Why are people opposed to HS2? (And other HS2 discussion)

[B&I]

Take Milton Keynes as an example, which is a town that will benefit from HS2 (despite not being served by HS2). You say that HS2 should follow the M1 corridor. The M1 itself goes nowhere near the city centre, so you'd already be looking at a different (read: compromised) alignment just to serve MKC station. And then you end up with exactly the same problem as now, funnelling trains through the same station corridor

There are places in the world other than MK, though the reference to it in a debate about HS2 is an interesting Freudian slip. But MK'S curious planning means that a station by the M1 would serve much of it almost as well as MK Central.

 

[si404]

I guess that it's because the current Liverpool - Birmingham service is more of a Regional Express than an InterCity service.

It's due to a lack of space on the WCML for 2 more fast trains, given the need to still serve the stops between Crewe and Runcorn and provide the various London/Wolverhampton connections to Warrington, Wigan and Liverpool.

Manchester-Birmingham trains exist on HS2 as if you want to build a big tunnel under Manchester you need more than 3tph each way to justify the expense!

We need NPR as a new-build line to allow things like Liverpool-Birmingham services to run on the 21st century network (they'd still run on the 19th century network whatever). Which we won't get if we scrap HS2 for costing too much - we'd stop building a new rail network, but alter the existing rail network with short new lines merely diverting legacy services (the new network would do that too, especially when it's only part-built, but has the aim of fully removing flows from the classic network) in a very inside-the-box way* - we'd see some sort of Leeds-Huddersfield fast track and some loops on the Standedge route to allow 6tph fast and improve the stoppers, but no serving Bradford or Warrington, still splitting the service west of Manchester between Airport and Liverpool, etc. NPR would involve a lot more tunnelling than HS2, the margins in the business case are tighter, etc and HS2 is needed as proof of concept of a new network overlaid on the old one.

*you know, the sort of thinking that insists that Plymouth-Aberdeen services ought to run on HS2 because Birmingham-Leeds is getting new services...

 

[B&I]

Indeed.

To add:
1) the reason that HS2 tunnels in the Chilterns is because it's the Chilterns - which have been proposed by the Glover review of designated landscapes to be England's next National Park. You could run it flat along the valley bed that forms a fairly flat corridor through (and I do mean through - there's a reason the Grand Union Canal, West Coast Mainline, Great Central Mainline and M1 were all initially proposed going through the Chilterns at the Misbourne-Wendover corridor (the GCML half does, but from Missenden south it avoids it)) the Chilterns not that far off a straight line between London and Birmingham (it is on a straight line between Denham and Solihull). NIMBYs in Amersham and surrounds, coupled with YIMBYs in Herts, moved the London-Birmingham line east onto more hilly routes), with minimal demolition/tunnelling (you'd have to have a short tunnel in the Old Amersham vicinity, and another under Chalfont St Peter), but you create issues with the chalk stream ecology, the scenic quality of the AONB, etc. So the route is heading along the sides of the valley, which means tunnels and deep cuttings to deal with gradients, and visual impact.

2) the reason that the M1 (we'll ignore the urban bit in London, and the bit through Luton/Dunstable that they physically cannot widen the alignment of the motorway without demolishing loads of housing - these bits would clearly be tunneled) is due to running through the Chilterns against the grain. OK, this part of the Chilterns is mostly not protected (purely as when they examined land to protect, someone had built a motorway there 5 years earlier! That and Herts wanted to expand Hemel and St Albans), but there's no way you will run a route that's 200km/h in that corridor that doesn't have fairly heavy earthworks and or viaducts/tunnels - to get over the more-developed-that-the-current-route 'nothing' and to deal with the hills. The M1 gets nearly as high as HS2 will, despite travelling through a lower bit of the Chilterns (the M40 at Stokenchurch crosses the 250m contour as it too ignored the natural flow of the land, HS2 will get to 160m, the M1 140m. But the M1 sits atop the hills there, whereas HS2 is always down the bottom).

3) the reason that HS1-esque follow motorways but smooth out corners approach wasn't taken with HS2 was due to the big environmental problems created by narrow islands of land trapped between railway on one side and motorway on the other, making it difficult for animals to escape and all that.

So a longer, slower, more-environmentally destructive route is proposed with apparently little reduction in cost. Why? What gains are there? Luton would be hard to serve (assuming a 4-track alignment) given the need for a tunnel to get past the urban area.

Simple question: would a route broadly following the M1 corridor (and I repeat for the literally-minded - NOT right beside the M1) cost £100 bn ?

 

[Esker-pades]

It's due to a lack of space on the WCML for 2 more fast trains, given the need to still serve the stops between Crewe and Runcorn and provide the various London/Wolverhampton connections to Warrington, Wigan and Liverpool.

Manchester-Birmingham trains exist on HS2 as you build a big tunnel under Manchester (for good reason) you need more than 3tph each way to justify the expense!

Which is why we need NPR. Which we won't get if we scrap HS2 for costing too much. NPR would involve a lot more tunnelling, the margins in the business case is less good, etc. It also, by piggybacking on the Manchester HS2 tunnel, makes that tunnel more worth building.

That makes a lot more sense. Thanks.

 

[D365]

There are places in the world other than MK, though the reference to it in a debate about HS2 is an interesting Freudian slip. But MK'S curious planning means that a station by the M1 would serve much of it almost as well as MK Central.

Why's it a Freudian slip? MKC isn't served well by Avanti at the moment. HS2 would enable more WCML trains to stop there, essentially by converting existing InterCity trains into "Regional Express" services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There are places in the world other than MK, though the reference to it in a debate about HS2 is an interesting Freudian slip. But MK'S curious planning means that a station by the M1 would serve much of it almost as well as MK Central.

Though it would not serve the large office developments in CMK nor the large shopping centre at all well.

That said, that's not the point of HS2. The point of HS2 is to add a new pair of "super fast lines" so the Avanti services are mostly removed from the fast lines, meaning you have a 4-track local railway south of Rugby and can increase services that serve MK and Watford as well as the local trains between them. So in terms of improvements for MK, it doesn't matter a jot where HS2 runs - HS2 should not stop between Old Oak and Birmingham anyway, that's kind of the whole point.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why's it a Freudian slip? MKC isn't served well by Avanti at the moment. HS2 would enable more WCML trains to stop there, essentially by converting existing InterCity trains into "Regional Express" services.

Precisely. This (capacity for both south WCML commuter services and IC[1] services serving Watford Junction, MKC and possibly others) is actually one of the main arguments for HS2.

[1] If we consider HS2 "ICE" on the often-used German model

 

[si404]

That makes a lot more sense. Thanks.

I've expanded that post. Probably made it worse as I wax lyrical about having a new network complimenting the classical - so thanks for preserving the original. I'm half asleep still and in waffle-mode!

 

[B&I]

Oh don't get me wrong. I'm very concerned about the amount. It does seem very high and I'd certainly like to know the reasons for that.I'm also sympathetic to your concerns about connections terminal stations and connections with the existing network. Personally I'd feel a lot more comfortable if all the stations were built as through stations, and Birmingham Interchange was sited where the existing Birmingham International station was and the line served Nottingham City Centre and so on and so on. But there comes a point where you have to accept that engineers and planners who know far, far, more than I do about the building railway lines have spent years studying possible routes and assessing all the various compromises you need to make to get something that's viable, and these people do actually probably know how to do their jobs. And if this is the route that those experts who have worked full time on the project have decided is the best route, then we need to accept that and get the thing built, rather than going back to the drawing board and delaying another 10 years or so while people try to work out a different route that satisfies all the competing demands various interest groups have.

I also feel more confident in accepting the route because on a number of occasions on this forum when I've questioned aspects of HS2, only to find some of those here who are involved with the rail industry patiently explain in depth why the 'obvious' solution that I thought would be better wouldn't actually work. (I realise you're relatively new here so you wouldn't have seen those discussions).

And I get the imipression that a lot of your objections amount to something like, 'don't build it because it's not absolutely perfect in every way'. Unfortunately, if we took that attitude, we'd never build anything.

I'm afraid I can't share your confidence in the people who run the railway system. From new trains in Liverpool which foul the signals, to the Castlefield debacle, to the late and far over budget Crossrail, how.many projects have we seen where we were assured that the experts knew what they were doing, and it turned out that they didn't ?

In the case of HS2, I'm not calling for a system which is perfect, or which solves every particular problem. I'm suggesting improvements which, to me, seem quite obvious, and relatively easily attainable. Does it take an expert in rail planning, for example, to question why we have terminal stations at Brum and Leeds when there is somewhere obvious for trains to go from them after leaving HS2 ?

The problem is, however, that some of these issues seem built-in to HS2 as planned. For example, if you decide to connect 4 cities with captive lines and make everything else an afterthought, it is not surprising that you end up with stib-end terminals when infrastructure enabling trains to travel onward would be much more useful.

 

[B&I]

If you mean, terminating from the East, I'm pretty sure they will only be terminating at Paddington because OOC won't have opened and HS2 won't have been built when CR opens. I'm also pretty sure that once OOC opens, those trains will terminate at OOC, not at Paddington.

You still won't have enough capacity. Crossrail will have something like 24 tph, each one shorter than the HS2 trains (half the length in the case of 'captive' HS2 trains). At least half of those CR trains will be coming from places like Heathrow, Maidenhead and Reading, and so, heading Eastwards, will be already half-full by time they reach OOC. And they won't just have HS2 passengers to contend with. An awful lot of people will arriving at OOC from places like Reading, Bristol, Oxford, and Cardiff on GWR trains, and you can expect a very high proportion of those people will be expecting to change to Crossrail at OOC to complete their journeys into central London. There's just no way Crossrail would be able to cope with all those people AND everyone off HS2 if HS2 didn't run through to Euston.

Will this additional east-west line cost more than Crossrail 2, which will presumably have to be devoted to taking HS2 pasengers away from Euston at the expense of London commuters if we apply your logic about Crossrail 1 to it ?

 

[krus_aragon]

Does it take an expert in rail planning, for example, to question why we have terminal stations at Brum and Leeds when there is somewhere obvious for trains to go from them after leaving HS2 ?

While I've found it hard to follow your argument over the past pages of discussion, this point is one I understand, accept, and agree with. (Especially in Birmingham's case; the plan for Leeds' station doesn't to be as firmly set in stone.)

 

[si404]

Simple question: would a route broadly following the M1 corridor (and I repeat for the literally-minded - NOT right beside the M1) cost £100 bn ?

No. It will cost more!

It's a less direct route (and so more mileage to build), there's as many viaducts/tunnels/earthworks in the Chilterns as the other route (which is mostly doing them for impact reduction rather than simply building the railway, unlike the M1 corridor) due to going against the grain of the hills, your plans talk about intermediate stations such as at MK (which would add to the cost) and so on.

PS: I was assuming not right beside the M1 - the problem with that the corridor is the wrong one that goes against the lie of the land (as well as pointing the wrong way to make the route as short as possible). The relatively narrow gap between Hemel and St Albans and where you cross the Chiltern Ridge will be problematic for making a cheap route - you're going to end up with a couple of M1 crossings as well as following it for a bit as you avoid the Herts towns (plus viaducts and cuttings to deal with the terrain as you go across the top of the hills, and there's little chance of getting away with anything less than a 5 mile tunnel whether you go under Luton, avoid it to the west or avoid to the east. The steep and scenic slopes of Dunstable Downs or Barton Hill, or the dense development of the urban area, won't allow it.

 

[B&I]

Astonishingly, HS2 doesn't solve every single capacity problem in the country. Here's an abridged copy & paste job from something I wrote:

Full version here.

I don't expect HS2 to solve every capacity problem in the country. However, you suggested that it will solve all the most important capacity problems. I pointed out, with the single magic world 'Castlefield', that this is not correct.

HS2 originally planned Sheffield to be a through station at Meadowhall. However, the local council wanted the line to come right into the city centre. It was not possible (without vast disruption and additional cost) to have a through station in the city centre, so it was made a dead-end terminus. Thus, this change is the fault of the local council.

It is entirely possible to have a through station at Sheffield. Other counties have built similar stations in similar locations. If HS2 was directed towards addressing capacity constraints anywhere other than the area north west of London, Brum and Manchester, the north end of Sheffield station would be the sort of place that should be tackled.

Maybe Sheffield City Council lobbied for a city centre connection because they realised that that would actually be more useful to the people of the city, rather than a park and ride some miles out.

You're dangerously off-message, btw. Other posters assure me that there will be a northbound link on to HS2 from Sheffield Midland, though they seam oddly vague about where it is going to be.

I guess that it's because the current Liverpool - Birmingham service is more of a Regional Express than an InterCity service.

At the expense of sounding like Mark Corrigan from 'Peep Show', 'what does this even mean ?' What is a regional express service ? This isn't Italy, with a ticket structure based around different types of train. Could the translation be 'mostly all shacks stopping service because we can't be bothered running a proper inner city one' ?

And even if this regional express stuff means something, why should Liverpool, with passenger numbers to Brum comparable to Manchester's, and no XC services equivalent, not receive a train to Brum via HS2 ?

 

[B&I]

It's due to a lack of space on the WCML for 2 more fast trains, given the need to still serve the stops between Crewe and Runcorn and provide the various London/Wolverhampton connections to Warrington, Wigan and Liverpool.

Manchester-Birmingham trains exist on HS2 as if you want to build a big tunnel under Manchester you need more than 3tph each way to justify the expense!

We need NPR as a new-build line to allow things like Liverpool-Birmingham services to run on the 21st century network (they'd still run on the 19th century network whatever). Which we won't get if we scrap HS2 for costing too much - we'd stop building a new rail network, but alter the existing rail network with short new lines merely diverting legacy services (the new network would do that too, especially when it's only part-built, but has the aim of fully removing flows from the classic network) in a very inside-the-box way* - we'd see some sort of Leeds-Huddersfield fast track and some loops on the Standedge route to allow 6tph fast and improve the stoppers, but no serving Bradford or Warrington, still splitting the service west of Manchester between Airport and Liverpool, etc. NPR would involve a lot more tunnelling than HS2, the margins in the business case are tighter, etc and HS2 is needed as proof of concept of a new network overlaid on the old one.

*you know, the sort of thinking that insists that Plymouth-Aberdeen services ought to run on HS2 because Birmingham-Leeds is getting new services...

What's this you say ? HS2 fails to relieve overcrowding on the 2 track stretch of the WCML between Winsford and Acton Bridge, and requires classic compatible trains to run for 40 miles (in the case of Liverpool) and over 20 (in the case of Warrington) along congested classic tracks before reaching the high speed alignment ? But I thought HS2 was the magic bullet which sorted out the WCML once and for all !

Perhaps I'll find Northern Prevaricarion Rail a more convincing solution to HS2's glaring defects when funding, or even a definite plan, for it emerges. Let's hope that, when it does, it is better planned than the current iteration of HS2. Not requiring a 15 mile dogleg and a boomerang-shaped tunnel.under central Manchester so that a glorified business park in a field near Ringway airport can be served would be a good start.

 

[matacaster]

As capacity is supposedly now the problem on WCML, why not create a new underground route from London to MK with stations along the route. As hardly any properties would need to be purchased it may work out cheaper than HS2. London terminus location not too important as it would just be a commuter route, max speed 100mph.

How much capacity for long distance services on WCML and freight would that free up?

No one has yet given figures for HS2 which show how many journeys will originate in London between say 06.00 & 09.00 and how many in Provinces. That would give an indication of where the benefit will lie (I suggest London will be the big beneficiary, NOT Manchester or Leeds!)

 

[B&I]

While I've found it hard to follow your argument over the past pages of discussion, this point is one I understand, accept, and agree with. (Especially in Birmingham's case; the plan for Leeds' station doesn't to be as firmly set in stone.)

Well thanks for that, at least.

My argument is that, assuming HS2's budget is not infinite, the finite money available should be put into building as high capacity a route as possible to bypass the most congested (southern) parts of the WCML, and then other interventions to solve particular crunch points further north, pending funding becoming available to build new high speed lines the whole way across the country, rather than spending money on engineering a route faster than any other in the world, even though trains will.probably not run at the speeds concerned.

Practically speaking, I'd suggest a 4 track route to close to Rugby, a 2 track spur from there to Brum to bypass the crowded existing line, and then continuing something like the current eastern leg from near there, albeit serving Leicester as well. The mo EU saved on not duplicating the current WCML from Rugby to Crewe (and a lower speed route south of Rugby) would then go on tackling particular capacity constraints further north (eg the aforementioned Winsford bottleneck), the southeastern approaches to Manchester, in conjunction with new long-distance lines east-west from Liverpool to Humberside and the north east.

 

[B&I]

As capacity is supposedly now the problem on WCML, why not create a new underground route from London to MK with stations along the route. As hardly any properties would need to be purchased it may work out cheaper than HS2. London terminus location not too important as it would just be a commuter route, max speed 100mph.

How much capacity for long distance services on WCML and freight would that free up?

That would make it harder to pretend that HS2 is for the north's benefit.

 

[B&I]

Why's it a Freudian slip? MKC isn't served well by Avanti at the moment. HS2 would enable more WCML trains to stop there, essentially by converting existing InterCity trains into "Regional Express" services.

Because HS2 is supposed to be all about benefitting the north, not creating added capacity for commuting into London from.surroinding counties

 

[B&I]

Though it would not serve the large office developments in CMK nor the large shopping centre at all well.

That said, that's not the point of HS2. The point of HS2 is to add a new pair of "super fast lines" so the Avanti services are mostly removed from the fast lines, meaning you have a 4-track local railway south of Rugby and can increase services that serve MK and Watford as well as the local trains between them. So in terms of improvements for MK, it doesn't matter a jot where HS2 runs - HS2 should not stop between Old Oak and Birmingham anyway, that's kind of the whole point.

Some refreshing honesty here about the principal reason for HS2.

The reason for a stop somewhere between London and Brum is not.primarily to get more people from the destination in question to London, but to.allow more people coming from the north to reach that area, particularly without going into London and out again. On a 4 track railway, this should be possible. I'd suggest a parkway station, connected to the MML, at Luton.

 

[B&I]

No. It will cost more!

It's a less direct route (and so more mileage to build), there's as many viaducts/tunnels/earthworks in the Chilterns as the other route (which is mostly doing them for impact reduction rather than simply building the railway, unlike the M1 corridor) due to going against the grain of the hills, your plans talk about intermediate stations such as at MK (which would add to the cost) and so on.

PS: I was assuming not right beside the M1 - the problem with that the corridor is the wrong one that goes against the lie of the land (as well as pointing the wrong way to make the route as short as possible). The relatively narrow gap between Hemel and St Albans and where you cross the Chiltern Ridge will be problematic for making a cheap route - you're going to end up with a couple of M1 crossings as well as following it for a bit as you avoid the Herts towns (plus viaducts and cuttings to deal with the terrain as you go across the top of the hills, and there's little chance of getting away with anything less than a 5 mile tunnel whether you go under Luton, avoid it to the west or avoid to the east. The steep and scenic slopes of Dunstable Downs or Barton Hill, or the dense development of the urban area, won't allow it.

It was my understanding that rather a large proportion of HS2 through the Chilterns will be in tunnel. Are you sure that a route further east would be more expensive ?

 

[JamesT]

It is entirely possible to have a through station at Sheffield. Other counties have built similar stations in similar locations. If HS2 was directed towards addressing capacity constraints anywhere other than the area north west of London, Brum and Manchester, the north end of Sheffield station would be the sort of place that should be tackled.

Maybe Sheffield City Council lobbied for a city centre connection because they realised that that would actually be more useful to the people of the city, rather than a park and ride some miles out.

You're dangerously off-message, btw. Other posters assure me that there will be a northbound link on to HS2 from Sheffield Midland, though they seam oddly vague about where it is going to be.

The route announcement from 2016 - https://assets.publishing.service.g...eyond-phase-2b-route-decision-web-version.pdf - shows links to HS2 both North and South of Sheffield. This does restrict Sheffield to only the Classic Compatibles as it will be using the existing route in and out of the station (once it's electrified).

 

[MarkyT]

'Potentially' 'it should' 'it is possible'. Not 'it will'.

And for £100 bn Glasgow gets.... 24 minutes shaved off. That'll persuade lots of people out of their planes.

Actually 40 minutes. I've corrected my previous post, and that's without clawing back any of the 10 minutes non tilt penalty north of Wigan with better performance and a targeted review of speeds. 50 minutes saving, as for Preston, should be feasible for Scotland IMHO. TPE services between Scotland and NW will also be able to benefit from increased non tilt speeds.

 

[Senex]

I'm afraid I can't share your confidence in the people who run the railway system. From new trains in Liverpool which foul the signals, to the Castlefield debacle, to the late and far over budget Crossrail, how.many projects have we seen where we were assured that the experts knew what they were doing, and it turned out that they didn't ?

In the case of HS2, I'm not calling for a system which is perfect, or which solves every particular problem. I'm suggesting improvements which, to me, seem quite obvious, and relatively easily attainable. Does it take an expert in rail planning, for example, to question why we have terminal stations at Brum and Leeds when there is somewhere obvious for trains to go from them after leaving HS2 ?

The problem is, however, that some of these issues seem built-in to HS2 as planned. For example, if you decide to connect 4 cities with captive lines and make everything else an afterthought, it is not surprising that you end up with stib-end terminals when infrastructure enabling trains to travel onward would be much more useful.

Who could disagree with your first paragraph? There have certainly been some great achievements—I'd cite Reading for one—but your list of débacles could indeed be hugely extended.

I do disagree, however, even if slightly, with your last paragraph. If you look at the planned junction-speeds and the layout of the lines as they approach Birmingham, Manchester, and Leeds, the main line from London heads direct to a junction into the WCML around Golborne on the west side and to a junction into the ECML around Church Fenton on the east side, and Birmingham, Manchester, and Leeds are all served by branches. This is a "London and ..." railway, not a railway to connect four cities. It replicates the present main lines, with an eventual target (many years away!) of Scotland.

 

[HSTEd]

I do disagree, however, even if slightly, with your last paragraph. If you look at the planned junction-speeds and the layout of the lines as they approach Birmingham, Manchester, and Leeds, the main line from London heads direct to a junction into the WCML around Golborne on the west side and to a junction into the ECML around Church Fenton on the east side, and Birmingham, Manchester, and Leeds are all served by branches. This is a "London and ..." railway, not a railway to connect four cities. It replicates the present main lines, with an eventual target (many years away!) of Scotland.

What's wrong with Branches?
With modern rolling stock the time penalty from reversing is minor and why would they need to go to more than two of these cities anyway?

This saves money as each city only needs one route into the centre.

 

[jfowkes]

Some refreshing honesty here about the principal reason for HS2.

I haven't seen a lot of dishonesty about the reasons for HS2? For the last 141 pages people have been screaming that it's primarily about capacity on the southern WCML. There are lots of other benefits too, but the biggest single impact will be there. Doesn't mean the benefits north of Birmingham aren't just as important, but the "headline" benefit in terms of sheer capacity uplift is the Birmingham-London section.

It was my understanding that rather a large proportion of HS2 through the Chilterns will be in tunnel. Are you sure that a route further east would be more expensive ?

Even if in theory it would have been less expensive when planning it, it's surely more expensive now to throw away the current HS2 plans and completely realign the route through a new corridor? Not to mention the extra delay to the project.

 

[Esker-pades]

I don't expect HS2 to solve every capacity problem in the country. However, you suggested that it will solve all the most important capacity problems. I pointed out, with the single magic world 'Castlefield', that this is not correct.

I didn't though. HS2 solves some important capacity problems. Others need other schemes.

It is entirely possible to have a through station at Sheffield. Other counties have built similar stations in similar locations. If HS2 was directed towards addressing capacity constraints anywhere other than the area north west of London, Brum and Manchester, the north end of Sheffield station would be the sort of place that should be tackled.

I illustrated my understanding above, based on what people who work on it have said*. You'll note my qualification of the words 'not possible'. Saying that certain things have been done in other countries is slightly misleading, because there is a lot of local variability. Further, we don't tend to hear about the stuff that hasn't happened elsewhere, only the stuff that has.

I agree Sheffield running north is a capacity problem.

*Of course, my memory is fallable. Somebody like @Bald Rick or similar may be able to provide a definitive answer on the Sheffield question.

Maybe Sheffield City Council lobbied for a city centre connection because they realised that that would actually be more useful to the people of the city, rather than a park and ride some miles out.

As I understand (as stated before), the choice is either a dedicated HS2 through station at Meadowhall, or a stub terminus in the middle.

You're dangerously off-message, btw. Other posters assure me that there will be a northbound link on to HS2 from Sheffield Midland, though they seam oddly vague about where it is going to be.

Again, as I understand, plans for a link northbound from Sheffield Centre back to HS2 are not that far advanced*. However, HS2's website does state that:

The use of Sheffield Midland for HS2 services also opens the possibility of running high speed trains from Sheffield to Leeds via a dedicated link to the main HS2 line. This link would deliver the NPR ambition for a frequent 30 minute journey time between Leeds and Sheffield. This link might also be used by Birmingham-Leeds HS2 services, allowing them to route through Sheffield. It is being considered by Transport for the North as part of their work on Northern Powerhouse Rail.

https://www.hs2.org.uk/stations/sheffield-midland/
....which means there is grounds to argue that there will be a northbound link.

Also, just because HS2 won't physically go north from Sheffield centre doesn't mean that the trains won't.

At the expense of sounding like Mark Corrigan from 'Peep Show', 'what does this even mean ?' What is a regional express service ? This isn't Italy, with a ticket structure based around different types of train. Could the translation be 'mostly all shacks stopping service because we can't be bothered running a proper inner city one' ?

And even if this regional express stuff means something, why should Liverpool, with passenger numbers to Brum comparable to Manchester's, and no XC services equivalent, not receive a train to Brum via HS2 ?

Here's a thread on the matter: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...c-but-liverpool-brum-regional-express.197629/

There's also been a much more detailed comment (#4202) with an explanation.

Re. Phase 1, the problem will come down to capacity between Crewe and Weaver Junction (my guess). After HS2 progresses up to near Wigan, I don't see why a Birmingham to Liverpool express shouldn't be on the cards. There is still plenty of time to lobby Network Rail when they start to draw up more concrete timetables.

 

[D365]

Sheffield to Leeds high speed may fall under NPR, from what I recall.

 

[Esker-pades]

Sheffield to Leeds high speed may fall under NPR, from what I recall.

That's what HS2's website suggests, yes.

 

[Ianno87]

Even if in theory it would have been less expensive when planning it, it's surely more expensive now to throw away the current HS2 plans and completely realign the route through a new corridor? Not to mention the extra delay to the project.

Yes, the cost involved in essentially going back to the drawing board and doing the whole Phase 1 process again (remembering routes via the M1 corridor were specifically ruled out at an early stage due to the extra distance required) would almost certainly negate, or be even more than, any saving in physical construction costs (if there are any to be had at all, given that getting into Central London will be equally difficult, not withstanding the probable loss of the Old Oak Common interchange onto Crossrail as a result).

 

[krus_aragon]

My argument is that, assuming HS2's budget is not infinite, the finite money available should be put into building as high capacity a route as possible to bypass the most congested (southern) parts of the WCML, and then other interventions to solve particular crunch points further north, pending funding becoming available to build new high speed lines the whole way across the country, rather than spending money on engineering a route faster than any other in the world, even though trains will.probably not run at the speeds concerned.

That sounds quite similar to "cut HS2 back to phase 1, plus revised plans for the north" to me. Which is something I can certainly get behind.

Practically speaking, I'd suggest a 4 track route to close to Rugby, a 2 track spur from there to Brum to bypass the crowded existing line, and then continuing something like the current eastern leg from near there, albeit serving Leicester as well. The mo EU saved on not duplicating the current WCML from Rugby to Crewe (and a lower speed route south of Rugby) would then go on tackling particular capacity constraints further north (eg the aforementioned Winsford bottleneck), the southeastern approaches to Manchester, in conjunction with new long-distance lines east-west from Liverpool to Humberside and the north east.

Again, that sounds broadly similar to the HS2 phase 1 plan: you'll end up with a new-build railway between London and Birmingham, plus the option to run through trains from London to "The North" as well.

As for the differences in price from a change of route or redesigning for lower maximum speeds (and the delay in returning to the design board), I don't have the figures and estimates to debate that issue competently.


(P.S. Did you mean building a new 4-track route from London-Rugby, in addition to the existing WCML? That's be a lot of additional capacity, but I'm not sure what the cost of the third and fourth tracks would be.)