HSUK vs HS2

[TheGuy77]

It's weird how to this day HSUK are still posting about their scheme on Twitter (I refuse to call it X).

 

[Nottingham59]

Thanks, and in some ways it makes sense to relieve one of the busiest lines in the country, but if you're talking about high speed lines then it really doesn't make sense to just build it from London to Birmingham because that saves only 20 minutes on what a non-stop train could do today already.

The focus on high speed was a huge design failing of HS2. The benefit comes from effectively six-tracking the southern WCML, rather than high speed per se

A high speed line would have been worthwhile from London to Sheffield/Leeds, with potential to continue to Teesside/Tyneside/Edinburgh/Glasgow, but London to Birmingham only will forever be a curse on the public perception of railway development in the UK. This could and should have been foreseen by any credible scheme.

HS2 wasn't really a credible scheme. It had a poor benefit-cost ratio, even before the cost inflation of the past few years. But it did have political support, which was based on wishful thinking rather than any hard nosed analysis of what investment would bring the greatest economic growth.

At least Birmingham to Leeds would have saved an hour on the existing journey time, and for a far lower cost. And why would it be politically biased, any more than building London-centric schemes are politically biased against the north?

The flows between Birmingham and Leeds are tiny compared to the flows between either of those two great cities and London. If they cant give the current trains enough carriages to carry the existing demand, then there's no way a new line will be justified.

IMO, most of the benefit from HS2 comes from building long platforms in the centre of Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham, London with a new twin-track railway from those new stations to the edge of the built up area. We could have done that for all four of those cities for a small fraction of the money wasted so far on HS2. 500m trains on the WCML would have doubled its capacity at almost no cost except for those new stations.

 

[Shrop]

It's not about saving time, it's about relieving one of the most congested lines in the country.

No, I know it was about relieving congestion. I was just thinking about your earlier comment, referring to reports "suggesting high speed lines would be the solution".

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Sep 2024 ==

The flows between Birmingham and Leeds are tiny compared to the flows between either of those two great cities and London. If they cant give the current trains enough carriages to carry the existing demand, then there's no way a new line will be justified.

I'm not sure your second sentence above reads correctly? Surely if the demand exceeds the train capacity then that add weight to the case for a new line?

And yes, you're right about flows. However, if you're talking about a much greater time saving for a far smaller cost, then that makes the imbalance of the investment value far less. Then add the desire to balance up the country, and the imbalance of investment value is less again. Then add the inevitability that a considerably lower journey time (between Birmingham and Leeds) will generate quite a lot of traffic. Knocking just 20 minutes off London to Birmingham won't generate all that much traffic (from roads etc), what will help is the extra capacity, which should add to both comfort and reliability. But knocking an hour off Birmingham to Leeds, well that's a whole different ball game, because then you start to make a very attractive alternative proposition to making this journey by road, with the possibility of soaring numbers of passengers, coupled with business generation because of much more attractive links (ie balancing up the country just a little).

 

[Trainbike46]

My question therefore is, were there any other schemes considered which focussed on balancing up the UK as a whole, such as providing the Northern Way corridor (Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Teesside-Tyneside), with links southwards to Birmingham and London? Rather than simply focussing on existing demand to London and catering only for that? After all, HS2 has now become yet another London-centric scheme which will have the inevitable result of adding to the numbers of people commuting to and from London, and thus rather than closing the massive productivity gap between the Southeast and The North, it will only widen this gap further.

What you're describing is effectively HS3/NPR - a separate, and very important, scheme - however, it is not an alternative to HS2, we need both east-west connectivity in the North, and North-South connectivity.

Other alternatives didn’t have to be purely focussed on the Northern Way, it’s just that the “HS2 Strategic Alternatives” seem to be incredibly restricted, still having almost exactly the same functions as HS2, ie with little or no thought to giving just a little balance to the UK instead of its overbearing focus on London. No-one is denying that London will always be the UKs No.1 city and focus for travel demand, but were we never even interested in The North except as an add-on, which could, and of course now has, been abandoned by HS2?

The main reason HS2 has an excessively london focus is because *certain politicians* decided to cancel the sections that primarily served other parts of the country

From the replies you've sent since, it does sound like you have a thing against london, which isn't a good way to the get the north the transport upgrades it does need and deserve.

The scheme you want exists - it's called HS3/NPR. Officially it hasn't been cancelled at present, however it does appear as though it will get cancelled unless there's significant political pressure to keep it afloat - and that's something you may wish to focus your attention on.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Sep 2024 ==

HS2 wasn't really a credible scheme. It had a poor benefit-cost ratio, even before the cost inflation of the past few years. But it did have political support, which was based on wishful thinking rather than any hard nosed analysis of what investment would bring the greatest economic growth.

A big part of politics is and should be about choices of what the country should be like. While economic growth is a good argument for some projects, it is not the only thing that matters - and pretending otherwise is disingenuous to say the least.

Other things that can come in:
- culturally and economically tying areas together (a major argument for the Spanish high speed network)
- regeneration and investment in certain areas
- there's votes to win/lose in certain areas
- supporting the economy through a recession
- etc.

some of these are good reasons to fund infrastructure - others, not so much.

I'm not sure your second sentence above reads correctly? Surely if the demand exceeds the train capacity then that add weight to the case for a new line?

I think they mean that the fact that the government isn't even willing to allow XC enough carriages to run their full, pre-covid timetable at maximum length suggests they do not care enough to fund Birmingham-Leeds high-speed line. Which is supported by the fact that that leg was the first one cancelled.

tldr; the government isn't even willing to provide funding for the cheap ways of increasing capacity between certain city pairs, so they certainly won't be willing to provide the more extreme, more expensive options.

 

[Shrop]

From the replies you've sent since, it does sound like you have a thing against london, which isn't a good way to the get the north the transport upgrades it does need and deserve.

Thanks for the comments. I certainly have nothing against London, and nor do I doubt the importance of London in any new high speed railway serving London (not losing sight of the need for additional capacity on WCML etc of course). But I do wonder whether there were ever any other schemes considered, even if they were focussed primarily on the North (meaning Yorkshire area plus Lancashire/Tyneside and possibly Scotland). If so, then surely a hybrid might have been possible to include both the North and a connection to London.

My concern is that the ONLY alternatives to HS2 were variations of HS2 itself, ie London to Birmingham and then as secondary add-ons, spurs to Manchester and Leeds. What I wanted to know is whether there were ever any other schemes considered outside of the core HS2 project.

 

[dosxuk]

My concern is that the ONLY alternatives to HS2 were variations of HS2 itself, ie London to Birmingham and then as secondary add-ons, spurs to Manchester and Leeds. What I wanted to know is whether there were ever any other schemes considered outside of the core HS2 project.

I think you're missing the point of HS2 - HS2 is not an experiment to introduce high speed rail to the UK - it's to increase the capacity of the existing rail network. Why would you look for alternatives to London - Birmingham, especially in the north, when your main aim is to boost capacity between London and Birmingham? Creating a high speed line between Leeds and Manchester is a lovely goal, but it's not going to mean more people and freight can travel along the congested southern bit of the WCML.

 

[FlyingPotato]

Overall, I think that no matter what decision/ plan was made, people would still complain, If the upgrade WCML route was taken, people would complain about closures. If a 125mph speed was chosen, people who complain about that and say it would be pointless to build for the same basic journey time


However, overall I think the basic original HS2 design was the best first option, but I'd have added a few extra bits. Avoiding any new major bits of track like a route to Bristol.
An interchange station at Meadowhall (I know it was originally proposed), with a connection onto the Hallam lines to allow places like Barnsley to be served and maybe Huddersfield

Through platforms at Curzon street to allow onwards services to Wolverhampton, Etc and to allow the Birmingham services to run to Bristol/ / Cardiff on classic lines

A connection from the WCML at Birmingham Airport to allow Birmingham services to run to Bournemouth

The Leeds station to have through platforms onto the line to York / Bradford to allow for more connectivity for the North

A connection at the East Midlands station towards Nottingham for future cross country services

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Overall, I think that no matter what decision/ plan was made, people would still complain, If the upgrade WCML route was taken, people would complain about closures. If a 125mph speed was chosen, people who complain about that and say it would be pointless to build for the same basic journey time


However, overall I think the basic original HS2 design was the best first option, but I'd have added a few extra bits. Avoiding any new major bits of track like a route to Bristol.
An interchange station at Meadowhall (I know it was originally proposed), with a connection onto the Hallam lines to allow places like Barnsley to be served and maybe Huddersfield

Through platforms at Curzon street to allow onwards services to Wolverhampton, Etc and to allow the Birmingham services to run to Bristol/ / Cardiff on classic lines

A connection from the WCML at Birmingham Airport to allow Birmingham services to run to Bournemouth

The Leeds station to have through platforms onto the line to York / Bradford to allow for more connectivity for the North

A connection at the East Midlands station towards Nottingham for future cross country services

Yes I agree there should have been more spurs like that. It isn’t too late for some of them theoretically should the full route actually be built.

 

[FlyingPotato]

Yes I agree there should have been more spurs like that. It isn’t too late for some of them theoretically should the full route actually be built.

I would like to see the Curzon Street station one most of all right now, with the station expanded to have Cross City line platforms. I believe that you could have HS2 services to places like Wolverhampton, which could be very popular
To add, I think the station should have a shared concourse with Moor Street and should've just been called Birmingham Moor Street High Speed
I also think that's one of the easiest things to do (but I could be wrong)

 

[Trainbike46]

I still think Curzon street should have just been called Moor Street (or Moor Street HS), it would have made much clearer that HS2 does connect there with the classic network - which it does, Curzon street and Moor street are right next to each other. Surprisingly many people believe curzon street doesn't really connect with anything without a significant walk.

 

[FlyingPotato]

I still think Curzon street should have just been called Moor Street (or Moor Street HS), it would have made much clearer that HS2 does connect there with the classic network - which it does, Curzon street and Moor street are right next to each other. Surprisingly many people believe curzon street doesn't really connect with anything without a significant walk.

I think it could also be an interesting marketing trick as well. It would make it seem like it's not a new station being built, it's just an upgrade to an existing one. Which to the average person seems like less effort

 

[The Planner]

I would like to see the Curzon Street station one most of all right now, with the station expanded to have Cross City line platforms. I believe that you could have HS2 services to places like Wolverhampton, which could be very popular
To add, I think the station should have a shared concourse with Moor Street and should've just been called Birmingham Moor Street High Speed
I also think that's one of the easiest things to do (but I could be wrong)

Not a chance. Look at GoogleMaps and see how feasible that is.

 

[Grimsby town]

Thanks for the comments. I certainly have nothing against London, and nor do I doubt the importance of London in any new high speed railway serving London (not losing sight of the need for additional capacity on WCML etc of course). But I do wonder whether there were ever any other schemes considered, even if they were focussed primarily on the North (meaning Yorkshire area plus Lancashire/Tyneside and possibly Scotland). If so, then surely a hybrid might have been possible to include both the North and a connection to London.

My concern is that the ONLY alternatives to HS2 were variations of HS2 itself, ie London to Birmingham and then as secondary add-ons, spurs to Manchester and Leeds. What I wanted to know is whether there were ever any other schemes considered outside of the core HS2 project.

I'm not sure what you're expecting. Let's apply some historical context to it. The main rail problem in the noughties was getting more capacity on the WCML. Travel in the north wasn't much of a priority with the northern franchise of this period assuming zero growth. Levelling up wasn't a policy focus then and that's only really come about with devolution and more local representation. Therefore HS2 was primarily WCML focused.

HS2 was being adapted to focus more on intercity journeys in the north and Midlands. There were proposals for services between Manchester and Liverpool, Sheffield and Leeds, and Birmingham and Nottingham, all which would have used HS2 infrastructure. Johnson and Sunak blew holes in those plans.

 

[Shrop]

I'm not sure what you're expecting. Let's apply some historical context to it. The main rail problem in the noughties was getting more capacity on the WCML. Travel in the north wasn't much of a priority with the northern franchise of this period assuming zero growth. Levelling up wasn't a policy focus then and that's only really come about with devolution and more local representation.

You say that travel in the north wasn't a priority in the noughties? See the following extract (from Wikipedia) ...

The Northern Way was a collaboration initiated in February 2004 between the three northern regional development agencies (RDAs), Northwest Development Agency, One NorthEast and Yorkshire Forward at the instigation of the then Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott to focus on issues important for the whole of the North of England with a dimension larger than could be tackled by one region alone — for example, transport infrastructure, or marketing the North internationally.

 

[Bald Rick]

Perhaps I can help.

HS2 was developed to answer the question “how do we provide significant additional capacity between the London area, Midlands, and North in a way that delivers the best benefit per pound spent.’

It was not answering the question ‘where is the best place for a high speed railway?’

(Although, as it happens, in my estimation the answer to both questions is the same).

 

[Grimsby town]

You say that travel in the north wasn't a priority in the noughties? See the following extract (from Wikipedia) ...

The Northern Way was a collaboration initiated in February 2004 between the three northern regional development agencies (RDAs), Northwest Development Agency, One NorthEast and Yorkshire Forward at the instigation of the then Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott to focus on issues important for the whole of the North of England with a dimension larger than could be tackled by one region alone — for example, transport infrastructure, or marketing the North internationally.

I think that proves that transport infrastructure in the north wasn't a priority. A couple of £100 million a year was small change even back in 2010 and that had to cover more than just transport. Its certainly not going to cover the cost of a new high speed rail line.

There was also far more scope for additonal capacity, both in terms of number of trains and carriages, on existing lines in the north. TPE had only just stopped operating 2 carriage trains when HS2 was first being conceived. There was also scope to upgrade the TPE lines to deliver more capacity which wasn't a realistic option for the WCML.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I think that proves that transport infrastructure in the north wasn't a priority. A couple of £100 million a year was small change even back in 2010 and that had to cover more than just transport. Its certainly not going to cover the cost of a new high speed rail line.

There was also far more scope for additonal capacity, both in terms of number of trains and carriages, on existing lines in the north. TPE had only just stopped operating 2 carriage trains when HS2 was first being conceived. There was also scope to upgrade the TPE lines to deliver more capacity which wasn't a realistic option for the WCML.

As somebody that did the Masters research on industrial strategy, I can tell you it would have meant squat. Without an actual industrial strategy to grow the manufacturing sector, no amount of glossy brand names for new QUANGOs would have saved the North under New Labour. Blair/Brown were ideologically against integrated industrial strategy though and had fully payed up to the Thatcherite economic framework. The Regional Development Agencies were useless without the English Regional Assemblies that were meant to invent the polices to tell the RDAs what to do - and so ended up just shuffling money around that came from Whitehall.

Transport policy was an after-afterthought under New Labour. Wolmar complains about this a lot. Blair wasn't interested in transport and Brown was focused on the NHS and driving profits to the treasury. Prescott was the only one that was interested in transport and had little support for the Government.

If you want to help the north, you need to:

1. Aggressively pursue re-industrialisation of the economy
2. Build more rapid transit in cities and improve bus services to stimulate demand for labour (rather than connect pre-existing stagnant labour markets more quickly)
3. Give a stronger executive Government to cities

 

[The Ham]

Thanks, and in some ways it makes sense to relieve one of the busiest lines in the country, but if you're talking about high speed lines then it really doesn't make sense to just build it from London to Birmingham because that saves only 20 minutes on what a non-stop train could do today already. A high speed line would have been worthwhile from London to Sheffield/Leeds, with potential to continue to Teesside/Tyneside/Edinburgh/Glasgow, but London to Birmingham only will forever be a curse on the public perception of railway development in the UK. This could and should have been foreseen by any credible scheme.

At least Birmingham to Leeds would have saved an hour on the existing journey time, and for a far lower cost. And why would it be politically biased, any more than building London-centric schemes are politically biased against the north?

Saving "only 20 minutes" is pointless or very useful, it depends on the context.

It's pointless on a 10 hour journey time is incredibly useful on a 40 minute journey time. As always context is key.

First up the fastest journey time London Birmingham is 76 minutes currently, that's due to reduce to 49 minutes, so that's 27 minutes faster. However, that current train train time for much of the day is 1tph with the next fastest train being 92 minutes. Whilst the 49 minutes would likely be all 3tph, so would provide a faster journey time and a shorter wait between services.

However, even on the fastest time the saving is a 32% journey time saving.

However if someone wished to arrive to Birmingham at 14:30, they have to arrive 34 minutes early. However, even is the arrival times to Birmingham were xx:15, xx:35 and xx:55 and so the xx:35 wasn't an option the time of departure from London would be 13:25 rather than the current 12:40. Now of course picking another arrival time would give you a smaller difference, however the point is that for some people (i.e. for more than zero people) the potential saving is far more than "just 20 minutes.

Also for some travel (and again it may not be a lot of travel but it's not zero people either) HS2 was going to cut up to an hour of journey times. One such journey was Southampton to Newcastle, and whilst yes that would require changing of trains (twice, unless there was a new direct Southampton to Paddington service, bit that would then reduce the journey time a little more), it would have also allowed at least two trains and hour to make that journey time saving, whilst the direct trains weren't even hourly. That's a route where HS2 infrastructure isn't serving either location and one location doesn't even have HS2 services calling at it.

It's one area where the marketing of HS2 as a proposal could have benefited from an indicative timetable to highlight how travel between two stations could have seen benefits compared with the current options.

It could have likely had to have given a journey time range (subject to actual timetables) for example changing to a HS2 service with 3tph saying a journey of 2:30 to 2:50 due to an up-to 20 minute wait for a HS2 service at (say) Old Oak Common compared with the fastest journey time of 3:25 currently.

The other thing which HS2 struggled to sell was the potential for more longer existing services at (for example) Manchester, by reducing the number of long distance trains and using the released capacity for local services.

Two services run by 390's occupy the equivalent of 60 minutes of platform time. As such a single platform has a 24 coach capacity per hour per platform. Due to local services needing shorter turn around times, when HS2 services moves to their own platforms there's now a capacity of 36 coaches per platform per hour.

That shows you to run 6tph with 6 coaches each, which would be a noticeable uplift for those services which are currently 4 coaches long.

However, those 4 coach services were already occupying platform capacity elsewhere and so 6tph which were previously 2 or 3 coaches long could also be extended to being 6 coaches long.

From freeing up one platform you could (even before we consider anything more complex like the fact that the 3 coach services which become 6 coaches could possibly free up a bit of capacity to length 2 coach services to 3 coach services) see 12 trains an hour lengthen from 2, 3, and 4 coaches long to 6 coaches long.

Even if that was all from 4 coach services to 6 coaches and there's currently 24tph, that's an uplift from 96 coaches an hour to 120 coaches an hour (if it was 6tph which started off as 3 coaches the uplift is from 90) or a 25% increase in local service capacity.

If you could also remove some of the XC and TPE services as well, then the benefits improve further.

Whilst you may need to restrain some services to serve stations which otherwise would be missed by HS2 services, well the above has only assumed 2tph and not the 3tph fast trains from London and it may well be that they could be 6 coach trains too and so be run at a 2tph frequency without altering the amount of platform capacity needed.

 

[Shrop]

First up the fastest journey time London Birmingham is 76 minutes currently, that's due to reduce to 49 minutes, so that's 27 minutes faster.

It's only 76 minutes because the trains stop twice along the way. Each stop costs around 5 minutes, so a non stop journey on the existing rails with the existing trains could take just 66 minutes. So your saving is then just 17 minutes. There's more to it of course, but claiming a 27 minute saving is arguably biased.

 

[SynthD]

It's only 76 minutes because the trains stop twice along the way. Each stop costs around 5 minutes, so a non stop journey on the existing rails with the existing trains could take just 66 minutes. So your saving is then just 17 minutes. There's more to it of course, but claiming a 27 minute saving is arguably biased.

Are you comparing that 65m to the HS2 service that stops at OOC and Birmingham International? Best to compare real services that people take.

 

[HSTEd]

It's only 76 minutes because the trains stop twice along the way. Each stop costs around 5 minutes, so a non stop journey on the existing rails with the existing trains could take just 66 minutes. So your saving is then just 17 minutes. There's more to it of course, but claiming a 27 minute saving is arguably biased.

Whilst it may be possible for a train to complete a journey in that time in a vacuum, there is no plausible way to timetable such a train - certainly not for it to occur regularly.

 

[Shrop]

Are you comparing that 65m to the HS2 service that stops at OOC and Birmingham International? Best to compare real services that people take.

Hence my qualifier of "There's more to it of course".

 

[The Planner]

It's only 76 minutes because the trains stop twice along the way. Each stop costs around 5 minutes, so a non stop journey on the existing rails with the existing trains could take just 66 minutes. So your saving is then just 17 minutes. There's more to it of course, but claiming a 27 minute saving is arguably biased.

But non stop trainsdon't exist, and the closest we have ever got to it was the once a day morning 0730 pre COVID. Stops at International and Coventry cost 6½ minutes.

 

[Shrop]

Stops at International and Coventry cost 6½ minutes.

Have you ever tried measuring the time it takes to travel along a 10 mile section of railway with a stop in the middle? I'm certain you'd find it would be a good 5 minutes longer than it would be for a non-stop train along the same section, if the route was 100mph plus. So are you saying that 6½ minutes is for one stop or two?

 

[The Planner]

Have you ever tried measuring the time it takes to travel along a 10 mile section of railway with a stop in the middle? I'm certain you'd find it would be a good 5 minutes longer than it would be for a non-stop train along the same section, if the route was 100mph plus. So are you saying that 6½ minutes is for one stop or two?

Its for both based on the running times for stopping or passing the stations at International and Cov. A stopping train takes 6½ minutes longer. I do it for a living...

 

[Shrop]

Its for both based on the running times for stopping or passing the stations at International and Cov. A stopping train takes 6½ minutes longer. I do it for a living...

Interesting that you say this. I haven't done much timing of trains for some years now, and I'm well aware that accelerations have improved, but I'm still surprised that you say it only costs a total of 6½ minutes for two stops, especially when many trains stop in stations for 3 minutes before even accounting for delays due to deceleration from full line speed, and then acceleration back up to it.

Perhaps my mistake is assuming that non-stop trains could pass through stations at 100mph plus, and I'm still thinking of those halcyon days of trains going long distances without stopping quite so often! My days of timing trains go back to before Birmingham International was even built, and when you could regularly go non-stop from Paddington to Newport quicker than any train does this route today!

 

[Bald Rick]

Interesting that you say this. I haven't done much timing of trains for some years now, and I'm well aware that accelerations have improved, but I'm still surprised that you say it only costs a total of 6½ minutes for two stops, especially when many trains stop in stations for 3 minutes before even accounting for delays due to deceleration from full line speed, and then acceleration back up to it.

Perhaps my mistake is assuming that non-stop trains could pass through stations at 100mph plus, and I'm still thinking of those halcyon days of trains going long distances without stopping quite so often! My days of timing trains go back to before Birmingham International was even built, and when you could regularly go non-stop from Paddington to Newport quicker than any train does this route today!

The stops at both Cov and International are normally timed for 2 mins.

A train braking at step 2 service braking rate (0.6m/s/s) will brake from 100 to a stand in 75 seconds, whilst covering just over a mile. The Pendolinos will get back to 100 at a slightly slower rate, to make the maths easy I’ll say 105 seconds over a mile and a half (it’s slightly quicker).

So 100 - 0 - 100 takes 5 minutes over 2.5miles. Those 2.5 miles non stop at 100 would take 90 seconds. Therefore the difference between one that stops and one that doesn‘t is 3mins 30sec.

In the case of Coventry, the through linespeed is 80mph up, and 75mph down, which makes the loss for a stop nearer 3 minutes.

Hence 6.5 mins for the two. QED.

 

[Shrop]

The stops at both Cov and International are normally timed for 2 mins.

A train braking at step 2 service braking rate (0.6m/s/s) will brake from 100 to a stand in 75 seconds, whilst covering just over a mile. The Pendolinos will get back to 100 at a slightly slower rate, to make the maths easy I’ll say 105 seconds over a mile and a half (it’s slightly quicker).

So 100 - 0 - 100 takes 5 minutes over 2.5miles. Those 2.5 miles non stop at 100 would take 90 seconds. Therefore the difference between one that stops and one that doesn‘t is 3mins 30sec.

In the case of Coventry, the through linespeed is 80mph up, and 75mph down, which makes the loss for a stop nearer 3 minutes.

Hence 6.5 mins for the two. QED.

Yes, no disagreement about how you arrived at the 6.5 minutes, that's just about what I would have expected for calculating the time losses for deceleration and acceleration. However, whereabouts within that 6.5 minutes is your station dwell times of 2 minutes per station?

 

[The Planner]

Interesting that you say this. I haven't done much timing of trains for some years now, and I'm well aware that accelerations have improved, but I'm still surprised that you say it only costs a total of 6½ minutes for two stops, especially when many trains stop in stations for 3 minutes before even accounting for delays due to deceleration from full line speed, and then acceleration back up to it.

Perhaps my mistake is assuming that non-stop trains could pass through stations at 100mph plus, and I'm still thinking of those halcyon days of trains going long distances without stopping quite so often! My days of timing trains go back to before Birmingham International was even built, and when you could regularly go non-stop from Paddington to Newport quicker than any train does this route today!

2 minute dwells only. You can pass through International at 100mph, Cov at 80 on the up and 75 on the down.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Sep 2024 ==

Yes, no disagreement about how you arrived at the 6.5 minutes, that's just about what I would have expected for calculating the time losses for deceleration and acceleration. However, whereabouts within that 6.5 minutes is your station dwell times of 2 minutes per station?

For a 390 Stechford to International is 2½ pass to pass, 3½ pass to stop. International to Berkswell is 3½ pass to pass, 4 start to pass. 2 minute dwell, 3½ total loss.
Berkswell to Coventry is 4 pass to pass, 4½ pass to stop, Coventry to Rugby TV is 6½ pass to pass and 7 start to pass. 2 minute dwell, 3 total loss.

 

[The Ham]

It's only 76 minutes because the trains stop twice along the way. Each stop costs around 5 minutes, so a non stop journey on the existing rails with the existing trains could take just 66 minutes. So your saving is then just 17 minutes. There's more to it of course, but claiming a 27 minute saving is arguably biased.

Even if we were to accept that the journey time saving was 17 minutes, it still doesn't remove the other points, not least that there'll be 3tph at the faster journey speeds rather than (if such a service were to exist and achieve that journey time) at most 1tph - although more likely to be a couple of times a day.

Arguably the bigger benefit to passengers is that those fast services will be 3tph rather than typically 1tph sometimes 2tph, rather than if the on train journey time saving is somewhere around the 23 minute mark (+/-4 minutes depending on what you think about the time taken to make two station stops).