It is rare these days to de-classify any carriages on the Manchester route - each carriage in 1st class always appears to have reservations.

Well I can confirm everytime ive rode Wigan to Edinburgh or Wigan to Birmingham theirs been a second class carriage with the first class fittings like desk lamps, curtains, 3 seats wide versus 4 seats wise.

Well I can confirm everytime ive rode Wigan to Edinburgh or Wigan to Birmingham theirs been a second class carriage with the first class fittings like desk lamps, curtains, 3 seats wide versus 4 seats wise.

Interesting. Those trains should normally be Voyagers (ie the shorter diesel ones). These have a mixed-class carriage as above, with first-class trimmings but 2x2 seating, which would be run as standard class on non-London routes - as well as a proper first-class carriage, which would never be derestricted. Are you sure about the seats?

I suppose if a Pendolino is running on those routes for whatever reason, then they might as well derestrict one FC carriage as the others will be empty...

The trends now to reduce first class seating, on the WCML one carriage has been switched from 1st to 2nd (great if you can get a seat in it as its still 1st class fittings)

They realised it was stupid to have an empty first class carriages when people were standing in 2nd.

they should do this on the ECML too. i bought tickets to london, singles at 66 quid each. the train i was in had a whole three people in this carriage and yet at the same time there were NO cheaper first class tickets for this journey. it made no sense whatsoever.

they should do this on the ECML too. i bought tickets to london, singles at 66 quid each. the train i was in had a whole three people in this carriage and yet at the same time there were NO cheaper first class tickets for this journey. it made no sense whatsoever.

Confused. Were you in Standard or FC with your £66 ticket?

Taken from a CDX post in the Manchester subforum - it is of interest to other cities.

1st class is often de-classified on the very, very busy trains. The 18:40 euston - Picc comes to mind as its the first departure after peak hour restrictions.

Ah, the missing link..

http://www.manchester.gov.uk/egov_downloads/HighSpeedRailLobbying.pdf

Good to see Dicky Leese being the co-ordinator of the lobby group from a Manc point of view.

Good to see Dicky Leese being the co-ordinator of the lobby group from a Manc point of view.

Why is that report dated 22 July 2009? Has Sir Dick invented a Time Machine?

The meeting is to be held next week - as such the report is for that date - just as I today completed a document dated 17th July - that will be the documents official release date.

good news that there is a co-ordinated lobby group though, no?

Wonder why the delay from Bristol and Liverpool?

good news that there is a co-ordinated lobby group though, no?

Wonder why the delay from Bristol and Liverpool?

Probably because they are the two places to be excluded from the network of the future.

Network of the future? Haven't they had one of those in Japan since the 1960s?

Well if they don't get invovled in the lobby then who else will they have to blame bu themselves?

Exactly. But maybe they have a better plan. Who knows?

Indeed, who knows.

But if Liverpool does miss out in the end, and they had not joined in with the lobbying, then lets remember not to complain, and remember that may well have a better plan.

Well Greengauges idea seems to be a line running dead centre between Manchester and Liverpool with spurs to each so its not really an issue for them, for Leeds on the other hand its more complicated with the question of whether its better to go North from Northwest all the way to Glasgow or to cross east Through Yorkshire then up the East coast to Edinburgh.

Notice Cardiff hasnt been invited to the lobby group and it kinda makes sense as I doubt you could build a HS line between the Bristol channel and Cardiff due to the low availability of flat land, all along the South Wales coast is essentially one industrial and urban sprawl with the motorway running as close to the hills as possible following their curvature. Hmm, it might be possible if you built it almost entirely raised along the side of the motorway.

Confused. Were you in Standard or FC with your £66 ticket?

first of course, and it was almost completely empty.

Indeed, and I suspect we will get similar proposals from HS2 - but only very vague.

The service patterns proposed by Greengauge were different for the cities mind.

also seem to remember GMPTE providing £300k for the DfT to work with them in identifying locations for a HSR station in Manc, including the lines into the city - good to see them ahead of the curve.

Yes I remember the argument over whether it was better to build the main station close to the airport then have a city link to Piccadilly or to take it all the way into the city which would be much harder considering Piccadillys capacity problem.

As I remember the Manchester Hub proposals were to build a bypass of Piccadilly for North/South regional services such as Leeds to Sheffield and onwards so that only a few services had to stop there and the capacity could then be used for more express services. Likewise they wanted to convert some of the Wigan/Bolton services to Tram street running bypassing Victoria to connect to Piccadilly.

If only Lord Adonis had been the Transport Sec for the last 12 years...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/15/low-carbon-transport

The lords are always more forward thinking and resoloute and for the most part rise above the petty party politics and spin of the commons.

With regards to the maglev. I was working with an architects up until October last years are part of my Part 2 Architecture prep. The national consortium to make this project a reality very much includes Liverpool, Newcastle, Glasgow and the outskirts of Manchester in their strategy.

Current ideas show the line linking Liverpool and Manchester for instance via route that would "hug" the Manchester ship canal linking the airports in both cities to the Central Liverpool area and then through to the Northern Peripheral of Manchester before moving on to Leeds, Newcastle etc.

Maglev = dead in the water

Anyone else seen Jim Steer's 2057 vision in Rail issue 622 on page 54?

I think...

Liverpool-Manchester-Sheffield-Doncaster-Leeds-Manchester-Liverpool... It would be a bit of a loop...

Like before the cheapest option what includes all the major cities;

London - Birmingham - Sheffield (Spurr to Manchester, Liverpool) - Leeds - Newcastle - Scotland.

That is the best route.

Like before the cheapest option what includes all the major cities;

London - Birmingham - Sheffield (Spurr to Manchester, Liverpool) - Leeds - Newcastle - Scotland.

That is the best route.

Is this another one of those "serving my city is the best option" lines or do you genuinley believe it is the best option?

Because if we listened to all those who thought their city should be served we'd have a line going up to Lincoln-Sheffield-Leeds-Newcastle-Scotland.

Would be a pretty shit route.

The most important corridor is the London-Birmingham-Manchester route, this needs dealing with above everything else.

I don't think that is even a worthy debate anymore, it's widely established that is where any HS2 development will be carried out. So anyone saying "no it should come to Sheffield/Lincoln/Newcastle" are only wasting their own time.

Personally I think we actually need 4 lines to modernise our rail network, in order of priority:

1. London-Birmingham-Manchester/Liverpool-Glasgow
2. London-East Midlands-Yorkshire-Edinburgh
3. Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Hull
4. London-Bristol-Cardiff

These lines would cover about 80% of the populations needs.

P.S.

Had an email from Greengauge21, their going to publish their report into routes and stations in September.

Personally I think we actually need 4 lines to modernise our rail network, in order of priority:

1. London-Birmingham-Manchester/Liverpool-Glasgow
2. London-East Midlands-Yorkshire-Edinburgh
3. Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Hull
4. London-Bristol-Cardiff

These lines would cover about 80% of the populations needs.

P.S.

Had an email from Greengauge21, their going to publish their report into routes and stations in September.

Extend 1 to Edinburgh and replace Leeds with Sheffield and no need to wait until September

Are Greengauge working with HS2 at all?

Are Greengauge working with HS2 at all?

not really, HS2 are obviously aware that GG21 are undertaking this study and I'm sure will be very interested in the findings but HS2 have no input/not putting any money into the work.

Top story on the Guardian web page:

Lord Adonis announces plan for North-South High-Speed rail link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/aug/04/high-speed-rail-adonis)

Government unveils high-speed rail plan to ground short flights

The government has made the demise of domestic air travel an explicit policy target for the first time by aiming to replace short-haul flights with a new 250mph high-speed rail network.

The transport secretary, Lord Adonis, said switching 46 million domestic air passengers a year to a multibillion-pound north-south rail line was "manifestly in the public interest". Marking a government shift against aviation, Lord Adonis added that rail journeys should be preferred to plane trips.

"For reasons of carbon reduction and wider environmental benefits, it is manifestly in the public interest that we systematically replace short-haul aviation with high-speed rail. But we would have to have, of course, the high-speed network before we can do it," he said.

In an interview with the Guardian to launch a three-day special report on high-speed rail, Adonis reveals that plans for a new generation of ultra-fast train services are well advanced. They include:

• The publication by the end of the year of a route from London to Birmingham, including the framework to extend the line northward to Scotland

• Building cross-party support for the network, which could see a line to the west Midlands built by 2020

• Running high-speed trains on the existing network, which could reduce journey times from London to Scotland to three and a half hours.

• Possibly funding the £7bn London-to-Birmingham line with a public-private partnership.

Lord Adonis said domestic and European flights to and from the UK, which carry 169 million passengers on 1.9m trips per year, should be "progressively replaced" by a high-speed rail network that will relieve congestion on existing lines and shorten train journey times across the UK.

Short-haul flights are the most popular journey in British aviation, accounting for seven out of 10 flights. Rail, however, is more popular with the British public, generating 1.3bn passenger journeys each year.

"I would like to see short-haul aviation – not just domestic aviation, but short-haul aviation – progressively replaced by rail, including high-speed rail," Adonis said.

"If we want to see the progressive replacement of short-haul aviation by rail, then we have got to have a high-speed rail system that links our major conurbations and makes them far more accessible to Europe, too."

The government has pledged to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 80% by 2050, prompting ministers to push for greater use of electric cars and more investment in cycle routes. Against that backdrop, Lord Adonis added that rail should take priority over air travel. "When it comes to the choice between rail and plane, I am not modally agnostic," he said.

Lord Adonis acknowledged doubts over the funding of a line that could cost up to £29bn if it ran from London to Glasgow, amid admissions from a senior Department for Transport official recently that the budget for major transport schemes over the next decade will be nearly £30bn lower than expected. A high-speed line will have to be the UK's main infrastructure project if it is to go ahead.

"If we make it a national priority, then it is affordable. If we don't, then it is not. It's as simple as that," he said.

The transport secretary has established a company, High Speed Two, that will draw up detailed plans for the first leg of a UK network and will submit its proposals to the Department for Transport later this year. The proposals will then go out to public consultation before a formal planning process is launched.

In tomorrow's Guardian: the first instalment of a three-part series on high-speed rail. Read Lord Adonis's plans in full. Plus: how Europe left Britain behind in the era of fast trains

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/aug/05/railways-britain-neglect-trains

Make do and mend: how Britain neglected its railways

Julian Glover and Dan Milmo The Guardian, Wednesday 5 August 2009

In July 1837 Britain opened an engineering marvel: the world's first, fast intercity railway between London and Birmingham. A century and a half later, the route came to symbolise Britain's disastrous transport planning. Taxpayers spent £9bn upgrading the line, only for trains to run more slowly and less frequently than promised. Figures last week showed that the west coast route is one of the least reliable services in the country.

The west coast shambles is the reason that the transport secretary and rail engineers want to escape from the make-do-and-mend approach which has seen Britain slip down the railway league table. While Japan, France and now Spain made the leap into a new generation of rail technology and high-speed routes, Britain neglected its trains.

"Railways were not the priority. The priority was to complete the motorway network and manage the railways as best we could on an annual budget," says Jim Steer, former head of strategy at the Strategic Rail Authority.

A succession of transport ministers aimed to keep trains out of the headlines.

"In the 1980s British Rail was expected to manage the railways better, to be more customer-responsive. There was no thought that rail might do more – or in fairness, less – than it had done over the previous 10 years. Any investment expenditure was expected to be more or less self-financing," he said.

In tight circumstances, BR did its best, investing in some electric routes and the InterCity 125 diesel express, still the mainstay of many services. But modernisation always faltered in the face of political confusion and a lack of cash.

In 1955, the recently nationalised British Railways promoted an upgrade plan that aimed to put the network back in profit. Instead much of the cash was wasted.

"British Rail was obsessed with setting out a vision, but never defined what the railways were for or what they were good at," said Tim Leunig, an economic historian at the LSE. "The government threw huge sums at BR, which always promised to break even and never did. It was the most bailed-out organisation in Britain."

While France was setting out plans for its TGV fast network, Britain was experimenting with incremental improvements, including the short-lived APT tilting train from London to Scotland.

"Nobody was prepared to find the money for the investment under the Tories, and not a lot under us," admitted John Prescott, transport secretary from 1997 to 2001.

Stephen Glaister, professor of transport and infrastructure at Imperial College London, said: "British governments have been much more concerned about value for money and have been much less willing to spend taxpayers' money on any form of transport and big infrastructure. The French and Spanish have taken a completely different line."

Decline set in long before privatisation, which ministers hoped would free railways from the political neglect that had left them underfunded.

"The principles behind privatisation were to create a train-operating industry with a number of players," said Sir George Young, the transport secretary who oversaw the process. "The aim was to increase capital investment by placing the industry in the private sector so it was no longer at the end of the queue for Treasury investment."

Bound by tight Treasury spending rules, however, there was never enough long-term money for Britain to copy France and build new routes.

"In an ideal world unconstrained by limited resources, I would be wholly in favour of new high-speed rail lines," said Young. "But if the funding for them comes out of a highly constrained rail transport budget, one has to ask some hard questions about priorities."

Privatisation, completed in 1997 as Labour came to power, put the brakes on strategic thinking.

Companies bought new trains and passenger numbers climbed by 40%, but costs rose too: the current rail subsidy of almost £5bn a year is well above levels under nationalisation.

Prescott said that in Tony Blair's first term the government was preoccupied with bailing out the high-speed Channel tunnel route from Dover to London and the task of dealing with the now-defunct Railtrack, the owner of Britain's privatised tracks, stations and signals which was taken over by the government-backed Network Rail in 2002.

"That was a real bloody problem because we had people in control who had more interest in getting profits than doing the work properly," he said.

Prescott's lessons from the Channel tunnel rail link, since renamed High Speed 1, contained a veiled warning about the private sector's ability to underwrite a major transport project.

HS1 was completed only after the government stepped in to guarantee bonds issued to pay for the £5.7bn route: "The government was the only one that could find the resources, so we nationalised it [HS1] – and it came out on time and on schedule."

this made me laugh....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...irline-flights

Airlines dismiss high-speed rail plan to replace short flightsGovernment's aim to progressively replace domestic flights with a 250mph train network condemned as 'insane'

Dan Milmo, transport correspondent guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 5 August 2009 08.01

The airline industry has dismissed a government pledge to replace domestic and short-haul aviation with high-speed rail, with one leading carrier describing the move as an "insane" policy.

The backlash came as Lord Adonis, the transport secretary, said the government hoped to "progressively replace" short-haul flights with a 250mph train network in the UK.

Michael O'Leary, chief executive of Europe's largest short-haul airline, Ryanair, warned against making cross-Channel rail services the main conduit between the UK and Europe.

"It is insane. The only link you have is one highly priced tunnel. People are not going to travel to the UK regions, including the Lake District and Cornwall, on a [Eurostar] train that only stops at Kent and London St Pancras," he said.

O'Leary was slightly less scathing about switching domestic air passengers to rail, descibing it is as a "valid alternative if you don't mind the inefficiency and high cost of rail services."

Profitable airlines were already being hit hard by the air passenger duty while the rail network received billions of pounds in subsidies, O'Leary said. "On [return] domestic flights from Glasgow to London, passengers are paying £20 in taxes while they continue to subsidise the shit out of the railways. Substituting one form of transport that is heavily taxed for a form of transport that is heavily subsidised is not the answer."

British Airways also expressed scepticism at Lord Adonis's comments. The airline backs Department for Transport plans to run a new high-speed line via Heathrow airport and on to the rest of the UK, but a spokesperson said it would be impractical to target flights to more distant short-haul destinations such as Madrid, Rome and Prague. "High-speed rail cannot be a complete substitute for flying," the company said. "There are relatively few destinations in continental Europe to which it would be practical to travel and return by rail in a day. Therefore flying will always remain the preferred form of transport for millions of travellers."

The pro-aviation lobby group Flying Matters warned that certain domestic routes, including airports such as Exeter and Aberdeen, would still have to operate internal flights to a hub airport such as Heathrow because a high-speed link was unlikely to reach those cities. "Some journeys would present real practical problems," said Michelle Di Leo, director of Flying Matters. "For example, how would you get from Edinburgh to Belfast by train in a reasonable amount of time? You can't force people to use options which don't currently exist."

The International Air Transport Association (IATA), which represents more than 200 major airlines worldwide, including BA and Virgin Atlantic, said a country that had taken decades to plan a third runway at Heathrow airport could take even longer to plan a high-speed rail network. It said a recent report published by experts at the University of Berkeley, California, had calculated that the greenhouse gas emissions of train travel could be more than double current estimates.

Fuel use is normally the main factor in calculating a transport mode's emissions, but the Berkeley report included emissions from building and maintaining vehicles, as well as building the infrastructure that carries them. Once those factors were added in, the report said, the carbon dioxide emitted by trains was far higher than expected.

"When building 3km of runway takes decades, the challenges of criss-crossing the country corridors of high-speed rail infrastructure will be enormous," an IATA spokesperson said. "And for what gain? Putting aside the astronomical costs and timescales of such a project, has the secretary thought about the total carbon lifecycle impact of building so much rail infrastructure? Exactly how many Channel tunnels will be built?

^^^^^^

The fact that the Chunnel and HS1 were built in the first place would suggest that a nationwide HS network is inevitable, regardless of ...

The way I see it anyway.

yes and the main reason the channel tunnel took so long to reach the point its at now which is breaking even is the british didn't bother to do a high speed link between it and london for years.

Profitable airlines were already being hit hard by the air passenger duty while the rail network received billions of pounds in subsidies, O'Leary said. "On [return] domestic flights from Glasgow to London, passengers are paying £20 in taxes while they continue to subsidise the shit out of the railways. Substituting one form of transport that is heavily taxed for a form of transport that is heavily subsidised is not the answer."

....and what about the £9.5 billion subsidy the airline industry recieves by not paying duty on aviation fuel? Fuck off O'Leary.

Top story on the Guardian web page:

Lord Adonis announces plan for North-South High-Speed rail link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/aug/04/high-speed-rail-adonis)

Government unveils high-speed rail plan to ground short flights

It's also the top story in the newspaper itself today. And it's good news in theory.

I just wonder if we should put too much faith in a major, long-term spending commitment made during a huge recession, with significant public spending cuts expected as soon as the general election's out of the way, by a government which may well lose that election.

Haha even before I was Michael O learys comments I was going to post this:

Whats the betting on Michael o leary murdering Lord adonis!?

Top story on the Guardian web page:

Lord Adonis announces plan for North-South High-Speed rail link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/aug/04/high-speed-rail-adonis)

Government unveils high-speed rail plan to ground short flights ...
It's a big consideration that, expensive as it is, bringing new high-speed railway lines to airports is a lot cheaper than it would be to bring them to city centres.

It's a big consideration that, expensive as it is, bringing new high-speed railway lines to airports is a lot cheaper than it would be to bring them to city centres.

I think it should go to both: airports and city centres. It would be pointless having a HS network if it didn't reach Birmingham New Street, Manchester Piccadilly etc. But equally we need lines to Heathrow to reduce the amount of connecting flights to the airport from UK cities.

On another note, O'Leary really is an idiot. Larven got it right above, but it really is worth repeating: Fuck Off O'Leary. Ahh, that felt better! :)

Fuck off O'Leary +~

why 7bn for a line to Birmingham? It seems too short to make a differnce and when possibly extended northwards it will be a detour. Expensive to build and maintain and making it less competitive. Birmingham is too short, scotland is too far.

Why not go for a direct London-Manchester (airport) line. It must be perhaps the most viable line in all of europe if it could be made fast enough to also avoid further airport projects for London.

It cant be much more than 150 miles. with 250 mph speed, it could theoretically be as little as 40 mins. That would get people out of their cars surely. Manchester airport would effectively become another London airport, while also being the centre for all transport systems in the north west.

Two reasons for going to Birmingham

1) A major reason for building HS2 is to relieve congestion on existing lines. The WCML is in particular need of this relief. Freeing up capacity on that line allows better local services and greater flexibiblity to the surrounding network.

2) Walk, then run. London-Birmingham is a simple, short route that can be used to perfect construction and operational techniques for UK intercity high speed trains. Lessons learnt on this project will have impacts and savings on further phases of the line as it is pushed to Scotland.

Two reasons for going to Birmingham

1) A major reason for building HS2 is to relieve congestion on existing lines. The WCML is in particular need of this relief. Freeing up capacity on that line allows better local services and greater flexibiblity to the surrounding network.

2) Walk, then run. London-Birmingham is a simple, short route that can be used to perfect construction and operational techniques for UK intercity high speed trains. Lessons learnt on this project will have impacts and savings on further phases of the line as it is pushed to Scotland.

Nicely put.

The bit after Brimingham will take a lot more planning also, so there's no point in letting that delay the 'easy' London-Birmingham stretch.

Now a decision just has to be made as to whether or not HS2 ought to go via Heathrow or not. Both the 'for' and 'against' arguments are strong, which doesn't help.

On another note, O'Leary really is an idiot. Larven got it right above, but it really is worth repeating: Fuck Off O'Leary. Ahh, that felt better! :)[/QUOTE]

:lol:

O'Leary really is a prize knob, it's a wonder why the Guardian took the time to speak to him.

If people thought the 1050s/60s era of transport planning, much of it under Marples/Beeching was bad, imagine what would happen if ministers actually took notice of what O'Leary says?

Also worth remembering is that it's thought the line will connect to the Trent Valley stretch, possibly around Tamworth or so.

In which case, a train running at full pelt from London, perhaps with a stop at B'ham International, would reach the same point on the WCML as a Virgin train 15 minutes earlier.

So as well as B'ham journeys being annexed largely to the HSL, journeys to Manchester would be at about 1h44 (fastest) and Glasgow at 3h55 (fastest) - so it would provide good benefits further north, also including Liverpool, Preston, Chester etc...

No use to Leeds so far, but apparently more Huddersfield passengers than ever are going via Manchester for London, rather than Wakefield/Leeds - so it would help them.

A London - Birmingham line is also (potentially) a Birmingham - Brussels, Paris, Cologne, Amsterdam line. i.e. the kind of distance high speed rail excels at.

If I want to go on business say from B'ham - Paris by HSR how practical would this be from a cost/time perspective? The company (ficticially) to keep cost down would want me to return on the same day and be back at my desk first thing the next morning. The starting point New St/Bham airport are both 30 minutes away, I check in on line so 'check in time' is minimal with only a laptop/briefcase typically 45 min (done it many times) flight time 1 hr approx, pick up frm Paris to company on outskirts of city 30 min. 3 hrs total 6.30 start 10.30 arrival, return 5.00 - 7.00pm home (lost an hr out gain on return). Cost approx a 100 quid. 90 pc of trips midweek are business so prove the practicallity of this if you don't live in London? PS rail is only environmentally friendly IF trains run nearly full, the average is currently (correct me?) I believe below 25 pc for the uk! Give all the passengers a modern car, its cleaner!

If I want to go on business say from B'ham - Paris by HSR how practical would this be from a cost/time perspective? The company (ficticially) to keep cost down would want me to return on the same day and be back at my desk first thing the next morning. The starting point New St/Bham airport are both 30 minutes away, I check in on line so 'check in time' is minimal with only a laptop/briefcase typically 45 min (done it many times) flight time 1 hr approx, pick up frm Paris to company on outskirts of city 30 min. 3 hrs total 6.30 start 10.30 arrival, return 5.00 - 7.00pm home (lost an hr out gain on return). Cost approx a 100 quid. 90 pc of trips midweek are business so prove the practicallity of this if you don't live in London? PS rail is only environmentally friendly IF trains run nearly full, the average is currently (correct me?) I believe below 25 pc for the uk! Give all the passengers a modern car, its cleaner!
It will all depend on the trip each person makes, but if Eurostar has grabbed, what 75%, of the Paris - London traffic then why wouldn't a journey 30 mins longer also prove popular?

What do you mean by environmentally friendly? Iin France at least the trains are in effect nuclear! It is fair to say more and more of the power for trains will be from re-newable sources or at least non-carbon. I think less of a dependence on oil is key. Faster trains use more power, but they are getting ever more efficient.

I support rail in this situation because it reduces pressure on our airports, it offers a quicker service for many, it suits the European compact city centres where most jobs are located, it has lower carbon emmisions and personally I find it more comfortable. A lot of people agree, surely that's enough to justify the existance of an alternative to the plane? Nobody is suggesting planes will ever be banned. It's just allowing competition, that's all. Why get so bothered about allowing competiton?

Give passengers a car?! To what drive to Paris? What are you on about? What about speed? Is the car full? Is it electric? Are the roads full of traffic? Why throw in such a pointless irrelevant curve ball that supports neither argument?:bash:

It's currently 2h15 to Paris from St P, non-stop.

Under HS2, it would be 45 mins to Birmingham, so I would say 3h5 or maybe 3h if seamless access was available. You'd probably need to stop at Stratford or Ebbsfleet to help demand, but then you can keep the St Pancras trains express.

You'd need just one platform in Birmingham I think, maybe two if you had a Brussels service at a similar time. These would have all the security elements in place, but then open up after trains had gone at 7:30 am or so - for London trains. And then re-establish later for the next international trains. Arrivals' security checks would be done, so people can just walk off as normal.

There might also be demand for a CDG/Disney train, again stopping at the SE stations.

I don't think it's much feasible beyond Birmingham, and with no intermediate stops either. B'ham could just become an international railhead, much like people come from far and wide (not just London) for St Pancras.

I'm afraid I can't back this number up with proper research, but AFAIK, for trips of 500 miles or less, where HSR and planes are in competition, the train tends to take the vast majority of the trips. From Birmingham, that's roughly all of belgium and holland, western germany and northern france. quite a market!

From my own research (20 observed city pairs) rail has the following mode share (vs air) on journey lengths:

2 hours: 95%
3 hours: 75%
4 hours: 45%
5 hours: 20%

I have no idea where the figure of 40m domestic aviation trips comes from. Looking at CAA data for 2008 there were only 24m aviation trips and this includes flights to/from Northern Ireland which I'm sure HSR will help.

It's 225km from Birmingham to Stratford International, which could easily be covered in an hour with a 350km/h LGV (even allowing for slower tracks in central London). Then the E* takes two hours from Stratford to Paris - so you've got a 3-hour total journey time.

That's the same as the plane (you've missed out the 30 mins of post-landing buggering about between the plane, the terminal, immigration, etc), and doesn't take into account the possibility of upgrading HS1 and LGV Nord to 350km/h.

(and you're not comparing like-with-like on the environment side. A car carrying 5 people is more environmentally friendly than a diesel train at 25% capacity, true - but most cars on the roads are actually carrying 1 or 2 people...)

You'd need just one platform in Birmingham I think, maybe two if you had a Brussels service at a similar time. These would have all the security elements in place, but then open up after trains had gone at 7:30 am or so - for London trains. And then re-establish later for the next international trains. Arrivals' security checks would be done, so people can just walk off as normal.

Given that we're allowing the world to be a sufficiently sane and good place that HS2 happens, can we also allow the UK to sign up for Schengen? Then you can run Glasgow-Manchester-Birmingham-Stratford-Lille-Paris, capturing domestic XC passengers on the northern leg as well as the c.20% of Glasgow passengers who'd be willing to take rail given a 5hr journey time.

I don't think it's much feasible beyond Birmingham, and with no intermediate stops either. B'ham could just become an international railhead, much like people come from far and wide (not just London) for St Pancras.

Depends on whether we stick with stupid security/immigration arrangements or not. Agreed that if we are stuck with them, then we'd need to do it as you say.

... Give passengers a car?! To what drive to Paris? What are you on about? What about speed? Is the car full? Is it electric? Are the roads full of traffic?
There seems to be a misunderstanding.

The reality of modern day business travel (of 100+ miles) is that most travellers will begin their journey by driving from their homes and then using public transport until they reach their destination. Cars are an essential part of the journey. This means they need :
A) The nearest HSR station to be somewhere free of road congestion and where they can park their car.
and
B) The far HSR to be somewhere that has good public transport links to the many and various destinations that people go to.

The choices among sites for stations on HSR (I mean newly constructed railways that are not on ancient railbeds) are:
1) City Centres
2) Airports
3) Ancient railway junctions (eg Crewe)
4) New locations, not previously used.

Airport win hands-down. They meet both requirements A) and B).

^^ I would add a requirement:

C) The HSR station must have a large population of people and businesses in its catchment area

This skews the balance back towards city centres. Ideally I think you'd have both, ie.

London Euston
London Heathrow
Birmingham International
Birmingham New Street/Moor Street

I agree. International service needn't be from BHX though.

If we did end up with trains to Amsterdam, Lyon and Cologne, I'm not sure that anything except for St Pancras would be viable.

But with direct trains to Lille and Brussels, anyone would be fine. And Lille Europe is a great station to change at - Brussels is a bit grim.

It will all depend on the trip each person makes, but if Eurostar has grabbed, what 75%, of the Paris - London traffic then why wouldn't a journey 30 mins longer also prove popular?

What do you mean by environmentally friendly? Iin France at least the trains are in effect nuclear! It is fair to say more and more of the power for trains will be from re-newable sources or at least non-carbon. I think less of a dependence on oil is key. Faster trains use more power, but they are getting ever more efficient.

I support rail in this situation because it reduces pressure on our airports, it offers a quicker service for many, it suits the European compact city centres where most jobs are located, it has lower carbon emmisions and personally I find it more comfortable. A lot of people agree, surely that's enough to justify the existance of an alternative to the plane? Nobody is suggesting planes will ever be banned. It's just allowing competition, that's all. Why get so bothered about allowing competiton?

Give passengers a car?! To what drive to Paris? What are you on about? What about speed? Is the car full? Is it electric? Are the roads full of traffic? Why throw in such a pointless irrelevant curve ball that supports neither argument?:bash:

How do I get to the train station? most businesses are based away from city centres (except financial) to reduce cost, look at the exodus from central London further out. How much is a train ticket at peak time from Ldn - Paris? it will be even more from B'ham I assume! I asked the question from a business cost perspective, but you only responded to the practical bit. If the cost is to high don't do the trip, maybe lose the business, this effects the viability of the COST of transport by train. A train journey from B'ham to Paris would be unviable without business customers, A train needs to carry many people to be viable hense the 5bn gov sub. A plane is smaller, it is more flexible, less cost, if you have fewer customers you have a smaller plane, cancel flights, alter the flight path, go to a different airport etc. No leaves on the track! not the option of only 1 tunnel if there is a problem. I love the train, would MUCH rather use it instead of flying, but its to expensive and can be horribly unreliable at times, time is money for any company so cost is key, if it takes longer it costs more...and it costs a lot more anyway! So what about cost. :)

Erm, has either you or your assistant ever tried to book a same day return flight on day of travel from London to Paris?

I have done so, and it's certainly worse than the turn up Eurostar fare, 'blatantly business' (e.g. same day return Weds) flight fares to Europe are obscene!

Greengauge did propose that the Manchester and Brum stations would have routes through to the continent.

Greengauge did propose that the Manchester and Brum stations would have routes through to the continent.

and Scotland, as much acting as an inter-regional service than a Europe service. Obvious problems of security but by then we might not even need passport control between the UK and rest of EU.

I saw in the Grauniad today a map of the plan that the government's new 'company', known as HS2, is working on. I'm sure it's on the web (the terminal I'm using here in the gym doesn't allow any uploading of files, so I've not bothered looking).

It's the best idea yet for the HS2, in my view. From Heathrow, the line goes straight to Birmingham city centre, then Manchester city centre, follwed by Leeds city centre, after that the centres of Newcastle and Edinburgh, coming to an end in Glasgow.

The top speed of the route is put at 250mph/400kph.

It will only cost about £25 billion, about half the amount that Bernard Madoff 'lost'.

I saw in the Grauniad today a map of the plan that the government's new 'company', known as HS2, is working on. I'm sure it's on the web (the terminal I'm using here in the gym doesn't allow any uploading of files, so I've not bothered looking).

It's the best idea yet for the HS2, in my view. From Heathrow, the line goes straight to Birmingham city centre, then Manchester city centre, follwed by Leeds city centre, after that the centres of Newcastle and Edinburgh, coming to an end in Glasgow.

The top speed of the route is put at 250mph/400kph.

It will only cost about £25 billion, about half the amount that Bernard Madoff 'lost'.

HS2 is ONLY looking at London/Heathrow to the West Midlands with the option of on to Manchester.

What you suggested sounds very like the Conservatives proposal.

Page 13 and 14 of http://www.greengauge21.net/assets/GG21_HS2.pdf show the proposed routes from Greengauge.

No sign of Scotland to the continent.

HS2 is ONLY looking at London/Heathrow to the West Midlands with the option of on to Manchester.

What you suggested sounds very like the Conservatives proposal.

It's not. It's a plan being drawn up by a body known as HS2, which is looking at providing a full London-Glasgow route, with city centre stations at all the cities I cite in my previous post.

Go to the Guardian website and see if it's on there.

It's not. It's a plan being drawn up by a body known as HS2, which is looking at providing a full London-Glasgow route, with city centre stations at all the cities I cite in my previous post.

Go to the Guardian website and see if it's on there.

When I di the tender for HS2 it was only West Midlands, I didn't appreciate they had expanded their remit. What you described is exactly the conservative proposal, personally I prefer two routes to Scotland and tunnelling under Bham, Manc, Leeds and Newcastle would be extremely expensive without giving very good journey time savings (unless it was all 4 track).

Page 13 and 14 of http://www.greengauge21.net/assets/GG21_HS2.pdf show the proposed routes from Greengauge.

No sign of Scotland to the continent.

GG21 need to update their website! June 2007 was a long time ago.

I've checked. HS2 Limited is the body set up by Geoff Hoon earlier this year, with the remit to come up with the plans for HS2.

So the body has been set up by the current Labour administration, while at the same time it is considering the impact of either a Labour or Tory victory at the next election.

I've checked. HS2 Limited is the body set up by Geoff Hoon earlier this year, with the remit to come up with the plans for HS2.

So the body has been set up by the current Labour administration, while at the same time it is considering the impact of either a Labour or Tory victory at the next election.

That is all correct. The next few months should be very interesting with regards to HSR, Greengauge report is out next month, HS2 report (only London - West Midlands) in December, and there's another one which I can't remember. Be interesting to see how they all compare!

I'm convinced there is economic case, just a matter of getting together the £50 odd billion needed.

I certainly like the idea of a single route that carves it's way through the city centres of Brum, M'ster, Leeds, N'castle, E'burgh and Glasgow.

Not only does this provide a fast London-Glasgow route, it also provides fast links for non-London traffic, while avoiding the need for junctions, spurs, and parallel routes.

I certainly like the idea of a single route that carves it's way through the city centres of Brum, M'ster, Leeds, N'castle, E'burgh and Glasgow.

Not only does this provide a fast London-Glasgow route, it also provides fast links for non-London traffic, while avoiding the need for junctions, spurs, and parallel routes.

I agree with you on improving non-London links but it is much slower to Glasgow. In fact it doesn't give very good London journey times to Leeds, Newcastle, Edinburgh.

I certainly like the idea of a single route that carves it's way through the city centres of Brum, M'ster, Leeds, N'castle, E'burgh and Glasgow. Not only does this provide a fast London-Glasgow route, it also provides fast links for non-London traffic, while avoiding the need for junctions, spurs, and parallel routes.
City centres are not likely to be affordable or fast enough.

More like LHR-BHX-MAN- then points North.

Whether it provides a fast route to Scotland depends largely on whether fully high speed station-avoiding lines are built for the non-stopping (express) trains. For example, if a Scotland-London train had to slow down to even 80mph while passing places like Ringway Airport that would add huge amounts of time to the journey.

From todays Guardian series:

HS2 is working models of Heathrow with and without a 3rd runway.

They want it to go city centre to city centre with a heathrow stop.

The exact route between London and Birmingham is being planned to the metre but wont be released to avoid property spikes.

There wont be one pricing option but multiple options.

The route will mainly pass through Buckinghamshire, contrary to speculation it wont pass through Chequers.

The plans will be released in detail to avoid damaging route speculation that affected the Channel Tunnel rail link with people fearing it might go through their back garden.

Property will be bought up along the route especilly in sensitive areas like the Chilterns and the construction designed to funnel the noise upwards.
Heathrow station not decided yet, Arup has proposed a £10bn design featuring 12 platforms but HS2 is considernig smaller.

There wont be a reccomended route through the north instead the government will be given a "Meccano set" of lines allowing it to build its own route. "there is the reverse S that goes through the Pennines and the A that goes up both sides and the Y that splits for Glasgow and Edinburgh, howeveer continuing north is vital to the schemes feasability and it wouldnt work if it only went to the Midlands."

No London terminal decided yet then?

I think there is a fair bit of confusion on here about what the remit of the High Speed 2 organisation are actually looking at.

http://www.hs2.org.uk/ is there web site.

The latest news letter is of course very interesting, but at the end it has their remit...

i.e.

SUMMARY OF THE REMIT AND OBJECTIVES OF HIGH SPEED TWO
On 15 January 2009 the Secretary of State for Transport announced in
‘Britain’s Transport Infrastructure: High Speed Two’, the setting up of a new
company to look at a possible new railway line between London and the West
Midlands.
HS2 was set up shortly after as a private company limited by guarantee. It is
chaired by Sir David Rowlands and Alison Munro was seconded from the
Department of Transport as Chief Executive. The rest of the HS2 team
comprises further secondees from the DfT and from Network Rail
HS2’s remit is to develop proposals for a new railway line from London to the
West Midlands taking account of environmental, social and economic
assessments. It will also provide advice to Ministers on the potential
development of a high speed line beyond the West Midlands at the level of
‘broad corridors, considering in particular the potent to extend to Greater
Manchester, West Yorkshire, the North East, and Scotland.
HS2 will make recommendations on options for a terminus station or stations
serving London and possible options for an intermediate parkway station
between London and the West Midlands. It will also provide a proposal for an
interchange station between HS2, the Great Western Main Line and Crossrail
with convenient access to Heathrow airport. HS2 will also provide suggested
means of linking to HS1 and the existing rail network. .
HS2 will produce a confidential report to Ministers by the end of 2009 that
should be sufficiently developed to form the basis for public consultation in
2010 should Ministers decide to take this project forward. The advice will also
include financing and construction proposals as well as a proposition for how
best to move through the planning process within an indicative outline
timetable

I agree with you on improving non-London links but it is much slower to Glasgow. In fact it doesn't give very good London journey times to Leeds, Newcastle, Edinburgh.

I'm hoping that the idea is to configure every one of the below-ground, city-centre stations on HS2 so that they have two through tracks to allow for non-stop trains, just as Lille does, for example.

Therefore, in theory a Glasgow-London service, running non-stop would be a possibility. Running at 250mph/400kph, I would imagine this would produce a time that would be competitive with air travel.

Would you not also think so?

No London terminal decided yet then?

It seems that no public decisions have been made, although Euston crops up as the terminus of choice here there and everywhere.

If I were in charge, I'd go for Paddington, a large station that will, once Crossrail becomes operational, have a great deal of spare capacity.

The rebuild at Euston would have to be quite extraordinary for HS2 to be accommodated, given that London Midland and Virgin services already place significant demands on the current layout.

In fact, I'm wondering how exactly the pro-Euston HS2 planners intend on squeezing the extra trains into the 'footprint' of the terminus. The former parcel platforms on the West side of the station do not present an area large enough area for the provision of more than two new platforms.

Perhaps the idea is to use area now housing the now-derelict carriage shed next to Park Village, and widen the throat of Euston beneath the A400 (Hampstead Road).

That's the only way I can see Euston becoming an HS2 terminus.



http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&q=london+euston&ie=UTF8&ll=51.530199,-0.139196&spn=0.009438,0.032938&t=h&z=16

If I were in charge, I'd go for Paddington

Doesn't go anywhere near HS1 and is in the middle of suburban nowhere. Otherwise brilliant.

At Euston, widen the throat, use the carriage sheds, use the DC lines platforms (rerouting the DC trains to Stratford via Primrose Hill) and use the space freed by a reduced long-distance service on the WCML.

Doesn't go anywhere near HS1 and is in the middle of suburban nowhere. Otherwise brilliant.

At Euston, widen the throat, use the carriage sheds, use the DC lines platforms (rerouting the DC trains to Stratford via Primrose Hill) and use the space freed by a reduced long-distance service on the WCML.


The terminus of HS2 does not need to be near St Pancras. As long as there is a connecting tunnel between the two routes, from Old Oak Common to York Way, for example, then Paddington would be perfect.

As for the location being "in the middle of a suburban nowhere", have you been there? It is about as suburban as Susan Boyle is beautiful.

Paddington is on the sub-surface tube network, the Bakerloo line, and, of course, at some point, on the Crossrail route.

But I concede that Euston would be preferable, so long as the job is done properly. That means a lot of new tunnel work to widen the throat.

By the way, I don't see the frequency of Virgin's West Coast services dropping with the arrival of HS2. These will still be busy, in large part because they serve the odd station, like Preston, that HS2 will skip, but also because the train fares will be cheaper than those for the HS2, which is almost certainly going to charge premium prices.

By the way, I don't see the frequency of Virgin's West Coast services dropping with the arrival of HS2. These will still be busy, in large part because they serve the odd station, like Preston, that HS2 will skip, but also because the train fares will be cheaper than those for the HS2, which is almost certainly going to charge premium prices.

But that's the purpose of HS2: to reduce the number of long distance trains using the lines out of Euston so that the capacity for commuter services can be increased. Obviously there will be some long distance non-HS2 services, but the Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool Pendelino services will go.

I think the very best option for the passenger would be both a city centre and a parkway station associated with each city. The main route would go around the city with a parkway station by a motorway. A chord, either shadowing an existing route (if fast and with capacity) or a tunnel to the city centre could be used for trains stopping in the city centre. I think there should be dedicated tracks for this, no sharing and getting stuck behind a commuter train. This shouldn't be too expensive as tunnel sections would most likely be quite short with largely tracks or viaduct build alongside an existing route. Certainly there would be no demand for the 15km of tunnel HS1 demanded under East London. The problem with Lille-type stations and all tunnels is that they have much reduced line speeds. Therefore I think tunnels on the route taken by non-stop services should be at a minimum.

The terminus of HS2 does not need to be near St Pancras. As long as there is a connecting tunnel between the two routes, from Old Oak Common to York Way, for example, then Paddington would be perfect.

As for the location being "in the middle of a suburban nowhere", have you been there? It is about as suburban as Susan Boyle is beautiful.

Paddington is on the sub-surface tube network, the Bakerloo line, and, of course, at some point, on the Crossrail route.

But I concede that Euston would be preferable, so long as the job is done properly. That means a lot of new tunnel work to widen the throat.

By the way, I don't see the frequency of Virgin's West Coast services dropping with the arrival of HS2. These will still be busy, in large part because they serve the odd station, like Preston, that HS2 will skip, but also because the train fares will be cheaper than those for the HS2, which is almost certainly going to charge premium prices.

Would all HSR rail services definately skip Preston?

How do I get to the train station? most businesses are based away from city centres (except financial) to reduce cost, look at the exodus from central London further out. How much is a train ticket at peak time from Ldn - Paris? it will be even more from B'ham I assume! I asked the question from a business cost perspective, but you only responded to the practical bit. If the cost is to high don't do the trip, maybe lose the business, this effects the viability of the COST of transport by train. A train journey from B'ham to Paris would be unviable without business customers, A train needs to carry many people to be viable hense the 5bn gov sub. A plane is smaller, it is more flexible, less cost, if you have fewer customers you have a smaller plane, cancel flights, alter the flight path, go to a different airport etc. No leaves on the track! not the option of only 1 tunnel if there is a problem. I love the train, would MUCH rather use it instead of flying, but its to expensive and can be horribly unreliable at times, time is money for any company so cost is key, if it takes longer it costs more...and it costs a lot more anyway! So what about cost. :)

Time is money, quite right. What most CBA's do not take into account, from both a government's perspective in terms of the economic benefits of a scheme or a company when choosing a travel mode is the increased productivity gained from being able to work on a train. The train is much better in this respect as it's difficult to get much done whilst in the air/waiting for baggage.

Would all HSR rail services definately skip Preston?

I would say that High Speed Rail services should be run properly, only stopping at major destinations- ie not Preston. Assuming high speed trains stop at Manchester, people from Preston should use fast WCML services to Manchester then change.

Everyone wants convenience; everyone wants direct services to London etc but this is not efficient. There should be local lines feeding fast lines, and fast lines feeding high speed lines. I don't think High Speed Services should be trying to be fast regional/inter-regional services as well. High Speed Rail should be for long distance domestic or international travel with stops only at the most important places.

I questioned the locations of stations too, sent an email asking them what size city they would consider requiring having a stop. The reply I got back was these were "unresolved issues for the present".

I think it's a bit more complex than that though- size is obviously important, but distance from the next stop is too. For example Carlisle is not very big at all, but if there was no stop in that area the nearest would be Newcastle, Glasgow, Leeds or Manchester- so perhaps where distance is an issue, a stop would be warranted.

I imagine Preston would stay, its quite a large WCML intercity interchange ~1m passengers a year and serving Lancashire and Cumbria but on the other hand existing smaller interchanges such as Wigan ~250,000 WCML intercity journeys a year I doubt would qualify. It all depends on how they design the route, for example Wigan being perfectly equal distance between Liverpool and Manchester would be perfect for an interchange for both citys if they dont follow the City centre to city centre idea, you could run a secondary HS connecting service between them and it would allow Liverppol to have equal service to Manchester. However in a directly connecting service you would just change at Manchester itself. I imagine a similar situation applies to many other mid sized WCML stations.

If High Speed trains are stopping at Preston and Carlise they will not be high speed......it takes a long time to slow down a 200mph+ train. The unwritten rule is that High Speed has to get to Scotland in 3 hours, to do that you can only have a couple of stops and prefereably very few stations on the actual High Speed line. Most stations would be on spurs off it.

I'm hoping that the idea is to configure every one of the below-ground, city-centre stations on HS2 so that they have two through tracks to allow for non-stop trains, just as Lille does, for example.

Therefore, in theory a Glasgow-London service, running non-stop would be a possibility. Running at 250mph/400kph, I would imagine this would produce a time that would be competitive with air travel.

Would you not also think so?

In theory but the cost would be huge putting in a by-pass tunnel and a station not to mention the idea of a grade seperated junction underground. I'm not aware of the configuration of Lille but how deep is the tunnel? I doubt it is as deep as you would have to go in Birmingham, Manchester of Leeds.

I think that there will be an alignment that has a long route along the country, say stopping at places like Brum airport and Manc airport, however, additional services (not stopping at the airports) travelling into the city centres on old tracks.

i.e. Manchester to London direct, Brum to London direct etc alongside a London to BHX to MAN to Glasgow.

The exact route between London and Birmingham is being planned to the metre but wont be released to avoid property spikes.

The plans will be released in detail to avoid damaging route speculation that affected the Channel Tunnel rail link with people fearing it might go through their back garden.



Don't these contradict each other?

I think that there will be an alignment that has a long route along the country, say stopping at places like Brum airport and Manc airport, however, additional services (not stopping at the airports) travelling into the city centres on old tracks.

i.e. Manchester to London direct, Brum to London direct etc alongside a London to BHX to MAN to Glasgow.

My thoughts exactly, I suspect there would be London to Glasgow and London to Edinburgh direct too, it's the best way to get benefits.

With regards the idea of tunneling through the Pennines, just cannot see it.

Maybe one day an eastern alignment route, but I just cannot see the sense in the S shaped route.

Leeds to Manc would be too close together for a start.

With regards the idea of tunneling through the Pennines, just cannot see it.

Maybe one day an eastern alignment route, but I just cannot see the sense in the S shaped route.

Leeds to Manc would be too close together for a start.

Presumably it's a cost issue. Land in the south is very expensive, so having all trains north going up one right of way would reduce those costs. I doubt HS trains would stop at both. You might get a similar system to HS1, where a local operator can use the spare capacity on the tracks for a quicker Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Newcastle journey than available at present.

Maybe not the best plan, but it may be a workable option.

Is the plan not for a four track line to leave London heading north?

I would imagine at some future point, somewhere south of Brum a line would split off these tracks and head towards the NE.

Either way, we are a very very long way off seeing tracks other than between London and Brum, even on the most optimistic way forward.

Is the plan not for a four track line to leave London heading north?

I would imagine at some future point, somewhere south of Brum a line would split off these tracks and head towards the NE.

Either way, we are a very very long way off seeing tracks other than between London and Brum, even on the most optimistic way forward.

4 track wouldn't be required initially, however provision should be put in for it.

Interestingly, 2 lots of 2 track alignment is only a fraction more expensive than one 4 track alignment.

I hope they do more than just London to Bham.

I hope that they do more than London to Brum, however, HS2 will not be providing enough information for any Transport Sec to approve anything more than that initial route.

But that's the purpose of HS2: to reduce the number of long distance trains using the lines out of Euston so that the capacity for commuter services can be increased. Obviously there will be some long distance non-HS2 services, but the Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool Pendelino services will go.

I cannot see this as being the true position. The number of long distance trains may decrease slightly, but I would imagine those London Euston - Birmingham trains, with one or two intermediate stops, currently running will be replaced by a Euston - Watford - MK - Northampton - Rugby - Coventry - Bham Int - Bham service.

Ie yes, more capacity on there, with more journey options, but the point is, there will still be required roughly the same amount of platform space in Euston. HS2 will not reduce the current service offerings, but enhance it.

Anywho, I am pretty convinced that we will see a brand spanking new interchange station at Old Oak. An interchange with Crossrail here, and with the WLL should work well.

This is how I think the development should go:

Stage 1: Central London, with a connection to HS1, to central Birmingham. With a connection that allows passengers to transfer from the west coast line to international services in the West Midlands, possibly at BHX.

Stage 2: Central Birmingham to a junction with newly electrified Liverpool - Manchester line and the west coast line. This allows trains to run out of Manchester and Liverpool and connect with HS2. It would also allow trains to come down from Scotland and then switch on to HS2 to London. Possibly having a parkway station at this junction or close to it.

Stage 3: The above "Lancashire junction" to Glasgow and Edinburgh. Either the Y line or going to Glasgow and then onto Edinburgh.

Stage 4: A branch off HS2 going to Manchester under the Pennines and onto Leeds. This is done at a later stage due to the high cost of tunnelling through Manchester, under the Pennines and under Leeds.

Stage 5: A possible line by-passing central Birmingham allowing trains a non-stop service to London.

I wouldn't connect Liverpool directly to HS2, but trains would run from Liverpool and onto HS2 at the "Lancashire Junction". Also I wouldn't connect the North East to this line as the costs would out way the benefits. Also due to the fact that with improvements to the East Coast line you could get Newcastle within 2 1/2 hours of London and do this much cheaper than connecting Newcastle to HS2.

This is what I suspect will happen with a bit of luck...

Until the HS2+ and HS2++ are built existing tracks will be used to carry the HSR trains.

http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/3995/hs2e.jpg

I cannot see this as being the true position. The number of long distance trains may decrease slightly, but I would imagine those London Euston - Birmingham trains, with one or two intermediate stops, currently running will be replaced by a Euston - Watford - MK - Northampton - Rugby - Coventry - Bham Int - Bham service.

Ie yes, more capacity on there, with more journey options, but the point is, there will still be required roughly the same amount of platform space in Euston. HS2 will not reduce the current service offerings, but enhance it.

Anywho, I am pretty convinced that we will see a brand spanking new interchange station at Old Oak. An interchange with Crossrail here, and with the WLL should work well.

remember that Euston - Bham (semi-fast) would have a much quicker turnaround than existing WCML intercity trains therefore increasing the capacity of Euston.

Also, there is potential to divert slow WCML services onto Crossrail which would free up capacity at Euston.

This is what I suspect will happen with a bit of luck...

Until the HS2+ and HS2++ are built existing tracks will be used to carry the HSR trains.

http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/3995/hs2e.jpg

My thoughts exactly although Moor St has more potential as a HS station, and also a very nice under utilised line (maybe disused) into Birmingham Moor Street from a potential M42 alignment.

If Manchester Airport is a chosen station the routing in that area is fascinating.

Presumably, unless the route is going to be very indirect here there is going to have to be some serious tunnelling under Altrincham, Timperley and that kind of area to get the tracks heading north. The southern approach is simple, but going north from there is very complicated, enough to make me think they could even tunnel into the city centre.

Below is the problem, the green markings cover urban areas where tunnels would be required.

The blue line coming from the south is easy, however, once the airport is reached - red hashed - it becomes very complicated.

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/9582/airportd.jpg

I think it might dip in and out of the existing WCML for a long time.

Dedicated track to Tamworth/Lichfield, and then join the WCML.
Then it might be given the Stafford bypass, which might be enhanced to bypass Crewe, and then join the WCML before Warrington.

The Manchester spur would come off the Stafford/Crewe bypass. It could run to the Airport, or go straight up to Piccadilly. Stoke, Macclesfield and Stockport could stay on the traditional lines and are perfect for 1-2tph post-HSR.

The Liverpool spur would be the existing line after Acton Bridge.

It would probably stay on the WCML after this point. Savings on Glasgow would be 15 mins on HSR, and 20 mins on the bypass, making the journey about 3h35. Any lower journey times would need a northerly HSR.

Maybe the next best plan would be HS lines from Glasgow and Edinburgh down to the Border, this could save another 15-20 mins I'm sure, getting us closer to the magic 3 hour mark.

Think the point I am making (very badly) is that it would be very difficult to continue North after stopping at Manchester airport.

But that's the purpose of HS2: to reduce the number of long distance trains using the lines out of Euston so that the capacity for commuter services can be increased. Obviously there will be some long distance non-HS2 services, but the Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool Pendelino services will go.


I'd argue the following.

The Virgin servces are, in a sense, commuter services, albeit of the 125mph, tilting type. I see no reason to withdraw the Virgin services to B'ham, L'Pool or M'ster once HS2 is up-and-running.

These trains will still have a market, almost certainly being a pricing level that will be lower than the HS2 services, while also offering stops at places like Biham Airport, Rugby and Milton Keynes.

The HS2 services will pick up the extra time-sensitive air market, and those people who either need or want to pay for the fastest possible rail journey.

Would all HSR rail services definately skip Preston?

Yes, if the route taken by the new body, HS2 Ltd, is taken. This veers away from the WCML at Manchester.

In theory but the cost would be huge putting in a by-pass tunnel and a station not to mention the idea of a grade seperated junction underground. I'm not aware of the configuration of Lille but how deep is the tunnel? I doubt it is as deep as you would have to go in Birmingham, Manchester of Leeds.

You're right, the tunnels for HS2 will be deeper, much deeper. However, HS2 already states that the idea for the new line IS to build brand new stations that offer through running, not running into existing facilities. This is after having taken advice from the high speed rail community of mainland Europe.

Therefore, the cost of building these new stations will be huge anyway. The marginal extra cost of making sure they offer two non-stop tracks I would imagine is not that great.

With regards the idea of tunneling through the Pennines, just cannot see it.

Maybe one day an eastern alignment route, but I just cannot see the sense in the S shaped route.

Leeds to Manc would be too close together for a start.


I reckon it will happen. As for being too close, I think HS2 Ltd envisage that a range of different services will operate over the new line. Not all trains will stope at all stations, hence why I believe they will pursue the adoption of Lille-stype non-stop tracks for each station.

On the other, who's to say there is not a market for traffic between Leeds and Manchester? In a sense, the journey time would equate to a metro-style journey, and might bind these two Northern cities together.

It's more the cost tbh.

30odd miles of tunnelling through the Pennines will be massively expensive.

It's more the cost tbh.

30odd miles of tunnelling through the Pennines will be massively expensive.

It won't be 30 miles of tunneling though will it? The moors don't run from Moston to Morley.

Still be bloody expensive, but not too bad.

It's more the cost tbh.

30odd miles of tunnelling through the Pennines will be massively expensive.


True. However the whole HS2 project will be massively expensive, so from my perspective, once you start with it, what does a tunnel through the Pennines matter? The overall value of the single spine - Glasgow-Edinburgh-Newcastle-Leeds-Manchester-Birmingham-London - will be so great, that the cost will be worth it, eventually.

I'm seeing HS2 as Britian's version of NASA's Apollo space progamme, by the way. It's just such a big project, with such nation-binding overtones, that the money almost seems incidental.

As someone is already pointing out though, we are a long way off from seeing just the first section to B'ham built, so there's plenty of time yet to decide on the path Northwards from there.

I'd argue the following.

The Virgin servces are, in a sense, commuter services, albeit of the 125mph, tilting type. I see no reason to withdraw the Virgin services to B'ham, L'Pool or M'ster once HS2 is up-and-running.

These trains will still have a market, almost certainly being a pricing level that will be lower than the HS2 services, while also offering stops at places like Biham Airport, Rugby and Milton Keynes.

The HS2 services will pick up the extra time-sensitive air market, and those people who either need or want to pay for the fastest possible rail journey.

Bet you a fiver they go. Intercity services are busy, but the overcrowding and projected growth is in the Milton Keynes growth area. That's where the capacity will be needed and something will have to give so it can be enhanced. Since the northern trains will have a brand new none stop line to race down I think we will see most if not all go to HS2 in favour of stopping services on the WCML.

If HS2 is to make its money it's not going to want to have the competition from a slower cheaper services (similar to how the slow Kent services have been cut back on HS1) undercutting it. They might retain some slower services to link Manc and MK for example, but not the three an hour that currently serve Manchester and Birmingham.

Yes, if the route taken by the new body, HS2 Ltd, is taken. This veers away from the WCML at Manchester.

HS2 is looking at numerous options, the single spine incl Manchester - Leeds is just one of a number of options they will examine.

Their primary goal initially is to get a London - Bham route planned, justified and funded but one that best provides future options and expansion particularly onto Scotland.

The Standedge tunnels are only about 5 miles long (through which the line between Huddersfield and Stalybridge runs, the main route between Leeds and Manchester).

Think the point I am making (very badly) is that it would be very difficult to continue North after stopping at Manchester airport.

You could follow the M56 route to the west from the airport, and then head north on the (approx) same corridor as the M6 and WCML?

And at Birmingham you would save money by by-passing the city to the east, with a station and fast by-pass lines at Birmingham International.

Birmingham trains could reach the city centre by relaying track on the Great Western four-track corridor through Solihull and Tyseley, to Moor Street station.

(No doubt this has been said several times, in the previous 43 pages.)

And at Birmingham you would save money by by-passing the city to the east, with a station and fast by-pass lines at Birmingham International.

Birmingham trains could reach the city centre by relaying track on the Great Western four-track corridor through Solihull and Tyseley, to Moor Street station.

(No doubt this has been said several times, in the previous 43 pages.)

yep, that's a no brainer in my opinion although Bham Council would be pretty annoyed at no direct, quick linkage to Manchester and Leeds.

And at Birmingham you would save money by by-passing the city to the east, with a station and fast by-pass lines at Birmingham International.
Birmingham trains could reach the city centre by relaying track on the Great Western four-track corridor through Solihull and Tyseley, to Moor Street station.
(No doubt this has been said several times, in the previous 43 pages.)
Quite.
Even though there appears to be decision and official publication of it that HS2 is to pass through city centres, I am convinced that will not happen.

For the simple reason that you could build a line from say LHR-BHX cheaper than the cost of building from BHX to New Street.

Indeed the only reason for building for as short a distance as LHR-BHX is for capacity, not speed. It therefore makes sense to build four new tracks (at least two of them high speed) as far as BHX and HS two tracks beyond.

As to services to Scotland, surely we will see a mixture - some expresses, some stopping every 100 miles, some skip-stop. Many people will choose whatever is cheapest irrespective of speed, but others will pay a premium.
For example, a Preston-London could be "change at Manchester to join HS" or take a WCML through service all the way. People will decide based on a bunch of price, convenience and timing considerations - many choosing one and many theother.

This will all be so much easier when it is admitted that privitisation was a huge mistake and continues to be an ongoing failure at huge expense. It appears that will take another 20 years to reach that point though.

Stage 2: Central Birmingham to a junction with newly electrified Liverpool - Manchester line and the west coast line. This allows trains to run out of Manchester and Liverpool and connect with HS2. It would also allow trains to come down from Scotland and then switch on to HS2 to London. Possibly having a parkway station at this junction or close to it.

How are high speed trains are going to run from Manchester on to this line given the slow viaduct and the fact you have to use the through platforms at Picc?

This also does nothing for connecting to and from MAN.

As to the people saying there will only be a couple of stops I can gurentee their wont. They will go with a 4 track allignment with 15 or so stations. There will be express trains that might only stop at 4 or 5 stops and then numerous services that stop at various combinations of lesser stations and are overtaken by the express services. If they do what they do in France as well you will see the trains leaving the HS track and travelling the final 20 minutes or so along conventional track to places like Liverpool or other large non joined up cities.

... If they do what they do in France as well you will see the trains leaving the HS track and travelling the final 20 minutes or so along conventional track to places like Liverpool or other large non joined up cities.
Darned right.
And for multiple reasons.

Conventional electrified track that is. Which will necessitate a very few miles of infill electrification and new chords in some cases. For example, the Liverpool train might transition between new HS track and old conventional rail somewhere near the middle of Chat Moss itself. A very few minutes North of Manchester airport if changing between 90mph and 200mph. And perhaps 20 minutes from Liverpool.

Its very shortsighted to say a Leeds Manchester route is too close together.

How are high speed trains are going to run from Manchester on to this line given the slow viaduct and the fact you have to use the through platforms at Picc?

This also does nothing for connecting to and from MAN.

They'll run slowly on it. I also thought that line ran into Victoria as well as Piccadily. Its only an interim measure until the line to Manchester is built. I picked that Junction as its where the West Coast and Liv - Manc lines connect. Also why does it have to go anywhere near MAN? The whole point of HS2 is to stop people using regional airports and get the train down to London/ Heathrow. I only mentioned BHX as their is a station already there on the west coast line and it would be a convenient interchange. If you want to fly internationally from MAN their will be plenty other ways of getting there.

As to the people saying there will only be a couple of stops I can gurentee their wont. They will go with a 4 track allignment with 15 or so stations. There will be express trains that might only stop at 4 or 5 stops and then numerous services that stop at various combinations of lesser stations and are overtaken by the express services. If they do what they do in France as well you will see the trains leaving the HS track and travelling the final 20 minutes or so along conventional track to places like Liverpool or other large non joined up cities.

Express trains will go non-stop to many destinations (Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Edinburgh, Glasgow will all be served non-stop). I agree there may be 15 stations served by HS but the majority of stations will be off the HS network, in fact I'd argue the only through station on a western alignment would be Birmingham International.

They will definitely follow the French example.

This transpennine route is basically Manchester - Hudds - Leeds in reality.

Electrifying the Manc - L'pool line which has been announced, will bring journey times to 30 mins. An equivalent process from Guide Bridge to York would bring Manchester - Leeds journey times to about 35 mins. 30 perhaps?

I think this is sufficient - people already commute between the two. I know it's an important route, but it's one with 3-4 car trains heaving, not 12 car ones. Frequency is key here, so 5tph with 6 cars, doing Manc - Leeds/Liverpool in 30 mins would be enough, and a great service.

It couldn't fill full length 10 car EMUS at the same frequency, and probably wouldn't be economical to tunnel anew. Even though literally it is inter city, it needs to be treated differently. I agree it's very busy and annoying for those who use it - but it needs optimising in situ, not replacing.

I'm not sure why everyone seems to want HS2 to link into the Chat Moss route. Both Liverpool and Manchester have exisiting electrified links to the WCML which would be much faster.

Exactly - neither really need to have HS2 come into the city centre, as prestigious as it is, it's prohibitive, cost-wise.

The TGV runs on traditional lines around urban areas, and we certainly won't have the same provisions. It'll basically be a HSL to Birmingham, and then hopefully a few bypasses, parallel lines and deviations from the WCML with traditional spurs into city centres. That should be enough.

The whole point of HS2 is to stop people using regional airports and get the train down to London/ Heathrow.

are you taking the p*ss?! :) surely we should be promoting the growth of the regional airports over Heathrow - why expand there when excess capacity at other airports can be used? I'm sure many people would love not having to go down to London to get a flight, but currently have no choice through the lack of direct flights from the likes of MAN, BHX, LJL etc.

I thought the point of HS2 would be to provide quick transportation in between the UK's cities?

are you taking the p*ss?! :) surely we should be promoting the growth of the regional airports over Heathrow - why expand there when excess capacity at other airports can be used? I'm sure many people would love not having to go down to London to get a flight, but currently have no choice through the lack of direct flights from the likes of MAN, BHX, LJL etc.

I thought the point of HS2 would be to provide quick transportation in between the UK's cities?

Heathrow has to have services to various UK cities at present at it needs those passengers to transfer onto more profitable longer haul flights. If those people could arrive by train that would mean it would no longer need to have as many domestic flights, enabling more profitable longer haul flights and able to compete more effeciently with Schipol, Frankfurt and Paris CDG.

HSR won't increase the number the destinations at regional airports, they mostly have spare capacity so if it was cost-effective to have more flights they would. Edinburgh/Glasgow may be discounted from this as they are owned by BAA so it is in BAA's interests to continue having passengers go to Heathrow but this situation won't change with HSR.

are you taking the p*ss?! :) surely we should be promoting the growth of the regional airports over Heathrow - why expand there when excess capacity at other airports can be used? I'm sure many people would love not having to go down to London to get a flight, but currently have no choice through the lack of direct flights from the likes of MAN, BHX, LJL etc.

I thought the point of HS2 would be to provide quick transportation in between the UK's cities?
Because long-haul flights from regional UK airports just aren't viable enough for airlines... and people from London aren't going to go to NEMA to catch a flight to Chicago, however, people from Nottingham will go to London to do that.

Moving flights further away from where they are most wanted doesn't make much sense.

This transpennine route is basically Manchester - Hudds - Leeds in reality.

Electrifying the Manc - L'pool line which has been announced, will bring journey times to 30 mins. An equivalent process from Guide Bridge to York would bring Manchester - Leeds journey times to about 35 mins. 30 perhaps?

I think this is sufficient - people already commute between the two. I know it's an important route, but it's one with 3-4 car trains heaving, not 12 car ones. Frequency is key here, so 5tph with 6 cars, doing Manc - Leeds/Liverpool in 30 mins would be enough, and a great service.

It couldn't fill full length 10 car EMUS at the same frequency, and probably wouldn't be economical to tunnel anew. Even though literally it is inter city, it needs to be treated differently. I agree it's very busy and annoying for those who use it - but it needs optimising in situ, not replacing.

But still, the vast majority of services run either beyond Leeds to Hull or beyond York to Scarborough, Middlesbrough and Newcastle. What would happen to these services? Would the 30 mins between Manchester and Leeds involve omitting Huddersfield, which is a much used station on the north Trans Pennine route (the section from here to Leeds being the busiest on the route AFAIK). No doubt the calling of some Middlesbrough/Newcastle-Manchester Airport services at Dewsbury would need to be maintained to keep up their service levels/fast journeys too.

But still, the vast majority of services run either beyond Leeds to Hull or beyond York to Scarborough, Middlesbrough and Newcastle. What would happen to these services? Would the 30 mins between Manchester and Leeds involve omitting Huddersfield, which is a much used station on the north Trans Pennine route (the section from here to Leeds being the busiest on the route AFAIK). No doubt the calling of some Middlesbrough/Newcastle-Manchester Airport services at Dewsbury would need to be maintained to keep up their service levels/fast journeys too.

The linespeed increases, acceleration increases, and sorting out of Manchester - Guide Bridge would ensure that Dewsbury and Stalybridge still had trains - and obviously all trains would continue to stop at Huddersfield.

... I agree there may be 15 stations served by HS but the majority of stations will be off the HS network, in fact I'd argue the only through station on a western alignment would be Birmingham International.
They will definitely follow the French example.
I agree they will follow the French paradigms.

However, MAN (Ringway airport) is also an excellent site for a through HS station. Long distance trains from MAN just has to be a good idea.

It sits on long corridors of green fields to the South South East and the North West (as far as the Ship Canal, then turn right at Chat Moss for a potential HS corridor to Yorkshire).

And MAN has local interchange with existing conventional electrified lines (turn off at Styal for Manchester, at Chat Moss for Liverpool and Preston).

I reckon the first line will be unveiled as a 4 track route to outer Brum with a stop at Heathrow and Birmingham Airport and going into central Birmingham designed as straight as possible to allow for trains of ridiculous speeds in future.

But then it will get scaled down to a 2 track line with no line into Brum and a scaled down heathrow stop, with curvier lines because of cost and nimbys.

If High Speed trains are stopping at Preston and Carlise they will not be high speed......it takes a long time to slow down a 200mph+ train. The unwritten rule is that High Speed has to get to Scotland in 3 hours, to do that you can only have a couple of stops and prefereably very few stations on the actual High Speed line. Most stations would be on spurs off it.

This is NOT entirely true. Apart from the density of stations, the acceleration of the trains also matters. With an acceleration of 2.6km/h/s, the Shinkansen N700 series, which Hitachi, the train manufacturer that also built the Javelins, took part in, are able to accelerate to top speed and make a stop within 20km, while the TGVs take more than 26km just to reach top speed, and even longer distance if they have to accelerate to 250mph.

I always recommend HS2 to use EMUs instead of TGV-like locomotives, and even for EMUs, Shinkansen trains still have an advantage in acceleration over the Velaros. Besides, since Hitachi has become a BRITISH manufacturer, and even Bombardier has experience only in manufacturing CRH high speed trains which are based on the Shinkansen and ICE systems, choosing Hitachi or Bombardier-built Shinkansen trains would mean EMPLOYMENT for British workers, while buying trains across the channel doesn't give us this advantage.

Gossip today on railwayeye.blogspot.com (from 'Leo Pink')

Pistols at dawn

Isn't it typical, you wait for years for a proposals for a new UK high speed line network, then two come along.

Next week, Network Rail will pre-empt the report from the Department of Transport's own company, High speed Two Ltd., promised by the end of the year, with its own "costed and detailed business case for a new high speed line".

DfT Rail is reported to be puzzled by this. "What have high speed lines got to do with Network Rail?" is the view in Marsham Street.

Network Rail point out that their High Speed Line study was underway long before 'HS2 Ltd.' was even thought of.

So a tip of the bowler to Iain Coucher for yet again being the only railwayman willing to plant his tanks on DfT Rail's lawn.

this maglev line is actually perfect for the uk. i dont understand why it is not being built RIGHT NOW. there should be no doubt over how this will change the uk FOREVER. and put it on the world map for transport.


what is the likelehood it will be built? any news or progress on planning etc?

Maglev being built is million to one, its generally accepted by most transport planners in the UK to be not quite a mature enough technology yet along with a very high cost and inability to interface with the existing rail network, for example the chinese link cost $50m/km and the Japanese line will be $160m/km and even Ultraspeed the UK advocacy group are saying it will cost $37m/km. I understand that the Chinese have been having some problems with their airport link too. Electrical problems, couple of fires and the lines sinking.

this maglev line is actually perfect for the uk. i dont understand why it is not being built RIGHT NOW. there should be no doubt over how this will change the uk FOREVER. and put it on the world map for transport.

what is the likelehood it will be built? any news or progress on planning etc?

If the revised HS2 plan goes ahead, it'll be no different to serving the function of Maglev with an LGV line, which IMO is stupid. In that case I'd support the Maglev/Ultraspeed proposal instead.

this maglev line is actually perfect for the uk. i dont understand why it is not being built RIGHT NOW. there should be no doubt over how this will change the uk FOREVER. and put it on the world map for transport.


what is the likelehood it will be built? any news or progress on planning etc?


Do you really think the British mainland ought to have a Maglev network as oppose to a conventional high speed rail network?

Wouldn't that scenario make Britain seem even more of an island? There would be no ability to link into the European system via the Channel Tunnel, nor with the historic GB railway network.

Given that Britain is a small little place, would a Maglev system be able to offer enough journey time savings over a 250mph/400kph HS rail line to justify the operational inflexibility?

Gossip today on railwayeye.blogspot.com (from 'Leo Pink')

Pistols at dawn

Next week, Network Rail will pre-empt the report from the Department of Transport's own company, High speed Two Ltd., promised by the end of the year, with its own "costed and detailed business case for a new high speed line".


Interesting...... looking forward to reading this SDG/NR report.

Yes, Maglev would certainly put Britain on the world map for transport for ever, but not in a positive way.
The problem with Maglev is city penetration, the reason it was dropped between Hamburg and Berlin and the fact that it can never be built in stages, something all politicians insist on.
Maglev is a solution without a problem, and as everyone knows the problem comes first.

Its perfect for intercontinental travel, across vast open stretches, but Britain doesnt have that.

Maglev should be introduced in the world to gradually replace, or at least compete with, air travel. It needs a large country to introduce it first though- China, the EU as a whole, Russia or the USA would be ideal. A bit like Heathrow is the one 'intercontinental gateway' to the UK, I would expect only one or two maglev stations in the UK with the HSR network feeding that.

In short, I think maglev has a place in the world, but it's place isn't to replace high speed rail, but be a step up from that for longer haul destinations.

Or clearly defined shuttle only journeys where it might not need to integrate with the greater rail system.

In the UK, I could only think of Glasgow - Edinburgh as being fairly isolated and clear cut demand-wise and viable, or maybe some airport journeys.

London is too polycentric (which Crossrail tackles) and the Transpennine cities aren't all in one line (Sheffield for example) and the flows aren't restricted to the biggest cities, the current rail service has many eastern termini and MAN airport too, so isn't neat and tidy enough for Maglev.

I'm not sure exactly which markets would work, possibly something like Sydney/Melbourne (if it was flat in between) as except for Canberra which you could maybe include, there's nothing really in between but huge flows currently between the airports.

... I'm not sure exactly which markets would work, possibly something like Sydney/Melbourne (if it was flat in between) as except for Canberra which you could maybe include, there's nothing really in between but huge flows currently between the airports.
Conventional wisdom has Las Vegas - Los Angeles as the best economic prospect for maglev.

In the UK it pretty much has to be airport to airport. Liverpool airport - Manchester airport was mooted as a first scheme, largely because the land (and right of way over water) is substantially available and the short distance makes the costs manageable for a pilot project to prove the concept. In effect maglev is so fast that it would make those two airports into one airport on two campuses.

But then the recession killed a good slice of the demand that was driving each of the above schemes. The Angelinos have a lot less spare cash and MAN is not in need of a third runway.

An Australian East coast route would make sense, theres several citys a long distance apart and while they sprawl over a large distance not really any towns inbetween, the existing rails service can take a couple of days to travel the length of the country. Most of Autralias rail traffic is freight however including the longest straight in the world at 497km. Its probably too early for Maglev rail freight due to cost but if it became a mature more affordable technology it would be perfect for huge long distance freight trains,

Conventional wisdom has Las Vegas - Los Angeles as the best economic prospect for maglev.

In the UK it pretty much has to be airport to airport.

If you approach Leeds from the South, it would be quite easy to get maglev into the City Centre. The Aire Valley is largely undeveloped- the parts that are are low density warehouses generally. You wouldn't quite be able to interchange with City but would be able to get within 200m of it. A second central station is likely in Leeds too, which would probably be easy to bring new high speed or maglev lines into. The preferred site seems to be Marsh Lane where there is enough spare land.

Internationally, surely China would be a good place to test Maglev. They've already made a small start in Shanghai. Shanghai-Beijing or Shanghai-Hong Kong?

A second central station is likely in Leeds too, which would probably be easy to bring new high speed or maglev lines into.

Where would that be and whens it planned for? A whole new station? Wouldn't be cheap - the station itself, new tracks running into it, infrastructure works on existing lines etc.

It's not 'planned' as such yet. The 'need' for one has just been put forward though because City station is at fully capacity. New platforms on the north side will increase capacity a bit but there's only so far the station can expand because it's a confined site in many ways.

So it's clear that if rail usage is to keep rising, a new station will be needed. Metro have pointed out that Marsh Lane (which is at the eastern edge of the City Centre at Quarry Hill) is a potential site for a new station because it would be an interchange with the bus station and avoid the congested viaduct into City station. There used to be a station at Marsh Lane too and the site hasn't been developed.

I mention the idea because it could be the ideal terminus for any high speed rail line into the city because there's hardly any obstructions. As I said, the Aire Valley is not particularly developed at the moment and land could be set aside for a new rail line.

No I wouldn't expect it to be cheap, but I'm saying that if this new station is needed anyway, why not design it to have terminus tracks for future high speed rail.

Thanks for the reply. Best of luck on that one, like blood from a stone down in England ( money ). More likely that the station would come about as a result of any HSR investment rather than being in place beforehand?

I suppose it is dependent on when high speed rail actually gets built, or when it comes to Leeds. It's likely that City station will be over capacity very soon considering over 100,000 people already use rail services from there every day.

Leeds City Region could be getting new transport spending powers soon so it will probably be better placed to help fund any new station then than it was a few years ago.

One thing is for sure though, the idea of having high speed rail (or maglev) going airport-airport is not applicable to all cities. It would be far harder to get high speed rail to reach Leeds airport than it would to the city centre.

What exactly is the capacity constraint at Leeds railway station?

Is it track capacity or capacity in the station?

100,000 sounds a lot per day, but in the scheme of things it isn't really, there must be hundreds of busier stations around the world that operate with no problems.

Both- track capacity all day, platform capacity at extended peak times (0700-1000 and 1600-1830). There are are only 6 approach tracks from the west and only 2 from the east. 4 of the approach tracks from the west are through tracks that funnel onto the two tracks on the other side of the station to York. That's two tracks that take commuter services, 4 TPE services an hour, 1XC service an hour (planned to double) as well as occasional NXEC, EMT and Freight trains. With the plan to run London trains out on those two tracks too, capacity is clearly going to be strained.

At peak times the timetable is tight. Most trains wait at Holbeck Junction until a train leaves and frees up a platform. My train has to wait for an Airedale Line train to leave before it can enter.

... One thing is for sure though, the idea of having high speed rail (or maglev) going airport-airport is not applicable to all cities. It would be far harder to get high speed rail to reach Leeds airport than it would to the city centre.
The problem (I don't for one moment doubt that there really is a problem) in running a new rail right of way passing close to Leeds airport is not immediately apparent from google-earth and the like. Lines running roughly West and North-East. What is the problem? Just curious is all.

Sounds to me that the anwer to those congestion problems lie in providing more track capacity somehow and not necessarily a new station which would surely exacerbate the track capacity problems, that to be honest are pretty comon across the UK rail network, and are the main driver for HS2 doing their work, especially the Milton Keynes to London section of the WCML.

Sounds to me that the anwer to those congestion problems lie in providing more track capacity somehow and not necessarily a new station which would surely exacerbate the track capacity problems, that to be honest are pretty comon across the UK rail network, and are the main driver for HS2 doing their work, especially the Milton Keynes to London section of the WCML.

Leeds Station seems a bit weird though. You have lots of trains from random locations terminating at seemingly unsuitable platforms and then hanging about there for an age before they move again (presumably due to the timetabling requirements).

Now obviously there are operational reasons for this but it could probably be sorted out without building a new station. Possibly some grade separated junctions would be needed, and they don't come cheap.

Leeds Station seems a bit weird though. You have lots of trains from random locations terminating at seemingly unsuitable platforms and then hanging about there for an age before they move again (presumably due to the timetabling requirements).

Now obviously there are operational reasons for this but it could probably be sorted out without building a new station. Possibly some grade separated junctions would be needed, and they don't come cheap.

It's not so much to do with the junctions- the lines into Leeds City are organised well generally, but at peak times so many trains enter the station that lines start to have to cross because of platform capacity.

In terms of the airport, Leeds is up on a hill (The Chevin) which rises gently from the south, but is very steep on the north side- far too steep for a rail line. Even if that problem was overcome through tunnels or whatever, the area is a very scenic area- I don't think a construction project like a rail line would ever get approved. The final issue is that if the line was to approach from the middle of Leeds/Bradford, it would have to find it's way through a number of suburban areas- probably through expensive tunnels.

... In terms of the airport, [in the context of a through HSR with a stop at the North end of Leeds airport] Leeds is up on a hill (The Chevin) which rises gently from the south, but is very steep on the north side- far too steep for a rail line. Even if that problem was overcome through tunnels or whatever, the area is a very scenic area- I don't think a construction project like a rail line would ever get approved. ...
Thank you for clarifying that.

Do too many trains terminate there maybe? Perhaps terminating facilities could be improved at Selby, for example, and that could provide communter services? And York extensions could be useful too?

Then again, how many platforms can a train access from the east of Leeds though?

I wonder if it needs splitting up, with the Airedale lines having their own small commuter terminus elsewhere? Ther only through trains are the NXEC Skipton / Bradford services, which could remain.

It is one of the largest stations outside London, dealing with more passengers than Manchester Piccadilly mainly as you suggest because so many services terminate there.

It is one of the largest stations outside London, dealing with more passengers than Manchester Piccadilly mainly as you suggest because so many services terminate there.

I think the only reason it has more people than Manchester Piccadilly is because it's the only station serving the city.

Which is why I asked above, as if services could be delineated and segregated then perhaps a secondary commuter station could be built. Less grand, simple, 6 terminating platforms for quick turnarounds - looking after the Harrogate and Shipley lines maybe, as these mostly terminate.

Yes, a lot of the problem is because of terminating trains. The plan for electrification of routes east of Leeds (York & Selby Lines) have raised the proposal to run cross-city services from Skipton-York or Bradford FS-Selby for example so that trains don't terminate at City on the Airedale & Wharfedale Lines.

There's not really any place for a new station any further west of City station. The nearest opportunity for a new station would be too far from the city centre, and actually capacity is most strained on the east than the west anyway. There's no room for expansion on the east side and only 2 approach tracks. On the west there's a 6 track bottleneck but room for around 2-3 more platforms.

Trains from the east can use platforms 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16 of which 8, 9, 11, 12, 15 and 16 are through platforms.

I would suggest that the problems to the Leeds capacity issues almost certainly do not lie in a new station being built.

Also think it is fair to say that in all likelyhood elctrification is a very long way off.

Other than Great Western and Liverpool to Manchester, who is going to fund such an expensive exercise? Doubt this type of activity is going to be high on the list of priorities of a cash strapped Tory government.

Other than Great Western and Liverpool to Manchester, who is going to fund such an expensive exercise?

Glasgow-Edinburgh has secured funding for electrification of a second line between the cities. Airdie-Bathgate line is u/c to form the fourth line between the cities enabling 13 services an hour between the cities, many running six carriages.


Edinburgh to Glasgow in 35 minutes

Exclusive by DAMIEN HENDERSON

August 17 2009

Ministers have agreed £1bn funding for Scotland's biggest package of railway enhancements in a generation. They will include electrifying the track between Glasgow and Edinburgh and bringing fastest journey times down to just over half an hour.

Under a deal thrashed out over the last month between the government agency, Transport Scotland, and track owners Network Rail funding for the Edinburgh Glasgow Improvement Programme (EGIP) will be borrowed against the asset value of the UK rail network.

Agreement over the funding mechanism will cause relief for ministers. They have so far failed to win approval from Westminster for plans to borrow £2.3bn to pay for a replacement Forth road crossing - a project whose size still threatens to derail other major transport spending schemes over the next decade.

By contrast, the EGIP programme, which involves electrifying more than 350km of track, a new interchange at Gogar and major improvements to track infrastructure and stations, will not require any government borrowing.

The Herald understands that the exact terms of the finance, including the repayment terms, are yet to be ironed out, but that the principle of borrowing against Network Rail's assets has been agreed and sanctioned by the Office of Rail Regulation.

Industry analysts have described it as the most significant improvement to Scotland's railways since the electrification of routes in Ayrshire in the mid-1980s.

Key benefits of the scheme, which is set for completion in 2016, include increasing the frequency of services between Glasgow Queen Street and Edinburgh to around six an hour each way, with a fastest journey time of 35 minutes and some slower services with more stops.

In addition, three services are expected to run hourly between Edinburgh and Glasgow Central on the Shotts and Carstairs routes.

The project will involve electrifying the main line between Glasgow and Edinburgh, including diversionary routes, as well as lines through Stirling to Dunblane and Alloa.

Edinburgh Park Station will also be served by Glasgow-to-Edinburgh services for the first time.

The package of improvements will tie in with a £300m programme to build a new track between Airdrie and Bathgate. This will provide a further line between Scotland's two biggest cities and enable trains to run from Helensburgh through Glasgow Queen Street to Edinburgh.

As well as bringing a major boost to the economy and securing or creating jobs in engineering and running the railways, EGIP will contribute to the Scottish Government's ambitious targets on reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.

Trains running on electrified track emit, on average, 20% to 30% less carbon dioxide than diesel trains and are cheaper to run.

Ministers believe bringing down journey times will bring benefits beyond Glasgow and Edinburgh, by extending the commuter belt of people living less than 60 minutes away from the cities.

The first major milestone will involve building the interchange at Gogar by 2011. It will serve rail services between Edinburgh and Glasgow, and the capital's new tram network. Network Rail is currently exhibiting plans for the interchange and is expected to submit a planning application in October.

A Network Rail spokesman said: "This project has wide-ranging benefits for communities across the central belt of Scotland and we look forward to playing our role in delivering this ambitious programme."

The Scottish Government refused to comment on the project in advance of its official announcement.

A spokeswoman said: "The Scottish Government has ambitious plans for improving the country's rail network and is delivering the biggest transport construction programme seen in Scotland in a generation. We expect to make further announcements in due course."

No-one from the Office of Rail Regulation was available for comment yesterday.

http://theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2525838.0.Edinburgh_to_Glasgow_in_35_minutes.php

Scotland is very different to the rest of the UK.

Amen;) Thought the funding mechanism was interesting though.

Seems to be the funding mechanism being used for every big spend over the last year, borrow on assets. Mind you if the governments got no cash its the only thing they can do if they dont want to cancel a project.

Does that funding mechanism keep the thing off the public balance sheet, given that Network Rail is a "private" company?

What proportion of Network Rail's future income is already mortgaged in this way?

For the accountants amongst you, is all this "reasonable" as a way of financing things?

Is it common abroad, for instance?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8221540.stm

NR announce THEIR work at 9:45am.

Note, HS2 are the company actually tasked with developing HSR2, as such this is something of a red herring as far as I can tell.

The 'guesses' by the journalists, pre-release, will almost certainly be accurate, they will have embargoed versions of the report.

^^

It's interesting that NetWork Rail propose a less exotic route, simply following the path of the WCML. I prefer the HS2 Ltd proposal to include Leeds and Newcastle.

It'll be very interesting to see both reports and compare them both.

I would imagine, in order, the main factors determining the progress of these projects will be ...

Cost
...
...
...
...
Amount of population served


In reality, I bet both suggest HSR2 up to Brum airport, and from there existing tracks go up the WCML and into Brum city centre.

^^


Without a doubt. The final plans of the bit beyond B'ham will not be set until many, many years from now anyway, and the completion date will be something like 20 years from now.

So I won't get too excited.

Christian Wolmar - who I greatly respect, was suggesting that the line will be funded (i.e. construction commence) from about 2015-2017 (legal powers would take that long), with construction possible as far as Manchester by 2025.

Was hugely surprised how 'positive' he was on BBC Breakfast News this morning given his previous negativety on the issue.

He also highlighted the NR - HS2 split.

oh, and watch all those on here who go on about improving the nations transport complainig when the route does not go near where they live.

Sky News - totaly cost £34m.

200mph train.

All the way to Glasgow 2hr 16mins Edinburgh 2hrs 9mins

Would be fully open by 2030.

Along the West Coast Main Line route.

Awesome. Although shouldn't that be £34bn?

Sky News - totaly cost £34m.

200mph train.

All the way to Glasgow 2hr 16mins Edinburgh 2hrs 9mins

Would be fully open by 2030.

Along the West Coast Main Line route.

Cheap! ;-)

and quick, really quick. Still that must avoid city centres and have spurs off it..... any links to the report?

London - Manchester in just over an hour.
London - Glasgow/Edinburgh in just over 2 hours.

Bye bye domestic aviation on those routes.

Manc - London 1hr 6mins - must go into the city centre!!

Brum 46mins.

Yes, Bn not million.

But still a bargin.

I am sure a press release from Michael O'Leary will not be far away.

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/documents/About%20us/New%20Lines%20Programme/5886_NewLineStudy_synopsis.pdf

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/documents/About%20us/New%20Lines%20Programme/5883_Strategic%20Business%20Case.pdf

are the NR reports

The map in the NR document shows a preference for spurs to both B'ham and M'ster. In the case of the former, there would be a spur heading North as well as South.

Am I alone in thinking it would be better if both cities had through-running underground stations built, which had a pair of non-stop lines within them for non-stop trains?

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/documents/About%20us/New%20Lines%20Programme/5886_NewLineStudy_synopsis.pdf

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/documents/About%20us/New%20Lines%20Programme/5883_Strategic%20Business%20Case.pdf

are the NR reports

thanks, I know what I'll be doing for the rest of the day...

Awesome. Let's get it on:drool:

Do you think the fact that this is Network rail's preferred option will carry significant clout and sway the decision, Metro?

Manc - London 1hr 6mins - must go into the city centre!!

Brum 46mins.

Yes, Bn not million.

But still a bargin.

Yes it goes into the city centre but as a spur, the through line avoids the city.

Their operating costs seem low.

Am I alone in thinking it would be better if both cities had through-running underground stations built, which had a pair of non-stop lines within them for non-stop trains?

Just really expensive, yes you lose some benefits in non-London flows eg. Birmingham - Manchester but you get quicker journey times avoiding city centres. Also, unless you make the tunnels huge the HS trains would need to slow down.

Pathetic, no attempts to even involve the East cost.

Perhaps you should read the report to see why the East Coast hasn't been included. This is hardly pathetic.

^^


I agree. Although I like the HS2 proposal for a spine linking with Leeds and Newcastle, the NR report is very good in explaining the preference for a new route following the WCML only.

^^


I agree. Although I like the HS2 proposal for a spine linking with Leeds and Newcastle, the NR report is very good in explaining the preference for a new route following the WCML only.

Can someone point me to this so called HS2 proposal with a spine.

The map in the NR document shows a preference for spurs to both B'ham and M'ster. In the case of the former, there would be a spur heading North as well as South.

Am I alone in thinking it would be better if both cities had through-running underground stations built, which had a pair of non-stop lines within them for non-stop trains?

JLA is stealing KLM passengers from MAN. Liverpool is the obvious spur for Maglev/HSR. There is also the Isle of Man, cruise liner and Irish connections.

^^


The map had been shown in a copy of the Grauniad earlier this month - scroll back through the pages and you'll see a few of us mentioning it.

This had been part of story written about HS2 Ltd - see: http://www.hs2.org.uk.

The HS2 website does not seem to show the route,but I'm sure the Guardian had not been making it up!

As I said before the HS2 remit is a detailed design of London - West Midlands looking at options to Scotland. One of these options will be an S shaped route through Bham, Manc, Leeds, Newcastle, Scotland but this is not the prefered option and I'm sure it will be discounted just as in other studies. Adonis likes the idea of this alignment and he took the idea off the conservatives who will obviously have input into HS2 when they get elected.

Lol....500 miles worth of NIMBY property owners to get past...2030...good luck.

The court actions alone will keep barristers busy for the next 20yrs thats for sure.

Finally got a chance to have a look at it.

Their conclusions seem to be suggesting that option MB1.6 offers the best BCR and affordability.

That line is http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/1913/hs2i.jpg

is dashed upgraded classic line?

Lol....500 miles worth of NIMBY property owners to get past...2030...good luck.

The court actions alone will keep barristers busy for the next 20yrs thats for sure.

Stop being cynical.

is dashed upgraded classic line?

Classic, existing.

Not sure how on MB 1.6 they could get to Glasgow in 2h16 if all the way from Preston is on the existing line, which isn't even 125mph.

It's 2 hours from Preston to Glasgow as it is.

conservatives who will obviously have input into HS2 when they get elected.

When they get elected? A bunch of Eton old boys - a clique, all went to one school. The sort of thing seen in banana republics.

Finally got a chance to have a look at it.

Their conclusions seem to be suggesting that option MB1.6 offers the best BCR and affordability.

That line is http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/1913/hs2i.jpg

I assume the dots is not HSR, so HSR to Warrington then low speed to Liverpool. What are the times for MB1.6, to all cities from Ldn.

Not sure how on MB 1.6 they could get to Glasgow in 2h16 if all the way from Preston is on the existing line, which isn't even 125mph.

It's 2 hours from Preston to Glasgow as it is.

I think different reports are saying 'it may be possible to get London to Glasgow in 2hr 6mins'.

It may, if MB1.4 is chosen.

However, and I may be incorrectly reading the conclusions, they seem to suggest MB1.6 is the prefered option.

When they get elected? A bunch of Eton old boys - a clique, all went to one school. The sort of thing seen in banana republics.

Keep it to a discussion on transport and high speed rail.

Keep it to a discussion on transport and high speed rail.

Yes, you should. And don't vote for a public school boy clique.

Worth pointing out to those discussing Tory plans, that this will not start until 2015 at the absolute earliest.

By which time the legal stuff will have cleared parliament.

Even with construction starting then, it would be up to the following, or even the one after that to decide what to do north (or east) of Manchester.

Keep it to a discussion on transport and high speed rail.

Please do not quote BayCity, I have him on ignore. :ohno:

I think different reports are saying 'it may be possible to get London to Glasgow in 2hr 6mins'.

It may, if MB1.4 is chosen.

However, and I may be incorrectly reading the conclusions, they seem to suggest MB1.6 is the prefered option.

The synopsis recommends the best value for money is MB1.4 (not sure how as MB1.6 has a better BCR). Certainly MB1.4 has a better NPV.

I am suprised the LHR spur didn't offer better value for money, I will have to investigate why.

The large doc seems to suggest that even though 1.4 is best value for money, 1.6 is much more affordable.

There is no reason version 1.6 won't be built first, then converted into 1.4 I would have thought.

The large doc seems to suggest that even though 1.4 is best value for money, 1.6 is much more affordable.

There is no reason version 1.6 won't be built first, then converted into 1.4 I would have thought.

Exactly.

Despite HS2 Ltd being the official government body for HS2, I think Network Rail ought to be commended for a great job, not just by commissioning the study, but by publishing the results so that the public can digest everything.

I wish there were a 'speed-up' button that I could press so we could start looking at station designs for B'ham and M'ster.

They have added additional docs at the bottom of http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/5892.aspx

This document from Network Rail outlines their case. http://www.networkrail.co.uk/documents/About%20us/New%20Lines%20Programme/5886_NewLineStudy_synopsis.pdf. I still prefer the S shape linking Leeds and the North East but as a separate high speed on the East Coast would considered as a future option I think they make a good case for leaving it out. I do have two criticisms though;

The spurs to Manchester and Birmingham are ridiculous. If it’s that much of an engineering nightmare, why doesn’t HS1 have a Stratford spur? This project should be about quicker travel between all UK cities and not just London. Therefore trains calling at Birmingham should also call at Manchester etc with perhaps a bypass option outside the city centre for through trains. However if the spurs are a must then the line should accommodate northern spurs from Birmingham and Manchester and not just a southern spur to London. That way that trains can run between the two and beyond.

Secondly not linking with HS1 is a massive mistake. Understandably people from Glasgow will continue to fly to Paris and Brussels because it will still be quicker. On the other hand when you consider the route will go from city centre to city centre, Birmingham to Paris could be quite an attractive option. The West Midlands would no doubt economically benefit greatly from a high rail link to the Continent.

Finally not having a Heathrow stop isn’t the end of the world but there should be allowances for a future HS line from the London Station to Heathrow. This could be HS3 or HS4 and might go onto Bristol and Cardiff after Heathrow. Ideally trains from the North could also terminate at Heathrow after calling at London.

To sum up generally the line looks good but I do think certain aspects are being done on the cheap.

The spurs to Manchester and Birmingham are ridiculous. If it’s that much of an engineering nightmare, why doesn’t HS1 have a Stratford spur? This project should be about quicker travel between all UK cities and not just London. Therefore trains calling at Birmingham should also call at Manchester etc with perhaps a bypass option outside the city centre for through trains.


I agree, the ideal would be through-running stations, like Straford and Lille.


However if the spurs are a must then the line should accommodate northern spurs from Birmingham and Manchester and not just a southern spur to London. That way that trains can run between the two and beyond.


Option 4.1 does include northern spurs from both cities.


Secondly not linking with HS1 is a massive mistake.


I think if HS2 does get built, a decision will be made at some stage to build a Tunnel that splits from the Euston (assuming Euston is the HS2 terminus) area and joins with the Tunnel at York Way, so Europe-bound trains can bypass St Pancras and call at or zip through Stratford.

i'd be interested to know what the formula was that worked out the trade off between BCR and population. the higher BCR is on the ECML route but the WCML directly serves a greater population although more people live on the eastern part of england. i'd be interested to know how they counted population too... did they count catchment areas for each place, or just the immediate population. when it comes to immediate population the west wins, when it comes to catchment areas if you put the stations in the right place the east wins. to ignore leeds is a travesty, that and edinburgh have the highest and most profitable routes on the entire rail network.

what will population demographics be like by 2025? at current rates almost 60% of the population of england will live on the eastern side of it.

why is this so different to the original stuff which recommended and east and west coast line? is network rail just pitching at the govt for what they think they can politically get away with where the majority of MPs come from where they are proposing to send a line through?

and finally.... is it right that they have just spent almost 10 billion quid upgrading the WCML and now want to build another one although there is greater passenger congestion in the east despite no upgrades for decades.

i'd be interested to know what the formula was that worked out the trade off between BCR and population. the higher BCR is on the ECML route but the WCML directly serves a greater population although more people live on the eastern part of england. i'd be interested to know how they counted population too... did they count catchment areas for each place, or just the immediate population. when it comes to immediate population the west wins, when it comes to catchment areas if you put the stations in the right place the east wins. to ignore leeds is a travesty, that and edinburgh have the highest and most profitable routes on the entire rail network.

why is this so different to the original stuff which recommended and east and west coast line? is network rail just pitching at the govt for what they think they can politically get away with where the majority of MPs come from where they are proposing to send a line through?

and finally.... is it right that they have just spent almost 10 billion quid upgrading the WCML and now want to build another one although there is greater passenger congestion in the east despite no upgrades for decades.

A few points:
- there is no 'formula' between population and BCR, they use models zones around each of the potential stations
- p57 has the Manchester catchment so you can see it is pretty wide
- this report does not say you shouldn't have an east coast route at some point too and their report from a couple of years clearly laid out why WCML was the priority
- even with the upgrade WCML will be constrained quicker than ECML or MML

Finally, while the case of an entire East Coast line is as strong as West Coast, you need to build the network in stages and the strongest initial route is London - Birmingham then Birmingham - Manchester.

- even with the upgrade WCML will be constrained quicker than ECML or MML

constrained in what sense? not in passengers as i know for a fact the most overloaded stuff is on the east when it comes to passenger numbers so i assume they mean there isn't enough space on it for the trains as they have so many trains use it?

- there is no 'formula' between population and BCR, they use models zones around each of the potential stations

so how are they working it out then?

you need to build the network in stages and the strongest initial route is London - Birmingham then Birmingham - Manchester.

so really the WCML upgrade was a waste of money and we should have built HSR then.

I agree, the ideal would be through-running stations, like Straford and Lille.





Option 4.1 does include northern spurs from both cities.





I think if HS2 does get built, a decision will be made at some stage to build a Tunnel that splits from the Euston (assuming Euston is the HS2 terminus) area and joins with the Tunnel at York Way, so Europe-bound trains can bypass St Pancras and call at or zip through Stratford.


Through stations would increase costs and journey times between London and Manchester.

The main purpose of the New Line is to abstract the main passenger flows between London and Birmingham and Manchester.

For the new line trains to take advantage of high speeds there should be as few stops as possible. The core service is 4 non stop trains (10 carriage) and hour to Birmingham, and the same to Manchester. To ensure the robustness of the time table only 14 trains an hour, assuming the high speed line stops at Preston, are timetabled onto the route.

Liverpool gets another 2 trains an hour , plus 2 express to Preston, one of which is local to Carlisle and the other express to Glasgow.

With spare capacity north of Birmingham, 2 regional expresses from Birmingham would operate to Manchester, with going on to Edinburgh and another to Glasgow.

There would be fewer trains from Manchester and Birmingham via the classic route and they would have more stops, leading to a big increase in destinations serves from Watford, Milton Keynes, Northhampton, Rugby and Stafford. There would be also opportunity for new direct services to London on the classic route from Shrewsbury and Blackpool.

The main passenger flows are to the South, this justifies expensive new track from Manchester and Birmingham towards London. While there is traffic from Birmingham northwards, they have decided the time penalty was not worth the cost of a longer tunnel across the West Midlands.

They determined that if there was a through tunnel in Birmingham the service pattern would have to be 6 trains an hour between London and Manchester but the trains would have to 15 carriages long. The journey time would be longer due to the additional stop and slower speeds in a tunnel, so would attract less passengers at a higher cost.

to ignore leeds is a travesty, that and edinburgh have the highest and most profitable routes on the entire rail network.


To an extent, I think you're right. However, I'm presuming that the strategy of NR is to get Britain's high speed network built in stages.

Or rather, the only way it can be 'sold' to the taxpayer is to build it in stages.

So NR is starting with the easiest sections.

1. London to Birmingham
2. London to Manchester
3. London to Glasgow - and Edinburgh
4. London to Liverpool
5. Birmingham/Manchester to Glasgow/Edinburgh.


I'm sure there is a planner at NR somewhere who is also studying a link from HS2 to places like Sheffield and Leeds. But the only way for the more eastern cities to get a rail line is for the core 'artery' to be built first.


and finally.... is it right that they have just spent almost 10 billion quid upgrading the WCML and now want to build another one although there is greater passenger congestion in the east despite no upgrades for decades.


Yes. The WCML had been in a shocking state prior to the upgrade, and the tight curves mean that a 125mph 'classic' railway is worth having, even with the advent of HS2.

Because of it's location and links with other lines, traffic will continue to grow on the WCML. Apart from the rise in freights, towns not being served by HS2 will add to demand and will themselves make very good use of the 125mph services the WCML can now offer.

Think of Milton Keynes, Northampton, Rugby, Coventry and so on.

In a sense, the southern section of the WCML will become a fast, inter-urban railway a bit like the main line out of Waterloo.

why not do what the french do? have both express services that don't stop, and services that do stop. that way you get the best of both worlds. oh yeah, cost.

To an extent, I think you're right. However, I'm presuming that the strategy of NR is to get Britain's high speed network built in stages.

Or rather, the only way it can be 'sold' to the taxpayer is to build it in stages.

So NR is starting with the easiest sections.

1. London to Birmingham
2. London to Manchester
3. London to Glasgow - and Edinburgh
4. London to Liverpool
5. Birmingham/Manchester to Glasgow/Edinburgh.

yes. well if they want to sell it to the taxpayer they need to actually say they want to build rather more than this in stages. right now over half the country is going "ok that's great but it doesn't benefit me, there's no plans for it to benefit me, and they just finished a fucking upgrade there anyway!"

As for the ECML, I've always had the impression that the route is a 125mph race track, with four tracks running pretty much all of the way from London, give or take the odd section here and there.

If congestion is an issue on the route, is the main cause these two and three track sections? If so, then NR ought to 'dust off' the plans for the ECML upgrade which came out some years back.

These would four-track the Welwyn viaduct, four-track the bit South of Peterborough, and four-track any other bit right up to Yorkshire, as well as do other wonderful things, such as eliminate the flat crossing at Newark.

As far as I know, few freights these days travel the ECML, and even if these are an issue, I believe there has been a proposal revamp/re-open some secondary lines East of the ECML to siphon some of these trains away.

In summary, it seems to me, if I'm right, that it's relatively easy to tweak the ECML to provide more capacity for 125mph services, and most of the trains serving Leeds are, surely, pretty much non-stop to London.

ted... the problem is you have 20 stretches of track capable of 140mph, or even 155mph, and then a 1 mile stretch where the maximum speed is 70, or in the case of york, 15. if they sorted out these bottle necks then the trains would be able to run at 140mph along almost all the length south of york and much higher on some bits. i've got a document somewhere with the maximum track speed for each stretch. it is relatively easy to tweak but there is no money for it.

constrained in what sense? not in passengers as i know for a fact the most overloaded stuff is on the east when it comes to passenger numbers so i assume they mean there isn't enough space on it for the trains as they have so many trains use it?



so how are they working it out then?



so really the WCML upgrade was a waste of money and we should have built HSR then.

As far as I can see, they think the West coast line is going to be the most Capacity restrained. They think there is so much demand from West coast towns, that there is not much point trying to link Leeds, Sheffield or Leicester with expensive spurs that will see relatively little demand. The new line will be full very quickly. The old classic line will fill up with other services as soon as the capacity is released.

If the souther section is built with the space to be expanded to 4 tracks then East coast links, would be viable as you divert a significant number of services from the East coast mainline.

And yes the a big chunk of the West coast main line has proved to be a waste, if they had started to build a high speed line instead.

I think we are seeing a difference between what Network rail and HS2 will come up with. HS2 just sees one London terminus (I bet Old Oak Common) with four tracks to the West Midlands, then a spur either side of the Pennines.

Network rail wants a terminus on the circle line, to fit the extras into Euston or St Pancras would require either Midland mainline commuter services diverted to Crossrail, or DC services to the Bakerloo line. Plus it has only looked at two track line. I bet, it would eventually prefer two or three new lines, to London, to Bypass the West and east coast mainlines and Maybe the Great Western. replicating the existing routes but with extra capacity.

As far as I can see, they think the West coast line is going to be the most Capacity restrained.

so by capacity you mean trains, not the total passenger levels?

yes. well if they want to sell it to the taxpayer they need to actually say they want to build rather more than this in stages. right now over half the country is going "ok that's great but it doesn't benefit me, there's no plans for it to benefit me, and they just finished a fucking upgrade there anyway!"

Agreed. This is a reflection of the long-standing lack of a strategic planning culture, at least in transport terms, within the British state.

In constrast, the French state is very good at explaining the logic behind transport investment decisions.

On a positive note, I sense that Britain is changing for the better. No really, I do.

It has taken a while, but the impact of the Channel Tunnel and HS1 is now being felt by the British masses and therefore, civil servants and politicians.

Add to that the fact that we, as in we British, work and play more and more in Continental Europe, and you have a culture which, in a sense, demands to know why things are different on this island, when it comes to transport.

This is leading to bodies like HS2 Ltd being set up, and Network Rail doing the work that it is doing.

I'm certain that it will become more clear to everyone as to why the WCML upgrade has been a good thing, and how the population on the East side of the country will benefit from investments too.

Remember that Railtrack had been doing a good PR job in this regard, and the lack of PR has much to do with the 'problem years' leading up to and following it's demise.

so how are they working it out then?

.

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/documents/About%20us/New%20Lines%20Programme/5879_Demand%20forecasting%20technical%20note.pdf

they are using demand data from 2002, which includes some of the same discredited data they used to justify the WCML! the catchment areas for the stations are absurd, chichester and bedford can be served by london... wtf.

ted... the problem is you have 20 stretches of track capable of 140mph, or even 155mph, and then a 1 mile stretch where the maximum speed is 70, or in the case of york, 15. if they sorted out these bottle necks then the trains would be able to run at 140mph along almost all the length south of york and much higher on some bits. i've got a document somewhere with the maximum track speed for each stretch. it is relatively easy to tweak but there is no money for it.


Well it's good that the only issue is a lack of money. In other words, at least in engineering terms the ECML does not represent the kind of headache that the WCML had been offering prior to the upgrade.

As for York - well, I guess this must have to be the achilles heel of the ECML. I doubt that it would be worth building a York-bypass just for the number of trains that would skip the city.

How did I guess what you would be going on about Goth.

Does the fact that report, after report after report all from professionals who have spent a lot more time and effort investigating this, all come out stating London-Brum then onwards not tell you that maybe, just maybe, those professionals, having spent all that effort may, just may be right and you, may, just may not be right here?

they are using demand data from 2002, which includes some of the same discredited data they used to justify the WCML! the catchment areas for the stations are absurd, chichester and bedford can be served by london... wtf.

2002 data not ideal. Shows you how long they have been working on this though.

If you lived in Chichester or Bedford and wanted to get the train to Glasgow how would you do it......?

Does the fact that report, after report after report all from professionals who have spent a lot more time and effort investigating this, all come out stating London-Brum then onwards not tell you that maybe, just maybe, those professionals, having spent all that effort may, just may be right and you, may, just may not be right here?

or does report after report from professionals who have been asked to "justify a new high speed line" to london count? funny isn't it how all the reports previously which were asked to look at both lines concluded the higher BCR was on the east. :) they should have used primary research for this, not old data. the stuff they did in 2002 to justify the continuation of the WCML was a load of crap as history has proved.


If you lived in Chichester or Bedford and wanted to get the train to Glasgow how would you do it......?

yes but also if i wanted to get a train to birmingham from bedford i wouldn't go via london! it's not a valid fare to go south to go north in our network. that would require two tickets to travel apparently.

When were NR asked to develop a scheme that would justify a HS line to London?

I was off the understanding they did this off their own backs, with no one asking them.

Maybe you are right and the reporters, the journalists as well as the professionals are all wrong.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8221540.stm

New high-speed rail plan unveiled

Network Rail has proposed a new £34bn ($55bn) high-speed railway line linking Scotland and London by 2030.

The line would serve Birmingham and Manchester, getting passengers from Glasgow to London in just two hours and 16 minutes, the rail firm said.

It rejected several alternative routes, including the east of England.

The government said assessments of the costs and environmental issues involved needed to be carried out before it could approve any plans.

It is currently conducting its own rail network review and said it hoped to be in a position to make a decision next year.

If given the go-ahead, Network Rail said it would take up to five years to decide on the exact route and complete the planning stages.

It wants the first section of the line between London and Birmingham to be completed by 2020.

The line would become the country's second high-speed rail link after the line that runs from London St Pancras to the Channel Tunnel, run by the Eurostar service and connecting to high-speed lines in continental Europe.

New line

Network Rail's proposed new line linking Glasgow and Edinburgh with London, on which trains could travel as fast as 200mph, would also serve Manchester, Liverpool, Preston and Birmingham.

A spokesman for one of Manchester's biggest employers, Kellog's cereals, said: "This is great news for business in Manchester, just as London is going to be more accessible for us, Manchester will be for those in the South East."

The new line would cut the journey between London and Birmingham to 45 minutes, from a best time of one hour and 22 minutes currently.

Rail passengers would also be able to get to Liverpool in one hour and 23 minutes, from two hours and eight minutes now.

Network Rail, the company that runs Britain's rail infrastructure, said the new line would require more than 1,500 miles of rail, sleepers and ballast, as well as 138 bridges over roads and current railway lines.

Network Rail says the new line is required to ease the pressure on Britain's railways. It says passenger numbers have rocketed by 40% over the past decade, and that by 2024, many existing lines will be at full capacity.

Transport Secretary Lord Adonis told the BBC that high-speed links were vital for the future.

"This report makes a powerful case for high-speed rail in Britain," he said.

Lord Adonis said the company set up by the government to prepare a high-speed rail plan would take "full account" of the proposals and deliver a report by the end of the year, with a decision by next year.

Currently, the route proposal will be between London and the West Midlands, with options to extend the line to Scotland and the north of England.

Alternative options

The Conservatives' shadow transport secretary, Theresa Villiers, told the BBC she welcomed the announcement.

"We're committed to taking high-speed rail to the north of England, and we think Labour should match that," she said.

The Conservatives currently propose to build a rail link between Leeds and London.

Network Rail said it had rejected routes that would have taken the new line via Leeds and Newcastle upon Tyne, as well as a route that included Leicester and Sheffield and another option through Bristol and Cardiff.

But Greg Mulholland, MP for Leeds North West, said: "Once again this government has neglected the people of Yorkshire when it comes to investment in transport."

Network Rail based its decision on a 12-month study involving 20,000 hours of work and more than 1,500 pages of analysis.

The firm said that the line would account for 43.7 million journeys per year by 2030, which would result in 3.8 million fewer vehicle journeys and fewer carbon dioxide emissions.

"If, as research suggests, up to three times as many passengers will be travelling on our railways by 2020, then it is important that we move quickly in planning today for the rail network of tomorrow," said Scotland's Transport Minister Stewart Stevenson.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46271000/gif/_46271284_rail_fast_tracks_226map.gif

Birmingham: 45mins, down from 1h 22mins
Liverpool: 1hr 23mins, down from 2hrs 8mins
Manchester: 1hr 6mins, down from 2hrs 7mins
Edinburgh: 2hrs 9mins, down from 4hrs 23mins
Glasgow: 2hrs 16mins, down from 4hrs 10 mins

Network rail wants a terminus on the circle line, to fit the extras into Euston or St Pancras would require either Midland mainline commuter services diverted to Crossrail, or DC services to the Bakerloo line. Plus it has only looked at two track line. I bet, it would eventually prefer two or three new lines, to London, to Bypass the West and east coast mainlines and Maybe the Great Western. replicating the existing routes but with extra capacity.


The London terminus issue is the most curious aspect of HS2 for me. I don't think that NR envisages HS2 trains running to more than one terminus by the way.

I haven't read any speculation of my idea of using Paddington, which I think may be ideal, given that it will offer up considerable capacity when Crossrail opens.

On balance, as this thread has discussed before, it might be wise to predict that the government will go with Euston, via a tunnel running from the line parallel to the Central Line, in a tunnel from Old Oak Common.

Re - Goth

Your 'point' about the best BCR just about sums your position up.

It does not in anyway shape or form take into account the wider issues, about how it can be delivered in stages and all the millions of other things that need to be taken into account.

As I say, I am sure you are always right and those at Greengauge, Network Rail, HS2 and the Tory parties professionals have all got it wrong.

Unfortunately for you though, the line, if built, will go up the west coast, at least as far as Manchester, no matter who wins the next election, because all those groups who do not seem to know what they are talking about seem to have the ear of both major political parties.

that's why atkins for example said that there should be a west coast line built as far as preston and then a full east coast one. none of the above changes the fact that the most profitable routes are london to leeds and london to edinburgh. one nice example is how much the intercity rail travel in leeds has grown by over the past decade compared to anywhere else. by 2025 at current rates it'll be larger than birmingham! that figure comes from network rail and is rather more recent than anything in their study. as far as commuting goes passenger levels for leeds are at 58% at 22,000 per day compared to 21,400 for manchester which is only 42% capacity. during the peak morning hour leeds has a load factor to total capacity of 83%, manchester scores 56%. at current growth rates leeds will hit over 100% within five years.

it appears that this HSR proposal conflicts with network rail's own strategic management plan which does rather prove my point - they are putting out stuff about demand and capacity on the network that say one thing and then doing reports on HSR that say another. what possible explanation is there for this?

or does report after report from professionals who have been asked to "justify a new high speed line" to london count? funny isn't it how all the reports previously which were asked to look at both lines concluded the higher BCR was on the east. :) they should have used primary research for this, not old data. the stuff they did in 2002 to justify the continuation of the WCML was a load of crap as history has proved.



yes but also if i wanted to get a train to birmingham from bedford i wouldn't go via london! it's not a valid fare to go south to go north in our network. that would require two tickets to travel apparently.

Every single report has said the first place you should go is Birmingham and then Manchester. On a full East Coast vs West Coast the East wins, but unfortunately you can not build a line in one go so it has to be phased therefore you go to Birmingham first.

PLANET would not model any HS journey from Bedford to Birmingham via London. The catchments they have used are spot on.

Re - Goth

No.

I am sure what you say is correct.

I am also sure that there is a lot more to consider that the most profitable route, and I am sure those professionals who look at it, from various different backgrounds appreciate that, hence the reason they have all come with the same proposals, i.e. West first, at least to Preston.

Anyway, fact is every main party sees the west as the first route, if it does happen that is the line that will happen first, shout and scream as much as you like, but no one in a descision making position is listening as they have the well researched reports from the professionals.

that's why atkins for example said that there should be a west coast line built as far as preston and then a full east coast one. none of the above changes the fact that the most profitable routes are london to leeds and london to edinburgh. one nice example is how much the intercity rail travel in leeds has grown by over the past decade compared to anywhere else. by 2025 at current rates it'll be larger than birmingham! that figure comes from network rail and is rather more recent than anything in their study.

Exactly, west coast first.... Then maybe east coast to follow. Which is what has become the concensus.

What are the passenger numbers for the East and West Coast Mainlines?

Every single report has said the first place you should go is Birmingham and then Manchester. On a full East Coast vs West Coast the East wins, but unfortunately you can not build a line in one go so it has to be phased therefore you go to Birmingham first.

so why do the routes they are showing go past birmingham to glasgow and edinburgh? that's what i mean! they are planning it seems on going well past birmingham, doing a full west coast line which makes no sense at all and ignores leeds in the process, see the map in post 988.

so why do the routes they are showing go past birmingham to glasgow and edinburgh? that's what i mean! they are planning it seems on going well past birmingham, doing a full west coast line which makes no sense at all, see the map in post 988.

Why does a full WCML HS route make no sense?

The NR study clearly shows that a full HS route via the WCL corridor would be good for London-Glasgow/Edinburgh journeys, as well as for those from Birmingham and Manchester to/from Scotland.

What are the passenger numbers for the East and West Coast Mainlines?

for the franchises rather than lines.

East Coast (2007) - 17.6m journeys, 4.3b passenger km
West Coast (2007) - 21.8m jounrneys, 4.2b passenger km

source: Rail Industry Monitor (2008)

it makes no sense because it has lower BCR than a full east one. i believe the 17.6 million does not include hull trains and the others intercity providers exclusively use the ECML but that's only about three quarters of a million more.

in 2006 GNER carried 17.4 million (I assume flare is referring to 2007 figures for them) and hull trains carried 670,000.

so why do the routes they are showing go past birmingham to glasgow and edinburgh? that's what i mean! they are planning it seems on going well past birmingham, doing a full west coast line which makes no sense at all and ignores leeds in the process, see the map in post 988.

Maybe, just maybe, the professionals see it as the best way of getting the Scottish cities connected.

Maybe, just maybe the professionals understand there is a requirement to get them connected at the earliest oppurtunity, and maybe, just maybe, the lower BCR in achiving the connection in this manner is outwayed by the benefits in having them connected a lot earlier than otherwise would have the case, economically as well as politically.