I admire your confidence that so much currently untapped travel demand is just awaiting to reach the passenger numbers that you cite on HS2 services between London and Birmingham.
When the wind is blowing strongly I do indeed pay peanuts for my electricity.
The Network Rail grant, which makes a substantial fraction of the railway industry's income.
That fact you quote is true in itself, but would you describe it as a "generated" source of income, which was the point that the other thread contributor was making.
It will connect to the slows as its monumentally cheaper and doesnt actually cause that many problems. I agree that in a sensible world you would have gone straight to Crewe and not built it, though I suspect a bone had to be given to Stoke.
Perhaps the 3 Mayors could send one of their female staff to sing a suitable song to Louise Haigh about wanting to go to Birmingham but being taken along to Crewe.
Indeed. There were dedicated electronic signs on the New Street concourse (perhaps elsewhere too?) showing the next InterCity Shuttle train to London, when it departed and what platform it would be. The idea was that a train would always be waiting in the platform for you.
Pretty sure there are Avanti signs that show that at New St.
I think, rather than being a reference to a single train shuttling back and and forth, the term "shuttle" has often been used on the UK railway to signify a high frequency, repetitive operational timetable.
I remember turning up and being put with about 5 other people on the standby plane. We all sat in the first 3 rows and the crew asked up to move back to balance the plane.
Pffft. I mean. C'mon, surely the staff should take the trouble to move back
.Let us remind ourselves. Getting HS2 to Euston and fully built is more important than Phase-2a I am afraid.
The most important thing of all is extending platforms at Crewe to accommodate 400m trains. As far as I can see, this is not funded, yet this intervention will increase capacity through Handsacre at minimal cost.
I also have to wonder. What happens if no "3rd party" wants to lend the money to build Phase-2a ?.
They will, depending on how generous the track access charges are for using that infrastructure. If governments want external funding for 2a, then they will find a way.
How can extending platforms at Crewe be the most important thing? The most important things are those which are fully committed in all respects. Crewe is not a fully committed project as things stand at this moment in time.
They can probably joint fund it with the green investment bank if necessary. The important thing for the Treasury is probably to get it built as a commercial investment rather than a political project being run via the DfT.
Who actually in real life decides what is the most important thing for the Treasury?
You need 400m platforms at Crewe run 400m trains. In terms of capacity through Colwich, that's more important than 2a or Euston
Sadly I agree, it will probably take Phase 1 opening to traffic and becoming successful to bring people around to the benefits of Phase 2. In the meantime people travelling between London/Birmingham and Manchester will have to continue to tolerate overcrowding and sky-high fares.
Probably the Permanent Secretary more than the politicians
Having the London terminus out on the far edge of Zone 2 is idiotic. If you want to win the argument about phase 2 with the electorate you need them to first feel that phase 1 is useful to them. That starts with having it terminate in Zone 1.
But, as I have already been at pains to point out, Crewe as such is not part of the currently agreed project and those in charge of the application of finance to this current project will only fund what is in the agreed itinerary, not anything external to what has been agreed. When and if funding is agreed for extension to Crewe, that will be the time to consider the matter that you proposed, but most definitely not before.
But this is a thread about restarting 2a. So the scope includes spending beyond phase 1.
Whether it's idiotic is not the point. All the modelling shows that 30 - 40% of HS2 passengers will use Old Oak Common, even with Euston available.
Express WCML trains from Euston don't terminate at Crewe, so platforms there that can accommodate 400 m long trains would be useless by themselves unless other key stations served by express WCML trains also have platform extensions, and signalling/loops along the existing current routes intended to be served by HS2 trains are designed to cope with 400 m long trains. Until/unless HS2 is extended north of Handsacre, the majority of trains to Manchester are likely to continue to run via Stoke anyway, because there won't be the capacity for them to continue north of Colwich on the WCML itself.
What you might be able to do is have trains for Liverpool and Glasgow, for example, split at Crewe. This wouldn’t require any extra platform lengthening anywhere else.
Alternatively you could do a couple of platforms at Crewe and a couple at Carlisle, and run Scotland trains non-stop Birmingham to Carlisle. I think the biggest danger is thinking that the whole station needs to be rebuilt to achieve the minimum viable result
How 'commutable' will places like Birmingham, London, Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, Edinburgh be from a Cheshire New Town centred on Crewe be? Is it possible to 'think big'?
What time factor would be required to perform that task?
Not too long I shouldn’t think, but clearly it would not be that quick.
