West Coast Franchise speculation

[The Planner]

Only 17 and 18 close for phase 1 construction and they go sometime in 2019. HS2 will be seperate railway as they are much lower than the existing lines so they can only use their own dedicated platforms.

 

[B&I]

The difference is that the HS2 trains will serve the same route.

Manchester will see duplication due to the HS2 route and the classic routes via Wilmslow and also Macclesfield - hence a need to serve those interim places too.

The HS2 trains don't serve the same route south of Crewe. How can they be said to provide Liverpool with an adequate service to the WCML south of Crewe ?

Supposedly we are spending billions to buold a station at Manchester Airport (and a tunnel from there to Piccadilly) so that that can serve as a railhead for places like Wilmslow. Why do they need residual WCML services as well ?

Also talking about Liverpool's Birmingham services is comparing apples with pears. Manchester has Birmingham (and beyond) services as well. Why aren't they adequate to connect to connect Manchester to the WCML ?

 

[B&I]

The reason Liverpool doesn't get 2tph VT is because there are not enough 390s, or paths to run them.
DfT has prevented new 390 orders in the VT direct awards, and HS2 has taken out capacity at Euston.
This means the extra capacity generated at Norton Bridge can't be used (towards Euston).
The most crowded current hourly VT service is the direct Glasgow (South of Preston), not the Liverpool, which does get extra peak services and mostly 11-car 390s.
Liverpool-Stafford gets 2tph WMT.
Plenty of other places stand to lose out on HS2 (Stoke, Chester, Coventry etc)
It's not simple.
WMT is prevented from running direct London services across Crewe because the DfT doesn't want VT/WCP losing long-distance revenue (ie premiums).
.

So, DfT requires VT to serve Manchester and Birmingham 3 times more frequently than Liverpool, then prevents LNR filling the gap to preserve VT's profits. That's just great

 

[pt_mad]

Only 17 and 18 close for phase 1 construction and they go sometime in 2019. HS2 will be seperate railway as they are much lower than the existing lines so they can only use their own dedicated platforms.

Thank you Planner and Bletchlyite.

How many platforms will there be for the HS2 lines when they open? Will all the platforms open at the start in 2026?

 

[Bletchleyite]

And will HS2 services be able to use any platform in 2026 or just the high number platforms? I.e. the ones thatwill be closed soon.

Just the higher numbered ones AIUI.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Only 17 and 18 close for phase 1 construction and they go sometime in 2019. HS2 will be seperate railway as they are much lower than the existing lines so they can only use their own dedicated platforms.

I stand corrected. That will at least mean the access ramp to 16 will finally be of an adequate size! (Serving one platform rather than the present three)

 

[The Ham]

The HS2 trains don't serve the same route south of Crewe. How can they be said to provide Liverpool with an adequate service to the WCML south of Crewe ?

Supposedly we are spending billions to buold a station at Manchester Airport (and a tunnel from there to Piccadilly) so that that can serve as a railhead for places like Wilmslow. Why do they need residual WCML services as well ?

Also talking about Liverpool's Birmingham services is comparing apples with pears. Manchester has Birmingham (and beyond) services as well. Why aren't they adequate to connect to connect Manchester to the WCML ?

The point is that the current VT services don't serve places south of Crewe (at least very often). As such to replace the existing service patterns there's no need to run to run Liverpool services on the WCML to connect with the likes of MK.

HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that Liverpool shouldn't see additional services during the day after the opening of HS2 which provides direct services to places on the WCML.

Also it should be noted that the Liverpool services for HS2 could call at Birmingham Interchange and/or Old Oak Common which could improve connectivity. This will make travel to the likes of Birmingham, Reading, Heathrow and the like easier. If the Southern Approach to Heathrow is built and there's direct trains through it would also improve connections to a lot of stations on the SWML.

Should Liverpool have a better WCML service, yes. Is it possible to do this without HS2, no. Could Liverpool justify a new line with its current service provision, no. Could it do so in the future, yes.

This is one of the problems with HS2, in that it's not possible to serve everywhere with the first phase or even the currently proposed lines, so places will feel that they are missing out. Even if they could see much better journey times and more services.

 

[Aictos]

Only 17 and 18 close for phase 1 construction and they go sometime in 2019. HS2 will be seperate railway as they are much lower than the existing lines so they can only use their own dedicated platforms.

I'm slightly confused by your post here, do you mean the actual HS2 track and platform will be at a lower level to the rest of Euston ie High Level Euston for existing services and Low Level Euston for HS2 or do you mean HS2 will be a different gauge to the rest of the network ie the HS2 platforms will be like the low Europe ones?

Sorry it's too early for me

 

[The Planner]

Effectively a high and low level Euston.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm slightly confused by your post here, do you mean the actual HS2 track and platform will be at a lower level to the rest of Euston ie High Level Euston for existing services and Low Level Euston for HS2 or do you mean HS2 will be a different gauge to the rest of the network ie the HS2 platforms will be like the low Europe ones?

Sorry it's too early for me

It will be physically lower down - i.e. a "Euston Low Level". One of the proposals I think actually involved double-decking the station, putting HS2 under the present platforms, but that has I believe been abandoned as too costly so they're going on the side. This is because HS2's approach to London is largely in tunnel.

 

[Aictos]

Ahh okay thanks guys for clarifying both posts.

 

[Mollman]

This is one of the problems with HS2, in that it's not possible to serve everywhere with the first phase or even the currently proposed lines, so places will feel that they are missing out. Even if they could see much better journey times and more services.

Which is why the recent GreenGauge 21 proposals for an X shaped HS2 and ECML upgrade makes sense as it will provide more southern end capacity for better links in the North-West.

 

[cle]

The HS2 trains don't serve the same route south of Crewe. How can they be said to provide Liverpool with an adequate service to the WCML south of Crewe ?

Supposedly we are spending billions to buold a station at Manchester Airport (and a tunnel from there to Piccadilly) so that that can serve as a railhead for places like Wilmslow. Why do they need residual WCML services as well ?

Also talking about Liverpool's Birmingham services is comparing apples with pears. Manchester has Birmingham (and beyond) services as well. Why aren't they adequate to connect to connect Manchester to the WCML ?

I don’t understand the problem. Liverpool’s current London trains are fast south of Crewe, which is surely a good thing?

Wilmslow is also a town of its own, like Runcorn, with a rail heritage, some inbound travel and a walking catchment - not purely a railhead. Plus it adds another fast Crewe service (which is the second tph for Scotland connection) so it serves a purpose.

The WCML will still need to exist and will skip even less stations, so the residual service is key. It’s also about more capacity to secondary places so that the big cities have their fast trains. But guess what, the traditional termini, usually spurs, will still be those same big cities.

But Manchester will have three different routes all with interim demand by HS2. Whereas Liverpool will basically have the same principal approach with the interim places covered by other services. Blame the Victorians. Arguably Warrington BQ is now an option, but it is not established at all.

Nothing else runs from Macclesfield, Stoke, Stockport or Wilmslow to London - so Manchester has to receive those services by default. They also add a huge amount of capacity from those stations commuting into Manchester.

 

[edwin_m]

Nothing else runs from Macclesfield, Stoke, Stockport or Wilmslow to London - so Manchester has to receive those services by default. They also add a huge amount of capacity from those stations commuting into Manchester.

Macclesfield and Stoke are expected to get their own hourly London train via HS2 (unless that's changed again) but it won't continue to Manchester due to capacity issues around Stockport. I think this is at phase 2A when the Manchester trains all start to go via Crewe.

 

[adrock1976]

I don’t understand the problem. Liverpool’s current London trains are fast south of Crewe, which is surely a good thing?

Wilmslow is also a town of its own, like Runcorn, with a rail heritage, some inbound travel and a walking catchment - not purely a railhead. Plus it adds another fast Crewe service (which is the second tph for Scotland connection) so it serves a purpose.

The WCML will still need to exist and will skip even less stations, so the residual service is key. It’s also about more capacity to secondary places so that the big cities have their fast trains. But guess what, the traditional termini, usually spurs, will still be those same big cities.

But Manchester will have three different routes all with interim demand by HS2. Whereas Liverpool will basically have the same principal approach with the interim places covered by other services. Blame the Victorians. Arguably Warrington BQ is now an option, but it is not established at all.

Nothing else runs from Macclesfield, Stoke, Stockport or Wilmslow to London - so Manchester has to receive those services by default. They also add a huge amount of capacity from those stations commuting into Manchester.

If this is referring to the present London Euston - Manchester Pic via Crewe, these trains are not a recognised connection heading northbound as the Manchester train arrives just behind the Glasgow/Edinburgh via Birmingham trains a couple of minutes later. The minimum interchange time at Crewe is I believe 8 minutes.

However, the Chester/Holyhead trains departing Euston at xx10 is a recognised connection northbound as it arrives at Crewe at or before xx55, with the Glasgow/Edinburgh departing at xx09.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The xx40 from Euston connects at Crewe for Chester, local stops to Manchester, Shrewsbury and (eventually) Liverpool.
I also doubt if the 2026 timetable will see the "residual" services operating to the same timetable as now.
Who knows, by then we might have EMUs splitting at Crewe for various destinations.
That's even mooted for some HS2 services.

 

[cle]

Macclesfield and Stoke are expected to get their own hourly London train via HS2 (unless that's changed again) but it won't continue to Manchester due to capacity issues around Stockport. I think this is at phase 2A when the Manchester trains all start to go via Crewe.

Yep I did read that. But surely it would be in addition to the status quo as we know it. Also there are connections to Milton Keynes to preserve (likely to go up in demand and service, I think everything will call there), plus more future mooted calls at Watford, Rugby and up the TV - so the classic services will slow down but provide a lot more regional connectivity. Thus serving even more of a purpose, while HS2 covers the big city pairs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yep I did read that. But surely it would be in addition to the status quo as we know it. Also there are connections to Milton Keynes to preserve (likely to go up in demand and service, I think everything will call there), plus more future mooted calls at Watford, Rugby and up the TV - so the classic services will slow down but provide a lot more regional connectivity. Thus serving even more of a purpose, while HS2 covers the big city pairs.

Agreed. I would say it would make sense for all residual WCML services to call at Watford Jn, MKC, Rugby, Stafford, then Stoke/Macc/Crewe/Stockport/Runcorn depending on route.

 

[HSTEd]

How much time is lost by running to Stafford via the Birmingham Loop compared to the current routing?

 

[jyte]

How much time is lost by running to Stafford via the Birmingham Loop compared to the current routing?

Depends on calling pattens, but Wigan NW - Euston via B-ham calling at a bunch of places in between is booked to take circa 3 hours, and 2 hours direct.

I was told that without stops it's an extra 45-50 minutes to divert via B-ham, so something they try and avoid if possible.

 

[kje7812]

Depends on calling pattens, but Wigan NW - Euston via B-ham calling at a bunch of places in between is booked to take circa 3 hours, and 2 hours direct.

I was told that without stops it's an extra 45-50 minutes to divert via B-ham, so something they try and avoid if possible.

Not helped by sitting at Wolves for 12 mins.

 

[jyte]

Not helped by sitting at Wolves for 12 mins.

Hence 45-50 mins without stopping. I'm sure with greens all the way it could do it in less, but around B-ham that's fiction.

 

[kje7812]

Hence 45-50 mins without stopping. I'm sure with greens all the way it could do it in less, but around B-ham that's fiction.

I'd go stronger and say it's fantasy. The stour valley is just too congested.

 

[jyte]

I'd go stronger and say it's fantasy. The stour valley is just too congested.

Off topic, but this issue reminds me of whenever people suggest closing the B&H and running Devon and Cornwall services via Bristol...almost fantasy, though I guess if you built a bypass south of Bristol as far as Bath you could make it work...ish

 

[The Planner]

Are you comparing apples with apples though? Direct via the Trent Valley then Rugby Trent Valley to Stafford is 26½ minutes. Do that via the West Mids with no stops then it is around 15 minutes longer via New St, probably similar via the Grands.

 

[driver_m]

The best I ever managed when we were on regular diversions around the Bescot route added 25m. I would say adding 15m with no stops is an impossibility. Even if it was at 3am in the morning.

 

[jyte]

The best I ever managed when we were on regular diversions around the Bescot route added 25m. I would say adding 15m with no stops is an impossibility. Even if it was at 3am in the morning.

Sorry, when you say Bescot route do you mean Wolverhampton to New Street via Bescot?

 

[driver_m]

Bushbury Jn. to Stetchford. That’s always been the diversion route via the Mids if the Trent Valley has gone belly up. We’d only get sent via Wolves or New St if either booked to stop or problems on the ‘round the houses’ route

 

[The Planner]

The best I ever managed when we were on regular diversions around the Bescot route added 25m. I would say adding 15m with no stops is an impossibility. Even if it was at 3am in the morning.

That was based on pure running times through New St. Grands are probably worse when you consider the 20 at Stechford and getting across Aston. Bushbury is 20 too if I recall.

 

[driver_m]

3 lots of 20mph restrictions via Bescot. Stechford, Aston and Bushbury itself, plus the 40 at Bescot on The down, (rather entertaining doing 60 the other way!) However you’ve got the 10 and 15 PSR’s if you go new st/Wolves. Back then we didn’t have the EPS speeds either side of International but in all honesty it wouldn’t make much difference apart from around Penkridge, and it’s actually one of the rarities where a 221 will outpace a 390 because you can open up the 221 quicker, thanks to not having to wait for the TASS to allow it to run at EPS speed, (near Featherstone Prison which is some distance from Bushbury)