Rethink urged over 'absurd' HS2-HS1 link

[tbtc]

But (as I stated upthread), it's not just about international services. There's also the possibility of direct services from the North/Midlands to Stratford and Kent - even for commuters.

There's the possibility, yes, but do you really see that much demand?

We could have had direct services from Brighton and the south coast through to Birmingham and the midlands for a long time (via the WLL), but the closest we have is Croydon to Milton Keynes.

Anglia's CrossLink (Norwich/ Ipswich to Feltham/ Basingstoke) didn't work very well either.

For that reason I'm similarly sceptical about people wanting to use Crossrail for Norwich - Bristol services.

 

[transmanche]

There's the possibility, yes, but do you really see that much demand?

You've proved my point by only thinking of existing travel patterns. Like the M25, this is a game-changer.

The builders of the Metropolitan Railway didn't think "Well there's not much demand for journeys from Harrow to the City, so we'd better not bother". They created the market. Direct HS2-HS1 through journeys will create its own market.

We could have had direct services from Brighton and the south coast through to Birmingham and the midlands for a long time (via the WLL), but the closest we have is Croydon to Milton Keynes.

Slow and infrequent (as was Anglia's Crosslink). You can't seriously be comparing an all-stations journey along the WLL with HS rail?

For that reason I'm similarly sceptical about people wanting to use Crossrail for Norwich - Bristol services.

I don't see the connection of a regional express metro with through services on HS rail...

 

[tbtc]

You've proved my point by only thinking of existing travel patterns. Like the M25, this is a game-changer

Okay, if I'm so stuck in my ways, tell me which great untapped services and travel patterns are waiting to be linked?

If Manchester/ Birmingham to Gatwick and Brighton isn't a big enough market for anyone to try to tap into then where in Kent is going to have a big enough market to require a frequent service to the Midlands/ "North"?

The builders of the Metropolitan Railway didn't think "Well there's not much demand for journeys from Harrow to the City, so we'd better not bother". They created the market. Direct HS2-HS1 through journeys will create its own market

The builders of the Metropolitan Railway were providing services to/from central London - somewhere that there's a clear market for. It's obvious that there would be people needing to work in central London who couldn't afford to live there. It's not obvious that there's a huge number of people wanting to travel from Gravesend to Wallsend though.

The "if you build it they will come" approach works when you are dealing with proven centres of demand.

Slow and infrequent (as was Anglia's Crosslink). You can't seriously be comparing an all-stations journey along the WLL with HS rail?

Who said that all services via the WLL had to be all-stations?

If there's this significant untapped demand to get from Manchester/ Birmingham to Gatwick and Brighton then there's presumably scope for faster services (than the existing semi-fast that only runs from Milton Keynes to Croydon)?

 

[jon0844]

...and yet people think that there'll be a huge demand for continental services to/from Manchester/ Birmingham etc...

I think those people are very optimistic, however I would say that there probably is some demand for continental services - but mostly in the peaks, or perhaps on a Friday for long weekends, holiday periods (the run up to Christmas etc).

And in 10, 20 or 30 years, assuming we're still part of the EU and haven't filled in the tunnel, I am certain that despite advances in technology, flying will be a lot more expensive and rail travel becoming the only means of affordable travel for some.

Demand will have to grow and prove itself before we make a very costly link to allow for regular services - and it's not as if HS2 is the end of all railway investment and expansion; even if the next level of expansion will be long after we've passed on...

 

[transmanche]

Okay, if I'm so stuck in my ways, tell me which great untapped services and travel patterns are waiting to be linked?

If Manchester/ Birmingham to Gatwick and Brighton isn't a big enough market for anyone to try to tap into then where in Kent is going to have a big enough market to require a frequent service to the Midlands/ "North"?

Because there are currently no options to run fast (let alone HS) services. Previous attempts have been slow.

Who said that all services via the WLL had to be all-stations?

How are you proposing to path these express services along the WLL - or indeed the BML?

You're still stuck in the mode of merely replicating current travel patterns - without thinking of the potential to open up new journey opportunities.

 

[GingerSte]

I see enough demand for services from Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds HS stations to stations on the continent. There may be enough to justify the HS1-HS2 link in it's currently proposed form (ie single track), but if it proves too difficult, I can understand why it wouldn't be built as double track.

Taking the current London services as a starting point (assuming HSTEd is correct and there are more trains to Paris than Brussels):

• London - Paris 1 per hour
• London - Brussels 0.5 per hour

This will be increased next year (?) by additional services. Say (for the sake of argument) that it ends up as 0.5 trains per hour. So after next year, you would have:

• London - Paris 1 per hour
• London - Brussels 0.5 per hour
• London - Amsterdam/Frankfurt 0.5 per hour

I can see the "provincial" stations supplying about half that demand on the HS1-HS2 link each, which would give:

• Birmingham - Paris 0.5 per hour
• Birmingham - Brussels 0.25 per hour
• Birmingham - Amsterdam/Frankfurt 0.25 per hour
• Manchester - Paris 0.5 per hour
• Manchester - Brussels 0.25 per hour
• Manchester - Amsterdam/Frankfurt 0.25 per hour
• Leeds - Paris 0.5 per hour
• Leeds - Brussels 0.25 per hour
• Leeds - Amsterdam/Frankfurt 0.25 per hour

By my reckoning, that's 1 train per hour (per direction) on the link after HS2 Phase 1 is complete, rising to 3 trains per hour on completion of the Leeds and Manchester links. I could easily imagine that the 1-track line could take that. (As an aside, this would mean 5 trains per hour on HS1.)

Of course, this also ignores the possibility of providing international platforms on non-HS2 stations linking up to HS2 (or even HS1). At the moment people are talking about an interchange at Old Oak Common from the GWL to HS1/2. Pretty soon there would be pressure for direct access from GWL (Bristol/Cardiff to Paris, anyone?). The GWL should be electirifed by then, although there may be other gauging issues.

 

[jon0844]

The "if you build it they will come" statement probably will be true with HS2 and the other major projects in the coming years.

We have a huge housing shortage. In Welwyn Hatfield, they want to build some 10,000 new homes and are seriously planning to build on green belt over the next 10-15 years. It's a massive change, and hardly unique.

Once HS2 is open, you can be pretty certain that the areas served by HS2 - or on the classic lines now able to run more local/stopper services - will be seen as the places to build, just as the Piccadilly Line to Cockfosters saw suburban parts of London eventually becoming part of a much enlarged London.

I think it's easy to judge demand as of today, but we're talking about 2030 and a line that will be there for hundreds of years! Demands will change and adapt.

 

[joeykins82]

The problem is that unless season ticket prices dramatically decrease with the opening of HS2 it won't matter that Birmingham or Manchester or Leeds are all cheaper to live in than London. An annual season ticket from Leeds with z1-6 currently costs £13488pa; if you're earning enough to be in the 40% income tax band (and let's be honest, if you can afford £13488pa to commute you probably are) you could take a pay cut of up to £23255.17 and come out better off if you got a job locally.

 

[pablo]

http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2013/06/01-rethink-urged-over-absurd-hs2hs1.html

Do others think such a link would be well used by regional services?

Why do posters keep drifting off into Continental services? The OP and Greengauge's report was about domestic possibilities for the link.

There appears to be tacit acceptance that Continental through services are unlikley to fill out to ever use the capacity provided.

 

[Philip Elliott]

It's obvious that there would be people needing to work in central London who couldn't afford to live there

Are you trying to re-write history? 'Metroland' was created not by people who couldn't afford to live in the city but those with the wealth who wanted a better standard of living with a larger house and large garden. It is no accident that outer London is Tory heartland...

 

[HSTEd]

The problem is that unless season ticket prices dramatically decrease with the opening of HS2 it won't matter that Birmingham or Manchester or Leeds are all cheaper to live in than London. An annual season ticket from Leeds with z1-6 currently costs £13488pa; if you're earning enough to be in the 40% income tax band (and let's be honest, if you can afford £13488pa to commute you probably are) you could take a pay cut of up to £23255.17 and come out better off if you got a job locally.

The Season Ticket prices these days are escalated to such absurd levels because of the need to stop people travelling in the high peak.
HS2 has so much capacity that this will not be an issue.
It could be easily cut in half.

 

[joeykins82]

and deprive the TOCs of all of that lovely captive revenue? I'm not convinced it'll happen. The DfT & treasury will still want their franchise premiums, the costs of running the railway aren't going to be reduced by the opening of HS2, there (probably) won't be a sudden clamour to increase the level of funding that comes from subsidy rather than farepayers. The fact is that commuters are a prime target for gouging on price because they have no choice but to travel with their home TOC during the high peak.

 

[Philip Elliott]

No they are categorically not. Season tickets have only risen in the past 15 years by either RPI+1% or by RPI-1% (a real terms cut). Season tickets are a form of discount ticket.

 

[HSTEd]

and deprive the TOCs of all of that lovely captive revenue? I'm not convinced it'll happen. The DfT & treasury will still want their franchise premiums, the costs of running the railway aren't going to be reduced by the opening of HS2, there (probably) won't be a sudden clamour to increase the level of funding that comes from subsidy rather than farepayers. The fact is that commuters are a prime target for gouging on price because they have no choice but to travel with their home TOC during the high peak.

Uh... yes they are?

High Speed Rail is so much cheaper per seat to run it's not even funny.
The winnowing of services on the WCML and ECML will significantly reduce costs, and the number of passengers that can be moved per staff member is enormous.

Everyone is thinking this is going to be super-Virgin or something, in capacity terms it is not. It is going to be super-Metropolitan line.

 

[Philip Elliott]

HS2 will be cheaper yes but not £5 per ticket - that is waaaay out. Also the existing WCML will become much more expensive to operate - HS2 has to make a significant profit just to balance out the increased subsidy on the WCML and don't forget it is heavily subsidised already...

 

[paul1609]

I see enough demand for services from Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds HS stations to stations on the continent. There may be enough to justify the HS1-HS2 link in it's currently proposed form (ie single track), but if it proves too difficult, I can understand why it wouldn't be built as double track.

Taking the current London services as a starting point (assuming HSTEd is correct and there are more trains to Paris than Brussels):

• London - Paris 1 per hour
• London - Brussels 0.5 per hour

This will be increased next year (?) by additional services. Say (for the sake of argument) that it ends up as 0.5 trains per hour. So after next year, you would have:

• London - Paris 1 per hour
• London - Brussels 0.5 per hour
• London - Amsterdam/Frankfurt 0.5 per hour

I can see the "provincial" stations supplying about half that demand on the HS1-HS2 link each, which would give:

• Birmingham - Paris 0.5 per hour
• Birmingham - Brussels 0.25 per hour
• Birmingham - Amsterdam/Frankfurt 0.25 per hour
• Manchester - Paris 0.5 per hour
• Manchester - Brussels 0.25 per hour
• Manchester - Amsterdam/Frankfurt 0.25 per hour
• Leeds - Paris 0.5 per hour
• Leeds - Brussels 0.25 per hour
• Leeds - Amsterdam/Frankfurt 0.25 per hour

By my reckoning, that's 1 train per hour (per direction) on the link after HS2 Phase 1 is complete, rising to 3 trains per hour on completion of the Leeds and Manchester links. I could easily imagine that the 1-track line could take that. (As an aside, this would mean 5 trains per hour on HS1.)

Of course, this also ignores the possibility of providing international platforms on non-HS2 stations linking up to HS2 (or even HS1). At the moment people are talking about an interchange at Old Oak Common from the GWL to HS1/2. Pretty soon there would be pressure for direct access from GWL (Bristol/Cardiff to Paris, anyone?). The GWL should be electirifed by then, although there may be other gauging issues.

About 70% of Eurostars traffic to London is inward, london is a Global city.
I'm afraid I cant see visitors from Europe flocking to Birmingham or manchester.
Sales of Eurostar tickets to/ from North of London is a pretty small market even where there are easy connections.
Any flight numbers would suggest that at best the regional cities might support one train a day.
I cant really see that through services are viable even post HS2

 

[HSTEd]

HS2 will be cheaper yes but not £5 per ticket - that is waaaay out. Also the existing WCML will become much more expensive to operate - HS2 has to make a significant profit just to balance out the increased subsidy on the WCML and don't forget it is heavily subsidised already...

My admittedly rather crude projections show £15 for a return, and since the marginal cost of a return is effectively the same as a single, £5 is way out, but not as far out as many people seem to assume.

The WCML will become considerably cheaper to operate once many of the services that are no longer needed are eliminated, for instance the Manchester service can be cut to 2 or maybe even 1 train per hour (depending on how important it is to give Wilmslow a service). Additionally I am not entirely sure how important it would be for Birmingham to retain an ICWC service at all, assuming the franchise is not folded into London Midland - can't add many more stops to the service before it loses pretty much all its remaining time advantage over a limited-stop 110mph services on the Coventry section. The remaining Pendolinos could find use somewhere else, for example on XC services once electrification makes it feasible.

Additionally the service can be operated with shorter, cheaper to run trains with a less extensive staff presence.

Ditto the trains operating on the ECML which will likely be 5-car IEPs running as extensions of the current Newark semi-fast.

 

[Philip Elliott]

My admittedly rather crude projections show £15 for a return, and since the marginal cost of a return is effectively the same as a single, £5 is way out, but not as far out as many people seem to assume.

The WCML will become considerably cheaper to operate once many of the services that are no longer needed are eliminated, for instance the Manchester service can be cut to 2 or maybe even 1 train per hour (depending on how important it is to give Wilmslow a service). Additionally I am not entirely sure how important it would be for Birmingham to retain an ICWC service at all, assuming the franchise is not folded into London Midland - can't add many more stops to the service before it loses pretty much all its remaining time advantage over a limited-stop 110mph services on the Coventry section. The remaining Pendolinos could find use somewhere else, for example on XC services once electrification makes it feasible.

Additionally the service can be operated with shorter, cheaper to run trains with a less extensive staff presence.

Ditto the trains operating on the ECML which will likely be 5-car IEPs running as extensions of the current Newark semi-fast.

I think those purchasing FORs from Coventry, Stoke, Macclesfield would disagree. Low freqency routes are very inefficient to resource - they become more expensive per train. Brum - Euston is less than half of the current EBW patronage. Fewer, shorter trains out of Brum in the evening to Coventry, that would be....interesting.

Your figures for ticket prices are still way way out - you assumed that the cost of construction would be written off - not going to happen. You will never fill all the trains, not even close.


Now before, tbtc pipes up....the fastest growing city for rail usage in recent years is.......drum roll.....COVENTRY...

 

[HSTEd]

I think those purchasing FORs from Coventry, Stoke, Macclesfield would disagree. Low freqency routes are very inefficient to resource - they become more expensive per train. Brum - Euston is less than half of the current EBW patronage. Fewer, shorter trains out of Brum in the evening to Coventry, that would be....interesting.

Now before, tbtc pipes up....the fastest growing city for rail usage in recent years is.......drum roll.....COVENTRY...

Coventry would be served by improved London Midland Services, a 110mph Class 350 formation could do the journey in ~1h06 stopping at MKC and Rugby, which is compared to the ~59m current journey time not that bad.

Those trains could likely serve Wolves in a similar journey time to the current service (a bit longer but not catastrophically so since Wolves passengers could just change at Birmingham/Birmingham International).

And as to capacity.... A 2+2 Class 350 has 235 seats, which means a 12-car formation woudl have 705 seats.
An 11-car Pendolino has 591 seats.

Even with reduced frequencies, once you account for the reduced passenger counts you are still up in capacity terms and certainly in financial terms (track access for a 12-car 350 is ~88.92p compared to ~151.62p for an 11-car Pendo.

EBW passengers from Birmingham does not give the whole story, you will be able to change at Birmingham International for Wolverhampton and any passengers joining at Birmingham International will also transfer completely.

As to Macclesfield and Stoke passengers, sharing an hourly fast train between them is unlikely to be catastrophic since there will be effectively no Manchester or Stockport passengers using them (As the former will all convert to HS2 and the latter may simply be able to travel to Manchester Airport and board a train there).

If you converted to 110mph operation there as well you would be able to keep 2tph, but I am not sure what that would do to journey times.

Your figures for ticket prices are still way way out - you assumed that the cost of construction would be written off - not going to happen. You will never fill all the trains, not even close.

No I didn't.
I assumed cost of construction would be paid over 40 years, which is frankly quite a short period to do it over.
It comes out as one of the major costs of operating the trains, I also placed the onus for repaying those costs on only 12tph rather than 18, excluding the CC trains.
If you want the marginal cost excluding capital costs it comes out even lower.
As to fill all the trains, the fact that the CC trains will pay something towards the capital costs of the route and that the payback period will likely be far longer than 40 years would tend to account for this, especially considering that you could double the peak time fares and still come nowhere near the cost of current services.

 

[tbtc]

I think those people are very optimistic, however I would say that there probably is some demand for continental services - but mostly in the peaks, or perhaps on a Friday for long weekends, holiday periods (the run up to Christmas etc)

That sounds like a reasonable forecast - I'm certainly not saying that there is *no* demand, but a single track line should be able to cope

You're still stuck in the mode of merely replicating current travel patterns - without thinking of the potential to open up new journey opportunities.

I'll ask the question again:

Okay, if I'm so stuck in my ways, tell me which great untapped services and travel patterns are waiting to be linked?

If Manchester/ Birmingham to Gatwick and Brighton isn't a big enough market for anyone to try to tap into then where in Kent is going to have a big enough market to require a frequent service to the Midlands/ "North"?

...if I'm stuck in some old fashioned way of thinking then maybe its because nobody has convinced me of any significant demand to get from Maidstone to Manchester or from Margate to Meadowhall.

Are you trying to re-write history? 'Metroland' was created not by people who couldn't afford to live in the city but those with the wealth who wanted a better standard of living with a larger house and large garden. It is no accident that outer London is Tory heartland...

Are you sniping at other people's posts?

Central London has become busier and busier over the decades, so that not everyone could afford to live there, hence housing spilling over to suburbs.

This has happened in other cities too - however romantic the "Metroland" idea is it's not unique - but that was dealing with a relatively predictable demand.

Trying to justify a direct service from Leeds. Manchester to Gillingham/ Maidstone on the basis of Metroland seems strange.

 

[transmanche]

I'll ask the question again:

Thus repeating the folly of only considering current travel patterns...

 

[Philip Elliott]

Central London has become busier and busier over the decades, so that not everyone could afford to live there, hence housing spilling over to suburbs.

Things go in one ear and out the other with you don't they? Suburbanisation did not occur because of house prices but because of a desire for better quality of life. Inner city areas are where poorer people live - suburbs are where the wealthy (middle class) tend to live.

 

[GingerSte]

That sounds like a reasonable forecast - I'm certainly not saying that there is *no* demand, but a single track line should be able to cope

Even with my (admittedly optimistic) projections for services alluded to earlier, I would agree with that. If it had been easy to fit in a 2-track link I would have gone for that, but that's not the case, and 1-track should quite easily suffice.

About 70% of Eurostars traffic to London is inward, london is a Global city.
I'm afraid I cant see visitors from Europe flocking to Birmingham or manchester.
Sales of Eurostar tickets to/ from North of London is a pretty small market even where there are easy connections.
Any flight numbers would suggest that at best the regional cities might support one train a day.
I cant really see that through services are viable even post HS2

I thought I'd seen some statistics a few years back suggesting the opposite. This could be due in part to French financial policies encouraging people to work in London, although I could quite easily be wrong (and I don't want to get into that debate).

If individual flows don't merit three or so trains a day, then groups of flows may do. Passengers from Manchester Airport to Brussels, Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Munich totalled 1.4 million last year (source: Wikipedia). Assuming rail takes 30% of this market and averaging 300 days per year (to allow for busier and quieter periods) gives roughly 1430 passengers per day. I mention these because DB were planning on running a combined service through the tunnel (from London) and splitting at Brussels for Amsterdam and Germany. A similar service from Manchester with 1450 passengers/day suggests to me 3 trains a day and average loading of 66%. This doesn't account for the possibility of extra passengers at Birmingham Airport or Old Oak Common!

 

[Metrailway]

Even with my (admittedly optimistic) projections for services alluded to earlier, I would agree with that. If it had been easy to fit in a 2-track link I would have gone for that, but that's not the case, and 1-track should quite easily suffice.



I thought I'd seen some statistics a few years back suggesting the opposite. This could be due in part to French financial policies encouraging people to work in London, although I could quite easily be wrong (and I don't want to get into that debate).

If individual flows don't merit three or so trains a day, then groups of flows may do. Passengers from Manchester Airport to Brussels, Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Munich totalled 1.4 million last year (source: Wikipedia). Assuming rail takes 30% of this market and averaging 300 days per year (to allow for busier and quieter periods) gives roughly 1430 passengers per day. I mention these because DB were planning on running a combined service through the tunnel (from London) and splitting at Brussels for Amsterdam and Germany. A similar service from Manchester with 1450 passengers/day suggests to me 3 trains a day and average loading of 66%. This doesn't account for the possibility of extra passengers at Birmingham Airport or Old Oak Common!

Rail is very unlikely to gain a 30% rail-air market share if there are only three through trains to the continent...

 

[HSTEd]

You need to match the number of flights atleast.

 

[GingerSte]

I would argue with that on two points.

1. I would imagine (admittedly with no supporting evidence) that international long distance travel is less dependent on frequency than short distance travel, as it is much more likely to be booked in advance (or at least not "turn up and go"). An early morning, a late morning and an afternoon service would most likely do the trick.
2. The capacity of a 737 aircraft varies between 120 and 170, depending on variant. A class 373 train carries 750 people. Unless you plan on carrying 5-6 times as many passengers, you're going to have a less frequent service.

 

[HSTEd]

If we assume you need 400m lashups to preserve paths on HS2, you could run a train to Brussels/Paris/Antwerp (or other location) with a single formation composed of 3 AGV-7 type trainsets. (Although a pair of Duplexes woudl be a more efficient way to get seats, but that is probably not a concern on such a small service).

Would require the Chunnel regs to be relaxed to allow non-gangwayed formations through the chunnel on the basis of it having triplicated traction systems, one of which is probably enough to pull the entire train out of the tunnel in an emergency.
Also a lot of platform space at Lille Europe or elsewhere.

 

[DW54]

The report said " ... identified a substantial demand for domestic high-speed rail services over the proposed link connecting HS1 and HS2. ..."

That is, more demand for through Midlands - Kent services than plans presently allow for.

Prior to reading the Railway Lords' proposal report in MR, I had posted on District Dave's a proposal for an "HS London Central" underground station to provide a single facility for both HS1 and HS2. A major forecast problem requiring a multi-billion pound additional project is the sheer load of arrivals at a concentrated London terminus. (ie CR2 plus all improvements necessary to LU services.)

The idea in essence was that all HS2 trains would call at OOC, HS London Central (Euston Cross/Euston St Pancras) and Stratford International. The Kent 395s would call at these and then continue West or North West, and Reading via Heathrow T5 would make a lot of sense as a through route - a route for which CR1 is less suited.

The idea required that International Trains be rerouted to the new Underground station (from whence they could continue north or west), but that all International arrivals and departures would be processed in the existing facilities in St Pancras Station. That means that secure access between platforms and Border Control would be needed. Otherwise, HS London Central would have end-to-end circulation passageways/arcades and East and West concourses connecting respectively with Euston, St Pancras and Kings Cross Western Concourse, and the Thameslink and LU concourses.

It would replace the wholesale destruction of a City block, but could necessitate some demolition in the estate north-west of the British Library.

Operationally, HS1 fast and Classic Compatible trains not proceeding South East of London would terminate at Stratford International, and run to Temple Mills for reversal servicing (eg catering, water supply, empty waste tanks). The corrollary would be that HS1 trains would run to service and reversal facilities near OOC (possibly using their original North Pole depot).

Finally, it would mean that St Pancras would have the space needed for growing MML services, that otherwise would have required costly elevated construction to the west of the current station.

As you can tell, I very firmly believe the current, slightly modified plan will leave a very unhappy legacy to future generations to sort out. The most critical will be the NLL which scarcely needs more constriction of capacity!

 

[cle]

Even with my (admittedly optimistic) projections for services alluded to earlier, I would agree with that. If it had been easy to fit in a 2-track link I would have gone for that, but that's not the case, and 1-track should quite easily suffice.



I thought I'd seen some statistics a few years back suggesting the opposite. This could be due in part to French financial policies encouraging people to work in London, although I could quite easily be wrong (and I don't want to get into that debate).

If individual flows don't merit three or so trains a day, then groups of flows may do. Passengers from Manchester Airport to Brussels, Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Munich totalled 1.4 million last year (source: Wikipedia). Assuming rail takes 30% of this market and averaging 300 days per year (to allow for busier and quieter periods) gives roughly 1430 passengers per day. I mention these because DB were planning on running a combined service through the tunnel (from London) and splitting at Brussels for Amsterdam and Germany. A similar service from Manchester with 1450 passengers/day suggests to me 3 trains a day and average loading of 66%. This doesn't account for the possibility of extra passengers at Birmingham Airport or Old Oak Common!

Sorry but the majority of people travelling to Frankfurt (Munich too, but irrelevant in a rail discussion) are connecting. Vast majority.

Same with Brussels, and to a lesser degree, Paris and Amsterdam.

You need to look at stats for people ending their journeys there.

The only way these would be viable would be for picking up passengers at Old Oak for West London and the West, Stratford for East London and the East, and Ebbsfleet/Ashford - making more St Pancras trains non-stop.

Apologies - business travel from 'the regions' is overwhelmingly to London or to cities which these journey times wouldn't be suitable. Leisure travel is elastic, and Easyjet cover that. Fares would not be able to compete, unless APD continues to shoot up. Rumours of APD cuts or autonomy in the regions suggest not.

 

[edwin_m]

The idea required that International Trains be rerouted to the new Underground station (from whence they could continue north or west), but that all International arrivals and departures would be processed in the existing facilities in St Pancras Station. That means that secure access between platforms and Border Control would be needed.

...

Operationally, HS1 fast and Classic Compatible trains not proceeding South East of London would terminate at Stratford International, and run to Temple Mills for reversal servicing (eg catering, water supply, empty waste tanks). The corrollary would be that HS1 trains would run to service and reversal facilities near OOC (possibly using their original North Pole depot).

The problem remains that anyone boarding an international train north/west of London would have to go through border controls and especially security, which means these trains could not also act as domestic trains. As well as the huge cost of these facilities at other stations, this makes it impossible to combine international and domestic on the same train, which may be the onliy way of getting a worthwhile frequency.

Trains terminating at Stratford can't go to Temple Mills as the depot junction is at the London end of the station. In any case to turn back most of the HS2 services were turning back you'd need something bigger than Temple Mills with a double track access. I'm sure space could be found somewhere such as around Dagenham.