HS2 | Comments, ideas and improvements

In my ideal scenario this would have been planned alongside HS1 so St Pancras could be rebuilt to house HS1 and HS2 services on various different levels allowing for seamless connections pretty much as good as a direct international service to the North.

The OOC interchange station would be sited where the WLL crosses the GWML.

Birmingham Curzon Street would basically be the Arup Grand Central proposal.

Leeds station would be a rebuild of Leeds City rather than a T-shaped station.

Manchester Piccadilly HS2 services would go into an underground station with the purpose of making Manchester a through station on the core route.

HS2 would go not only all the way to Glasgow and Edinburgh, but also up to Aberdeen. And at the other end a branch to South Wales and Plymouth from somewhere between Birmingham and London. As well as a branch to Heathrow and the South Coast.

The core route would be four track obviously.

It would basically look something like this Hyperloop proposal, but for high speed trains rather than imaginary people pods and with the Eastern branch:



Anyone who disagrees with me is an astroturfer.

High-speed rail is unnecessary as new trains can reach 186mph on existing tracks.

Capacity issues are only on the WCML south of MK. The WCML has twice the traffic of the ECML. North of MK the WCML only has 'bottlenecks'.

The history of inter-city in the UK. In the early 1960s trains to major cities from London were spread over 4 mainlines:

- Liverpool/Glasgow - WCML
- Leeds/Newcastle - ECML
- Sheffield/Manchester- MML
- Birmingham/Wolverhampton - Chiltern Line

In the 60s the WCML was electrified with faster trains. The Manchester, Birmingham and Wolverhampton trains were moved to the WCML, which serves five cities, six inc' Edinburgh. The rest of the mainlines were straighter and lightly used.

The population expanded and the WCML became heavily loaded. The capacity south of MK on the WCML can be alleviated by diverting trains back to their original lines when updated and electrified. The ECML is now electrified with the MML electrified from London to Bedford - only to cater for Thameslink - the north can piss off as far as Whitehall is concerned, their section of the MML stayed slow diesel. The shorter Chiltern Line is still shamefully diesel run.

Uprating the 4 mainlines by electrification and removing bottlenecks will solve capacity issues. The Chiltern Line will benefit by improved local and regional services, so knock-on benefits.

Opening old and building new lines, which are needed for local & regional use, will take trains off the mainlines creating four expressways. Local and regional lines will be more accepted as they are used by the populations they run though daily, so little aggressive resistance as HS2 as seen. They can see the immediate benefits to themselves.

Take out the bottlenecks on the WCML, run the trains as fast as can be and journey time from London to Manchester compared to full HS2 is about 15 minutes slower. As trains are replaced over the decades, newer faster up to 186mph train can be introduced pretty well equalling HS2 journey times.

The new 140mph Hitachi trains, they have 160mph models, can make London to Leeds on the ECML about 12 minutes slower than the planned HS2. Faster using 160mph trains. 160mph is classed as high-speed rail.

There is no need to build a high-speed rail line in the UK, apart from HS3 (NPR). Many rail experts have constantly emphasised this point. All that it needs is:

- Spread the inter-city services over the
four mainlines, Back to their original
early 1960s lines.
- Electrify all the mainlines (which is overdue).
- Remove bottlenecks from the mainlines.
- Use state of the art fast trains reaching
up to 186mph in some tilting models.
- Build HS3 (NPR).
- Build essential local & regionsl rail
taking trains off mainlines.

A full direct and straight HS3 (NPR) adds a new dynamic, giving capacity release, cascading throughout the network. HS3 will intersect three mainlines. The fast 140-180mph trains means Manchester can be accessed via the shorter MML and then west under the Pennines via a HS3 base tunnel. Then the WCML has more capacity, which is important giving the expansion of the Port of Liverpool. Fast up to 186mph trains to Liverpool. Scottish trains then run directly up the WCML.

HS3 adds redundancy

Salif said:

The OOC interchange station would be sited where the WLL crosses the GWML.

Click to expand...

Better interchange with Overground is something clearly needed. However it shouldn't just be WLL, but NLL too, as such, where it is is right, but the Overground needs to be diverted via it like those old plans.

Birmingham Curzon Street would basically be the Arup Grand Central proposal.

Click to expand...

It was disgusting the way that those plans were buried so shortly before HS2 would fix it. 100% agree!

Leeds station would be a rebuild of Leeds City rather than a T-shaped station.

Click to expand...

Less vital than the other non-interchanges, especially since the HS2 platforms have been moved up to abut the existing station, but Leeds needs a rejig anyway, and E-W platforms and NPR integration would be good.

Manchester Piccadilly HS2 services would go into an underground station with the purpose of making Manchester a through station on the core route.

Click to expand...

The core route is best going between Manchester and Liverpool, though Manchester as a through station would be useful for NPR. Manchester-Scotland access can route via NPR and turn onto HS2 at Golborne.

Salif, your idea does have merit only if 4 track. Manchester and Birmingham would slow down trains. The backbone is best running between Liverpool and Manchester with HS3 having an essential Pennines 'base' tunnel, serving Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle (via the ECML). Birmingham can be bypassed using two of the tracks with the other pair diverting in and out of Birmingham.

The backbone must not run through cities. Then the speeds are kept up.