If you became director of HS2 ltd...

[Camden]

In the public interest, I'd publish all documents online for public scrutiny.

And then I'd book myself a couple of days somewhere sunny, turn my phone off and jet off with my conscience clear.

 

[tbtc]

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.

I’ve no problem with carefully scheduled loops on a main line.

But the case of HS2 on the dozens of miles between Sheffield and somewhere on the outskirts of Nottingham means that a 200mph train is going to share the same platforms, the same tracks, the same flat junctions etc as the local 75mph DMUs.

So it’ll only take a minor delay (e.g. a Manchester bound Hope Valley stopper can’t cross the Chesterfield – Sheffield line outside Dore station due to a late running northbound service) to impact upon the path of the hourly HS2 service departing Sheffield.

And given that the eighteen services per hour on the two track line south of Birmingham on HS2 are only going to be a few minutes apart, that means that there’s going to be quite a risk that a sluggish freight train not clearing a junction promptly outside Chesterfield means that there’s very little margin once the Sheffield – London train gets to the Delta outside Birmingham before the next 200mph service from Manchester to London is due.

I’m happy with the concept of HS2, I’m happy with a segregated high speed line. But if we only have the money to build one pair of tracks from London (to connect it to the West Midlands/ Greater Manchester/ Merseyside/ West Yorkshire/ Tyne’n’Wear/ Greater Glasgow and various other large conurbations – everything funnelling down the same two track line) then I’m nervous at the prospect of delays to Classic Compatible services on our Victorian infrastructure impacting upon a High Speed line that is going to be busy from the start. There’s not going to be a lot of margin for error, so forcing Sheffield services to share the same tracks as freight and commuter DMUs seems to be asking for trouble.

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.

Good points.

Meadowhall would have been the "least worst" option for Sheffield. And I say that living on the opposite side of town from Meadowhall (Midland is closer for me).

My worry is that (without electrifying the MML any time soon), the "Nottinghamshire to Sheffield" bit of HS2 will be an "easy to cancel" branch that they may sacrifice when costs elsewhere increase.

Sheffield City Region has gone from having a stop on a main line to being an expensive* branch that might be jettisoned if other costs increase.

(* - by "expensive", I mean that they can't piggy-back onto MML electrification having been completed in time)

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

True, but who knows with Grayling's latest cuts ad:

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

You mean where Thameslink currently is?

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)

At high speeds, under your proposal, by the time a London - "Newcastle" service has taken the slower alignment from Woodlesford into central Leeds, decellerated, dwelt, accelerated, taken the route that you've found through north/eastern Leeds (which isn't going to be particularly straight, unless you tunnel everything) and got back onto the proposed line beyond Leeds, it would have been the other side of York (if it had run on the proposed HS2 route avoiding Leeds.

Great news for Leeds, which would ensure that everything stopped there, but it'll slow down longer distance journeys quite a bit - and be much more expensive to build an alignment north/east of Leeds (compared to taking the proposed "green field" route past Swillington).

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

Why through stations (other than because that's what the Victorians did)?

A through station becomes significantly more expensive than a terminus - with a terminus you have to find one route through the suburbs and inner-city areas to serve the heart of the city.

With a through station you have to find two such routes and ensure that they are roughly opposite each other (whereas, with a terminus station, it doesn't matter particularly whether you approach Leeds/ Manchester etc from the east or south or west, since services are terminating there).

 

[snowball]

But the case of HS2 on the dozens of miles between Sheffield and somewhere on the outskirts of Nottingham means that a 200mph train is going to share the same platforms, the same tracks, the same flat junctions etc as the local 75mph DMUs.

It's not dozens of miles - more like 16 miles on existing tracks. The proposed link from HS2 joins the Erewash Valley line near Stonebroom and then includes an extra pair of tracks along the EVL for some distance towards Clay Cross. The MML then has four tracks through Chesterfield to Tapton Junction. I gather from what others have said that there's the opportunity for re-four-tracking approaching Sheffield.

 

[option]

Approach to Birmingham Interchange, swing the whole track westwards, so it continues to parallel the existing WCML from Balsall Common.

Then a new station for Birmingham Interchange/Birmingham International south of the existing station.
Rebuild the Air-Rail link so it also serves a major park&ride car park between the new station & the motorway, & the NEC.

North out of the station you go along Bickenhill Parkway & to the west side of Birmingham Business Park, then join existing proposed route where it crosses the M6.


I would also be prodding NR to get another line in on the Coventry-Proof House Jn route. With a HS2 station & BHX expansion, this route could get very very busy.

 

[The Planner]

Id have a look at a map to see just how easy thats going to be, let alone decimating the line speed.

 

[option]

Id have a look at a map to see just how easy thats going to be, let alone decimating the line speed.

West of the Birmingham Business Park is an empty strip of land, which at its narrowest is 150metres wide. North of that there is nothing between there & the junction to Curzon St.

South, there are a few houses on Blackfirs Lane.
(If we're allowed to demolish stuff elsewhere, why not here?)

Then Bickenhill Lane (which is a wide access road with no development on its eastern side), a pallet depot (2 metal sheds), & the corner of a warehouse at the NEC.
That gets you to the north end of the existing station.



South of the existing station, the narrowest gap between the Arena service road & an office building is ~50metres.
How much width would be needed for a 2 track HS2 + a 3 track WCML?



As for 'decimating the line speed', how?
There is going to be a station anyway, so trains are already either slowing for it, or only getting going again. Just to the north is the junction as well.



The current plans have the 2 stations, International & Interchange, over 1.5km away from each other, with the NEC & M42 inbetween.
How do they intend to have passengers transfer between the 2? If you're in Coventry, Rugby etc, are you really going to get the train & transfer if it involves that sort of transfer distance & time?

 

[Chester1]

Not strictly HS2 but I would push for Tring stoppers to be diverted onto Crossrail. If CR2 is not built I don't how Euston could cope and ignoring that why rebuild Euston with 20 platforms if there is a sensible option to reduce NR services?

 

[The Planner]

Not all the trains stop there, how do you deal with trains going at full HS2 line speed that carry on towards Handsacre, the north WCML and eventually the north east considering the curve radii required for a high speed route? The Delta junction isn't going to a be a slow speed affair either. The HS2 station is having a link built between there, International and the airport.

 

[The Planner]

Not strictly HS2 but I would push for Tring stoppers to be diverted onto Crossrail.

Still an option if someone coughs up for it.

 

[trainmania100]

scrap it and build bml2

I would like to see the Eurostar 373s used on HS2 while stocks last

 

[Sceptre]

Not strictly HS2 but I would push for Tring stoppers to be diverted onto Crossrail. If CR2 is not built I don't how Euston could cope and ignoring that why rebuild Euston with 20 platforms if there is a sensible option to reduce NR services?

If we're doing that, I'd also suggest extending the H&I terminators to Willesden Junction low-level, re-open Primrose Hill, and extend the Bakerloo back up to Watford.

I just assumed it would be obvious if transport planning was joined up (see also: eventually extend Crossrail to Ebbsfleet International)

 

[Ianno87]

scrap it and build bml2

I would like to see the Eurostar 373s used on HS2 while stocks last

373s are expensive to run, technically bespoke and highly complex (probably won't be fittable with ETCS at sensible cost), and very sluggish accelerators so won't fit an 18tph train plan.

 

[HSTEd]

The current plans have the 2 stations, International & Interchange, over 1.5km away from each other, with the NEC & M42 inbetween.
How do they intend to have passengers transfer between the 2? If you're in Coventry, Rugby etc, are you really going to get the train & transfer if it involves that sort of transfer distance & time?

Well a 3S Ropeway could handle that with a journey time of something like ~3 minutes, with a cabin leaving every 10-20 seconds.

 

[option]

Well a 3S Ropeway could handle that with a journey time of something like ~3 minutes, with a cabin leaving every 10-20 seconds.

As long as you could get it up & over the NEC

Any other link has to skirt south round Resorts World, which is then putting it at at least 2km between stations.
The current link from station to airport is less than 600metres, & does the journey in 90seconds.

Then there's the existing link into the NEC, which within a couple of minutes gets you anywhere on site.

 

[The Planner]

The hybrid bill plan has it going over the lake and by the Hilton if I recall.