Why HS2 is so blatantly London-centric and quite frankly, weird

[Tramere]

As you can see from the HS2 routemap, it is as if HS2 is being built to allow journeys to be made to/from the northern cities involving London but not between them. For example, if one wanted to travel from Manchester to Glasgow (a route to Glasgow and Edinburgh being planned in the long term) with the network built as proposed, they would either have to get a London-bound train and change at Birmingham International, or take the old Transpenine Northwest if they wanted to travel directly. Why hasn't anyone seen through this?

Instead, and to put it bluntly, if it had been planned by a normal person, there would be a single line leading up to Scotland that would pass though either Liverpool or Manchester (your pick) which would fork into Edinburgh and Glasgow branches. Whichever city out of Liverpool and Manchester isn't passed through would get a dedicated branch line. Say it's Manchester that the line passes through, surely it would be cheaper to built two twin tunnels under the city north-south and at Piccadilly build a two platform underground station, than have the line only go up to Piccadilly but built a mighty terminus there? And while we're at it, why not have a single station at Birmingham, not two and again tunnel HS2 under the city and have a two platform (maybe four, should Shengen rules require segregation) station there?


This way we save on duplication, we save on Termini and surely allowing people from Manchester to travel to Glasgow when they are on the same axis is the obvious thing to do? And when it comes to Birmingham, surely its best to have one station, not two, and a city centre one would be good at that?

 

[HilversumNS]

My understanding is that HS2 is centered on Birmingham.

The type of triangle that will be built for Birmingham to allow London trains to bypass the city and continue northwards could also be built for Manchester and Liverpool, should that left hand side of the Y get extended towards Scotland.

The 2nd station for Birmingham is to serve the airport, in a similar way that they want to add a Heathrow spur in London and Manchester is getting a station for the Airport.

Going from anywhere in the north via HS2 -> Birmingham Curzon Street -> New Street -> Birmingham International isn't going to look very attractive for those with luggage.

Not sure what you mean by "should Shengen rules require segregation" as none of the UK is part of the Schengen agreement, and unlikely to ever be so.

"You can please some of the people all of the time. You can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time ." (John Lydgate)

There is no perfect solution, just a best possible. Opinions will always vary as to what is 'best'

 

[edwin_m]

Tunnels under cities and particularly underground stations are very expensive. Continuing northwards from Manchester would involve at least as much extra tunnel as is needed to access it from the south, plus the main station would need to be underground. And the journey between London/Bimingham and Scotland would be longer than by a more direct route.

The other reason to have cities on branches is that the passenger predictions suggest the train will be fully loaded for a particular city so there is no need for it to continue to another one.

There are now various options being considered by various official bodies that might use parts of the HS2 network for east-west services in the North ("HS3") or extend high speed infrastructure towards Scotland.

 

[LexyBoy]

Remember the first and foremost reason for building HS2 is to relieve the WCML. Therefore it is by nature going to be "London centric" in a sense.

Any future line to Scotland would likely have direct trains originating from Manchester etc, as already mentioned - just as there are already Birmingham-Manchester and Birminham-Leeds/Newcastle services planned.

 

[gordonthemoron]

the diagram in the original post suggests that the junction to the west of Manchester Airport will allow ex-Manchester trains to continue North toward Scotland

 

[NotATrainspott]

As you can see from the HS2 routemap, it is as if HS2 is being built to allow journeys to be made to/from the northern cities involving London but not between them. For example, if one wanted to travel from Manchester to Glasgow (a route to Glasgow and Edinburgh being planned in the long term) with the network built as proposed, they would either have to get a London-bound train and change at Birmingham International, or take the old Transpenine Northwest if they wanted to travel directly. Why hasn't anyone seen through this?

Instead, and to put it bluntly, if it had been planned by a normal person, there would be a single line leading up to Scotland that would pass though either Liverpool or Manchester (your pick) which would fork into Edinburgh and Glasgow branches. Whichever city out of Liverpool and Manchester isn't passed through would get a dedicated branch line. Say it's Manchester that the line passes through, surely it would be cheaper to built two twin tunnels under the city north-south and at Piccadilly build a two platform underground station, than have the line only go up to Piccadilly but built a mighty terminus there? And while we're at it, why not have a single station at Birmingham, not two and again tunnel HS2 under the city and have a two platform (maybe four, should Shengen rules require segregation) station there?


This way we save on duplication, we save on Termini and surely allowing people from Manchester to travel to Glasgow when they are on the same axis is the obvious thing to do? And when it comes to Birmingham, surely its best to have one station, not two, and a city centre one would be good at that?

If you want to find out why the route is designed as it is, the Department for Transport and HS2 Ltd have produced a wide variety of documents, reports and so on which discuss everything about the scheme. Since the scheme will cost the taxpayer many billions of pounds to build, it is more than sensible that the Government has paid consultants to design the best scheme possible. These consultants look at a level of detail which no normal member of the public (minus some of the people on this and other forums) would ever even know to think about, let alone consider it in any great detail.

The main reason why HS2 is designed in the way it is at the moment is that they've worked out the most efficient way to run the services when they're finished. Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds are all capable of filling their own trains to London, so there's no point running trains through the middle of them. Running trains through the middle of a major city means spending billions of pounds on city centre underground stations and tunnels from one side of a city to the other. By putting each city on a spur, you halve the route length within a city and make it possible to use an arbitrary alignment into the centre to save costs. For example, running through the middle of Birmingham would mean entering the city from Solihull in the south-east in a tunnel and continuing in that tunnel until you reach the edge of the suburbs at the other side, whereas the spur route makes it possible to follow the M6 through the Water Orton corridor, mostly on the surface. Tunnels are expensive, but what's even more expensive is building an underground station, and for the scheme to be worthwhile the main city station needs to be in or as close to the city centre as possible. With a spur, your terminus station only need to be accessible by tracks from one direction, so a site like Birmingham's Curzon Street is ideal.

The Y network as planned already is also only the core of a wider network which has only partly been planned so far. The original 2010 report which set out the future options for the rail network planned a network called the 'Inverted A', which consisted of the current Y network plus an extension from the North West to both Edinburgh and Glasgow and from the North East to Newcastle, plus an upgraded line between the North West and Yorkshire. Even though officially the Government has only agreed to build the Y network, the provision exists in the plans for the Scotland and Newcastle extensions to be built. With that, the Manchester-Scotland journey would use the current Manchester spur and the new extended route up to Scotland. Scotland-London trains would be full when running non-stop, and Manchester-London trains would be full, so you would just run another train every hour between Manchester and Scotland.

When the UK's high speed network expands beyond this Inverted A some of the decisions will have to be different because the distribution of passenger demand will be different. For example, if there's ever to be a high speed line to the west of England and Wales, then it wouldn't make sense to have cities like Bristol, Exeter and Plymouth on individual spurs from a mainline route. Instead, the route would need to run through the middle of them because none of the cities alone could fill up a train. Similarly, if a line between Bristol and Birmingham is built, it would need to have a through station underground in the middle of the city centre as otherwise it wouldn't be economic to run the services.

 

[jon0844]

A lot of people do seem to think that HS2 is it. And that once up and running there will never be any more lines built to join up some of the dots.

You have to start somewhere, and we can't even seem to do that.

I can't imagine that the anti HS2 mob would suddenly back the project if we increased the route and upped the cost from the outset?

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

I'm in the anti HS2 mob, I don't think anything of it at all.

The value for money claim is false, 100k jobs predicted for roughly £50bn, they're some expensive jobs!
The time saving claim is false, the Midland mainline will have faster trains (now even!) Especially by then because it will be electric. Also it sounds like 'classic compatible' won't be expected to run at 125mph on normal lines.
The capacity claim is false, unless services to Milton Keynes, Coventry, Stoke, Wovlerhampton are reduced that is, and who wants that? Also cheaper ways of easing capacity such as reopening the Grand Central London Extension have been suggested but ignored.
The helping the North claim is false, London will see the most economic boast and many North and Midland places are predicted to lose out, Leicester will lose out big time.
The Environmentally-friendly claim is false, it has been proven that freight being allowed to use the line would be better for reducing carbon emissions which aren't planned, also the line is only set to be Carbon neutral at present anyway.
East Coast/Midland &West Coast services may be diverted causing service cuts to some.

And worst of all is awful connectivity.
No link to HS1 or HS3!! Who's idea was that?
Meadowhall will be rebuilt further East severing access to Barnsley trains, Toton is on a branch meaning direct services are replaced by shuttles and HS2 from Notts, Manchester Airport is not with current station, Leeds won't have a line to York restricting Birmingham to Leeds/Newcastle to multiple routes, I really think it's just a motorway train with so few connections they might aswell built UK Ultraspeed!

 

[NSEFAN]

The capacity claim is false, unless services to Milton Keynes, Coventry, Stoke, Wovlerhampton are reduced that is, and who wants that? Also cheaper ways of easing capacity such as reopening the Grand Central London Extension have been suggested but ignored.

Why would services to those stations be reduced? Now the long-distance expresses are out of the way the timetable can be recast for more stopping trains to those places, not fewer. We could have semi-fast services to, say, Birmingham calling at the most important places en-route. You could have every train stop at MK, for example. The price to pay is that some journeys will be longer because of the added stops, but you don't get something for nothing.

For reopening the GC, you'd still need to build a new line south of Aylesbury because that former mainline is now a commuter route. It would probably be very similar to the arrangement currently required by HS2. All that tunnelling is what pushes the cost up.

 

[jon0844]

Tunnelling that by rights shouldn't be required (or not as much) but is being done to appease those who live in Buckinghamshire.

If the line was merely made as a cutting, which would still be quite well hidden and quiet, the project could probably be a lot cheaper still.

I can't wait until construction actually starts, which can't be too far off now. I think it's fair to say that despite there still being work to do, we can be pretty safe in the knowledge that it will happen.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Why would services to those stations be reduced? Now the long-distance expresses are out of the way the timetable can be recast for more stopping trains to those places, not fewer. We could have semi-fast services to, say, Birmingham calling at the most important places en-route. You could have every train stop at MK, for example. The price to pay is that some journeys will be longer because of the added stops, but you don't get something for nothing.

For reopening the GC, you'd still need to build a new line south of Aylesbury because that former mainline is now a commuter route. It would probably be very similar to the arrangement currently required by HS2. All that tunnelling is what pushes the cost up.

If more local services do run via Milton Keynes I'm sure many would feel disapointment at slower trips toward Birmingham and onwards. Small price to pay bit would be seen as an insult locally as HS2 isn't for them so why should their service be slowed?
If more freight runs on WCML as predicted there won't be room for many extra services anyway.

The other line I mentioned wasn't for fast passenger services. The idea is mainly for connecting Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield to HS1. The old line was built with large loading guage and could handle international freight. It would remove freight from WCML and provide a duplicate service as far as Rugby.
There's also the HSUK network which is similar in planning to use parts of this old mainline.

 

[northwichcat]

Personally I think the biggest problem we face in this country is we keep trying to shave time off Intercity journeys to/from London. Allegedly this will increase rail usage as less people will take internal flights to/from London, even though journey times are usually quicker by rail already if you allow for check-in and security at the Airport and allow for onward journeys to your final destination.

However, if you're going between the South West and the Midlands/North/Scotland then journeys can take 3 times longer by rail compared to by air.

 

[gordonthemoron]

I expect that 6 non-stop services per hour at Milton Keynes would move from WCML to HS2. That would allow around 6 more services stopping at MKC

 

[NotATrainspott]

Personally I think the biggest problem we face in this country is we keep trying to shave time off Intercity journeys to/from London. Allegedly this will increase rail usage as less people will take internal flights to/from London, even though journey times are usually quicker by rail already if you allow for check-in and security at the Airport and allow for onward journeys to your final destination.

However, if you're going between the South West and the Midlands/North/Scotland then journeys can take 3 times longer by rail compared to by air.

You're not going to be able to solve that problem without serving London first. High speed infrastructure is expensive, oddly enough, and it will only be funded if it has a good business case. Building the network for London has a good enough business case that it is being done, and it is then on top of that business case that you can start to have massive improvements made to non-London journeys like Birmingham to Leeds. Once the Inverted A network is complete, Scotland-Birmingham and Newcastle-Birmingham will take a fraction of the time they take at the moment, at which point the business case for a Birmingham-Bristol line starts to take shape. You would only need to build that one section of line and you would unlock a huge range of massively improved journeys, making better use of the infrastructure already built to serve the London market.

 

[Philip Elliott]

Why would services to those stations be reduced? Now the long-distance expresses are out of the way the timetable can be recast for more stopping trains to those places, not fewer.

What non stop trains are there through Coventry and Stoke (bar the one-a-day) that will allow capacity release:roll: Stopping everything at MK reduces the number of trains that can run on the fast lines (4 minute headway minimum vs. 3). You can only get freight space on the slows if you the LM stoppers onto the fasts and there won't be space to do that.

 

[NSEFAN]

What non stop trains are there through Coventry and Stoke (bar the one-a-day) that will allow capacity release Stopping everything at MK reduces the number of trains that can run on the fast lines (4 minute headway minimum vs. 3). You can only get freight space on the slows if you the LM stoppers onto the fasts and there won't be space to do that.

I was referring to the line south of Rugby. Passenger capacity may be released on the classic lines without any extra services on them. After all, if most passengers going to Birmingham would use HS2 all the way, passengers on trains through Coventry instantly have more seats without any timetable changes at all. Stoke could have classic-compatible trains to allow them to work on phase 1 of HS2. With some of the non-stop trains south of Rugby now taken of the WCML fasts there is now the room to add more stops to the remaining trains. I suspect places like Milton Keynes will need to have additional platforms built in the future to increase capacity once more.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Surely if there's going to be lots of empty seats services will be cut. It's a private business now not a seat giveaway charity. Services will migrate to HS2 leaving the WCML, ECML & MML as secondary lines with slower stopper trains where competing with HS2.

Either that or HS2 will be a huge flop because no one pays to use it.

 

[Haydn1971]

Surely if there's going to be lots of empty seats services will be cut. It's a private business now not a seat giveaway charity. Services will migrate to HS2 leaving the WCML, ECML & MML as secondary lines with slower stopper trains where competing with HS2.

The existing mainlines that HS2 bypasses will gain in that alternative route options will open up because paths aren't taken by London centric services - once you start enabling more frequent services you get greater buy in from previously non rail users - it's a model used with great effect on the buses and CrossCountry trains - more frequent means less traveller planning, means more flexibility in travel means more likely to use the service, means more people using rail

 

[NSEFAN]

Surely if there's going to be lots of empty seats services will be cut. It's a private business now not a seat giveaway charity. Services will migrate to HS2 leaving the WCML, ECML & MML as secondary lines with slower stopper trains where competing with HS2.

Either that or HS2 will be a huge flop because no one pays to use it.

The point is that the space is now there for the future. The seats may empty today but what about in 10 or 20 years time? Rail travel patronage has increased almost every year since the 1980s, despite above-inflation fare rises. With our growing population that's more people who will need moving around. The railways are not a private business, they are run by private businesses who do what the state tells them to. All the DfT have to do is say "thou shalt provide at least 3tph to Coventry" and it will happen. Cutting existing services to major places like Coventry and Stoke is political suicide so is very unlikely to happen, in which case such places will at-worst see no benefit, rather than lose out.

 

[jon0844]

And with the capacity on HS2 it's very likely fares will be lower (bar perhaps the peaks, of course) not higher.

 

[RichmondCommu]

And with the capacity on HS2 it's very likely fares will be lower (bar perhaps the peaks, of course) not higher.

In theory yes but high track access charges on LGV routes in France are pushing up ticket prices on TGV services. In fact a few TGV operated services are now moving away from LGV routes for part of their journey.

 

[JamesRowden]

Surely if there's going to be lots of empty seats services will be cut. It's a private business now not a seat giveaway charity. Services will migrate to HS2 leaving the WCML, ECML & MML as secondary lines with slower stopper trains where competing with HS2.

Either that or HS2 will be a huge flop because no one pays to use it.

The present WCML off-peak service frequency could be maintained with but with shorter trains. For example, 5 car sets could run off-peak, with 5+5 formations running during the peak.

 

[The Planner]

Stopping everything at MK reduces the number of trains that can run on the fast lines (4 minute headway minimum vs. 3). You can only get freight space on the slows if you the LM stoppers onto the fasts and there won't be space to do that.

Where has the 4 minutes come from and where is that published? You are basing that on a fast train following a stopping train on headway which is poor planning. You are also ignoring platform reoccupation where values are generally lower than headway as well.

 

[jon0844]

In theory yes but high track access charges on LGV routes in France are pushing up ticket prices on TGV services. In fact a few TGV operated services are now moving away from LGV routes for part of their journey.

I am sure prices will go up in general, but imagine you'll get cheap advance tickets on quieter services for less than current IC services (or simply more of them).

But, I'd also imagine you'll be able to get cheaper tickets still on the legacy routes/trains, like taking LM to Birmingham to save a fortune (but getting there a lot later) if you don't mind taking longer.

I don't buy the argument from many that the ticket prices will mean only fat cat company bosses and MPs will be able to afford a ticket.

 

[po8crg]

I don't buy the argument from many that the ticket prices will mean only fat cat company bosses and MPs will be able to afford a ticket.

They won't be able to sell enough tickets to fill the train at that sort of price.

I'm quite sure they will do lots of cheap tickets, especially on off-peak trains.

I wonder if they will have the guts to have a small section - half a carriage or so - of super-premium seating like the Italians have.

When the flights disappeared off the Milan-Rome routes, people who used to fly first class complained that the trains weren't nice enough, so Italo came along (the top one) and then Trenitalia upgraded their trains (the lower one) to compete.

 

[northwichcat]

at which point the business case for a Birmingham-Bristol line starts to take shape.

Don't forget you can go a couple of hundred miles west after Bristol.

 

[alexl92]

And with the capacity on HS2 it's very likely fares will be lower (bar perhaps the peaks, of course) not higher.

I don't believe for one minute that those in charge have any interest in lowering fares. They'll charge as much as they possibly can without preventing trains being filled.

 

[The Ham]

The point is that the space is now there for the future. The seats may empty today but what about in 10 or 20 years time? Rail travel patronage has increased almost every year since the 1980s, despite above-inflation fare rises. With our growing population that's more people who will need moving around. The railways are not a private business, they are run by private businesses who do what the state tells them to. All the DfT have to do is say "thou shalt provide at least 3tph to Coventry" and it will happen. Cutting existing services to major places like Coventry and Stoke is political suicide so is very unlikely to happen, in which case such places will at-worst see no benefit, rather than lose out.

Quite, HS2's business case is based on 2.5% passenger growth per year, the last set of figures had long distance travel at about double that and has been in excess of 2.5% since HS2 had it's business case published in 2009.

Just having 3% growth each year over the last 5 years compared with the model (2.5% per year) means that passenger numbers are just over 1 year ahead of where they were anticipated. Raise that to 3.5% and it jumps to just over 2 years ahead, raise it further to 4% and it is nearly 3 and half years ahead. That is in just 5 years, extend that out to 10 years and a growth rate of 3.5% is 5 years ahead of the predictions.

It is worth noting that under the failed ICWC franchise the bidders were assuming that they could develop growth of 5% per year with all that they wanted to do.

 

[Philip Elliott]

Where has the 4 minutes come from and where is that published? You are basing that on a fast train following a stopping train on headway which is poor planning. You are also ignoring platform reoccupation where values are generally lower than headway as well.

Would you really time two expresses to MK at 3 minutes apart?

 

[The Planner]

Look at your timetable..... Green to Green signals at linespeed at MK is around 80-90 seconds.