Which suggests TRU is being seen as meeting most of the Leeds - Manchester improvement wishes (it delivers more than half of the journey time reduction of new build NPR at far lower costs and improves both local and long distance journeys).
Would anyone prefer a reversal (taking 5min or so) over the alternative of delaying any HS2/NPR service reaching Manchester by at least five years? It would take that long to design the through station and obtain all the powers, even if the funding was available.
As snowball alludes to, in Birmingham, a new through station is being constructed. Trains won't need to reverse during their journey at Birmingham Curzon Street.
I think that many reasonable arguments have been put forward for a terminal station, especially on cost grounds but also as you state on practicality and speed of construction. There is also the point that a better journey experience can be delivered in theory for trains originating there by having them waiting in the platform in advance of departure. But of course the background to the government's thinking is always cost and not any of this.
I don't think there's anything wrong with a reversal at Manchester. If at some point in the future it's determine that a through station is needed, then such a station can be built. See also Frankfurt,
I think what was meant is that trains heading north of Birmingham will call at Birmingham Interchange Station, and only trains terminating in Birmingham will use Curzon Street. Therefore no train will reverse at Curzon Street as an intermediate stop en-route to it's final destination.
There are of course some pretty critical things that it won't assist with, such as the constrained frequency from Dewsbury to Leeds and at intermediate stations, impractical and unreliable services from the four stations between Stalybridge and Huddersfield, relief on platform capacity Leeds especially with regards to the highly restricted platform 17, and of course the range of very poor speeds you mention. There is also the question of what infrastructure might actually be delivered for Liverpool-bound services... This is all for entry into service in the 2040s at some time.
This is correct thank you.
That depends on how far NPR would be a new and separate route eastward from Piccadilly HS2 station, where the HS2 proposals now include stubs for a route to turn off just outside Piccadilly HS2. I imagine it would go at least far enough to bypass Stalybridge, even in any cut-down version.
Yes.
Are they not going to electrify to Guidebridge too?
That is the plan. Remember what is currently happening on the ground is all the minimal Grayling spec plan.
Only for a few through trains a day to/from Nice.
If you have a new driver/guard ready to take it out so there are no long walks for the crew. No reason you cant reverse in under 5 minutes
A tiny proportion of services reverse at those stations. Imagine if all the GWML services had to reverse at Reading, or all the TPE services had to reverse at Leeds. The implications on the throat design just don't bear thinking about.
How many services per hour would be reversing at Picc if Leeds-London and Leeds-Birmingham get routed that way on top of NPR? Has any other new build main line station been planned along such lines?
Just as important as the configuration of Piccadilly (HS) is what happens after NPR traffic turns left at Ardwick.
Leeds - Curzon Street via Manchester is probably looking at a minimum 34 minute journey time reduction (vs currently, max 39@ best). Via HS2 east is 69minutes reduction. If you aren't starting at Curzon Street or central Leeds and need 1/2 interchanges then via Manchester may not end up being that attractive.
It doesn’t matter about the eastern branch times if it’s not built. What matters is the comparative journey time between the XC journey times via Sheffield & Derby vs journey times via Manchester. 35 mins will be enough to make people switch.
