Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Er not with six platforms they won't.
They absolutely could. It'd involve not timing the Euston end quite as slackly as it is now, but it's not impossible.
Er not with six platforms they won't.
It would if the Underground were directly accessible from the high speed platforms by lifts and escalators, and without any ticket gate delays. But that's not and never was the plan. Instead people will have to exit via the existing concourse and walk outside to the Underground entrance. Some people will take over 15 minutes to walk from the far end of a 400 metre platform to the current Underground entrance.They absolutely could. It'd involve not timing the Euston end quite as slackly as it is now, but it's not impossible.
Labour created it out of the Railtrack wreckage oh and they promised renationalisation but never deliveredNR - created under the privatisation process imposed by the Tories. Utter mismanagement of their oh-so-wonderful competitive privatised network, even if parts of it lie ostensibly in the public arena, they are still under the auspices of this dire shower in government.
Sure but isn't hs2 meant to take high speed trains off the wcml? Is it even gonna do that at this point?I suppose that depends on whether you think that Birmingham is England's second city.
It would if the Underground were directly accessible from the high speed platforms by lifts and escalators, and without any ticket gate delays. But that's not and never was the plan. Instead people will have to exit via the existing concourse and walk outside to the Underground entrance. Some people will take over 15 minutes to walk from the far end of a 400 metre platform to the current Underground entrance.
Sure but isn't hs2 meant to take high speed trains off the wcml? Is it even gonna do that at this point?
Depends what ends up left on the WCML south of Handsacre. If many residual services are kept then you'll start running into trouble.Not sure what you're on about. All nine electric classic WCML services would move onto HS2, and if North Wales is wired then the tenth will too.
These services can already be pathed on the Trent as they already run on it.
No? Nothing like that? Rule of thumb an HS2 train will have around two current trains worth of people onboard.Like they have to do now.
Which of these items will draw a response from the Labour Party, stating that they have no manifesto promises on them?
Depends what ends up left on the WCML south of Handsacre. If many residual services are kept then you'll start running into trouble.
No? Nothing like that? Rule of thumb an HS2 train will have around two current trains worth of people onboard.
Again wrong. Unless you're suggesting Coventry, Rugby and Milton Keynes to London will have no fast services at all?As I said they are not additional services.
Id wager those proposals are going to be hastily re-written.Every proposal I've seen has been for 4 - one Manchester, two Brum (don't go near Handsacre) and the North Wales, so a net gain of 1.
Again wrong. Unless you're suggesting Coventry, Rugby and Milton Keynes to London will have no fast services at all?
Its going to remove majority of Rugby to Euston AWC traffic which frees up plenty of capacity.Sure but isn't hs2 meant to take high speed trains off the wcml? Is it even gonna do that at this point?
It's plain that's no longer the plan since the Eastern leg was ditched.No it won't. Phase 1 is all 200m except Birmingham.
Id wager those proposals are going to be hastily re-written.
It's plain that's no longer the plan since the Eastern leg was ditched.
Not a chance, not without closing the station at peak times every single office commuting day. It all relied on the rebuild which is now not going to happen.All the plans I've seen involve four:
2 Birmingham - don't go near Handsacre
1 Manchester - this is the only net increase
1 N Wales - same whether it's on HS2 or not
Euston can cope with adding one train per hour if it's gaining five platforms over what it currently has (16 will be lost to HS2).
Yes, but the work is still being done to allow every train to divide at Birmingham Interchange, Crewe and Preston.No, it's not. No work is being done to extend platforms at Liverpool LS, Manc Picc, Glasgow Central etc, so only 200m (or a mid length) is possible. 400m doesn't fit.
Yes, but the work is still being done to allow every train to divide at Birmingham Interchange, Crewe and Preston.
That was, again, the IRP proposal. A proposal which is now dead as can be and effectively irrelevant.There has never, ever been a proposal for every train to divide. Only one train was to do so, a split Liverpool/Lancaster. With 2A/2B and Golborne the Glasgow/Edinburgh was to split/join at Carlisle but that's long gone.
That was, again, the IRP proposal. A proposal which is now dead as can be and effectively irrelevant.
without openeing that can of worms it is. End of storyI suppose that depends on whether you think that Birmingham is England's second city.
Less trains, less depot space, increased headways, lower power provisionsHS2 Ltd has indicated that its projected cost to deliver Phase 1 will significantly exceed the current Funding Envelope of £44.6 billion. The Department for Transport considers that the outturn cost of the current scope of Phase 1 should lie between £45 billion and £54 billion and has been clear that HS2 Ltd should deliver at the lower end of this range even if that entails difficult choices. However, the scope of Phase 1 will now need to be reviewed to make sure only what is required for the reduced HS2 scheme is being delivered, including the revised approach to Euston. Once this work has been done we will publish to Parliament a revised cost range for the revised HS2 scheme in 2023 values
Rather depends if they mean six new platforms and couple of existing ones linked into new approachEr not with six platforms they won't.
Well when you've only got four to six services per hour to fit 9tph into, you don't really have much choice but to attach and detach nearly all of them. The ones that don't will be the Birmingham ones.Given the performance implications of splitting and joining, and how many TOCs have abandoned it, a timetable involving every train splitting/joining is not going to happen, and has never been proposed in any of the proposals, not even the Phase 1 one.
It's the value of the land which can be used for development. Six platforms (assuming P16 is included in this as per the original plan) will fit almost within the old station footprint, leaving a whole block to develop and sell for an absolute fortune - this is about as prime as UK building land gets.
Great! At least it's somethingIts going to remove majority of Rugby to Euston AWC traffic which frees up plenty of capacity.
Rather depends if they mean six new platforms and couple of existing ones linked into new approachEr not with six platforms they won't.
Well when you've only got four to six services per hour to fit 9tph into
I suppose that's true, same goes for the tunnel they've just booted out of scope. "innovative" entrance solutions like a bus interchange on the northern end of the new platforms might help to add entry and exit capacity. But all of this is utterly unknown and nobody has had any advance notice, not even Network Rail, let alone done a formal study.Rather depends if they mean six new platforms and couple of existing ones linked into new approach
60. [...] and to reopen the Maid Marion [sic] Line to passenger rail services
I suppose that's true, same goes for the tunnel they've just booted out of scope. "innovative" entrance solutions like a bus interchange on the northern end of the new platforms might help to add entry and exit capacity. But all of this is utterly unknown and nobody has had any advance notice, not even Network Rail, let alone done a formal study.