HS2 or Southwest improvements?

[irish_rail]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/post-hs2-service-assumptions-using-released-capacity.206762/

Another disappointment in all this, as far as I can see, is no projections of any direct services from the south west to the north west with all of this released capacity that is to exist with hs2. The south west needs direct trains to Manchester and Liverpool.

 

[Ianno87]

Another disappointment in all this, as far as I can see, is no projections of any direct services from the south west to the north west with all of this released capacity that is to exist with hs2. The south west needs direct trains to Manchester and Liverpool.

The current Manchester-Bristol/Exeter service will have a lot more space on it north of Birmingham with HS2 services taking the load north of Birmingham.

 

[Ianno87]

It's interesting how well the South West does for through trains already; even some minor stations get direct trains to all 3 GB Captials (London, Cardiff, Edinburgh), plus other major cities like Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle and Leeds.

 

[CW2]

So it's ok to extend journey times from the south west to London, yet journeytimes to the north from London must be reduced at all costs. If it's ok to make south west journeys to london a few minutes slower, why not build hs2 far cheaper as a 125mph line as clearly according to you journey times are not important. Or is it just the people of the south west who are not important???

It is a question of overall balance of benefits.
There is an overall gain to be had for the majority of passengers if all GWML trains stop at Old Oak Common. If you are travelling from the South West to West or North London, you may also benefit by changing at OOC, because of the greater range of connections than can be afforded at Paddington. It is the end-to-end journey time that get considered, not station-to-station.

 

[irish_rail]

It's interesting how well the South West does for through trains already; even some minor stations get direct trains to all 3 GB Captials (London, Cardiff, Edinburgh), plus other major cities like Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle and Leeds.

The trains to Cardiff are so slow as to be pointless (its quicker to change at Bristol).
Nobody takes the train from Plymouth to Edinburgh (unfortunately they fly). Cities that have a large draw that are too close to fly too, manchester and liverpool really should have direct trains at least as far as plymouth, and more than just one token train a day as we have with manchester which was usually formed of an overcrowded 4 car voyager.

 

[Ianno87]

The trains to Cardiff are so slow as to be pointless (its quicker to change at Bristol).
Nobody takes the train from Plymouth to Edinburgh (unfortunately they fly). Cities that have a large draw that are too close to fly too, manchester and liverpool really should have direct trains at least as far as plymouth, and more than just one token train a day as we have with manchester which was usually formed of an overcrowded 4 car voyager.

HS2 has no bearing on the ability to extend more Manchester services south of Exeter or their length; if feasible that could be done totally independently.

 

[irish_rail]

The current Manchester-Bristol/Exeter service will have a lot more space on it north of Birmingham with HS2 services taking the load north of Birmingham.

It's all well and good but if you look at the entire south west peninsula the majority of people live west of Exeter and so this service still requires a change. These trains should start back at the peninsulas biggest city of Plymouth at very least, if not Cornwall so as to provide a seamless direct train to these important destinations in the north.

 

[Ianno87]

It's all well and good but if you look at the entire south west peninsula the majority of people live west of Exeter and so this service still requires a change. These trains should start back at the peninsulas biggest city of Plymouth at very least, if not Cornwall so as to provide a seamless direct train to these important destinations in the north.

Which is reasonable... but HS2 does not make that any more or less possible than it might be today. It's a completely separate problem to HS2

 

[irish_rail]

Which is reasonable... but HS2 does not make that any more or less possible than it might be today. It's a completely separate problem to HS2

I just think that money on hs2 could help equal up the UK far better by being spent on various different projects , eg improving connectivity to the south west , but I guess that's a topic for another day.

 

[CW2]

I just think that money on hs2 could help equal up the UK far better by being spent on various different projects , eg improving connectivity to the south west , but I guess that's a topic for another day.

It doesn't work like that though, does it? Your "logic" appears to be "I don't see any benefit to me in spending a large amount of taxpayers' money on that project, so I want to cancel that and spend it on something that benefits me instead." Each project has to have a business case appraisal, and a solid rate of return in order that the promoters can borrow Treasury money to finance the scheme. If the schemes on your wish list are such an urgent priority, where is the business case for them? Or are you simply asking for bigger subsidies for loss-making provincial services?

 

[The Ham]

I just think that money on hs2 could help equal up the UK far better by being spent on various different projects , eg improving connectivity to the south west , but I guess that's a topic for another day.

The thing is, it is.

In the last decade we've spent £30bn on enhancements to the existing network (including the rebuild of Reading station which has enabled extra services to the Southwest).

Then assuming that rail spend on enhancements continues at the current rate of £4bn until 2040 then there'll be a total spend of £110bn.

Only that £110bn doesn't include rolling stock, which whatever budget you are using for HS2 does.

Therefore we are likely to do what you want, in fact we already have started doing it.



The above graph shows how much of a negative impact the increasing spend on HS2 has had on spending on enhancements.

 

[irish_rail]

It doesn't work like that though, does it? Your "logic" appears to be "I don't see any benefit to me in spending a large amount of taxpayers' money on that project, so I want to cancel that and spend it on something that benefits me instead." Each project has to have a business case appraisal, and a solid rate of return in order that the promoters can borrow Treasury money to finance the scheme. If the schemes on your wish list are such an urgent priority, where is the business case for them? Or are you simply asking for bigger subsidies for loss-making provincial services?

My "logic" is that I'm sick of money being pumped into the same places whilst others are left behind. When will the south west get a piece of the pie? When will our connectivity with the rest of the country improve?

 

[The Ham]

My "logic" is that I'm sick of money being pumped into the same places whilst others are left behind. When will the south west get a piece of the pie? When will our connectivity with the rest of the country improve?

The South West has benefited of late of quite a few upgrades. The fact that Reading isn't in the Southwest, didn't mean that it can't improve things (has allowed the semi fast service to operate to Exeter) or that the GWML electrification isn't in the Southwest, doesn't mean that it can't improve things (journey times between London and the Southwest have improved).

There's also been a lot of new rolling stock/longer trains including the 80x and castles for the Southwest.

Whilst there's a need for more there's no doubting the fact that the Southwest has benefited from the pie, even if the spend isn't actually in the Southwest.

 

[quantinghome]

So it's ok to extend journey times from the south west to London, yet journeytimes to the north from London must be reduced at all costs. If it's ok to make south west journeys to london a few minutes slower, why not build hs2 far cheaper as a 125mph line as clearly according to you journey times are not important. Or is it just the people of the south west who are not important???

Strange as it may sound, I'd never thought to consider whether a person's worth is related to their rail journey time to London. I suggest you should consider self-worth by different criteria. After all, we are all a little lower than the angels, and crowned with glory and honour.

Ultimately the number of GW trains stopping at OOC will be determined by whether the balance of connectivity against slightly slower journey times produces greater passenger demand. HS2 trains will all stop at OOC. This will make for slower journeys too, but that disadvantage is more than offset by the tremendous connectivity offered at OOC. My guess is the calculus will be the same for GW services.

 

[Horizon22]

Strange as it may sound, I'd never thought to consider whether a person's worth is related to their rail journey time to London. I suggest you should consider self-worth by different criteria. After all, we are all a little lower than the angels, and crowned with glory and honour.

Ultimately the number of GW trains stopping at OOC will be determined by whether the balance of connectivity against slightly slower journey times produces greater passenger demand. HS2 trains will all stop at OOC. This will make for slower journeys too, but that disadvantage is more than offset by the tremendous connectivity offered at OOC. My guess is the calculus will be the same for GW services.

Pathing will also start to be a problem I imagine if its ad-hoc GWR services. Probably needs more detailed work - unless its been done already hence the plan to stop all trains at OOC

 

[irish_rail]

Strange as it may sound, I'd never thought to consider whether a person's worth is related to their rail journey time to London. I suggest you should consider self-worth by different criteria. After all, we are all a little lower than the angels, and crowned with glory and honour.

Ultimately the number of GW trains stopping at OOC will be determined by whether the balance of connectivity against slightly slower journey times produces greater passenger demand. HS2 trains will all stop at OOC. This will make for slower journeys too, but that disadvantage is more than offset by the tremendous connectivity offered at OOC. My guess is the calculus will be the same for GW services.

Yes all hs2 trains will be slowed down by stopping at OOC but the journeys will be quicker overall from manchester and birmingham to london than they are today. On GWR on the other hand there is no journey time improvement to look forward to.
Journey times may not matter to you, but slow journey times are a factor in Plymouth being left behind economically with comparable cities. That may not bother you, but I believe in levelling out the country not creating greater inequality.

 

[Ianno87]

Yes all hs2 trains will be slowed down by stopping at OOC but the journeys will be quicker overall from manchester and birmingham to london than they are today. On GWR on the other hand there is no journey time improvement to look forward to.
Journey times may not matter to you, but slow journey times are a factor in Plymouth being left behind economically with comparable cities. That may not bother you, but I believe in levelling out the country not creating greater inequality.

Plymouth will be directly connected to the potentially huge opportunities at Old Oak Common itself.

 

[CW2]

Yes all hs2 trains will be slowed down by stopping at OOC but the journeys will be quicker overall from manchester and birmingham to london than they are today. On GWR on the other hand there is no journey time improvement to look forward to.
Journey times may not matter to you, but slow journey times are a factor in Plymouth being left behind economically with comparable cities. That may not bother you, but I believe in levelling out the country not creating greater inequality.

GWR has just benefitted from the introduction of new rolling stock, so there has been significant investment very recently. Works on the sea wall at Dawlish to ensure the railway remains open in bad weather are also well advanced. That demonstrates the determination to maintain a decent level of service to the West Country.
The fact that geography makes the journey time to Plymouth and beyond slower than that to Bristol, Cardiff, Birmingham etc. is not in itself a sound reason for trying to even-up the journey times. What are you expecting - a dedicated new high-speed line to Plymouth? How many people would benefit from that? How could it possibly be justified?
As regards journey times being slowed down by OOC stops, that is partly true. It depends on your destination. OOC will offer many more connectional opportunities than Paddington, so for many regions of London (and beyond) OOC is better suited for faster connections than Paddington. Since a good number of the Crossrail trains will be turning back at OOC (and thus starting empty from there), the canny commuter will prefer to change there t get a seat.

 

[quantinghome]

Yes all hs2 trains will be slowed down by stopping at OOC but the journeys will be quicker overall from manchester and birmingham to london than they are today. On GWR on the other hand there is no journey time improvement to look forward to.
Journey times may not matter to you, but slow journey times are a factor in Plymouth being left behind economically with comparable cities. That may not bother you, but I believe in levelling out the country not creating greater inequality.

Please spare me the holier than thou attitude. I'd be more than happy for Plymouth to have faster journey times to London but to suggest that a couple of minutes added to a three hour journey is going to 'leave Plymouth behind' is patently absurd. There are many, many reasons why Plymouth has struggled economically. Stopping at OOC will have no discernable effect. Imagine the discussion in a business looking to relocate:

"Hey Bob, let's move our massive international business HQ to Plymouth, it's a great place in the world to be!"

"Sounds fantastic. Let's do it... but hold on just one dog-gone minute, we haven't thought about the trains - it's currently a lightning fast 187 minute journey, but in a few years time it will be a slow unappealing 189 minutes. I don't like the sound of that."

"Good point Bob, guess we'll stay put."

Do you seriously think this is how businesses work?

In any case, the connection to Crossrail will be more convenient at OOC so it will actually speed up door-to-door journey times for many parts of London and Heathrow. So if you are that concerned about journey times you should be supporting the case for GW trains stopping at OOC.

 

[Ianno87]

Please spare me the holier than thou attitude. I'd be more than happy for Plymouth to have faster journey times to London but to suggest that a couple of minutes added to a three hour journey is going to 'leave Plymouth behind' is patently absurd. There are many, many reasons why Plymouth has struggled economically. Stopping at OOC will have no discernable effect. Imagine the discussion in a business looking to relocate:

"Hey Bob, let's move our massive international business HQ to Plymouth, it's a great place in the world to be!"

"Sounds fantastic. Let's do it... but hold on just one dog-gone minute, we haven't thought about the trains - it's currently a lightning fast 187 minute journey, but in a few years time it will be a slow unappealing 189 minutes. I don't like the sound of that."

"Good point Bob, guess we'll stay put."

Do you seriously think this is how businesses work?

In any case, the connection to Crossrail will be more convenient at OOC so it will actually speed up door-to-door journey times for many parts of London and Heathrow. So if you are that concerned about journey times you should be supporting the case for GW trains stopping at OOC.

It's the perception of journey time that us important to propensity to travel. There is no material difference in the perception of a 3hr 2 minute journey time to Paddington compared to a 3hr 6 minute journey time (or whatever), especially when there is the navigation of Paddington station to consider at the end of it.

However, the passengers that benefit from and Old Oak Common stop do perceive a disproportionate benefit from the "it's just a hop over the bridge at Old Oak" or " I can now jump straight on the Overground" compared to "I've got to traipse around Paddington"

 

[irish_rail]

Please spare me the holier than thou attitude. I'd be more than happy for Plymouth to have faster journey times to London but to suggest that a couple of minutes added to a three hour journey is going to 'leave Plymouth behind' is patently absurd. There are many, many reasons why Plymouth has struggled economically. Stopping at OOC will have no discernable effect. Imagine the discussion in a business looking to relocate:

"Hey Bob, let's move our massive international business HQ to Plymouth, it's a great place in the world to be!"

"Sounds fantastic. Let's do it... but hold on just one dog-gone minute, we haven't thought about the trains - it's currently a lightning fast 187 minute journey, but in a few years time it will be a slow unappealing 189 minutes. I don't like the sound of that."

"Good point Bob, guess we'll stay put."

Do you seriously think this is how businesses work?

In any case, the connection to Crossrail will be more convenient at OOC so it will actually speed up door-to-door journey times for many parts of London and Heathrow. So if you are that concerned about journey times you should be supporting the case for GW trains stopping at OOC.

Or, how about rather than hs2, we do a number of projects to improve transport links and journey times. I'd suggest raising the line speed between plymouth and newton abbot plus other line speed improvements on the b and h which would get plymouth to london closer to 2 and a half hours and thus make plymouth a more attractive place to visit and locate business in. There are plenty of other areas of the UK which could have similar improvements to make a genuinely better railway , rather than a phenomenally expensive vanity project that will suck yet more money into London.

 

[quantinghome]

Or, how about rather than hs2, we do a number of projects to improve transport links and journey times. I'd suggest raising the line speed between plymouth and newton abbot plus other line speed improvements on the b and h which would get plymouth to london closer to 2 and a half hours and thus make plymouth a more attractive place to visit and locate business in.

That's a great idea and will have a much bigger impact on London-Plymouth journey time than skipping OOC. But it's completely independent of the decision to build HS2.

There are plenty of other areas of the UK which could have similar improvements to make a genuinely better railway , rather than a phenomenally expensive vanity project that will suck yet more money into London.

The more you repeat this line of argument the less I am inclined to listen to it.

How do you propose to overcome the capacity constraints of the current mixed railway without removing intercity trains on to new lines?

 

[quantinghome]

Or, how about rather than hs2, we do a number of projects to improve transport links and journey times.

OK, then. I suggest the following projects should be undertaken instead of HS2, these being some of the biggest capacity and connectivity problems on the rail network:

1. Capacity enhancement projects for Leeds, Manchester and Birmingham. Construct additional lines into the city centres to bypass existing congested lines. Substantially increase platform capacity in the city centres, where necessary with new stations if there is insufficient space to expand the existing main station.

2. Birmingham to Leeds cross-country upgrade. Construct an additional pair of lines paralleling the current line but not following it exactly. This will dramatically improve the cross country service.

3. Birmingham - Northwest congestion relief project. Similar concept to 2.

4. Euston road station capacity enhancement. Required for future north-south growth. Build new platforms close to one of the existing stations on Euston Road. There's no good place for this so the least worst location should be selected.

5. North London congestion bypass railway. Additional pair of tracks from Euston road to M25 to relieve existing capacity crunch. If possible, use it to connect to other main lines and improve Heathrow airport access.

6. WCML remodeling. Construct an additional pair of lines to relieve the WCML. Move long distance trains onto these tracks, thereby allowing them to bypass existing built up areas and reduce number of demolitions required.

Is that the sort of thing you were thinking of?

 

[irish_rail]

OK, then. I suggest the following projects should be undertaken instead of HS2, these being some of the biggest capacity and connectivity problems on the rail network:

1. Capacity enhancement projects for Leeds, Manchester and Birmingham. Construct additional lines into the city centres to bypass existing congested lines. Substantially increase platform capacity in the city centres, where necessary with new stations if there is insufficient space to expand the existing main station.

2. Birmingham to Leeds cross-country upgrade. Construct an additional pair of lines paralleling the current line but not following it exactly. This will dramatically improve the cross country service.

3. Birmingham - Northwest congestion relief project. Similar concept to 2.

4. Euston road station capacity enhancement. Required for future north-south growth. Build new platforms close to one of the existing stations on Euston Road. There's no good place for this so the least worst location should be selected.

5. North London congestion bypass railway. Additional pair of tracks from Euston road to M25 to relieve existing capacity crunch. If possible, use it to connect to other main lines and improve Heathrow airport access.

6. WCML remodeling. Construct an additional pair of lines to relieve the WCML. Move long distance trains onto these tracks, thereby allowing them to bypass existing built up areas and reduce number of demolitions required.

Is that the sort of thing you were thinking of?

No. Half of those could be solved using full length trains. To pick out one example about capacity birmingham to the north west. As long as 4 car voyagers are plying this route any case for increased capacity need is laughable. Let's start running trains of full length wherever they are needed. Rather than throwing money at a problem that may not exist.
And the other elephant in the room is Covid. There is no certainty that passenger levels will even get back to 2019 levels, let alone grow to the huge extent being predicted a few years ago.
My argument is far less money, could be spent far more cannily for far better results than hs2.

 

[quantinghome]

No. Half of those could be solved using full length trains. To pick out one example about capacity birmingham to the north west. As long as 4 car voyagers are plying this route any case for increased capacity need is laughable. Let's start running trains of full length wherever they are needed. Rather than throwing money at a problem that may not exist.

Yes, let's do the bare minimum to solve today's problems rather than think more comprehensively about the need to get a big modal shift from road to rail in the future. Let's remain content with a 2 hour journey time between Leeds and Birmingham. Let's ignore the opportunity of creating proper metro-frequency commuter networks into our major cities.

And the other elephant in the room is Covid. There is no certainty that passenger levels will even get back to 2019 levels, let alone grow to the huge extent being predicted a few years ago.
My argument is far less money, could be spent far more cannily for far better results than hs2.

If that's the case then we're looking at Beeching Mark 2, with major network contraction. But I don't think that will happen. The mega-trend is climate change. Covid is a blip.

 

[The Ham]

No. Half of those could be solved using full length trains. To pick out one example about capacity birmingham to the north west. As long as 4 car voyagers are plying this route any case for increased capacity need is laughable. Let's start running trains of full length wherever they are needed. Rather than throwing money at a problem that may not exist.
And the other elephant in the room is Covid. There is no certainty that passenger levels will even get back to 2019 levels, let alone grow to the huge extent being predicted a few years ago.
My argument is far less money, could be spent far more cannily for far better results than hs2.

The lengthening of services could happen easily before HS2 is due to open, in fact the government could announce tomorrow that they are ordering 20*7 coach 80x's for XC to start using in 2022 and it cost the government next to nothing to do so.

Anyway XC make up a fairly small percentage of the trains on the network.

Also lengthening services would only increase capacity by a fairly small amount of the total.

HS2 was predicting 33% increase between 2014/15 & 2029/30, 1/3 of the way through that time actual passenger numbers were already half way through that growth.

Covid-19 will impact passenger numbers, however any economic impact would likely hit car ownership much more. Having a car for mostly the school run is likely to be cut, as would a car for a job which no longer exists or for a job which only needs occasional travel to the office.

In fact I've spoken to one person who's thinking about getting rid of their only car and someone who has got off one of their two cars due to the changes from Covid-19.

That's not a scientific survey, but it's probably highlighting some of what's happening across a broader range of people.

With cars costing an average of over £3,000/year if you count all costs, you can see why people are rethinking if they need a car.

Whilst zero car use is impossible, we only need a 6.25% switch from road to rail to increase rail use by 50% of the miles traveled in 2019. As such even a drop of 20% could be more than offset could fairly easily be offset.

I refer you again to the graph which shows the spending on enhancements to the existing rail network, which shows we've spent £30bn yet few would say that the railways have improved by much.

 

[class26]

.........and in any case, much as I would welcome speeded up services to the west country these arguments are now dated as contracts are signed and work is well under way on HS2.

 

[irish_rail]

Yes, let's do the bare minimum to solve today's problems rather than think more comprehensively about the need to get a big modal shift from road to rail in the future. Let's remain content with a 2 hour journey time between Leeds and Birmingham. Let's ignore the opportunity of creating proper metro-frequency commuter networks into our major cities.


If that's the case then we're looking at Beeching Mark 2, with major network contraction. But I don't think that will happen. The mega-trend is climate change. Covid is a blip.

Right so in your eyes speeding up birmingham to Leeds is an imperative, yet london to the south west should be quite happy to have slightly extended journey times. Make up your mind. Or are you one of these who thinks the north is so incredibly hard done by no matter how much money is spent up there.
And for the record I'm sure reducing journeybtimes Birmingham to leeds would he quite achievable by speeding up xc services, and getting rid of all the dwell times, plus stops at the likes of burton on trent.

 

[The Ham]

Right so in your eyes speeding up birmingham to Leeds is an imperative, yet london to the south west should be quite happy to have slightly extended journey times. Make up your mind. Or are you one of these who thinks the north is so incredibly hard done by no matter how much money is spent up there.
And for the record I'm sure reducing journeybtimes Birmingham to leeds would he quite achievable by speeding up xc services, and getting rid of all the dwell times, plus stops at the likes of burton on trent.

I'm interested to learn how you think we could reduce Birmingham to Leeds times by about an hour by changes to XC services. Even 30 minutes would be a significant step.

 

[Energy]

I support spending money improving services but this shouldn't be to replace HS2, HS2 has a business case which is viable so it is funded. If a viable business case for other improvements exists then there is a good chance that they can also get funded.

We can't just take all the money from HS2 and put it into improvements to existing trains, the treasury is giving HS2 money as it believes it can get this money back so it is just a loan that HS2 should be able to pay of in the growth to the economy. If the improvements can't pay of the loan from the treasury then they are not viable.