I’ve never followed the ins and outs of HS2 too carefully. Whenever it was
brought into question about the alleged time savings the counter argument
was it was always about increasing capacity because the southern part of
the WCML is full. Is capacity on the WCML north of the Handsacre junction a
significant issue? If not, dumping the HS2 trains onto the existing line to
get to Manchester seems quite sensible - given it is not supposed to be
about time savings……

On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 16:17:57 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>I’ve never followed the ins and outs of HS2 too carefully. Whenever it was
>brought into question about the alleged time savings the counter argument
>was it was always about increasing capacity because the southern part of
>the WCML is full. Is capacity on the WCML north of the Handsacre junction a
>significant issue? If not, dumping the HS2 trains onto the existing line to
>get to Manchester seems quite sensible - given it is not supposed to be
>about time savings……

If capacity was all that mattered it would have been a lot cheaper to simply
widen the WCML. Maybe couldn't be done everywhere but probably with long enough
stretches to allow trains to overtake each other, particularly freights.

On 04.10.23 18:21, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 16:17:57 -0000 (UTC)
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I’ve never followed the ins and outs of HS2 too carefully. Whenever it was
>> brought into question about the alleged time savings the counter argument
>> was it was always about increasing capacity because the southern part of
>> the WCML is full. Is capacity on the WCML north of the Handsacre junction a
>> significant issue? If not, dumping the HS2 trains onto the existing line to
>> get to Manchester seems quite sensible - given it is not supposed to be
>> about time savings……
>
> If capacity was all that mattered it would have been a lot cheaper to simply
> widen the WCML. Maybe couldn't be done everywhere but probably with long enough
> stretches to allow trains to overtake each other, particularly freights.

The bits that were economical to do were already done in the 1990s as
part of the WCML upgrade program in the railtrack era. What was left
undone was the stuff that was left in the "too difficult" category. When
HS2 was first being looked into, the cost-benefit of improving existing
infrastructure was evaluated and found that the possible improvement
that could be made would not be worth the huge cost.

Robin

On 04/10/2023 17:21, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 16:17:57 -0000 (UTC)
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I’ve never followed the ins and outs of HS2 too carefully. Whenever it was
>> brought into question about the alleged time savings the counter argument
>> was it was always about increasing capacity because the southern part of
>> the WCML is full. Is capacity on the WCML north of the Handsacre junction a
>> significant issue? If not, dumping the HS2 trains onto the existing line to
>> get to Manchester seems quite sensible - given it is not supposed to be
>> about time savings……
>
> If capacity was all that mattered it would have been a lot cheaper to simply
> widen the WCML. Maybe couldn't be done everywhere but probably with long enough
> stretches to allow trains to overtake each other, particularly freights.
>

You didn't notice what happened the last time they tried to upgrade the
WCML?
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
> > I?ve never followed the ins and outs of HS2 too carefully. Whenever it wasbrought into question about the alleged time savings the counter argumentwas it was always about increasing capacity because the southern part ofthe WCML is full. Is capacity on the WCML north of the Handsacre junction asignificant issue? If not, dumping the HS2 trains onto the existing line toget to Manchester seems quite sensible - given it is not supposed to beabout time savings??
>
> It's supposed to be only the southern section of the WCML to Rugby
> that's full. The Trent Valley route was expensively widened about
> 20 years ago.

I thought the bits through Stoke and Stafford were congested? Hence all the
wrangling about Norton Bridge, Wedgwood and other local stations?

Theo

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 04/10/2023 17:21, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 16:17:57 -0000 (UTC)
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I’ve never followed the ins and outs of HS2 too carefully. Whenever it was
>>> brought into question about the alleged time savings the counter argument
>>> was it was always about increasing capacity because the southern part of
>>> the WCML is full. Is capacity on the WCML north of the Handsacre junction a
>>> significant issue? If not, dumping the HS2 trains onto the existing line to
>>> get to Manchester seems quite sensible - given it is not supposed to be
>>> about time savings……
>>
>> If capacity was all that mattered it would have been a lot cheaper to simply
>> widen the WCML. Maybe couldn't be done everywhere but probably with long enough
>> stretches to allow trains to overtake each other, particularly freights.
>>
>
> You didn't notice what happened the last time they tried to upgrade the
> WCML?

Luckily, some of the last lot of WCML upgrades are available to use in the
Trent Valley.

Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
>>> I?ve never followed the ins and outs of HS2 too carefully. Whenever it
>>> wasbrought into question about the alleged time savings the counter
>>> argumentwas it was always about increasing capacity because the
>>> southern part ofthe WCML is full. Is capacity on the WCML north of the
>>> Handsacre junction asignificant issue? If not, dumping the HS2 trains
>>> onto the existing line toget to Manchester seems quite sensible - given
>>> it is not supposed to beabout time savings??
>>
>> It's supposed to be only the southern section of the WCML to Rugby
>> that's full. The Trent Valley route was expensively widened about
>> 20 years ago.
>
> I thought the bits through Stoke and Stafford were congested? Hence all the
> wrangling about Norton Bridge, Wedgwood and other local stations?

Relieving that section of the WCML was never a stated objective of HS2. It
was included purely to win political support in the north.

On 04/10/2023 17:39, Theo wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
>>> I?ve never followed the ins and outs of HS2 too carefully. Whenever it wasbrought into question about the alleged time savings the counter argumentwas it was always about increasing capacity because the southern part ofthe WCML is full. Is capacity on the WCML north of the Handsacre junction asignificant issue? If not, dumping the HS2 trains onto the existing line toget to Manchester seems quite sensible - given it is not supposed to beabout time savings??
>>
>> It's supposed to be only the southern section of the WCML to Rugby
>> that's full. The Trent Valley route was expensively widened about
>> 20 years ago.
>
> I thought the bits through Stoke and Stafford were congested? Hence all the
> wrangling about Norton Bridge, Wedgwood and other local stations?

Norton Bridge has been improved. The other congested bit is Rugby to
Birmingham, but diverting expresses to Curzon Street will solve that.

The benefits to Manchester and the rest of the north are real but
incidental. It was politically expedient to pretend that the north
would also get a shiny new railway, or indeed any sort of investment.
The money saved is to go on improvements in the north "and elsewhere",
i.e. disappear into general funding to be spent mainly in London.

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> I’ve never followed the ins and outs of HS2 too carefully. Whenever it was
> brought into question about the alleged time savings the counter argument
> was it was always about increasing capacity because the southern part of
> the WCML is full. Is capacity on the WCML north of the Handsacre junction a
> significant issue? If not, dumping the HS2 trains onto the existing line to
> get to Manchester seems quite sensible - given it is not supposed to be
> about time savings……
>

My Network Rail freight planner friend is rather upset that his extra WCML
capacity will effectively end at Rugby…

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
> On 04.10.23 18:21, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 16:17:57 -0000 (UTC)
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I’ve never followed the ins and outs of HS2 too carefully. Whenever it was
>>> brought into question about the alleged time savings the counter argument
>>> was it was always about increasing capacity because the southern part of
>>> the WCML is full. Is capacity on the WCML north of the Handsacre junction a
>>> significant issue? If not, dumping the HS2 trains onto the existing line to
>>> get to Manchester seems quite sensible - given it is not supposed to be
>>> about time savings……
>>
>> If capacity was all that mattered it would have been a lot cheaper to simply
>> widen the WCML. Maybe couldn't be done everywhere but probably with long enough
>> stretches to allow trains to overtake each other, particularly freights.
>
> The bits that were economical to do were already done in the 1990s as
> part of the WCML upgrade program in the railtrack era. What was left
> undone was the stuff that was left in the "too difficult" category. When
> HS2 was first being looked into, the cost-benefit of improving existing
> infrastructure was evaluated and found that the possible improvement
> that could be made would not be worth the huge cost.
>
>

Not to mention the huge demolition through town centres and apparently
*more* woodland being damaged than by the alignment chosen…

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 18:30:20 +0200
Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>On 04.10.23 18:21, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 16:17:57 -0000 (UTC)
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I’ve never followed the ins and outs of HS2 too carefully. Whenever it was
>
>>> brought into question about the alleged time savings the counter argument
>>> was it was always about increasing capacity because the southern part of
>>> the WCML is full. Is capacity on the WCML north of the Handsacre junction a
>>> significant issue? If not, dumping the HS2 trains onto the existing line to
>>> get to Manchester seems quite sensible - given it is not supposed to be
>>> about time savings……
>>
>> If capacity was all that mattered it would have been a lot cheaper to simply
>> widen the WCML. Maybe couldn't be done everywhere but probably with long
>enough
>> stretches to allow trains to overtake each other, particularly freights.
>
>The bits that were economical to do were already done in the 1990s as
>part of the WCML upgrade program in the railtrack era. What was left
>undone was the stuff that was left in the "too difficult" category. When
>HS2 was first being looked into, the cost-benefit of improving existing
>infrastructure was evaluated and found that the possible improvement
>that could be made would not be worth the huge cost.

Obviously before the costs of Hs2 disappeared out of the stratosphere and off
into space. I'm pretty sure the WCML could have had some significant
improvements for the money already wasted devastating the chilterns.

On 05/10/2023 11:44, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 18:30:20 +0200
> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>> On 04.10.23 18:21, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 16:17:57 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I’ve never followed the ins and outs of HS2 too carefully. Whenever it was
>>
>>>> brought into question about the alleged time savings the counter argument
>>>> was it was always about increasing capacity because the southern part of
>>>> the WCML is full. Is capacity on the WCML north of the Handsacre junction a
>>>> significant issue? If not, dumping the HS2 trains onto the existing line to
>>>> get to Manchester seems quite sensible - given it is not supposed to be
>>>> about time savings……
>>>
>>> If capacity was all that mattered it would have been a lot cheaper to simply
>>> widen the WCML. Maybe couldn't be done everywhere but probably with long
>> enough
>>> stretches to allow trains to overtake each other, particularly freights.
>>
>> The bits that were economical to do were already done in the 1990s as
>> part of the WCML upgrade program in the railtrack era. What was left
>> undone was the stuff that was left in the "too difficult" category. When
>> HS2 was first being looked into, the cost-benefit of improving existing
>> infrastructure was evaluated and found that the possible improvement
>> that could be made would not be worth the huge cost.
>
> Obviously before the costs of Hs2 disappeared out of the stratosphere and off
> into space. I'm pretty sure the WCML could have had some significant
> improvements for the money already wasted devastating the chilterns.
>

Instead, they are likely to devastate lots more countryside, etc., by
their so-called road "improvements" - that will enable traffic to get
quicker to town centre traffic jams and increase atmospheric pollution. .

On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 20:03:24 +0100
Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 05/10/2023 11:44, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> Obviously before the costs of Hs2 disappeared out of the stratosphere and off
>
>> into space. I'm pretty sure the WCML could have had some significant
>> improvements for the money already wasted devastating the chilterns.
>>
>
>Instead, they are likely to devastate lots more countryside, etc., by
>their so-called road "improvements" - that will enable traffic to get
>quicker to town centre traffic jams and increase atmospheric pollution. .

If the overpaid twats at the train controls keep striking to make political
points then slowly passenger numbers will drain away. If I was National Express
I'd be seriously considering investing in some new buses and routes right now.