time frame really puts these sorts of considerations into perspective. It's probably going to be fifteen years, at the least, before any frequencies for HS2 are known for sure.

 

[Batman]

All this talk about HS2 to Yorkshire is very interesting, but if you look at the draft timetable for HS2 South of Birmingham, there is only paths for 4tph on the Leeds branch.

I'm personaly in favour of HS2, but only as far as Birmngham/Lichfield.

The principle purpose of HS2 should be seen as a relief line for the WCML south of Rugby.

Any high speed line from London to East Midlands/Yorkshire/North East would require a second line running from a second London terminus, possibly at King's Cross.

I'm still sceptical about HS2 to Manchester.

 

[Nym]

What you sceptical about HS2 to Manchester, the route, the timetable?

 

[Batman]

What you sceptical about HS2 to Manchester, the route, the timetable?

There is simply no need for HS2 to run north of Lichfield.

A full London to Manchester/Leeds/North Wales/Glasgow service can be worked a re-structured WCML timetable north of Lichfield whilst still running on HS2 south of Lichfield.

Journey time would be slightly longer, but like I've said, there simply isn't the capacity on HS2 for the line to handle service transfered to it from the WCML, MML and ECML.

The Greengage 21 draft timetable shows that there can still be big improvments to services frequencies between London and the North West without the need for HS2 north of Lichfield.

The only other improvements that would be needed would be North Wales Coast electrification and grade speration at Norton Bridge.

Of course, extending HS2 from Lichfield to Manchester would bring journey time savings, but I don't think extending HS2 to Manchester just for the reason would be cost effective. And like I've already said, I believe the principle purpose of HS2 is to act as a by-pass line for the WCML south of Rugby. Journey time time improvements are an added advantage.

So sorry to all those HS2 ethousiasts in the North West, but I just can't see how HS2 to Manchester and Leeds is cost effective. And even if it is built, it will open a huge Pandora's box regarding capacity issues.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Instead of focusing on HS2 to Leeds and Manchester, I'd prefer it if we focused on the development of HS3.

A very rough outline of the route would be something like this;

London terminus at King's Cross (convinient connections to HS1&2)

Line to head out of London in tunnels and runs close to ECML and A1.

Line devides just to the south of Peterborough.

The 'fast line' continues north running roughly along the same route as the ECML with a posible station at Peterboroug.

The 'Loop' then runs westwards through Rutland to a parkway station on the A46 just north of Leicester. It then runs on to an East Midlands Parkway (not to be confiesd with the current station) on the A52 between Deby and Nottingham. Although there may be a case for having this station close to the current East Mids Pkwy for connections to East Midlands airport.

The line would then run onto Sheffield and Leeds before rejoining the fast line in the York area.

Both lines would then join the ECML for continuation to the North East and Scotland.

 

[Zoe]

Instead of focusing on HS2 to Leeds and Manchester, I'd prefer it if we focused on the development of HS3.

But then Leeds misses out on a high speed link to Birmingham.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Do you understand the costs involved? We cant build two seperate lines we dont have the money, and i dont think economically it is feasable.

You find somewhere else to put a london terminal?

The whole buisness case behind the london to birmingham section is presuming that it gets extended, if it isnt extended i doubt there is a buisness case to build the line in the first place.

 

[Zoe]

The whole buisness case behind the london to birmingham section is presuming that it gets extended, if it isnt extended i doubt there is a buisness case to build the line in the first place.

It's not just that though, even if it only ever goes to Birmingham it will take quite a few express services off the current WCML and so allow more suburban services to run. There is also the possibility of direct service from Birmingham to mainland Europe via HS1.

 

[Batman]

Do you understand the costs involved? We cant build two seperate lines we dont have the money, and i dont think economically it is feasable.

You find somewhere else to put a london terminal?

The whole buisness case behind the london to birmingham section is presuming that it gets extended, if it isnt extended i doubt there is a buisness case to build the line in the first place.

But there will only be capacity on HS2 south of Birmingham for service transfering to it from the WCML.

If there is some way this can be overcome through more detailed timetable planning before the final go ahead is given, the I'd think again about the East Mids and Yorkshire extension.

But even then, I would still need convincing on Manchester. The North West is different from East Mids, Yorkshire and the North East because trains to London use the WCML and will therefore be able to use HS2 from Lichfield.

The only advantage with the Manchester extension will be slightly faster journey times, and I'm not sure if the benifits of that will be worth building the Manchester extension for.

The WCML north of Lichfield can deal with HS2 services perfectly well with increased frequencies from London to key destinations with only a few other infrastructure improvements being needed. Norton Bridge and North Wales Coast electrification are the obvious ones that come to mind.

 

[Waverley125]

By better "Classic" service you mean slower trains stopping at all stations with fewer amenities that will all be truncated to Doncaster or York?

Sounds like a pretty crummy deal to me.

Retford/Newark/Grantham doesn't need additional "local" trains, because there is nowhere to run them to.

We are following the French model when our population density and distribution is far more suited to the German or Japanese model (more stations closer together).

no, by better classic services I mean basically the status quo, but with more stops. So London-Edinburgh would now run all stops and a 2-hourly 'fast' i.e. Stevenage, Peterborough, Doncaster, York, Darlington, Durham, Newcastle, Morpeth, Alnmouth, Berwick, Dunbar.

Also, the 'classic' lines would serve more destinations e.g. Lincoln, Cleethorpes, Scarborough, Middlesbrough, Huddersfield, Harrogate, Bradford, Skipton etc etc.

HS2 simply can't stop everywhere, and by bringing lots of stations close together you lose much of the benefit. Leeds-York at the moment is only 23 minutes while York is only 2 hours from London. And let's remember what York is. It's a medium sized city, a big tourist destination, yes yes. But it is not the regional capital. That's Leeds. York has been described locally, and quite rightly, as Britain's most glorified commuter town.

When said city is only a 20 minute ride from Leeds, the benefit of diverting HS2 to take it there is minimal, and the same is true for all the other medium sized towns HS2 will go through. Yes, Peterborough will lose out on a connection to HS2. But given the number of journeys Peterborough-Edinburgh is small, the opportunity cost isn't huge.

 

[HSTEd]

What is wrong with additional trains from those locations (as well as between them) to Peterborough and London in the south, and Leeds and York in the north, giving more frequent connections into northbound Intercity services?

Because those towns will loose fastservices all over the place (I can currently get a train to London in one hour) and the connection times will almost certainly erode any advantage derived from reduced "waiting times" at those stations.

You will increase journey times with all these additional stops (all trains will call at Stevenage, Peterborough, Grantham, Newark, Retford, Doncaster and York) by up to fifteen minutes which will render the service less attractive to the outer commuters that currently make it viable.
This will then be used as an excuse to cut back the service further.
The current service capacity at these stations is perfectly adequate to the task in hand, it certainly doesnt need the complete recast to turn it into an outer suburban line that you are suggesting HS2 will provide as a "benefit".

The traffic towards NOttingham far outweighs the traffic to Peterborough or Newark despite the longer journey times, there is no real demand for North-South "local trains" with what little flows there are being adequately handled by the slack seats on the intercity services.

HS2 should be built, but we should not do so if it means that conventional rail is starved of funding for improvements neccesary to take it into the 21st Century.
I do not want our "Classic" lines to end up like Classic lines in France and we are in danger of falling into that trap once we embrace the glittery promise of dedicated line High Speed services.

 

[Invincibles]

I will be honest and say my knowledge of train design is a little limited, but I always read about 23m carriages and then 400m long HS trains. I am assuming that trains running into city centres would be 10 car and so not need massive engineering of the city centre stations.

Under my plan there would be 3 trains per hour coming down from "Newcastle", be that Newcastle itself or Scotland (presumably it would be a mix) that would be HS trains using the HS line and therefore not running into Leeds / Sheffield/ Birmingham but instead using their HS stations (roughly Meadowhall and Birmingham International)

There would then be the classic trains coming down the ECML into Leeds as currently (TPE, XC and one other path?) which would continue to Manchester Airport and Birmingham* as currently.

Add in two trains to London Kings Cross per hour on the ECML using whatever stock is on that route (I would like Pendolino style but that is one for the future) and serving Wakefield, Doncaster and stops to London as I outlined above (ensuring Retford, Newark and Grantham all have 2tph to London that only call at 4 stations maximum to London).

There would then be one or two HS trains using Leeds station and then joining the HS line after an appropriate short run on classic lines. This train would serve Sheffield* Toton* Birmingham International* a couple of others then London.

If we do engineer the HS lines into city centres then that is good, but I would prefer to see the network built with classic lines used on the last few miles where serving the city centres is seen as essential.

I am not sure where you are reading a reduction in capacity into my proposal.

 

[JohnCarlson]

All this talk about HS2 to Yorkshire is very interesting, but if you look at the draft timetable for HS2 South of Birmingham, there is only paths for 4tph on the Leeds branch.

I'm personaly in favour of HS2, but only as far as Birmngham/Lichfield.

The principle purpose of HS2 should be seen as a relief line for the WCML south of Rugby.

Any high speed line from London to East Midlands/Yorkshire/North East would require a second line running from a second London terminus, possibly at King's Cross.

I'm still sceptical about HS2 to Manchester.

I must admit you have brought something to mind that had been sitting at the back of mine for a while.

The capacity of HS2 south of Birmingham is likely to be limited to around 12 tph at max. If we pull together the existing 3 tph from Manchester, 1 tph from Liverpool 1tph from Glasgow and 1tph that starts at Birmingham we already have 6tph. Add in another 2 tph from Newcastle and 2tpr from Leeds and your pretty much full. Of course the trains will be longer but how many passenger seats will you really be adding to what is available unless double deck the trains.

There will be more space form local services between Birmingham and London and you will still have the ECML as it is now but is that really worth £15 billion?

I can actually see the possible case for a HS line from Leeds to Birmingham as the existing tracks are slow and overcrowded. However, I am far from convinced that its ever going to be faster to get from Newcastle to London via HS2.

John

 

[Nym]

The capacity of HS2a between Birmingham International and OOC/Euston will be 16tph operating, with an inital theoretical ceeling of 18tph, but changes with ERTMS could bring that up to 22tph.

You may be missing the benifit that extending the HS Captive lines north of RUGLEY! is that you can then run higher capacity HS captive units, upto 400m long into the CC stations, hence Manchester.

CCHS Units will not be able to penitrate any CC stations at 400m long, the're just too long, I can see modifications at Crewe to allow a 400m unit to call and split for say, Liverpool and Chester or Liverpool and Preston, convoluting their tph figures together, but Manchester will be needing 400m long units to terminate. There are two ways to do this:
Very expensively extend two platforms at Piccadilly to 400m long, taking out any spare capacity in the process, requiring 0, -1 and -2 to be built to accomadate what has been taken. And rule out international services in the process.
or
Build the Manchester HS Station for Day1 operation, providing a grade seperated junction at Slade Lane for access over the Stockport Viaduct onto the SW side of the current approach viaduct, widening into Asda's car park, stagecoach depot etc, to give 2 dedicated HS Lines from Slade Lane into Manchester, terminating in the new HS2 station at Baring St, linked by moving walkway to Piccadilly. The grade seperation will be such that when HS2 gains a dedicated tunneled route to Longsight at GC Guage, this will then serve to continue seperating the Slow Lines crossing the Fasts at Slade Lane, and the extra tracks handed over for use by the Aiport line.

It may well be easyer to provide plane 6 track from Slade Lane to Longsight and keep the running the same until Longsight where a grade seperated changeover can take place to provide the required 8 track from the Tunnel Breakout Point to the HS station, rather than spoiling the views at Slade Ln. (Also more space at Longsight). And providing the required approaches on Day 1 will save ripping up Manchester CC twice round Fairfeild St to provide accesses, provided that it is planned and approved before works start on Platforms 15 and 16 at Piccadilly.

 

[sprinterguy]

All this talk about HS2 to Yorkshire is very interesting, but if you look at the draft timetable for HS2 South of Birmingham, there is only paths for 4tph on the Leeds branch.

The Economic Case for HS2 document, published by the DfT, provides 6tph from London travelling up the Leeds arm of HS2, out of a total of 15 trains per hour (18tph in the peaks).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Any high speed line from London to East Midlands/Yorkshire/North East would require a second line running from a second London terminus, possibly at King's Cross.

I'm still sceptical about HS2 to Manchester.

If all the proposed HS2 services that will remove Intercity services from the WCML, MML and ECML can be accomodated on a single high speed line south of Birmingham and take a comparable or reduced journey time compared to the current "classic" services, it make far greater to fit them all onto that one line and derive the greatest utility (and hence the greatest financial return) from it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There is simply no need for HS2 to run north of Lichfield.

A full London to Manchester/Leeds/North Wales/Glasgow service can be worked a re-structured WCML timetable north of Lichfield whilst still running on HS2 south of Lichfield.

Journey time would be slightly longer, but like I've said, there simply isn't the capacity on HS2 for the line to handle service transfered to it from the WCML, MML and ECML.

The Greengage 21 draft timetable shows that there can still be big improvments to services frequencies between London and the North West without the need for HS2 north of Lichfield.

The only other improvements that would be needed would be North Wales Coast electrification and grade speration at Norton Bridge.

Of course, extending HS2 from Lichfield to Manchester would bring journey time savings, but I don't think extending HS2 to Manchester just for the reason would be cost effective. And like I've already said, I believe the principle purpose of HS2 is to act as a by-pass line for the WCML south of Rugby. Journey time time improvements are an added advantage.

Running Manchester bound HS2 services via the WCML from Lichfield will be a lot slower than if they ran by a dedicated high speed line all the way to Manchester. Rugeley/Norton Bridge to Stockport via Stoke is dead slow as it is (comparatively speaking, for a major Intercity route), and theStockport to Manchester section is essentially at maximum capacity as it is. High Speed 2 to Manchester is needed to remove the fast Intercity services from this section and free up capacity between Stockport and Manchester (and for the possibility of more local trains from Stoke), not adding more trains in.

I can't see how HS2 to Manchester will open a "pandoras' box" of capacity issues when it is going to be completely separate from the current routes and will remove a considerable number of the fastest trains from the existing line.

The route to Leeds from Birmingham is hardly rapid at the moment either, and the opening of HS2 to Leeds would revolutionise North East to South West Crosscountry journeys I'd wager.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Instead of focusing on HS2 to Leeds and Manchester, I'd prefer it if we focused on the development of HS3.

But the inescapable truth is that HS2 is going to be built first, hopefully all the way to Leeds and Manchester, and the one line will be adequate in terms of capacity (and journey times) to take the majority of fast services from the WCML, MML and ECML.

And if you ask me, any HS3 route that manifests itself should be a line to the South West to speed up journey times from Devon and Cornwall, with a junction in the Bristol area to allow South Wales services to diverge.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The traffic towards NOttingham far outweighs the traffic to Peterborough or Newark despite the longer journey times, there is no real demand for North-South "local trains" with what little flows there are being adequately handled by the slack seats on the intercity services.

It's probable, although we will not know what the likely service provision will be on the ECML post-HS2, that there will be the opportunity for more Nottingham bound trains crossing the ECML at Grantham and Newark, particularly Newark, with the fast ECML trains removed from the route. The capacity increase in local services offered by HS2 isn't limited to linear services up and down the routes that will be affected.

 

[Batman]

The capacity of HS2a between Birmingham International and OOC/Euston will be 16tph operating, with an inital theoretical ceeling of 18tph, but changes with ERTMS could bring that up to 22tph.

You may be missing the benifit that extending the HS Captive lines north of RUGLEY! is that you can then run higher capacity HS captive units, upto 400m long into the CC stations, hence Manchester.

CCHS Units will not be able to penitrate any CC stations at 400m long, the're just too long, I can see modifications at Crewe to allow a 400m unit to call and split for say, Liverpool and Chester or Liverpool and Preston, convoluting their tph figures together, but Manchester will be needing 400m long units to terminate. There are two ways to do this:
Very expensively extend two platforms at Piccadilly to 400m long, taking out any spare capacity in the process, requiring 0, -1 and -2 to be built to accomadate what has been taken. And rule out international services in the process.
or
Build the Manchester HS Station for Day1 operation, providing a grade seperated junction at Slade Lane for access over the Stockport Viaduct onto the SW side of the current approach viaduct, widening into Asda's car park, stagecoach depot etc, to give 2 dedicated HS Lines from Slade Lane into Manchester, terminating in the new HS2 station at Baring St, linked by moving walkway to Piccadilly. The grade seperation will be such that when HS2 gains a dedicated tunneled route to Longsight at GC Guage, this will then serve to continue seperating the Slow Lines crossing the Fasts at Slade Lane, and the extra tracks handed over for use by the Aiport line.

It may well be easyer to provide plane 6 track from Slade Lane to Longsight and keep the running the same until Longsight where a grade seperated changeover can take place to provide the required 8 track from the Tunnel Breakout Point to the HS station, rather than spoiling the views at Slade Ln. (Also more space at Longsight). And providing the required approaches on Day 1 will save ripping up Manchester CC twice round Fairfeild St to provide accesses, provided that it is planned and approved before works start on Platforms 15 and 16 at Piccadilly.

So you talk about the impracticalities of running HS trains into central Manchester on existing infrastructure.

But as things stand at the moment, it looks like HS2 won't all open in one go. So what do you think will happen when HS2 only opens as far as Lichfield and HS trains are forced to use the WCML to Manchester?

So let's see if I've got this.

There are currently 17 Intercity tph leaving London terminueses in the off peak on the WCML, MML and ECML (ignoring the Corby, Hull and Sunderland workings). Would there still be capacity on HS2 for extra services to opperate in the peaks? I guess some of the extra trains promised will still have to run on the classic mainlines and for example there will only be 3tph for London to Birmingham on HS2. The Greengage 21 timetable proposes 4.

And will these 400m trains be interconnectable with existing infrastructure for opperating north of Manchester and Leeds?

The thing is, as things stand at the moment, there are no detailed plans for HS2 north of Lichfield, and there may never be the political will to extend the line.

Also, you've talked about Cross Country services. Wouldn't that require the whole of the line from Birmingham to Plymouth to be electrified in order for Cross Country trains to use HS2 between Birmngham and Leeds?

And will Birmingham to Manchester Cross Country services still run via Wolverhampton?

And why are there no connecting lines for XC trains running out of New Street to connect with HS3 east of Birmingham Curzon Street?

And I'm also disapointed to see that there won't be terminues platforms at Curzon Street for local trains from Tamworth, Leicester and Walsall via the Sutton Park Lines.

 

[sprinterguy]

So you talk about the impracticalities of running HS trains into central Manchester on existing infrastructure.

But as things stand at the moment, it looks like HS2 won't all open in one go. So what do you think will happen when HS2 only opens as far as Lichfield and HS trains are forced to use the WCML to Manchester?

Yes, after the first stage of HS2 has been opened, WCML services will still run on the WCML north of Lichfield. It's a good start in terms of relieving capacity on the southern stretch of the West Coast, but far from ideal in terms of the maximum number of benefits that can be gained from HS2 extending further north.

There are currently 17 Intercity tph leaving London terminueses in the off peak on the WCML, MML and ECML (ignoring the Corby, Hull and Sunderland workings). Would there still be capacity on HS2 for extra services to opperate in the peaks? I guess some of the extra trains promised will still have to run on the classic mainlines and for example there will only be 3tph for London to Birmingham on HS2. The Greengage 21 timetable proposes 4.

Bear in mind that the HS2 services that serve East Midlands destinations will also be the ones that serve ECML destinations, rather than them being two separate sets of services.

The DfT propose 3tph to Birmingham via HS2 and 4tph in the peaks.

And will these 400m trains be interconnectable with existing infrastructure for opperating north of Manchester and Leeds?

I think the idea is that the classic compatible HS2 trains will be 200 metre trains that will be able to run as a pair of trains 400m in length on HS2, and then splitting to run as single sets on the classic network.

The thing is, as things stand at the moment, there are no detailed plans for HS2 north of Lichfield, and there may never be the political will to extend the line.

That's true. The earliest proposed opening date for stage 2 of HS2 is still over twenty years away. A lot of things are likely to change in that time and it is perfectly possible that it might never happen. It'll be a great opportunity wasted if that is what happens.

Also, you've talked about Cross Country services. Wouldn't that require the whole of the line from Birmingham to Plymouth to be electrified in order for Cross Country trains to use HS2 between Birmngham and Leeds?

And will Birmingham to Manchester Cross Country services still run via Wolverhampton?

And why are there no connecting lines for XC trains running out of New Street to connect with HS3 east of Birmingham Curzon Street?

I think it's more likely that there will be a major overhaul of Crosscountry services when the second stage of HS2 opens, that'll split the network down considerably into more of a regional service, rather than the existing service pattern being moved onto HS2. That is why there is no connection planned onto HS2 in Birmingham

For instance, instead of through Edinburgh to Plymouth XC services, there might be the following:
Hourly Glasgow - Nottingham service via the ECML, Doncaster and Derby,
An upgrade of the Cardiff to Nottingham service with more Intercity like stock
Hourly Manchester to Plymouth via Wolverhampton
Hourly Manchester to Bournemouth via Wolverhampton

 

[Batman]

I'm starting to be more convinced.

So if it's practically possible, is there demand for HS2 to Leeds.

The main reason I support HS2a is becuase it wil provide extra capacity for the WCML south of Rugby.

So are the MML and ECML currently close to capacity close to St Pancras and King's Cross.

If so, HS2 will be able to act as a relief line, thus enabaling the development of the classic lines for local and regional services.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
You could also say that same thing about Manchester, if that allows the local lines in the North Midlands and Manchester areas to be freed of Intercity trains so they can be further developed for local trains.

 

[sprinterguy]

I don't think that the southern ends of the ECML and the MML are suffering the same problems of capacity constraint that the WCML is, although it's pretty "cosy" on the ECML, the problems heightened by the Welwyn bottleneck. The absorption of most of the Great Northern suburban service into Thameslink in 2018 will do a great deal to relieve pressure on Kings Cross, but will do nothing to alleviate the problems around Welwyn.

I reckon that the MML will be least affected of the three main lines affected by HS2, as HS2 isn't intended to directly serve any of the key destinations on the route (It's "parkway" stations proposed for the East Midlands and South Yorkshire), whereas it will for both the WCML and the ECML.I think there will certainly be passenger demand on the Leeds leg of HS2. It'll essentially be catering for passengers currently served by 2tph to Leeds and 1tph to Edinburgh on the ECML, 2tph Crosscountry services between Birmingham, Leeds, York and Newcastle, and there'll be some movement from the MML to HS2 for Derby/Nottingham and Sheffield, although I don't suspect that it will be a great deal.

Of course, it goes without saying that HS2 will only serve those making the end to end journeys between key cities, rather than all the intermediate journeys, such as Chesterfield to Sheffield, that currently fill a lot of seats on existing services.

 

[Philip Elliott]

But the inescapable truth is that HS2 is going to be built first, hopefully all the way to Leeds and Manchester, and the one line will be adequate in terms of capacity (and journey times) to take the majority of fast services from the WCML, MML and ECML.

Can you please stop continuously re-posting this bull****. Because it won't stop at the intermediate stations it won't remove any services without a reduction to those intermediate cities and large towns. For a start, HS2 won't call at anywhere the MML does - the demand for fast trains is from Leicester, stopping at a muddy field called Toton won't change the demand
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't think that the southern ends of the ECML and the MML are suffering the same problems of capacity constraint that the WCML is, although it's pretty "cosy" on the ECML

Actually...the WCML has more space capacity than the...

MML
ECML
BML
GWML

 

[Batman]

I don't think that the southern ends of the ECML and the MML are suffering the same problems of capacity constraint that the WCML is, although it's pretty "cosy" on the ECML, the problems heightened by the Welwyn bottleneck. The absorption of most of the Great Northern suburban service into Thameslink in 2018 will do a great deal to relieve pressure on Kings Cross, but will do nothing to alleviate the problems around Welwyn.

I reckon that the MML will be least affected of the three main lines affected by HS2, as HS2 isn't intended to directly serve any of the key destinations on the route (It's "parkway" stations proposed for the East Midlands and South Yorkshire), whereas it will for both the WCML and the ECML.I think there will certainly be passenger demand on the Leeds leg of HS2. It'll essentially be catering for passengers currently served by 2tph to Leeds and 1tph to Edinburgh on the ECML, 2tph Crosscountry services between Birmingham, Leeds, York and Newcastle, and there'll be some movement from the MML to HS2 for Derby/Nottingham and Sheffield, although I don't suspect that it will be a great deal.

Of course, it goes without saying that HS2 will only serve those making the end to end journeys between key cities, rather than all the intermediate journeys, such as Chesterfield to Sheffield, that currently fill a lot of seats on existing services.

It's knowing things like that that make me doubtful about HS2 to Leeds and Manchester.

Yorkshire and the North East are regions in need of development, but it looks like that can be done without the need for HS rail.

I'm gonna stick with my origional support for HS2 only as far as Birmingham, with some other improvements. These would include the Norton Bridge flyover, North Wales coast electrification (subject to funding from the WG), double tracking Coventry to Leamington with the station at Kenilworth and platform extensions at Wembly Central.

The MML and ECML should still get improvments such as electrification for the MML and alliviation of capacity problems at Welwyn for the ECML, as well as te Newark flyover.

But think about it, 15 years from now, GWML and TPN will have been electrified, we'll have HS2 to Birmingham, the Thameslink project will have been compleated and we'll have Crossrail. So the rail network still has a lot going for it.

 

[sprinterguy]

Can you please stop continuously re-posting this bull****. Because it won't stop at the intermediate stations it won't remove any services without a reduction to those intermediate cities and large towns. For a start, HS2 won't call at anywhere the MML does - the demand for fast trains is from Leicester, stopping at a muddy field called Toton won't change the demand

Are you referring to a reduction in quality of journey times, frequency or something else? I did mention in my post above that the MML will probably be least affected by the potential opening of HS2, as it won't directly serve any of the key destinations on the route. However, if the journey time into Nottingham/Derby from London via a change at Toton is a bit quicker (Which is assuming some sort of joined up thinking in terms of connecting services!) than the journey time on the MML via Leicester, there probably will be some shift of passengers to HS2. It'd surely be a preferable option for those willing to drive to a station but not all the way to London.

I'd hardly call it bull****. It's a reasoned assumption of what may happen with the opening of HS2 based on the evidence that we have to hand. As is any view to the contrary. We're arguing over something that is more than twenty years away from opening at the earliest, which means that any "facts" are rather clouded and considerably less than set in stone.

 

[tbtc]

Can you please stop continuously re-posting this bull****. Because it won't stop at the intermediate stations it won't remove any services without a reduction to those intermediate cities and large towns

At the moment places like Grantham only get a small number of services stopping there, as most ECML trains run non-stop through (at no benefit to the people of Grantham).

If you take those non-stop services via another line (called HS2) then you free up a lot of capacity on the ECML for more local trains to stop at places like Grantham.

No need to swear

 

[Waverley125]

At the moment places like Grantham only get a small number of services stopping there, as most ECML trains run non-stop through (at no benefit to the people of Grantham).

If you take those non-stop services via another line (called HS2) then you free up a lot of capacity on the ECML for more local trains to stop at places like Grantham.

but you don't 'take them off', you reconfigure them to stop more. So Grantham (my parents local station) would gain extra services to Leeds, Hull, Lincoln, Newcastle, Edinburgh, Cleethorpes, Middlesbrough, Sunderland, Huddersfield, Bradford etc. it doesn't have now.

HS2 removes the need for 'fast' services between major centres, i.e. Leeds to London. So by having a Leeds-London HS run calling at Sheffield only, and doign the journey in 80 minutes, so you can introduce new stops on the existing runs, and use the paths for the 'fast' services to serve other destinations not currently on the network.

 

[LE Greys]

Although stopping at Toton or Trent Junction is going to look a little pointless when city centre stations are clearly far more effective. You only need to look at this list to see why.

• Gare de Aix-en-Provence TGV (in the suburbs, not entirely successful)
• Gare de Champagne-Ardenne TGV (in a village, 5 km from Reims)
• Gare TGV Haute-Picarde (in a beetroot field)
• Gare de Lorraine TGV (middle of nowhere - people want to move it)
• Gare de Massy TGV (a sort of Finsbury Park in a Paris suburb - passengers continue to the terminus at Montparnesse rather than changing)
• Gare de Meuse TGV (in a village 30 km from Verdun, which it is supposed to serve)
• Gare de Valence TGV (although that has better links, it is still 10 km from Valence)
• Gare de Vendôme-Villiers-sur-Loir TGV (5 km from Vendôme and in a village)

Put the stations somewhere useful.

 

[ainsworth74]

From todays National Infrastructure Plan:

3.53 The Secretary of State for Transport will announce the Government’s decisions on the proposed strategy for a national high speed rail network and, if appropriate, the preferred route from London to the West Midlands by the end of 2011, in light of all the evidence. Should the Secretary of State decide to proceed with plans for high speed rail, the Government would:

• legislate for the London-Birmingham phase of High Speed 2 by introducing a hybrid bill to Parliament by October 2013;

• prepare the second phase of High Speed 2 (the Birmingham-Manchester-Leeds route), consult and decide on a detailed route by December 2014; and

• work with stakeholders to determine the optimum use of the significant rail capacity released on the West Coast Main Line by the transfer of key long distance inter-city express services to High Speed 2.

 

[HSTEd]

Using the example of the Tokaido Shinkansen, possibly the most succesful high speed route ever built as something we should aim to emulate, the 283km between London and Manchester (the existing route via Birmingham adn then just a straight line via Stoke to Manchester as a rough estimate) would have roughly 11 stations (equivalent to the number of stations on the first ~280km of said Shinkansen).

If the stations are on refuge loops there is no reason that would have to interfere with "fast trains" if there really is demand for such services, and they would be far more useful than remoivng just the 6tph to Manchester and Birmingham from the WCML (at most, many of those will be used to run the existing trains having to run regardless to enable the vaunted price/time "competition" to take place, unless they plan to pull a HS1)