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

[Bald Rick]

Passenger numbers may well have fallen in 2018 because of the strikes and the timetable chaos. I don't think the decline will be maintained now things are heading back to normality on those fronts.

Strikes definitely, and there is clear evidence about that.

Timetable ‘chaos’. Not so much, at least not in London. GTR was the most affected, and put on nearly 5% growth year on year in the ‘chaos’ period.

 

[LM93]

Do we know the VT passenger numbers growth or decline?

 

[Bald Rick]

Do we know the VT passenger numbers growth or decline?

Oops I was using old data.

The Q3 year on year growth for passenger numbers for GTR is 10%.

Virgin WC for Q3 is 3%, and 2.5% in terms of passenger km. both year on year.

Q4 and 18/19 annual data is out on 13 June. All on the ORR website. Expect growth to be back in London & SE.

 

[LM93]

Oops I was using old data.

The Q3 year on year growth for passenger numbers for GTR is 10%.

Virgin WC for Q3 is 3%, and 2.5% in terms of passenger km. both year on year.

Q4 and 18/19 annual data is out on 13 June. All on the ORR website. Expect growth to be back in London & SE.

Thanks, thought there would have been growth, Virgin weren't really affected by strikes or timetable change. Shows the case for HS2 isnt in decline based on passenger info anyway.

 

[Geezertronic]

Passenger numbers may well have fallen in 2018 because of the strikes and the timetable chaos. I don't think the decline will be maintained now things are heading back to normality on those fronts.

And that is a good argument for not cancelling HS2 and replacing it with another wholesale major upgrade to & alongside the length of the WCML as the constant nightly & weekend disruption/closures/rail replacement would have a detrimental effect on passenger numbers as well which some would then wrongly use as a valid reason why HS2 wasn't needed in the first place

 

[jayah]

No, there isn't a need really. But jayah is telling us it can be done. I'd just like to see how.

If it can be done at Euston it can be done at St Pancras.

 

[jayah]

But as been explained numerous times it simply wasn't possible to build new platforms under Birmingham New Street itself and Curzon Street to New Street isn't a million miles apart, it's no further then the walking distance from the mainline platforms at Kings Cross to the Thameslink platforms at St Pancras so your view is null and void.

IC services won't stop serving New Street as you still have the WCML Non HS2 IC services, XC services as well as local and regional services so not a disaster as you are making it out to be!

You will have local transport networks split across the two sites and huge numbers of people making this awful transit outdoors between the stations. What do you expect the NRT connection already allowance to be? In many cases it will negate the benefit of the higher speed.

 

[Clip]

If it can be done at Euston it can be done at St Pancras.

Can you show us how it can be done at St Pancras please.. Just do an overlay over a map or something as Euston has far more room thab St pancras does so id be interested in seeing this.

 

[Clip]

You will have local transport networks split across the two sites and huge numbers of people making this awful transit outdoors between the stations. What do you expect the NRT connection already allowance to be? In many cases it will negate the benefit of the higher speed.

People connect between main terminals in London - why is this a problem to happen in birmingham

 

[Aictos]

You will have local transport networks split across the two sites and huge numbers of people making this awful transit outdoors between the stations. What do you expect the NRT connection already allowance to be? In many cases it will negate the benefit of the higher speed.

Wow and this is no different to Kings Cross/St Pancras or Birmingham New Street/Moor Street exactly?

Well done on completely ignoring the fact that just like today with the Snow Hill lines serving Moor Street and the Cross City line serving New Street which people cope fine with with no issues, New Street and Moor Street will continue to operate as they always have and as to the rubbish about the NRT connection being increased and negating the benefit of the higher speed I doubt you have actually used Birmingham otherwise you know full well that times between Moor Street and New Street aren't going to increase and connection times between Curzon Street and New Street can easily be made within 15 minutes maybe even faster once all 4 Birmingham stations are linked by the Metro which isn't the end of the world as you seen to babbled on about.

 

[Polarbear]

If it can be done at Euston it can be done at St Pancras.

I, and others have asked you before - where would those new platforms go at St Pancras? I've suggested one location to you, which you derided, so if you are going to continue to make sweeping generalisations, I, and others, expect you to back those statements up with facts.

 

[jayah]

I, and others have asked you before - where would those new platforms go at St Pancras? I've suggested one location to you, which you derided, so if you are going to continue to make sweeping generalisations, I, and others, expect you to back those statements up with facts.

Your 'suggestion' of demolishing the British Library was contemptible. I don't have to go and measure the site for you, and I won't.

 

[sprunt]

I don't have to go and measure the site for you, and I won't.

"I don't know" would have been quicker to type.

 

[Polarbear]

Your 'suggestion' of demolishing the British Library was contemptible. I don't have to go and measure the site for you, and I won't.

With respect, it is only you that seems to find my remark "contemptible". It was tongue in cheek as stated before.

You, on the other hand, are demonstrating a fair bit of contempt for many on this thread & forum, who have asked you on many occasions to back up your assertions with some facts & practical ideas of how things could be better done than the current HS2 proposals.

No one is asking you to "measure the site", but anyone with a modicum of knowledge about the layout of St Pancras would know that the four current EMT platforms are hemmed in on the west side of the site. There is no room to expand to the east as the Eurostar & South Eastern platforms are there, and to the west, there is a road, followed by the British Library.

So I will ask you again - where would you locate those extra platforms at St Pancras, that you would need to inact your proposed 10 car trains on the MML. It's been explained by others why the additional platforms would be needed.

Oh, and I believe The Ham posted a couple of questions to you which you haven't had the courtesy to respond to as yet.

 

[Chester1]

With respect, it is only you that seems to find my remark "contemptible". It was tongue in cheek as stated before.

You, on the other hand, are demonstrating a fair bit of contempt for many on this thread & forum, who have asked you on many occasions to back up your assertions with some facts & practical ideas of how things could be better done than the current HS2 proposals.

No one is asking you to "measure the site", but anyone with a modicum of knowledge about the layout of St Pancras would know that the four current EMT platforms are hemmed in on the west side of the site. There is no room to expand to the east as the Eurostar & South Eastern platforms are there, and to the west, there is a road, followed by the British Library.

So I will ask you again - where would you locate those extra platforms at St Pancras, that you would need to inact your proposed 10 car trains on the MML. It's been explained by others why the additional platforms would be needed.

Oh, and I believe The Ham posted a couple of questions to you which you haven't had the courtesy to respond to as yet.

The only terminal with space to expand is Euston thanks to the HS2 demolitions. Diverting MML and Chiltern trains by building tunnels to Euston might be feasible but hugely expensive. They might as well just build a longer tunnel to Old Oak Common....

 

[Ianno87]

You will have local transport networks split across the two sites and huge numbers of people making this awful transit outdoors between the stations. What do you expect the NRT connection already allowance to be? In many cases it will negate the benefit of the higher speed.

The connection is easily possible in 10-15 minutes for most people who are able-bodies and roughly knowing where they are going; most passengers may make an earlier onwards connection than NRE may advertise. I suspect by far the greatest % of arriving passengers will be bound for the city centre anyway, in which case Curzon Street/New St is swings and roundabouts.

It must also be noted that:
-Being right next door to Moor St (in effect the same station) will substantially improve the interchange from the Snow Hill lines (the local transport network is already effectively split), and
-Should the Camp Hill chords be built, that's more connectivity from Moor Street, and
-Classic WCML services to Euston are not going to evaporate for those people that really don't want to make the interchange between the two, and
-Some passengers will have the option of changing at International rather than New Street, using the people mover to get to Interchange for HS2

Again, I would like to understand what a reasonable, practical, affordable and local palatable alternative solution to the Curzon Street site would be. It is a necessary compromise between build-ability and passenger connectivity.

 

[mushroomchow]

No one is asking you to "measure the site", but anyone with a modicum of knowledge about the layout of St Pancras would know that the four current EMT platforms are hemmed in on the west side of the site. There is no room to expand to the east as the Eurostar & South Eastern platforms are there, and to the west, there is a road, followed by the British Library.

So I will ask you again - where would you locate those extra platforms at St Pancras, that you would need to inact your proposed 10 car trains on the MML. It's been explained by others why the additional platforms would be needed.

If I may wade in, it's by no means an engineering impossibility to squeeze out one or maybe two additional platforms on the west side of the MML terminus. With some minor redesigns to the Pancras Rd. / Midland Rd. junction, which is a minor one-way road and a taxi rank south of the junction, and at most a partial demolition of the brick shop units opposite at their southern end, you could build a structure that does the job you ask with no impact on the British Museum and within a track profile that doesn't have a major impact on St. Pancras church. Close up Midland Road, send the bus traffic under the existing tunnel (which I'm fairly sure is profiled to accept double-deckers) to Pancras Road, and extend the taxi rank to take up an expanded subterranean area under the new structure. There may even be scope for an extended concourse for MML passengers in the freed-up space, which is sorely needed - the crush at the gates, lack of seating and cramped walk through the terminus from the current exit is one of the only disappointing aspects of an otherwise brilliant station.

Maybe two weeks in the States has got me thinking too blue-sky for the "it can't be done" attitude so prevalent in this country when it comes to any sort of major engineering project though. I've gone from riding on a new 4-lane highway carved through mountains to finding out I need planning permission to move a 15ft portakabin to the other side of our site, so my awareness of the NIMBYism and negative approach to any sort of engineering challenge endemic in our society is somewhat amplified at the moment. Rule Britannia.

 

[RLBH]

Some passengers will have the option of changing at International rather than New Street, using the people mover to get to Interchange for HS2

I'm sure this has been addressed elsewhere - but if Interchange is meant to be, well, an interchange - why on earth is it a mile or so from anything to change on to? I can't see anything that would prevent HS2 running in to new platforms at Birmingham International, then curve north-east towards to cross the M6 near the planned location. A 'people mover', whatever that turns out to be in practice, is all well and good, but actually being in the same place to start with is even better.

 

[Ianno87]

I'm sure this has been addressed elsewhere - but if Interchange is meant to be, well, an interchange - why on earth is it a mile or so from anything to change on to? I can't see anything that would prevent HS2 running in to new platforms at Birmingham International, then curve north-east towards to cross the M6 near the planned location. A 'people mover', whatever that turns out to be in practice, is all well and good, but actually being in the same place to start with is even better.

I think HS2 have thought it prudent to put the HS2 station on the ideal alignment for HS2.

Not entirely sure where 'new platforms at Birmingham International' are supposed to fit - Airport one side, NEC the other...

 

[Eddd]

The only terminal with space to expand is Euston thanks to the HS2 demolitions. Diverting MML and Chiltern trains by building tunnels to Euston might be feasible but hugely expensive. They might as well just build a longer tunnel to Old Oak Common....

The original report by HS2 lays out why Euston is the only realistic option for major station expansion, though burying a station under a royal park was deemed technically but not politically feasible:
https://webarchive.nationalarchives...ghspeedrail/hs2ltd/hs2report/pdf/chapter3.pdf
The decision was subsequently confirmed in a useful study that addressed a wide range of the alternatives to HS2 and components of HS2 that are frequently proposed:
https://assets.publishing.service.g...16/Vol1_Alternatives_Report_CT-002-000_wm.pdf

 

[quantinghome]

I'm sure this has been addressed elsewhere - but if Interchange is meant to be, well, an interchange - why on earth is it a mile or so from anything to change on to? I can't see anything that would prevent HS2 running in to new platforms at Birmingham International, then curve north-east towards to cross the M6 near the planned location. A 'people mover', whatever that turns out to be in practice, is all well and good, but actually being in the same place to start with is even better.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...velopment_of_the_HS2_Proposed_Scheme_v1.6.pdf

The interchange is to the east of the M42 so that the HS2 route can continue northwards to the Birmingham Junction at Water Orton, following the existing motorway corridor so far as possible avoiding residential areas. However, a consequence of this location is that a people mover would be necessary to connect the Interchange with the NEC (1 mile (1.5km) away), Birmingham International station (1.2 miles (1.9km)) and the airport terminal (1.4 miles (2.3km)).

I would imagine the disruption and cost of fitting in the station footprint next to the existing station would have been a pretty big consideration as well.

 

[option]

I think HS2 have thought it prudent to put the HS2 station on the ideal alignment for HS2.

Not entirely sure where 'new platforms at Birmingham International' are supposed to fit - Airport one side, NEC the other...

Above, & likely at an angle to the existing line.
Most of the HS2 route around BHX is due to be on embankment.
There's very little north of the existing station along Bickenhill Lane, south is largely car parks.

Not only would it give a direct interchange with multiple rail services, but also direct access to the NEC & Airport, bus routes & existing car parking.

People movers don't have a good history in the UK, & the ones that still exist do relatively short routes.
Merry Hill had a monorail, didn't last long.

 

[RLBH]

Not entirely sure where 'new platforms at Birmingham International' are supposed to fit - Airport one side, NEC the other...

Rather a lot of car parking thereabouts that could be used for the purpose, and probably follow more or less the line of Bickenhill Road through the Birmingham International area. There's even a nice looking corridor east of Coleshill Heath Road north of the NEC that the line could run through. You'd need to demolish a few dozen houses and possibly rethink the road network around the airport/NEC area, but wouldn't need to build and maintain a 'people mover' and a new road access to a station built in the middle of a field.

 

[The Planner]

Rather a lot of car parking thereabouts that could be used for the purpose, and probably follow more or less the line of Bickenhill Road through the Birmingham International area. There's even a nice looking corridor east of Coleshill Heath Road north of the NEC that the line could run through. You'd need to demolish a few dozen houses and possibly rethink the road network around the airport/NEC area, but wouldn't need to build and maintain a 'people mover' and a new road access to a station built in the middle of a field.

With that sort of curvature, what speed do you expect to be able to maintain?

 

[EM2]

Your 'suggestion' of demolishing the British Library was contemptible. I don't have to go and measure the site for you, and I won't.

Will you accept the expertise of someone who worked there for eight years?

 

[EM2]

If I may wade in, it's by no means an engineering impossibility to squeeze out one or maybe two additional platforms on the west side of the MML terminus. With some minor redesigns to the Pancras Rd. / Midland Rd. junction, which is a minor one-way road and a taxi rank south of the junction, and at most a partial demolition of the brick shop units opposite at their southern end, you could build a structure that does the job you ask with no impact on the British Museum and within a track profile that doesn't have a major impact on St. Pancras church.

What about the residents of the flats on the other side of Midland Road? These ones:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.532...4!1scJSQllg3-V30pb4I-__hkA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

 

[Ianno87]

People movers don't have a good history in the UK, & the ones that still exist do relatively short routes.
Merry Hill had a monorail, didn't last long.

You mean like the one that already connects Birmingham International to the Airport and has done successfully for many years (save for the few years after the former maglev system broke)?

 

[Geezertronic]

Rather a lot of car parking thereabouts that could be used for the purpose, and probably follow more or less the line of Bickenhill Road through the Birmingham International area. There's even a nice looking corridor east of Coleshill Heath Road north of the NEC that the line could run through. You'd need to demolish a few dozen houses and possibly rethink the road network around the airport/NEC area, but wouldn't need to build and maintain a 'people mover' and a new road access to a station built in the middle of a field.

Whilst the location of Interchange is in the middle of a field (and an old MX Track), it is hardly out of the way. I pass it every day on my way down the A452

 

[Bald Rick]

You mean like the one that already connects Birmingham International to the Airport and has done successfully for many years (save for the few years after the former maglev system broke)?

Or those that have connected Gatwick North and South terminals, or Stansted terminal and the satellites for the best part of three decades each?

 

[Bald Rick]

I can't see anything that would prevent HS2 running in to new platforms at Birmingham International, then curve north-east towards to cross the M6 near the planned location.

Rather a lot of car parking thereabouts that could be used for the purpose, and probably follow more or less the line of Bickenhill Road through the Birmingham International area. There's even a nice looking corridor east of Coleshill Heath Road north of the NEC that the line could run through. You'd need to demolish a few dozen houses and possibly rethink the road network around the airport/NEC area, but wouldn't need to build and maintain a 'people mover' and a new road access to a station built in the middle of a field.

Above, & likely at an angle to the existing line.
Most of the HS2 route around BHX is due to be on embankment.
There's very little north of the existing station along Bickenhill Lane, south is largely car parks.

To go over the existing station means being at least 10 metres up, plus the height of the HS2 structure. Leaving aside the cost of a structure that could support a 6 track, 4 platform station at that height, it would, be phenomenally disruptive to the existing station and railway to build it.

As it happens most of HS2 in the Birmingham Interchange area is in cutting, it is only on (low) embankment out towards Hampton in Arden. To get it to the height required in the area you suggest would mean it has to cross the A45 and various other roads at height, and the line of route suggests it would be in an area that would cause Birmingham Airport to have something to say about their airspace at the approach end of runway 33. Then at the north end, to get a reasonable alignment you’d be waving goodbye to parts of Chelmsley Wood (acknowledging that some people may suggest, unkindly, that that is no bad thing).