If you became director of HS2 ltd...

[ABB125]

I support the idea of HS2 in general, but I feel that there are quite a few issues with the current plans. Therefore, I would like to know what you think of the plans for both phases, and what you would do to change them if you had the power to do so.

If you are an anti-HS2 forum member, please don't say 'scrap it' or words to that effect, as I would like to hear advantages, not 'the money could be spent on the NHS' etc. Thank you.

 

[Bald Rick]

On a point of order, the 'Director' of HS2 (whether that be the Chairman, CEO or other role) does not have the power to alter the route or cancel the project. Only Government can cancel the project, and only Parliament can alter the route.

 

[tbtc]

The OP makes an interesting point, one worthy of further discussion.

I was against HS2 once, but the lack of alternatives made me gradually accept it.

• If we want extra capacity then it's easier to build a new two-track railway than it is to stick an extra couple of tracks on existing lines (given how tight existing infrastructure is, how long the line closures would need to be to accommodate building parallel tracks etc).
  
• If we are going to build a new two track railway then we might as well build a fast one, as the marginal cost of engineering it to 200mph rather than 125mph are relatively minor.
  
• If we build a two track railway then that could have capacity to take non-stop services off the southern sections of the WCML/ MML/ ECML, as long as it's fast enough to warrant the "kink" in the journey (e.g. Leeds to London via the outskirts of Birmingham).

...so HS2 seems the least-worst option.

One concern that I have with it is that the southern end of the route will be very busy (eighteen services per hour, given the need to serve Leeds/ Newcastle etc on that route), and that it may be better to focus that London - Birmingham corridor on WCML services, with a separate HS line dealing with London - East Midlands - Yorkshire - Tyneside.

But then a lot of the cost of HS2 is the southern end (capacity at Euston etc) and if you are going to build a two track line then you can run eighteen services per hour along it at fairly similar cost to running ten services per hour along it (given the costs of construction).

One worry I have is the problems you'll have when you mix "conventional" and "HS2" services. A late running Pacer at Sheffield Station could delay a Sheffield - London HS2 service, which only has a very tight slot on the high speed line into Euston - I'm worry that this will contaminate delays across the network so would rather keep HS services segregated where possible (serving existing stations, or at least new stations on existing lines, sure, but it could get messy when you start mixing the services on the same track).

 

[HSTEd]

Order only the minimum number of classic compatibles, order a large fleet of captive trains that would be a fleet of 400m double decks derived from TGV Duplexes with extra powered bogies as required. (9 trains per hour will be captive at least after all, so that is like 20-30 sets).
1300+ seats as standard on every captive train

 

[bavvo]

Going back to the original question - First, I would want to ensure we had through stations at Leeds, Birmingham etc, rather than a terminus. Second, build the HS1 to HS2 link. Third, articulated rolling stock. Other than that just speed up the construction so it can use it.

 

[snowball]

Going back to the original question - First, I would want to ensure we had through stations at Leeds, Birmingham etc, rather than a terminus. Second, build the HS1 to HS2 link. Third, articulated rolling stock. Other than that just speed up the construction so it can use it.

Your first and fourth are in direct contradiction to each other. Years of hassle about carving routes out the other side of the city.

 

[Harpers Tate]

I'd have the southern terminus at King's Pancras to offer direct fast connections to Kent and the Continent, rather than (for any such trip) having to waste all of the time saved getting to London, getting from one terminal to the other.

I'd have the South Yorkshire station out of town at a well accessible, large, Park & Ride location, but as well as future-proofed road access (by which I mean, NOT just another roundabout on the already woefully inadequate road system by Meadowhall), I'd invest enough in good, frequent, fast transit links into the relevant nearby towns (by which I mean, NOT a stopping tram with 10mph sharp curves, and not anyone's double-decker bus, either; probably electric trains - or even trams (tram-trains?) with few or no stops on at least 50mph track).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Order only the minimum number of classic compatibles, order a large fleet of captive trains that would be a fleet of 400m double decks derived from TGV Duplexes with extra powered bogies as required. (9 trains per hour will be captive at least after all, so that is like 20-30 sets).
1300+ seats as standard on every captive train

I'd go the total opposite. All trains classic compatible, no captive ones at all. I'd also consider cancelling north of Birmingham, though would consider carefully the merits.

I might also investigate how much would be saved by reducing the top speed to 186mph (classic LGV).

What we need is to 6-track the south WCML in the manner of the Swiss NBS and German approach, not dedicated French style LGVs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

One worry I have is the problems you'll have when you mix "conventional" and "HS2" services. A late running Pacer at Sheffield Station could delay a Sheffield - London HS2 service, which only has a very tight slot on the high speed line into Euston

If all intermediate stations are built on long loops as they should be (and there aren't exactly lots of them, as the Chiltern Line provides the stopping service over the route), it doesn't matter. You just feed in trains at 1-2 minute intervals, and they pop out the other end.

Missing slots only matters when you have complex stopping patterns. HS2 won't have.

 

[PreciousPasta]

I personally think that they missed a trick in not allowing space during the King's Cross Area redevelopment for an HS2 terminus there - there was so much unused brownfield land there until very recently. Building the HS2 terminus there would have enabled an HS1/HS2 link and eliminated the need for expensive and disruptive demolitions around Euston.

 

[The Planner]

What we need is to 6-track the south WCML in the manner of the Swiss NBS and German approach, not dedicated French style LGVs.

The amount of disruption that would cause is enormous and would probably drive people away from the railway as they wouldnt be able to travel as work would be pushed to weekends and public holidays.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The amount of disruption that would cause is enormous and would probably drive people away from the railway as they wouldnt be able to travel as work would be pushed to weekends and public holidays.

Sorry, for clarity, I don't propose *actually* 6-tracking the south WCML.

What I mean is that operationally HS2 should be considered as two super-fast lines for the south WCML, not as a distinct thing in its own right, following Swiss and German practice. Operationally, our railway is a Germanic one (wide, web-shaped network, walk-up services and fares, interchange and regular interval timetabling), not a Romance one (primarily based around low-frequency, non-regular-interval airline-style direct services with IC and regional very distinct), and so the Germanic practices for high-speed lines and capacity increases should also follow that model.

Think of it a bit like a bigger version of the lines via Weedon.

 

[The Planner]

Is it not doing that with the West Coast Partnership? If the new franchise holder is running HS2 for a minimum of two years then it would make sense just to continue that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is it not doing that with the West Coast Partnership? If the new franchise holder is running HS2 for a minimum of two years then it would make sense just to continue that.

Yes, I think having one franchisee run both service groups as a combined timetable is very much a move in the right direction.

Another sensible move would be to order only classic compatible rolling stock. Ideally New St would also be expanded and the new Birmingham station idea abandoned, but I recognise the prohibitive cost of that.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

I would have put connections in on the approach to Curzon St allowing Classic Compatible service to come of HS2 bypass Curzon St and run to New St and on to Wolverhampton and potentially allow an XC type service to use the eastern arm of HS2 and run on to Bristol and the SW although this would have required electrification (particularly galling given today's announcements on electrification)

 

[222ben]

deleted.

 

[222ben]

Ordering only classic compatible trains is a good idea, and I would stop HS2 to Manchester at Crewe, potentially rebuilding Macclesfield station, while also grade separating the junctions to the south of Stockport station. We don't need an French style LGV all the way to Manchester. I'd reuse Mayfield as more Piccadilly platforms, allowing higher frequencies on all lines except the South Junction. We really need to stop thinking of HS2 as a solution to all our problems.

 

[Bletchleyite]

222ben sounds sensible in his views - again creating a pair of WCML superfast lines rather than something standalone and distinct.

 

[The Ham]

I would muddle through for as long as I could and hope it was long enough to pay off my mortgage.

Better still manage to stay long enough for it to allow me to buy a bigger house and still be mortgage free.

 

[Trog]

What we need is to 6-track the south WCML.

Done by the LNWR one hundred years ago and more capacity still required.

 

[47802]

I would have thought the less classic compatible the better from a capacity viewpoint, having classic compatible for Sheffield is surely going to reduce capacity. I would go back to the Meadowhall route, for people on that side of Sheffield/Rotherham, Meadowhall is easier to get to than the centre of Sheffield. Meadowhall has a good tram connection and you could look at improved connections on the mainline between Meadowhall and Sheffield, while Sheffield Midland would still retain a MML service.

 

[DerekC]

I might also investigate how much would be saved by reducing the top speed to 186mph (classic LGV)..

Agreed. This is the pure vanity part of the project - costing a lot more than we will ever know by forcing very many of the safety-related calculations to be redone and reopening many integration problems which the classic LGV had long ago solved. Of course if you ask the team now, they will say that it would cost more to reduce the speed!

 

[47802]

[*]

One worry I have is the problems you'll have when you mix "conventional" and "HS2" services. A late running Pacer at Sheffield Station could delay a Sheffield - London HS2 service.

I think even the most sceptical person would struggle to believe that Pacers will still be running by the time HS2 gets to Sheffield

 

[Kettledrum]

Most of the comments so far make suggestions that are probably beyond the power of a director of HS2. In very, very, very simple terms, the directors will need to put arrangements in place to:

- ensure HS2 complies with government regulation and policy (this rules out most of the suggestions so far)
- manage and mitigate risk
- maximise income - relates to both franchise income, ticket sales, but most importantly property development opportunities, property rental income and commercial concessions.
- minimise expenditure - e.g. strict contract management arrangements over construction contracts, and maximising any opportunities to get more "bang for your buck".
- maximise value for money, particularly important for back office and support costs
- ensure good governance

 

[MarkyT]

I would have thought the less classic compatible the better from a capacity viewpoint, having classic compatible for Sheffield is surely going to reduce capacity. I would go back to the Meadowhall route, for people on that side of Sheffield/Rotherham, Meadowhall is easier to get to than the centre of Sheffield. Meadowhall has a good tram connection and you could look at improved connections on the mainline between Meadowhall and Sheffield, while Sheffield Midland would still retain a MML service.

Note you could also serve Meadowhall with the current Sheffield Midland service proposal, by extending the trains on for a further 5km along the existing route. New dedicated terminating platforms, more easily built at Meadowhalll for reversing HS2 trains would avoid long turnback layovers at Midland, perhaps avoiding any additional platforms in that constrained site, and Meadowhall could provide all the road access and parking benefits that the Sheffield Midland city centre site lacks.

 

[Kettledrum]

Note you could also serve Meadowhall with the current Sheffield Midland service proposal, by extending the trains on for a further 5km along the existing route. New dedicated terminating platforms, more easily built at Meadowhalll for reversing HS2 trains would avoid long turnback layovers at Midland, perhaps avoiding any additional platforms in that constrained site, and Meadowhall could provide all the road access and parking benefits that the Sheffield Midland city centre site lacks.

This is a really interesting idea, and definitely worth looking at. So far, with all the focus on journey times, it may have been over-looked, particularly as the London - Meadowhall times would be so much longer than the original HS2 London to Meadowhall route.

In all other respects though, it would tick a lot of boxes.

 

[ABB125]

Having thought about it, this is what I'd do:

LONDON
-Send HS2 into a rebuilt (again) St Pancras station, eg: a two level station with HS2 underneath the existing station. This could also result in more platforms for the MML.
-On the approach to St Pancras, build a new connection (double track) between HS2 and HS1, allowing through journeys to both Kent and Europe).
-At Old Oak Common, ensure that there will be good connections available to Heathrow with Crossrail.
-Maybe in the far future, build a new HS2-HS1 link via Heathrow AND Gatwick.

BIRMINGHAM
-Redesign the Curzon Street area so that: 1) a new station is built on the existing eastern approach to New Street for local (Cross City) and possibly residual intercity and CrossCountry services to call at. This would potentially involve building 2 extra tracks along the what looks like wasteland where I assume the new Curzon Street station will be built. 2) Build the new Curzon Street station so that there are some terminating platforms (lets say 4), but then there are another 4 that are through platforms that feed into the New Street approach for a variety of through services, eg: London-Bristol and Bristol-Leeds via HS2. (Looking on Google Maps, there appears to be sufficient space for this.)
-At Birmingham Interchange, ensure that there are good links to the airport.

EASTERN BRANCH
-I would keep the Toton Parkway station, but put in a connection to the MML near East Midlands Parkway, so that classic compatible services could run to Nottingham and Derby etc.
-In Sheffield, I would keep the Meadowhall station, but also include a classic compatible loop through Sheffield (that could possibly be used later for HS3)
-In Leeds, I would redesign the route so that there would be a new through station, through which all HS2 trains to Leeds and beyond would run, saving the need for both a connection to the ECML near York AND a terminal branch to Leeds (they would sort of be amalgamated into one).

WESTERN BRANCH
-I would build a new Crewe high-speed station next to the existing one, and put connections to the WCML at both ends so that services from the south could run on HS2 into Manchester, and services from HS2 could run to other destinations.
-I wouldn't make any further decisions about the route into Manchester until what form HS3 will take is known, because it would then be possible to join both together and have some sections of common running. This would also allow faster HS2 services to Liverpool.
-I would, however, ensure that a station is built next to Manchester Airport with good transfer links.

Hopefully, this would then entice road and air users onto HS2- for example, an international traveller flying into Heathrow would then, instead of flying to Manchester, would take the train instead.

 

[Tobbes]

The single thing I would do is to build a full end-on LGV to Glasgow and Edinburgh. This is explicitly about providing a national asset and to demonstrate the benefits of the union.

 

[muddythefish]

1. Through stations in Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield Birmingham, and London rather than terminii.

2. London would have a "Euston Cross" subterranean station connecting Euston and King's Cross and running out east to connect into HS1

3. Increased investment to bring forward construction by 10 years so I could actually use the line before I go in a care home.

 

[HSTEd]

Demolish the British library and the buildings between it and Euston.

Build a brand new high speed station and turn the whole thing into one extended station complex.

If money is no object that is.