High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[Chris125]

It's important to note that the illustrative service pattern is just that, an illustrative scenario to identify released capacity - presumably services to Chester and North Wales aren't affected by HS2 so are not relevant.

In due course there may well be a case for some kind of direct classic compatible service, but that will require electrification.

Chris

 

[nerd]

But there's no plan for classic compatible routes to Chester/North Wales. It seems Chester's service will be identical to today. Surely if Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham don't warrent 3 400m trains into Euston, or Manchester and Leeds 2 400m trains into Birmingham (on top of CrossCountry services) then it would be better to use 400m trains at a lower frequency in order to allow services such as Chester to Euston via HS2. My suspicion, though, is that they'd sooner have a higher frequency in order to justify building the spurs.

The service patterns in the document are a historical snapshot; they simply constitute the service assumtions applied by HS2 Ltd in the modelling exercise undertaken to inform the revised August 2012 economic case. The published initial preference route from DfT in January 2013 did not correspond exactly to these service pattterns (in so far as DfT's response included a station at Davenport Green, but cut the Manchester/Leeds hourly services to Heathrow). Moreover, HS2 Ltd's 'released capacity' patterns for modified services across the classic network have no current status. DfT have passed the whole issue over to Network Rail, who will be producing their own proposals for released capacity patterns; and will be reporting back later this year.

What does appear to be the case is that DfT are definitley not simply restoring the released Heathrow paths back to Manc/Leeds - Euston services. Hence, for the present, we should envisage both Manc and Leeds as having no more than 3 services per hour each to London.

Which leaves two paths per hour south of Birmingham potentially uncommitted. I strongly suspect that transport ministers will be pressed to commit one hourly path (or perhaps one path every two hours) to a Holyhead classic compatible service. That way, the electrification of the classic line westwards from Crewe can be lumped into the HS2 budget allocation; avoiding the vexed matter of Barnett consequentials. After all, it is most unlikely that the Holyhead line will still be unelectrififed in 2033; the issue here is how the funding for that improvement will be treated in the Government's accounts.

 

[Gareth]

Thanks for the responses. The information is most helpful. Good call about Chester not being currently electrified, though it would be a prime candidate, I would've thought, to be electrified by the completion of Phase 2. If Heathrow is canned, I hope Liverpool will benefit. Certainly, a Chester classic compatible could perhaps take in Stafford and allow the Liverpool service to be faster than it is. Also, Chester is used by southerly parts of the Wirral and it's important for our City Region.

 

[nerd]

Thanks for the responses. The information is most helpful. Good call about Chester not being currently electrified, though it would be a prime candidate, I would've thought, to be electrified by the completion of Phase 2. If Heathrow is canned, I hope Liverpool will benefit. Certainly, a Chester classic compatible could perhaps take in Stafford and allow the Liverpool service to be faster than it is. Also, Chester is used by southerly parts of the Wirral and it's important for our City Region.

Indeed so Gareth.

In my view, if Chester/Holyhead were to gain a classic compatible service, this would undermine the argument that Lime Street services must run through Runcorn to serve the West Cheshire market; which in turn might mean that a better case could be made for a Liverpool-bound chord at Culcheth.

As yet, all very speculative.

However, it is reasonable to surmise that ministers are keeping back the two released paths primarily as potential lollipops to respond to poltitical pressures that might undermine the case for HS2. So, the more that Liverpool maitain pressure on the issue of the unsatisfactory nature of the current service proposal, the more likely it is that some way will be found to respond.

Of course, it is always possible that these two paths will go back to being Heathrow-directed - should the Davies Commission find in favour of HR3. It's just that, even if HR3 is approved, no one currently seems to see this as implying resurrection of the Heathrow HS2 link. After all, the link was originally being promoted specifically as avoiding building HR3.

 

[Gareth]

That's a good analysis and a good strategy for Liverpool to consider. If anything, it looks like the fortunes of Liverpool, Chester and Warrington are entwined somewhat and it'd do a hell of a lot of good if the three areas appreciated this.

The Heathrow link's never really made sense to me, though it seems to be all our locally based MP and Shadow Minister for Transport, Angela Eagle, ever seems to go on about. For a start, it's a lot of expense for just 2tph. It seems that Crossrail will do a perfectly good job with a swift change at OOC. I don't think it would take any load off anyone flying from Manchester or Leeds-Bradford to Heathrow, as these passenger will normall be buying through tickets to onward destinations and I see no incentive of why they would take a train there instead. Also, it's not the only big South East airport and it looks like there's a good chance there'll be a new airport entirely built in the region in the next 20 years.

 

[LE Greys]

That's a good analysis and a good strategy for Liverpool to consider. If anything, it looks like the fortunes of Liverpool, Chester and Warrington are entwined somewhat and it'd do a hell of a lot of good if the three areas appreciated this.

The Heathrow link's never really made sense to me, though it seems to be all our locally based MP and Shadow Minister for Transport, Angela Eagle, ever seems to go on about. For a start, it's a lot of expense for just 2tph. It seems that Crossrail will do a perfectly good job with a swift change at OOC. I don't think it would take any load off anyone flying from Manchester or Leeds-Bradford to Heathrow, as these passenger will normall be buying through tickets to onward destinations and I see no incentive of why they would take a train there instead. Also, it's not the only big South East airport and it looks like there's a good chance there'll be a new airport entirely built in the region in the next 20 years.

That of course depends on BAA cooperationg with the railways and adding Heathrow to ATOC's ticketing system. There'll be pigs landing there before they let go of that little money spinner.

 

[HSTEd]

Won't Heathrow have to be part of the ATOC ticketing system in order for Crossrail to work?

Or are they going to charge the same absurd fare between Hayes+Harlington and Heathrow that they do now?

 

[Chris125]

Won't Heathrow have to be part of the ATOC ticketing system in order for Crossrail to work?

..and a few years after Crossrail there'll also be through trains via the western access project.

Chris

 

[Clip]

Stop talking.

Build it.

Its the only way

 

[Gareth]

Looking at the latest service pattern, there are services terminating at Preston and York. Is the idea that services may extend to places like Blackpool and Middlesbrough, provided electrification happens in the meantime?

 

[Spaceflower]

Mod Note: This post and up to and including post #2572 split from this thread.

I keep thinking the best use for Teesside Airport station will be in the distant future if we get High Speed rail to Newcastle and the like.
Its quite a good place for a parkway station, its got no major development in the potential station approaches, its got rail access to a soon to be developed urban railway line and there is vast amounts of space for car parking.

A park and ride serving where exactly? Middlesbrough and Teesside Park have ample free/cheap parking and are alot more accessible by road thanks to the A19. the A66 is effectively a link road between the A1 and A19 and a commuter route along the Tees Valley. Wheres the demand?
The site isn't even on the A66, its on the much older single carriageway A67.
Ray Malon (Middlesbrough Mayor) was on the local news recently with a scheme to reduce parking charges in a bid to get more people motoring their way into the old town centre.

 

[HSTEd]

A park and ride serving where exactly? Middlesbrough and Teesside Park have ample free/cheap parking and are alot more accessible by road thanks to the A19. the A66 is effectively a link road between the A1 and A19 and a commuter route along the Tees Valley. Wheres the demand?
The site isn't even on the A66, its on the much older single carriageway A67.

Even if HS2 is extended to Newcastle, Middlesbrough and Teeside Park certainly won't be getting significant high speed service though......

 

[Spaceflower]

Even if HS2 is extended to Newcastle, Middlesbrough and Teeside Park certainly won't be getting significant high speed service though......

Im thinking the wrong way round aren't I.....
I think I see where you're going with this but I cant see the market growing substantially more than the current market served by Darlington and the ECML. Just my opinion though. Even still why that location? You'd still have to make another connection for travel to the HS2.

 

[HSTEd]

Im thinking the wrong way round aren't I.....
I think I see where you're going with this but I cant see the market growing substantially more than the current market served by Darlington and the ECML. Just my opinion though.

We would be looking at cutting half an hour off the current journey time to London.... under 2hrs (since I calculate you might even be able to do Newcastle in 2hrs if you are lucky).

It puts Darlington into the Birmingham "commuter belt" (if such a thing exists separately from the London one).

You could be looking at an explosion in traffic, especially if they dump low price seasons to fill trains that would otherwise be shorter than 400m.

 

[Spaceflower]

Yes, but WHY THAT SITE?

Its not on a major road,
Why drive from Teesside to there, only to have to get on a train/traim, whatever to continue onto Darlington?

And how much journey time are you expecting being shaved off London if having to go via Leeds and Birmingham? Minutes?

Ultimately, why did domestic flights fail from the same site?

Lack of Demand. Wrong location.

And as for HS2. if its for domestic services, than why spend billions to save 30 minutes on existing journey times only to find your 30 minutes from the city centres (parkway stations)? Its ill thought out imo.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
London is the black hole.

 

[HSTEd]

Yes, but WHY THAT SITE?

Its not on a major road,
Why drive from Teesside to there, only to have to get on a train/traim, whatever to continue onto Darlington?

1) It is on an approximately straight line between the current planned terminus of the HS2 East line south of York and Newcastle.

2) It has no major development in its station approaches, enabling cheap above ground approaches with minimal residential land take.

3) While it has not got optimum transport links they are considerably better than a greenfield site built in the middle of nowhere. It also has enormous amounts of space necessary for a large park and ride development.

4) With regards to the airport failing due to poor location..... with HS2 it ends up an hour or so from Birmingham, a few minutes from York (if some sort of regional high speed service is deployed).
That rather improves its location problems.

5) Because not everyone on teeside lives in Darlington?

 

[Spaceflower]

1) It is on an approximately straight line between the current planned terminus of the HS2 East line south of York and Newcastle.

2) It has no major development in its station approaches, enabling cheap above ground approaches with minimal residential land take.

3) While it has not got optimum transport links they are considerably better than a greenfield site built in the middle of nowhere. It also has enormous amounts of space necessary for a large park and ride development.

A straight line? You mean you can jump a crow or a seagull and fly there? what are you talking about mate?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Theres nothing at the current Teesside Airport site to drive there for other than a local commuter railway, thats what I'm saying. There are no connections with current or proposed HS2 or anything else for that matter.
You talk a load of nonsense HSTed.

 

[HSTEd]

A straight line? You mean you can jump a crow or a seagull and fly there? what are you talking about mate?

Well High Speed railways tend to be built on approximately straight lines, and as there are no mountain ranges in the way the line will tend towards such a line.

It laughs in the face of gradients since there are no major settlements in the way to complain about cuttings, viaducts and the like causing noise pollution.
The projected budget of ~£4.5bn for a York-Newcastle railway indicates this.

Theres nothing at the current Teesside Airport site to drive there for other than a local commuter railway, thats what I'm saying. There are no connections with current or proposed HS2 or anything else for that matter.
You talk a load of nonsense HSTed.

So where would you put a future High speed Teeside station, I can't see any more reasonable locations?
Note I was talking entirely hypothetically in my earlier comment.

 

[Spaceflower]

Like your hypothetical HS2? Your points 2 and 3 about greenbelt land are rendered laughable if you propose cutting a new alignment through the North Yorkshire Landscape.

And I'll reiterate a couple of my earlier points, how many billions would it cost, compensation would have to be paid, how environmentally and socially damaging would it be to cut a new HS line to London via Leeds and Birmingham to save what? Minutes off the existing and more direct route to London via the ECML.

On the point of parkway stations, which I found whole heartedly repulsive, What is the point of siting parkway stations 30 minutes away from major regional urban centres on a high speed railway which is only saving that on existing lines which forge right into the heart of these very important regional econimic and social centres? All it is favouring is mass commuting to London and a mass exodus of economic activity from these centres in my opinion.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Have you any idea what such macro scale barriers running through the landscape can do ecologically?

 

[HSTEd]

Like your hypothetical HS2? Your points 2 and 3 about greenbelt land are rendered laughable if you propose cutting a new alignment through the North Yorkshire Landscape.

They are?
The land is cheap and the fact remains that there are some road connections, compared to a random greenfield site with nothing at all.

And I'll reiterate a couple of my earlier points, how many billions would it cost, compensation would have to be paid, how environmentally and socially damaging would it be to cut a new HS line to London via Leeds and Birmingham to save what? Minutes off the existing and more direct route to London via the ECML.

The current Darlington-Dinsdale travel time is 5 minutes and the Darlington-Allens West journey time is 12 minutes.
That would tend to indicate a travel time to Teeside Airport of six or seven minutes.
Even if you add a nice ten minute connection time (easily sufficient considering the short journey use loose only 17 minutes from central Darlington).

Upgrades linked to new rolling stock could probably improve this performance still further.

A 2hr Journey time was rather pessimistic it now appears, it should be roughly 17-18 minutes more than a journey to Leeds if it has a similar stopping pattern.... which takes us to the 1hr50 or so mark. Which is rather less than the 2hr30 that appears to be the typical journey time.

Even if you lose ~17 minutes on the transit (which is probably excessive) you save nearly 25 minutes.

On the point of parkway stations, which I found whole heartedly repulsive, What is the point of siting parkway stations 30 minutes away from major regional urban centres on a high speed railway which is only saving that on existing lines which forge right into the heart of these very important regional econimic and social centres? All it is favouring is mass commuting to London and a mass exodus of economic activity from these centres in my opinion.

Firstly, as noted above, 30 minutes is probably an excessive estimate, especially if TVM does eventually happen and push the frequency towards turn up and ride.
Secondly the saving of 20 minutes I estimated earlier was deliberately pessimistic and savings of 40 minutes are achievable.

The "mass exodus" of economic activity is already occurring, we can't hope to stop it.
People will simply move closer to London if they can't commute from the north. By deploying high speed rail we push the viable commuter belt further north which will spread the load of London's commuters over more ground.

London's dominance is essentially irreversible, the country is simply too small and travel speeds are already too high for anywhere south of Newcastle to hope to remain economically "independent".

If the rest of the country wants to tap London's potential then we must all become Londoners.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Have you any idea what such macro scale barriers running through the landscape can do ecologically?

Yes, and this can be ameliorated by providing wildlife underpasses..... but since you aren't suggesting pulling up the ECML then you must consider it is an acceptable loss?

If there are no noise complainers around you could just put the whole thing on a cheap prefabricated concrete viaduct a few metres above the ground.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If there are no noise complainers around you could just put the whole thing on a cheap prefabricated concrete viaduct a few metres above the ground.

Not wishing to put a fine point on what is said in this quote, if you thought on what actually occurred over the the matter of what happened when the M3 was planned to pass through the North Downs, I have a feeling that the deafening clamour of outrage from the supposed "no noise complainers" that would be caused by the thought of "a cheap prefabricated concrete viaduct" passing through North Yorkshire would certainly be noted in the corridors of power.

 

[Spaceflower]

They are?
The land is cheap and the fact remains that there are some road connections, compared to a random greenfield site with nothing at all.



The current Darlington-Dinsdale travel time is 5 minutes and the Darlington-Allens West journey time is 12 minutes.
That would tend to indicate a travel time to Teeside Airport of six or seven minutes.
Even if you add a nice ten minute connection time (easily sufficient considering the short journey use loose only 17 minutes from central Darlington).

Upgrades linked to new rolling stock could probably improve this performance still further.

A 2hr Journey time was rather pessimistic it now appears, it should be roughly 17-18 minutes more than a journey to Leeds if it has a similar stopping pattern.... which takes us to the 1hr50 or so mark. Which is rather less than the 2hr30 that appears to be the typical journey time.

Even if you lose ~17 minutes on the transit (which is probably excessive) you save nearly 25 minutes.



Firstly, as noted above, 30 minutes is probably an excessive estimate, especially if TVM does eventually happen and push the frequency towards turn up and ride.
Secondly the saving of 20 minutes I estimated earlier was deliberately pessimistic and savings of 40 minutes are achievable.

The "mass exodus" of economic activity is already occurring, we can't hope to stop it.
People will simply move closer to London if they can't commute from the north. By deploying high speed rail we push the viable commuter belt further north which will spread the load of London's commuters over more ground.

London's dominance is essentially irreversible, the country is simply too small and travel speeds are already too high for anywhere south of Newcastle to hope to remain economically "independent".

If the rest of the country wants to tap London's potential then we must all become Londoners.




Yes, and this can be ameliorated by providing wildlife underpasses..... but since you aren't suggesting pulling up the ECML then you must consider it is an acceptable loss?

If there are no noise complainers around you could just put the whole thing on a cheap prefabricated concrete viaduct a few metres above the ground.

Or just upgrade the ECML for a fraction of the cost, a fraction of the disruption and a fraction of the ecological damage. In addition, you wont be creating unnecessary reasons for additional transport infrastructure and car usage/reliance (hardly sustainable) and the journey time to London will probably end up being quicker. Besides, the main benefit of the railway is its ability to offer very quick and convenient travel between urban centres. All a park and ride offers is easy commuting to congested inner city areas for car owners/drivers. What youre basically proposing is turning the British railway network into a highly centralised commuter railway to London and youre also looking for a problem to fit the solution. And boy what a solution it is.

 

[JohnCarlson]

Or just upgrade the ECML for a fraction of the cost, a fraction of the disruption and a fraction of the ecological damage. In addition, you wont be creating unnecessary reasons for additional transport infrastructure and car usage/reliance (hardly sustainable) and the journey time to London will probably end up being quicker. Besides, the main benefit of the railway is its ability to offer very quick and convenient travel between urban centres. All a park and ride offers is easy commuting to congested inner city areas for car owners/drivers. What youre basically proposing is turning the British railway network into a highly centralised commuter railway to London and youre also looking for a problem to fit the solution. And boy what a solution it is.

When HS2 gets as far north east as Church Fenton it might be decided to upgrade the remaining line to York so it is able to take the "captive" stock if indeed the captive stock is ever actually built. A new terminal might be built in the Freightliner yard . This is as far north east I think the captive stock will ever get.

A bargain basement option to increase capacity on the Newcastle to York section might be to bring back into use the Leamside Line and send freights over that and then via Stilington and Yarm to Northallerton. Low level platforms could be reinstated at Northallerton to remove Middlesbrough bound TPE and Grand Central Trains from the platforms on the ECML.

If you wanted to spend more money and speed things up a line could then diverge from the existing ECML a few miles south of Northallerton swerving gently west then east across the ECML to run alongside the east side of Darlington which wouold be some distance away from Teesside Airport then rejoin the exiting ECML formation just south of Ferryhill.

This idea of a parkway station at Teesside airport has surfaced before. I think its a totally useless idea. I dont want to retype all the arguments against it again. Lets just say run the trains for Darlington into Darlington. Run the trains for Teesside into Teesside.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If the rest of the country wants to tap London's potential then we must all become Londoners.

If I ever saw a comment made on this website that gives the lie to the plaintive cry of defence.."HS2 is not at all London-centric, it is something that will have equal benefits to any area that it serves", then that quote above fulfills that requirement.....:roll:

So now we see the truth of the matter...

 

[LE Greys]

Looking at the alignment, the ideal location for a station near Teesside is . . . erm . . . Darlington station. Chiefly because it already acts as a hub for the whole area, so there is no need to mess around with current service patterns to make it work. Between there and Newcastle, the line could use a combination of the ECML, the A1(M) and the Leamside so that it could stick to existing transport corridors. South of there, one option would be to follow the old trackbed through Ripon to Harrogate, but that simply leaves the line in Harrogate. Another option would be to follow the ECML all the way to York, but that again leaves the line at York, although it makes a better interchange for ECML traffic than Harrogate. An in-between route might follow the A1 and M1 to meet the current line somewhere between Weatherby and Pontefract, but that doesn't leave an option for trains to serve York. It's a balancing act.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If I ever saw a comment made on this website that gives the lie to the plaintive cry of defence.."HS2 is not at all London-centric, it is something that will have equal benefits to any area that it serves", then that quote above fulfills that requirement.....:roll:

So now we see the truth of the matter...

I see why some people want a 'like' button on this forum. I am not one of them, but never mind.

By my chosen definition, the area HS2 serves is the area within half an hour of a station by public transport or on foot. Outside London, that's a very small area without much connectivity than is currently planned for. I would be interested to know what the official definition is.

 

[HSTEd]

I do note that HS2 Ltd came to the conclusion that a dedicated captive line between York/Church Fenton and Newcastle was a better deal than captive clearing the existing line.

Which says something.

Routing trains through Darlington itself without major demolitions is likely to be a far more expensive proposition with major disruptions in railway property.... and what benefit accrues to Darlington accrues at the direct expense of Middlesbrough and the rest of the region.

There will never be sufficient paths available to dedicate sets to Middlesbrough in its own right (any trains will likely be extensions of the York terminators that will be what is left of the ECML timetable).

So do you force people to drive into central Darlington or do you put the station in the open where road improvements are likely to be relatively painless?

The only reasonable alternative to a HS2 station between Middlesbrough and Darlington to serve Teeside is to simply not have a station and run fast between York and Newcastle.

EDIT:

And the fact remains, people who believe that they would be better off without HS2 "sucking away all the economic activity" are hopelessly naive.
They will have an "independent identity" but it will be as a place where everyone who wants to get a decent job with a future will be forced to move elsewhere.
This at-least allows them a chance to live outside of the South East, reducing their cost of living.

And as far as I know, Teeside doesn't have a greenbelt, so it is likely the villages adjacent to the airport site would experience significant development as a result of the location of the station there.

 

[LE Greys]

I do note that HS2 Ltd came to the conclusion that a dedicated captive line between York/Church Fenton and Newcastle was a better deal than captive clearing the existing line.

Which says something.

Routing trains through Darlington itself without major demolitions is likely to be a far more expensive proposition with major disruptions in railway property.... and what benefit accrues to Darlington accrues at the direct expense of Middlesbrough and the rest of the region.

There will never be sufficient paths available to dedicate sets to Middlesbrough in its own right (any trains will likely be extensions of the York terminators that will be what is left of the ECML timetable).

So do you force people to drive into central Darlington or do you put the station in the open where road improvements are likely to be relatively painless?

The only reasonable alternative to a HS2 station between Middlesbrough and Darlington to serve Teeside is to simply not have a station and run fast between York and Newcastle.

EDIT:

And the fact remains, people who believe that they would be better off without HS2 "sucking away all the economic activity" are hopelessly naive.
They will have an "independent identity" but it will be as a place where everyone who wants to get a decent job with a future will be forced to move elsewhere.
This at-least allows them a chance to live outside of the South East, reducing their cost of living.

And as far as I know, Teeside doesn't have a greenbelt, so it is likely the villages adjacent to the airport site would experience significant development as a result of the location of the station there.

Well, firstly I would expect people to drive to their local station and get the train into Darlington, just as they do today to catch EC expresses. Even better, catch the bus or walk to their local station. One possible way around the problem is to split some workings there, with one half running to Middlesbrough or Sunderland, the other continuing up the ECML via Durham to Newcastle. The ECML has never been very good at tapping this market, with GC and the Cleveland Executive being noteable exceptions, but I'd like to make sure that Durham doesn't get overlooked in this either.

 

[RichmondCommu]

We would be looking at cutting half an hour off the current journey time to London.... under 2hrs (since I calculate you might even be able to do Newcastle in 2hrs if you are lucky).

It puts Darlington into the Birmingham "commuter belt" (if such a thing exists separately from the London one).

You could be looking at an explosion in traffic, especially if they dump low price seasons to fill trains that would otherwise be shorter than 400m.

I hope the 'Smoke will be ready for the great unwashed descending from the north. The area will be a ghost town during the day. Is Redcar really that bad?

 

[HSTEd]

Well, firstly I would expect people to drive to their local station and get the train into Darlington, just as they do today to catch EC expresses.

If you are willing to make them change between a local train and the express... does it really matter where this change takes place?

Even better, catch the bus or walk to their local station.

In much of the country this is simply impractical due to the woeful quality of public transport (in my home town the last bus that goes anywhere near the station runs at 1720).

One possible way around the problem is to split some workings there, with one half running to Middlesbrough or Sunderland, the other continuing up the ECML via Durham to Newcastle. The ECML has never been very good at tapping this market, with GC and the Cleveland Executive being noteable exceptions, but I'd like to make sure that Durham doesn't get overlooked in this either.

The problem is that High speed Rail reduces the journey length to the degree that we can't really treat them like traditional InterCity journeys any more.
This tends to mean we are going to need a clock-face timetable for it to work properly, also it has been shown that clock-face timetables are well liked by passengers.

(You might be able to justify it for Inverness or whatnot, but that is rather different than a 2hr hop to Middlesbrough, it becomes more an outer commuter journey than the traditional intercity journey)

To keep the timetable simple to understand this effectively limits us to a minimum of one 200m Classic Compatible set per hour to each destination.

We can certainly run a high speed set to Newcastle that leaves the line at York and then stops at all the "express stations" to Newcastle (Thirsk, Northallerton, Darlington, Durham) but I don't think anything more than hourly is really called for.

Which leaves us with an hourly 200m CC set to dispose of.... is Middlesbrough really the best place to send it? Surely it could be more productively used going to say... Aberdeen (it then provides capacity to Newcastle and Edinburgh).

Either way, running trains to Darlington and the like does not solve the problem of how to provide connectivity with trains that remain on the high speed line, as well as to provide easier access to high speed services for places like Middlesbrough.

I believe a station somewhere on the Darlington-Saltburn line is the best option, and the logical choice if you want to interconnect with that line would be the Tees valley Airport because its the cheapest option and provides reasonable connection times to both Darlington (~7m) and Middlesbrough (~18m).

 

[brianthegiant]

Following on from earlier discussion in this thread about the usage of the HS1-HS2 link, for international and inter-regional services.

www.modern-railways.com/view_news.asp?ID=5869
reads:
Greengauge 21 has launched an investigation into the market for train services that would use the planned connection between high-speed railways HS1 and HS2.
‘So far, there appears to have been no examination of the inter-regional demand that could be served by the link. So the case for investment has had to rest on the important, but smaller, international demand flows’, said Greengauge 21 Director, Jim Steer.
The work will look at both inter-regional and international demand levels. Also under examination will be possible ways to address border control issues. Greengauge 21 expects to have initial results by the end of April.
The demand study will be carried out by independent consultants. Guidance on London matters will be provided by Transport for London.
Organisations sponsoring this research by high-speed rail research group, Greengauge 21, are Pteg (the Passenger Transport Executive Group that comprises Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, Merseyside, Tyne & Wear and the West Midlands), Kent County Council, Essex County Council, South East Local Economic Partnership and Newham Borough Council.