High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[brianthegiant]

Hmm, good news for people of Rotherham also north and east Sheffield. Bummer for people in south and west Sheffield.

In general Meadowhall interchange will never have the frequency and variety of train/tram/bus connections you have in Sheffield City Centre, so sadly this probably means a lot more folk will be driving to the station rather than using public transport.

However, getting HS2 into Sheffield City Centre was always going to be very costly in civils. I suppose at this point in the project there is an argument for getting the main spinal route built, without letting costs grow too much. Spurs into additional City Centre locations can be added later (as new lines or gauge clearance) as demand for HS grows (which it will once the spine is in).

presumably the unpopularity of the Sheffield location is linked to the motivation of leaking it (cant say I blame whoever). Nottingham City Centre was never going to happen in my view, but presumably not long till someone leaks the east mids site (my predictions well documented in the HS phase 2 thread...).

 

[LE Greys]

Hmm, good news for people of Rotherham also north and east Sheffield. Bummer for people in south and west Sheffield.

In general Meadowhall interchange will never have the frequency and variety of train/tram/bus connections you have in Sheffield City Centre, so sadly this probably means a lot more folk will be driving to the station rather than using public transport.

However, getting HS2 into Sheffield City Centre was always going to be very costly in civils. I suppose at this point in the project there is an argument for getting the main spinal route built, without letting costs grow too much. Spurs into additional City Centre locations can be added later (as new lines or gauge clearance) as demand for HS grows (which it will once the spine is in).

presumably the unpopularity of the Sheffield location is linked to the motivation of leaking it (cant say I blame whoever). Nottingham City Centre was never going to happen in my view, but presumably not long till someone leaks the east mids site (my predictions well documented in the HS phase 2 thread...).

Which of course adds to the other well-documented problem. For a train to call at a station on a spur, it has to reverse and head back out onto the main line. That's why quite a few stations are on tight curves, York and Newcastle for instance. They started off with a reversal and an avoiding line, then platforms spread out onto the avoider and eventually the station had to be moved. Not putting in provision for through stations to start with only leads to problems later on.

 

[Martin222002]

Bummer for people in south and west Sheffield.

The people who are the ones who would most likely have used the HS2 services, being that the western side of Sheffield contains the more prosperous communities (and Nick Cleggs constituency - even more of a reason to get rid of him as their MP) as well as the majority of the cities large student population. :roll:

Yes the Meadowhall location will be far cheaper to build, but as Sheffield City Council knows, to get the greatest amount of benefits for the city was for it to be located closer to the city centre.

 

[tbtc]

Mixed emotions if it is to be Meadowhall.

On the plus side, it's an interchange with the M1, National Rail, Supertram and buses. The shopping centre is a *somewhere*, rather than a field in the middle of nowhere (in some misguided "if you build it, they will come" plan).

However it tips the economic balance of the city further (having a huge shopping complex there has hurt Sheffield city centre, though some bad planning and postponed redevelopment has hurt it further) - its also the wrong side of town for me.

That said, I'd rather have a Meadowhall station than most of the other sites that were suggested/ discussed (Sheffield Airport, Rotherham, Manvers). A stop at Nunnery Square would have been good for trams/trains, but some way out of town still (and no use for buses). A stop at Sheffield Victoria would have been closer to the centre of the city, but no use for trams etc. There was no *ideal* site really.

 

[HSTEd]

Meadhowhall makes sense for Sheffield, it has significant mass transit and railway connections to the centre of town, unlike the stations-in-beet-fields that we see proposed for Nottingham.

 

[daniel3982]

I think Meadowhall makes sense as a through station, the danger for Sheffield (and even more so for Nottingham/Derby who's station looks like it'll be even more out of town, and Leicester even more so!) is that the MML is downgraded so they in effect see a worse service than they do today. The DfT has always argued that one of the main drivers behind HS2 is to free up capacity for further services on intermediate points in the south. Which means taking some of the paths currently used for Sheffield/Nottingham services and at the very least adding in numerous stops (in places like Kettering, Wellingborough etc), if not giving them over entirely.

HS2 and the UK Govt will be keen to see HS2 be seen as a success and you have to imagine it wouldn't do for them to see headlines that passengers from Sheffield and Nottingham shun their services for the more convenient (if longer) existing MML services.

Meadowhall (while better than some green field site by the M18) is still in completely the wrong place for Sheffield's business users and students who live in the south and west of the city, and so by forcing them to crowd onto already crowded trams that take an age, or to change train, you are effectively relegating Sheffield from being a city on the intercity network to one like Huddersfield, Bolton or Lincoln requires a change of trains.

If the current MML service is maintained at the same levels then Sheffield and Nottingham are gaining additional capacity and journey options and can't really have any complaints, though I predict at least 80% of users in Nottingham and Sheffield will stick to the existing services. I can see it being in HS2 Ltd and the Govt's interest to force people from these cities onto HS2 though, which will arguably put the cities in a worse place than they are today as they in effect lose their direct intercity links to the capital (and possibly on the cross country mainline too in Sheffield's case).

 

[LE Greys]

I think Meadowhall makes sense as a through station, the danger for Sheffield (and even more so for Nottingham/Derby who's station looks like it'll be even more out of town, and Leicester even more so!) is that the MML is downgraded so they in effect see a worse service than they do today. The DfT has always argued that one of the main drivers behind HS2 is to free up capacity for further services on intermediate points in the south. Which means taking some of the paths currently used for Sheffield/Nottingham services and at the very least adding in numerous stops (in places like Kettering, Wellingborough etc), if not giving them over entirely.

HS2 and the UK Govt will be keen to see HS2 be seen as a success and you have to imagine it wouldn't do for them to see headlines that passengers from Sheffield and Nottingham shun their services for the more convenient (if longer) existing MML services.

Meadowhall (while better than some green field site by the M18) is still in completely the wrong place for Sheffield's business users and students who live in the south and west of the city, and so by forcing them to crowd onto already crowded trams that take an age, or to change train, you are effectively relegating Sheffield from being a city on the intercity network to one like Huddersfield, Bolton or Lincoln requires a change of trains.

If the current MML service is maintained at the same levels then Sheffield and Nottingham are gaining additional capacity and journey options and can't really have any complaints, though I predict at least 80% of users in Nottingham and Sheffield will stick to the existing services. I can see it being in HS2 Ltd and the Govt's interest to force people from these cities onto HS2 though, which will arguably put the cities in a worse place than they are today as they in effect lose their direct intercity links to the capital (and possibly on the cross country mainline too in Sheffield's case).

Well, that's pretty much inevitable, which is precisely why I would have targeted the two Victorias in an attempt to take over the MML service - the original GCR business model - although my route would have avoided Birmingham to save time. There's no reason why trains from the old LNER lines can't divert into the Victorias, giving the Nottingham version services from Grantham, Peterborough, Lincoln and Norwich; and the Sheffield version services from Leeds, Hull and Doncaster via Tinsley, plus Retford (possibly Manchester via Glossop as well). A tram extension would be necessary too. Still, some expansion of Meadowhall is likely, with perhaps a few new services and extensions of current ones. We might see some businesses relocating that way. I'm having similar concerns about Doncaster, Peterborough and even York losing their links to the north and the status of being on Britain's fastest main line. Once they are on some railway backwater with semi-fasts only going to Leeds, York and if we're lucky Newcastle, then the local economy will start to slip. It's bad enough with the A1(M) remaining unfinished.

 

[Waverley125]

have to admit very worried now that Leeds will get a 'spur' and no northward connection, and doubly with Meadowhall, given we lose the huge benefits of 20-minute headline journey times to Sheffield.

Spur & a parkway also precisely f**k all use for northbound connections as well. Given our london-based government's ability to recognise terminating at OOC or Heathrow would be bad, why they can't see the same is true for the rest of the country is unbelievable.

 

[nerd]

have to admit very worried now that Leeds will get a 'spur' and no northward connection, and doubly with Meadowhall, given we lose the huge benefits of 20-minute headline journey times to Sheffield.

Spur & a parkway also precisely f**k all use for northbound connections as well. Given our london-based government's ability to recognise terminating at OOC or Heathrow would be bad, why they can't see the same is true for the rest of the country is unbelievable.

I doubt whether either the Manc or Leeds spur will have a northward facing loop - it makes the junction much more difficult to fit into any space available.

We don't know yet whether Phase 3, when it comes, will extend northwards from the western or eastern arms of the 'Y'. It will depend on discussions between the Scots and English governments as to which route through the Lowlands the Scots HS alignment will take - either via Carstairs onto the western arm east of Carlisle. or following the A697 to join with the eastern arm west of Newcastle. Whichever is chosen, the easiest way then to provide high speed services northwards from Manc and Leeds would be via a northward facing junction onto the TransPennine electrified route (either at Chat Moss, or somwhere near Garforth). Classic-compatible trainsets could then run from Manchester Victoria to Edinburgh via Leeds City; or contrariwise from Leeds City to Glasgow via Manchester Victoria; along the TransPennine route.


Comparing the service configuration diagramme published with the Feb 2011 consultation documents with those published in the Jan 2012 consultation review.

In Feb 11, the diagramme showed one service per hour from Euston terminating at 'South Yorkshire', and a further one per hour stopping at South Yorkshire on the way to Leeds. Two Leeds-bound services per hour passed through South Yorks without stopping, as did the two classic-compatible Euston services to Newcastle. All three trains towards the North East originating at Brum stopped at South Yorkshire.

In Jan 12, no Euston services terminate at South Yorkshire, but all four Leeds terminating services stop at South Yorkshire. The stopping pattern for the Newcastle services is unchanged.

The Feb 11 diagramme clearly implies to me both an interchange station at Meadowhall, and the provision of a captive spur line into a dedicated terminus nearer to Sheffield City centre. I am sure that this service configuration is the one that Sheffield's city fathers would prefer - their own dedicated high speed station (with their own name on it), but also access to through trains at Meadowhall.

But I can see that HS2 might well regard the Jan 12 diagramme as gnerating more business (at lower cost). Sheffield-bound passengers from Euston would now have a choice of four services per hour, rasther than two.

Question would be - for those who know Sheffield: supposing you were travelling from the University area to the west of the city centre, which would you prefer - take the Supertram to a dedicated HS2 terminus on the other side of the city centre, with 1 Euston-bound departure per hour; of ride the tramlline all the way to Meadowhall, with four departures per hour?

 

[Waverley125]

I think the best option would be through stations in both Sheffield and Leeds city centres. Yes, this would incur a time penalty on non-stop services, but, tbh I don't see why there should be so many. Given Sheffield & Leeds HS stations will act as railheads for a collective area of about 5 million people, stopping at both doesn't seem a problem for me. Certainly, I don't think we'll see any Bham-Paris trains running non-stop through either Old Oak Common or Stratford.

But then again, one rule for London and one rule for everywhere else.

 

[nerd]

I think the best option would be through stations in both Sheffield and Leeds city centres. Yes, this would incur a time penalty on non-stop services, but, tbh I don't see why there should be so many. Given Sheffield & Leeds HS stations will act as railheads for a collective area of about 5 million people, stopping at both doesn't seem a problem for me. Certainly, I don't think we'll see any Bham-Paris trains running non-stop through either Old Oak Common or Stratford.

But then again, one rule for London and one rule for everywhere else.

Same rule for everyone; no through stations in city centres. Only interchange stations - OOC, Brum interchange, Manc Outskirts, East Mids, Meadowhall - will run through. That applies to Euston as it does to all the other city centre stations.

And captive services to Euston will not be stoppers; I would expect the Glasgow-OOC-Euston service to stop only at Manc Outskirts (if it runs down the western arm); or at East Midlands (if it runs down the eastern arm). If you want to get a High Speed train from Meadowhall to Edinburgh, it is likely that you would need to get one of the Scots-bound services that originate from Brum.

It is not primarily about time, but about capacity. The Arup study demonstrated that through stations on the high speed line will require long acceleration and deceleration loops, so as to be able to filter stopping trains onto the main line immediately behind overtaking through trains, thus maintaining the proposed 18 train per hour frequency south of Brum. Arup found that this was just about feasible for a through station on the Meadowhall site, but doing the same in a constrained city centre site is likely to be prohibitive interms of land-take.

 

[Martin222002]

Comparing the service configuration diagramme published with the Feb 2011 consultation documents with those published in the Jan 2012 consultation review.

In Feb 11, the diagramme showed one service per hour from Euston terminating at 'South Yorkshire', and a further one per hour stopping at South Yorkshire on the way to Leeds. Two Leeds-bound services per hour passed through South Yorks without stopping, as did the two classic-compatible Euston services to Newcastle. All three trains towards the North East originating at Brum stopped at South Yorkshire.

In Jan 12, no Euston services terminate at South Yorkshire, but all four Leeds terminating services stop at South Yorkshire. The stopping pattern for the Newcastle services is unchanged.

The Feb 11 diagramme clearly implies to me both an interchange station at Meadowhall, and the provision of a captive spur line into a dedicated terminus nearer to Sheffield City centre. I am sure that this service configuration is the one that Sheffield's city fathers would prefer - their own dedicated high speed station (with their own name on it), but also access to through trains at Meadowhall.

But I can see that HS2 might well regard the Jan 12 diagramme as gnerating more business (at lower cost). Sheffield-bound passengers from Euston would now have a choice of four services per hour, rasther than two.

Question would be - for those who know Sheffield: supposing you were travelling from the University area to the west of the city centre, which would you prefer - take the Supertram to a dedicated HS2 terminus on the other side of the city centre, with 1 Euston-bound departure per hour; of ride the tramlline all the way to Meadowhall, with four departures per hour?

I actually took the changes the other way, as it would mean only 2 tph would be going fast through the Sheffield/South Yorkshire station. This to me suggested that because their would only be 2 tph going through fast that their would be less of a requirement for a faster out of city alignment.

Also there are no tram routes into the west and south of the city. So unless people can drive by car or get a direct bus (if there is one) people will have to go into the centre to the current Sheffield station to get the train to Meadowhall as the train is faster and cheaper than the tram.

 

[nerd]

I actually took the changes the other way, as it would mean only 2 tph would be going fast through the Sheffield/South Yorkshire station. This to me suggested that because their would only be 2 tph going through fast that their would be less of a requirement for a faster out of city alignment.

Also there are no tram routes into the west and south of the city. So unless people can drive by car or get a direct bus (if there is one) people will have to go into the centre to the current Sheffield station to get the train to Meadowhall as the train is faster and cheaper than the tram.

going north perhaps;

but going south, the two arms of the 'Y' have to run in phase with one abother. In effect, although there will be four high speed tracks north of Brum Interchange, they will have to operate in southbound services as a two-track line - with the gaps on the eastern arm exactly in phase with the trains on the western arm.

Which is why putting through stations in city centres has been ruled out.

Of course, there are plenty of contributors to this forum who see this as a bad idea; but its HS2's idea, and they are building the line, not you or me.

How a different configuration of high speed line might have been built may well interest some (for instance if we had followed the Italian model, Turin-Milan-Bologna-Rome-Nables). But it won't be relevant to what we will see in the UK. HS2 are the only game in town; if we don't build their line in their way, we don't build a high speed line at all for the forseeable future.

 

[daniel3982]

Indeed, the only direct tram line into Meadowhall originates near Hillsborough in the North West of the city centre and runs through the centre before going up the industrial Don Valley (which is mostly factories and sports facilities rather than housing) to Meadowhall itself. The other main tram line to Halfway (in the East of the city) runs to Hillsborough too, so would need a change to get to Meadowhall as well (though I guess they might rejig things a bit if HS2 opens a station there). The rich South and West of the city isn't served by trams just buses, most of which pass through the centre to another place in the opposite direction, however none to Meadowhall so all would involve a change either onto the tram in the city centre, or train at Sheffield Midland, or a long congested drive.

North Sheffield and parts of East Sheffield (which are largely poor) have bus links with Meadowhall but not as frequent as with the city centre.

In answer to your question I would put it as around 80/90% of users would probably still take the existing MML intercity service from the city centre rather than cart out to Meadowhall. As the drive isn't great, and two changes by public transport would be very off putting. The only exceptions perhaps being people who live near Meadowhall in the North or East of the city, or those in Hillsborough who might think it worth it to stay on the tram an extra 20 minutes to get a quicker rail service. Of course it will be more convienient for people living in Rotherham and Barnsley however. I guess a lot will be dependent on ticket price too though, if the existing service is cheaper than HS2 then I can't see many migrating off it. Particularly if the MML is electrified and services can operate to London in a reasonable and realistic 1.45 as opposed to carting all the way to Meadowhall for a 1:10 journey.

Of course it wouldn't in the government's interests for people to continue using the existing line and HS2 to appear a white elephant so I can see them making it as unattractive as possible to use the MML, making it more of a metro all-stations stopping service to London, removing first class and using commuter trains on the route, significantly slowing it down etc... That's the great fear, that Sheffield as a whole actually ends up with worse transport links, other than a little bit to the N.East of the city.

In answer to your question, the vast majority of people in Sheffield would prefer 1 direct train to the city centre via a spur per hour and 1 through stopping train I would suspect, rather than 4 stopping trains at Meadowhall.

To put it into context, it's the equivalent of not giving Manchester a city centre station and making people cart out to the Trafford Centre or Manchester Airport to catch a through service to London, while at the same time downgrading the Pendolino service to a London Midland stopper which takes an hour longer!

Or in London terms putting the terminus up at Brent's Cross and making people travel out there first to catch HS2 services.

It has potential to do real and significant damage to the city. If it is just adding capacity and increasing journey options by leaving the MML intercity services in place but adding HS2 at Meadowhall too then great, but if the former is significantly downgraded then that'll be a disaster for the city.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I actually took the changes the other way, as it would mean only 2 tph would be going fast through the Sheffield/South Yorkshire station. This to me suggested that because their would only be 2 tph going through fast that their would be less of a requirement for a faster out of city alignment.

Also there are no tram routes into the west and south of the city. So unless people can drive by car or get a direct bus (if there is one) people will have to go into the centre to the current Sheffield station to get the train to Meadowhall as the train is faster and cheaper than the tram.

Any allignment through Meadowhall will still be very twisty and difficult to engineer so I would expect the first point you make could apply to Meadowhall too compared to perhaps a preliminary design that was for a greenfield parkway station to the East of the city, linking to a city spur for 1 tph.

 

[Martin222002]

Any allignment through Meadowhall will still be very twisty and difficult to engineer so I would expect the first point you make could apply to Meadowhall too compared to perhaps a preliminary design that was for a greenfield parkway station to the East of the city, linking to a city spur for 1 tph.

Actually you are right. Looking on Google Maps the only place near Meadowhall where you could fit a HS2 is next to the M1 where the old Tinsley cooling towers used to be, though where it would go north from there I don't know, but this is all speculation (as to the exact location) which we won't know till the official plans are released.

I also agree with your point that if the MML services stay as they are at present, the majority of people will continue to use them, as well as XC and Northern services to travel to Leeds and further north.

 

[Chris125]

I also agree with your point that if the MML services stay as they are at present, the majority of people will continue to use them, as well as XC and Northern services to travel to Leeds and further north.

It needs to be remembered that HS2 wont serve Nottingham, Sheffield and Leeds for another 20 years - if the predictions of passenger growth are remotely accurate then MML services are going to change regardless of HS2.

Chris

 

[daniel3982]

Indeed, let's hope we don't see the MML starved of funding and the improvements it needs in the meantime. Electrification and capacity improvements are a must!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Well I said it wouldnt take long after it went to Ministers for details to leak, especielly where theres a aggrieved party. The first leak is that the chosen site for the Sheffield HS2 station is Meadowhall Shopping Centre, and Sheffield Council are hopping mad because they want a city centre location and have suggested several sites they consider suitable.

Much the same engineering reasoning as George Stephenson's original route for the North Midland Railway in the 1830s, avoiding Sheffield to the east.

 

[aylesbury]

Still cant see this line being built ,they have not got the money and it wont be worth the money unless freight is allowed on it .Then manufacturers could send their products direct to europe via HS2 and HS1 but knowing the unjoined thinking in every part of the British way of life this will never happen.I think that the current HS2 plans are deeply flawed as they stand and that the pr teams who came round to talk were very unprofessional.There is still a great deal of opposition and hopefully it will force some sort of joined up thinking from the government(who ever they are) but as with the supposed HST replacement they will ignore everyone.Who will run HS2 yet another company from europe sponsored by its government in complete disregard of EU directives.We lose out again all profits back over the channel ! Questions must be asked by all concerned about this projectand peoples enviroments taken into account as now they are not.

 

[DownSouth]

Still cant see this line being built ,they have not got the money and it wont be worth the money unless freight is allowed on it .Then manufacturers could send their products direct to europe via HS2 and HS1 but knowing the unjoined thinking in every part of the British way of life this will never happen.

Why not? Freight currently runs on HS1, and I can't see any reason why it would be allowed there but not on the new line, considering that all the necessary connections will all be in place.

Outside of high-end tourist-oriented services, passenger rail is not a genuinely profitable business once you discount all government funding. The operators of HS2 will not turn down freight because it's basically free money being thrown at them by the freight operators. The impact on the infrastructure would be negligible compared to passenger services running at well over double the speed every few minutes through the day.

 

[Waverley125]

but this destroys the benefits for a lot of the regional cities. If, to get a train to Newcastle, I have to get to, say, Micklefield, I have to go into Leeds, change for a stopper to Micklefield, then change again. All the while a fast XC service will have zoomed up to York and beyond. If you assume a 15 minute change at Mickelfield, and that it takes an extra 15 minutes to get there on a stopper, the XC service effectively has a 30 minute head start. So for getting into Newcastle 5-10 minutes earlier at the cost of a lot more hassle and increased ticket price, it's pointless.

I hate to admit it, but AGHAST have a point-if HS2 doesn't serve city centres it's going to become a massive, stations-in-beet-fields white elephant.

HS2 needs to run Euston-Sheffield Victoria-Leeds Crown Point-Newcastle City Centre-Edinburgh City Centre.

The only other option is to have massive 'over provision' through point-to-point running, i.e. Leeds City to Sheffield Midland via HS2, but given the additional time costs of getting out of the city, in the wrong direction, to a station in the middle of nowhere, will destroy the time savings necessary to affect modal shift and create additional capacity.

Currently HS2 is being built as a London-Birmingham line, and is being built for London City Centre-Birmingham City centre travel. But Sheffield CC-Leeds CC, and Leeds CC-Newcastle CC are also important journeys that need to be provided for, and the only way to do that is to run through city centres.

And yes, that does mean you can't run trains through stations at 250mph-and you know what, I'm fine with that.

Were we to take an East Coast route to its logical extent, I really don't see the problem with Running London-Aberdeen with a calling pattern of Sheffield, Leeds, Newcastle, Edinburgh, Dundee, Aberdeen.

When running 18 coach long trains you don't need 4tph (particularly on the London-Leeds section, which, according to current models, would be 72 coaches ph-quadruple the current number).

This should be compatible with the 'core' London-Birmingham section, if you run non-stop through it. If you run an hourly call at Bham International and an hourly to Bham CC, you can fit your number of trains through.

 

[nerd]

Indeed, let's hope we don't see the MML starved of funding and the improvements it needs in the meantime. Electrification and capacity improvements are a must!

I wouldn't disagree. However, the pressing need for increasing line capacity - especially for commuter services into London - will be a constraint on greatly increasing line speed. The best hourly current Sheffield - London time appears to be around 2 hours. I would be surprised if that came down much with electrification, the main benefit to passengers being increased choice of destinations (through increased numbers of stops) rather than through increased line speed.

The supposed virtue of high speed rail is that by taking fast intercity services off the old mainline, they reduce the peak-period conflict between non-stop direct services, and stopper commuter services - hence allowing many more commuter and regional trains to run and so increasing line capacity and destination choice.

But I would agree that electrification is essential; so that electrified commuter services with high acceleration can use lines together with stopper regional services.

 

[LE Greys]

but this destroys the benefits for a lot of the regional cities. If, to get a train to Newcastle, I have to get to, say, Micklefield, I have to go into Leeds, change for a stopper to Micklefield, then change again. All the while a fast XC service will have zoomed up to York and beyond. If you assume a 15 minute change at Mickelfield, and that it takes an extra 15 minutes to get there on a stopper, the XC service effectively has a 30 minute head start. So for getting into Newcastle 5-10 minutes earlier at the cost of a lot more hassle and increased ticket price, it's pointless.

I hate to admit it, but AGHAST have a point-if HS2 doesn't serve city centres it's going to become a massive, stations-in-beet-fields white elephant.

HS2 needs to run Euston-Sheffield Victoria-Leeds Crown Point-Newcastle City Centre-Edinburgh City Centre.

The only other option is to have massive 'over provision' through point-to-point running, i.e. Leeds City to Sheffield Midland via HS2, but given the additional time costs of getting out of the city, in the wrong direction, to a station in the middle of nowhere, will destroy the time savings necessary to affect modal shift and create additional capacity.

Currently HS2 is being built as a London-Birmingham line, and is being built for London City Centre-Birmingham City centre travel. But Sheffield CC-Leeds CC, and Leeds CC-Newcastle CC are also important journeys that need to be provided for, and the only way to do that is to run through city centres.

And yes, that does mean you can't run trains through stations at 250mph-and you know what, I'm fine with that.

Were we to take an East Coast route to its logical extent, I really don't see the problem with Running London-Aberdeen with a calling pattern of Sheffield, Leeds, Newcastle, Edinburgh, Dundee, Aberdeen.

When running 18 coach long trains you don't need 4tph (particularly on the London-Leeds section, which, according to current models, would be 72 coaches ph-quadruple the current number).

This should be compatible with the 'core' London-Birmingham section, if you run non-stop through it. If you run an hourly call at Bham International and an hourly to Bham CC, you can fit your number of trains through.

I'm beginning to see that the planners behind this must be the same people who interpreted the EU directive so literally as to create Railtrack! :roll:

Still, there is no reason why stations can't have separate through lines, and I would gladly sacrifice 50 mph from the top speed if it meant that trains could make multiple stops on one journey.

 

[nerd]

but this destroys the benefits for a lot of the regional cities. If, to get a train to Newcastle, I have to get to, say, Micklefield, I have to go into Leeds, change for a stopper to Micklefield, then change again. All the while a fast XC service will have zoomed up to York and beyond. If you assume a 15 minute change at Mickelfield, and that it takes an extra 15 minutes to get there on a stopper, the XC service effectively has a 30 minute head start. So for getting into Newcastle 5-10 minutes earlier at the cost of a lot more hassle and increased ticket price, it's pointless.

I don't think anyone is currently suggesting an interchange station at Mickelfield, though that might well be where the junction where the Selby line links northwards onto a possible Phase 3 HS2 towards Newcastle.

So, if you wanted to get from Leeds to Newcastle (post Phase 3) you could catch a classic-compatible train at Leeds City (probably originating from Lime Street), which would take you point-to-point along the high speed line north from Mickefield to the Newcastle HS terminus. No change needed at all, and likely no stops after Leeds. And no need to run a captive service through any city centre.

Or you could go along a stopper along the old ECML via York, Northallerton, Darlington and Durham into Newcastle Central Station; which would be a lot slower - but maybe cheaper.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Still, there is no reason why stations can't have separate through lines, and I would gladly sacrifice 50 mph from the top speed if it meant that trains could make multiple stops on one journey.

Maybe that would be your choice;

But HS2 ltd have arrived the opposite choice - and just at the moment, they have the bat and ball.

Their game - their rules.

That's the way it goes.

 

[HSTEd]

Trains run through stations at 300kph in Japan......

Problem is anyone who questions HS2 Ltds decisions on anything is immediately considered to be an idiot who is in league with the NIMBYs.....

 

[LE Greys]

Maybe that would be your choice;

But HS2 ltd have arrived the opposite choice - and just at the moment, they have the bat and ball.

Their game - their rules.

That's the way it goes.

Well, just because someone has the power to make a decision does not make that decision automatically right. There are quite a few examples.

Trains run through stations at 300kph in Japan......

Problem is anyone who questions HS2 Ltds decisions on anything is immediately considered to be an idiot who is in league with the NIMBYs.....

I could say that that sounds like McCarthyism, but then I'd be accused of subversion, wouldn't I?

 

[Waverley125]

looking at ill realistically, the Sheffield victoria & Approach would allow running-through at about 80mph probably, so only Leeds & Newcastle (if you used Crown Point followed by a sharply turning tunnel, and Central) would be 'required stops'.

Why is it problematic for all trains up the Eastern Arm to stop at Leeds & Newcastle? They're pretty big places. I don't see how this compromises capacity, especially given trains will still be running to those places on the classic lines (given Peterborough, York, Doncaster & Darlington will all still need trains).

I also don't see how they plan to get 18tph along the core-the only way you can do it is by refusing to stop anywhere else, so that every station needs its own special service-but that's absolutely mad!

 

[Philip Elliott]

The supposed virtue of high speed rail is that by taking fast intercity services off the old mainline, they reduce the peak-period conflict between non-stop direct services, and stopper commuter services - hence allowing many more commuter and regional trains to run and so increasing line capacity and destination choice

The main long distance flow on the MML is from Leicester to London and since HS2 conveniently misses it, there will be very little scope for reducing the amount of non-stop running. Frankly there is no need for anymore departures from St. Pancras - the use of suitable length trains and replacing removed track further north is all that is required.

 

[nerd]

I also don't see how they plan to get 18tph along the core-the only way you can do it is by refusing to stop anywhere else, so that every station needs its own special service-but that's absolutely mad!

Mad perhaps; but that is what HS2 intend to do; and they have been promised £33bn to do it with.

You are willing to sacrifice some speed and capacity for increased connectivity. HS2 are not. Both you and HS2 are 'right' within your own terms - it is simply that your values do not coincide.

I would not at all criticise your fondness for your own values; but I suspect that those of HS2 represent those of a higher proportion of potential high speed rail customers.

But if the scheme carries on being developed, and its details are published, your entirely different proposals are llikely to become yet another might-have-been (something that British rail history is rich with).

 

[Philip Elliott]

Mad perhaps; but that is what HS2 intend to do; and they have been promised £33bn to do it with.

18tph is only for south of Kingsbury. The eastern arm will be 9-10tph so any alterations suggested would not have a detrimental effect enough to not run this level of service.

I would not at all criticise your fondness for your own values; but I suspect that those of HS2 represent those of a higher proportion of potential high speed rail customers.

Fewer stations equal fewer passengers, it's not exactly difficult to understand and we're not talking all shacks so don't even think about it.