Two parts of the HS2 Phase 1 route can now be simplified.

[LNW-GW Joint]

Two parts of the HS2 Phase 1 route can now be simplified.
One is the provision at Water Orton for a junction towards East Midlands Parkway.
The other is at the intended Lichfield Junction between the Phase 1 and Phase 2 routes.
This would have made the Phase 2 route the primary, with the curve to Handsacre and the WCML being a grade-separated branch.
That can be reduced to a plain line route, now the main line, to Handsacre.

On the other hand there may be new interest in Phase 1 connections with the classic network around Birmingham, towards New St and Derby.

 

[Noddy]

On the other hand there may be new interest in Phase 1 connections with the classic network around Birmingham, towards New St and Derby.

With the scrapping of both the western and eastern arms, this makes absolutely no sense at all and I say that as someone who would have been in favour of it to allow through running to the south west/south Wales.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

Would it speed up Sheffield to London going that way?

The way I read it, from the moment it becomes available all of the capacity of the revised Euston HS will be taken up with HS2 services to/from Curzon St and the WCML beyond Handsacre.

 

[Nottingham59]

The way I read it, from the moment it becomes available all of the capacity of the revised Euston HS will be taken up with HS2 services to/from Curzon St and the WCML beyond Handsacre.

That depends on the capacity of Colwich Junction, and the detailed redesign of Euston, which is still to be decided. (e.g. Will the now empty fast platforms at Euston be accessible from the tunnels?)

Depending how much gets built as part of Phase 1, it could be cheaper and easier to build a curve towards Derby than to grade separate Colwich.

 

[The Planner]

Two parts of the HS2 Phase 1 route can now be simplified.
One is the provision at Water Orton for a junction towards East Midlands Parkway.
The other is at the intended Lichfield Junction between the Phase 1 and Phase 2 routes.
This would have made the Phase 2 route the primary, with the curve to Handsacre and the WCML being a grade-separated branch.
That can be reduced to a plain line route, now the main line, to Handsacre.

On the other hand there may be new interest in Phase 1 connections with the classic network around Birmingham, towards New St and Derby.

Too far gone for a redesign, which would probably save little money. Fradley Jn saves a flyover, not a lot else.

Depending on how much of the junction gets built as part of phase 1, there's a good case for a curve onto the Birmingham - Derby line around Kingsbury. To avoid building a second bridge over the M42, the curve would have to be quite tight and slow.

Fitting around existing flows might require using the outer tracks at Burton as passing loops, and/or faster stock than 170s for the Cardiff-Nottingham traffic. And electrifying Water Orton to Derby, of course.

Would it speed up Sheffield to London going that way? Certainly would relieve the southern MML by having fewer long distance non-stop trains.

It would need a lot more than Burton to get any decent amount of extra capacity along there. Sheffield wouldnt be any quicker.

(e.g. Will the now empty fast platforms at Euston be accessible from the tunnels?)

No. As repeatedly mentioned, the height difference doesnt allow that.

 

[Nottingham59]

No. As repeatedly mentioned, the height difference doesnt allow that.

It's only around 4m difference in elevation. Which is 100m at 1 in 25 gradient, plus the transition curves.

Given they will be reducing the HS2 throat anyway, and eliminating the crossover, then there should be space and scope to access at least platforms 15 and 16 in the main shed. These platforms will be unused after HS2 reaches Handsacre.

Not that I'm expecting Sunak's redesign to include any such possibility.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

That depends on the capacity of Colwich Junction, and the detailed redesign of Euston, which is still to be decided. (e.g. Will the now empty fast platforms at Euston be accessible from the tunnels?)

What is decided at the moment is that Euston HS will be 6 platforms and there won't be any connection from the HS2 tunnels into the existing Euston platforms.

I don't believe anything to do with UK rail infrastructure is either cheap or easy, especially if it has anything to do with HS2. A curve, and its associated (grade separated?) junctions, off HS2 towards Derby could only be used if the definitely not cheap or easy work of making at least an extra platform available at Euston is done. You can't just assume that it will appear by accident. If its only purpose is to provide capacity for the Sheffield service you propose, the cost of providing it is attached to your proposal.

Depending how much gets built as part of Phase 1, it could be cheaper and easier to build a curve towards Derby than to grade separate Colwich.

I'm not clear why an HS2 curve towards Derby would impinge on Colwich, but there is nothing planned there* either. The cancelling of HS2.2a might mean grade separation now becomes a priority for Network Rail, because that, on its own, buys extra west coast capacity north of Handsacre, which will now be at a premium.

*The Colwich remodelling of the late 1970's was the first job I worked on when I joined BR, so I know it fairly well. I would guess a grade separated junction would be located some way south of Colwich itself with the tracks separated by route northwards from there. If it's done, I'll make a point of going to watch the diamond being taken out and chucked on the scrap pile.

 

[Nottingham59]

I'm not clear why an HS2 curve towards Derby would impinge on Colwich,

With just phase 1, capacity limits at Colwich mean that for every long distance train arriving at HS2 Euston, there will be one fewer long distance train on the WCML.

If you want to exploit the capacity of HS2 to provide more long distance trains into Euston, then you need to either grade separate Colwich, or route long distance trains onto HS2 from elsewhere.

My assumption is that a junction at Kingsbury might be cheaper than rebuilding Colwich.

 

[The Planner]

It's only around 4m difference in elevation. Which is 100m at 1 in 25 gradient, plus the transition curves.

Given they will be reducing the HS2 throat anyway, and eliminating the crossover, then there should be space and scope to access at least platforms 15 and 16 in the main shed. These platforms will be unused after HS2 reaches Handsacre.

Not that I'm expecting Sunak's redesign to include any such possibility.

Why are 15 and 16 going to be unused?

 

[Nottingham59]

Why are 15 and 16 going to be unused?

Because all the traffic from the North West and from Birmingham will go via HS2. There won't be enough demand from Milton Keynes, Coventry and the Trent Valley to fill 14tph on the WCML fasts.

And mostly commuters, so platform turnaround times at Euston will be quicker too. So fewer platforms needed in the main shed.

 

[The Planner]

Because all the traffic from the North West and from Birmingham will go via HS2. There won't be enough demand from Milton Keynes, Coventry and the Trent Valley to fill 14tph on the WCML fasts.

And mostly commuters, so platform turnaround times at Euston will be quicker too. So fewer platforms needed in the main shed.

15 and 16 won't be going anywhere.

 

[350401]

There were plans to have two platforms dual connected to both HS2 and the classic WCML. Hopefully that will still happen; and we can can 8 platforms usable for high speed services. We’re basically going back to the drawing board for Euston, yet again, so if it’s possible, then it should be done.

 

[Energy]

There were plans to have two platforms dual connected to both HS2 and the classic WCML.

Yes, the Euston 10 platform plans have 2 mixed-use platforms which could be used by either.

Euston would likely be a 'we will see', Rishi wants it funded by oversight development.

What I want is a tender put out for a full Euston rebuild with finance and construction done by a 3rd party, in exchange they get a 30-40 year (or longer) concession to lease out the oversite development for office or residential space.

 

[The Planner]

There were plans to have two platforms dual connected to both HS2 and the classic WCML. Hopefully that will still happen; and we can can 8 platforms usable for high speed services. We’re basically going back to the drawing board for Euston, yet again, so if it’s possible, then it should be done.

That was under RECS (rebuild/renovation/whatever of Euston conventional station). I would suspect all bets are off there.

 

[JamesT]

I was under the impression that the HS2 and classic sides of the station were planned to be at such different levels that it wouldn’t be possible to get between the two track wise.

 

[Nottingham59]

I was under the impression that the HS2 and classic sides of the station were planned to be at such different levels that it wouldn’t be possible to get between the two track wise.

About 4m difference in elevation. You'd need around 200m of incline in the throat to get from one to the other. But Rishi is redesigning Euston (again)

 

[zwk500]

About 4m difference in elevation. You'd need around 200m of incline in the throat to get from one to the other. But Rishi is redesigning Euston (again)

You'd need an exemption from the standards for 1:50 and that's only going to be possible from beyond the north end of the platforms, so you'd be chasing the classic lines up Camden Bank. Not impossible but the steepness will cause additional concerns about making sure there are clear runs for departures and steady approaches for arrivals.

 

[Nottingham59]

You'd need an exemption from the standards for 1:50 and that's only going to be possible from beyond the north end of the platforms, so you'd be chasing the classic lines up Camden Bank. Not impossible but the steepness will cause additional concerns about making sure there are clear runs for departures and steady approaches for arrivals.

I was thinking more along the lines of shortening platform 16 to 265m and accessing just 16 and 15 from a single track spur coming up from the HS2 throat. So avoiding Camden Bank.

A 6MW EMU with all axles driven will easily cope with
a 1:25 gradient.

 

[Meerkat]

Too far gone for a redesign, which would probably save little money. Fradley Jn saves a flyover, not a lot else.

Saving pride might be a factor. Having a flyover to nowhere or blatant stubs is an invitation for photos of them to be used against the government DfT.
I can’t remember what the designs are - how much could be just not done, without really changing the design?

 

[The Planner]

Saving pride might be a factor. Having a flyover to nowhere or blatant stubs is an invitation for photos of them to be used against the government DfT.
I can’t remember what the designs are - how much could be just not done, without really changing the design?

Because there aren't numerous examples of it on the road network are there! You would just build the earthworks up to where the up line goes under the stub to phase 2A. That section wouldn't get built.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7e4c7040f0b62305b8218b/C223-CSI-CV-DPP-030-000012.pdf

 

[Meerkat]

Roads seem to operate under different PR though!
That sounds like what I was thinking anyway - not building a bridge and not building the sticking out bit rather than completely redesigning it.
And there’s a bridge over the canal that doesn’t need building now on that plan (not sure why phase 1 would build that anyway??)

 

[zwk500]

Roads seem to operate under different PR though!

Plenty of 'bridges to nowhere' on the road network, Glasgow M8 and the M23 among the more notable examples.

Glasgow

Glasgow

maps.app.goo.gl

Coulsdon

maps.app.goo.gl