Future of HS2 2b (Eastern Leg deprioritised)

[sem34090]

You expect them to have train crew - Guards?!

You're hopeful, given the DfT's apparent love affair with DOO over recent years, albeit currently very quiet. As some have said we might not even get drivers; They cost money.

 

[The Ham]

You expect them to have train crew - Guards?!

You're hopeful, given the DfT's apparent love affair with DOO over recent years, albeit currently very quiet. As some have said we might not even get drivers; They cost money.

Whilst they do cost money, on a 400m train with seats for 1,100 passengers the cost per passenger traveling (especially with journey times of just over an hour between London and Manchester) is significantly less than it is with the current trains (a 9 coach and an 11 coach 390 have 1,048 seats between them).

Shortening the round trip times from 5 hours to 3 hours per set (i.e. time taken to travel from London to Manchester, back and be ready to go again) and with (say) 50% more passengers per train and your staffing costs fall by 60% per passenger.

Other routes may not reduce by that much, but the savings are likely to be significant.

Yes you'd save more by getting rid of them, however I suspect not all that much.

 

[Purple Orange]

At average adult walking speed the distance would take 6 minutes, add a couple of minutes for the driver tasks

It does not take 6 minutes to walk 200m, or even the length of a pendolino. Even if it was a 400m train, that would be a sedate 20-25 seconds to walk past each carriage. On a 200m, 8-car train it will take 2.5 to 3 mins to walk.

You’re also forgetting the important fact that NPR is not about getting from Liverpool to Leeds in the fastest time possible, or the highest frequency. It is about getting from Liverpool or Leeds to Manchester in the fastest time possible with the highest frequency.

 

[The Planner]

Standard values tend to be 5 minutes for an 800 or HST if two drivers, 7 or 8 without for a reversal. Less if its a DMU/EMU.

 

[Purple Orange]

Standard values tend to be 5 minutes for an 800 or HST if two drivers, 7 or 8 without for a reversal. Less if its a DMU/EMU.

Is that between arrival and departure? Or faffing about in the cab to be added on as well?

 

[Horizon22]

From a Manchester perspective, if NPR is to be a reversal in Piccadilly, I think the sensible solution has been taken. However 6 platforms for 15 tph? Is that not asking for trouble?

2.5 movements per hour. That's quite luxurious spacing in some places!

 

[Ianno87]

2.5 movements per hour. That's quite luxurious spacing in some places!

South Eastern Javelins (which I would imagine very similar in operational nature to NPR) manage about 8tph on 3 platforms in the peak at St. Pancras.

 

[Horizon22]

You expect them to have train crew - Guards?!

You're hopeful, given the DfT's apparent love affair with DOO over recent years, albeit currently very quiet. As some have said we might not even get drivers; They cost money.

I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't, but I might expect some sort of "OBS" type considering these are reasonably long-distance journeys.

 

[Purple Orange]

South Eastern Javelins (which I would imagine very similar in operational nature to NPR) manage about 8tph on 3 platforms in the peak at St. Pancras.

But NPR is asking for 10 tph on 2 platforms. It might work if only the London terminate (1 platform managing 1.5tph) therefore requiring the use of 2 platforms, with NPR using the other 4 platforms to manage 12 services (Birmingham continuing on to Leeds).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Oh no, I think the reverse option is the best option. What sort of time penalty for reversing do you think will take place to make travelling on high speed lines irrelevant?

Given how major a destination Manchester is you're going to need a reasonable dwell time there. If you have a relief driver/guard stood waiting, the time penalty for a reversal should be small.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Oct 2020 ==

I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't, but I might expect some sort of "OBS" type considering these are reasonably long-distance journeys.

I would be astonished to see a long distance train without a second member of staff of any kind.

I strongly suspect they won't operate the doors, but that's really neither here nor there.

 

[Purple Orange]

Given how major a destination Manchester is you're going to need a reasonable dwell time there. If you have a relief driver/guard stood waiting, the time penalty for a reversal should be small.

Which means a reversal has very little impact on the passengers travelling between Liverpool & Leeds. To be fair, most will be boarding in Manchester at either station anyhow.

 

[The Planner]

Is that between arrival and departure? Or faffing about in the cab to be added on as well?

Wheels stop to wheels moving again.

 

[HowardGWR]

I appreciate that the consultation for 'Phase 2b' now includes NPR, but is there any reason to suppose that has any effect on the Birmingham to Leeds stretch (as Lord Adonis did?)? I've just read a summary of the consultation 'refinements' and it seems as though the eastern route from Brum has no significant changes. Doesn't that just mean that no changes are planned?

 

[Bald Rick]

I appreciate that the consultation for 'Phase 2b' now includes NPR, but is there any reason to suppose that has any effect on the Birmingham to Leeds stretch (as Lord Adonis did?)? I've just read a summary of the consultation 'refinements' and it seems as though the eastern route from Brum has no significant changes. Doesn't that just mean that no changes are planned?

The announcement suggests that the Western leg will have a separate hybrid bill, to be progressed ASAP. The implication is that the bill for the eastern leg will have to follow at a slower pace.

 

[quantinghome]

The junction just before the HS2 tunnel is the provision for North East & Leeds services to access the Piccadilly HS2 platforms, then reverse out towards the Airport and Liverpool (or even Birmingham).

Yes, that's right. I should have clarified my comment was responding to the suggestion that the eastern leg was going to be canned and all HS2 eastern leg services routed via Manchester, including those to London. But 6 platforms at Piccadilly won't be near enough capacity to do this, and the Birmingham - Manchester line would be overloaded.

 

[Ianno87]

Yes, that's right. I should have clarified my comment was responding to the suggestion that the eastern leg was going to be canned and all HS2 eastern leg services routed via Manchester, including those to London. But 6 platforms at Piccadilly won't be near enough capacity to do this, and the Birmingham - Manchester line would be overloaded.

That would probably depend on whether *all* Eastern leg services would be re-routed in such a scenario. Whereas Leeds-NPR-Manchester-HS2-Euston would be reasonably attractive compared to (and still faster than) the ECML and you could see Leeds services being re-routed, York-Leeds-NPR-Manchester-HS2-Euston would likely be slower than a non-stop run to King's Cross.

 

[quantinghome]

That would probably depend on whether *all* Eastern leg services would be re-routed in such a scenario. Whereas Leeds-NPR-Manchester-HS2-Euston would be reasonably attractive compared to (and still faster than) the ECML and you could see Leeds services being re-routed, York-Leeds-NPR-Manchester-HS2-Euston would likely be slower than a non-stop run to King's Cross.

Even if only the Leeds services were to be diverted via Manchester, that would still double the number of reversing services in the HS2 Piccadilly platforms. If the revised plans were calling for 8 or more platforms there would be a stronger suspicion that this was being planned. As they stand the plans look adequate for NPR reversals but no more.

 

[Starmill]

The announcement suggests that the Western leg will have a separate hybrid bill, to be progressed ASAP. The implication is that the bill for the eastern leg will have to follow at a slower pace.

I get the impression that the government would like to see the Western Leg bill pushed through before the election, though its receiving Royal Assent in time may be difficult given the time taken up now by Covid-19 legislation. To me, it appears that this is a tacit admission that there's to be no Eastern Leg bill in this Parliament. Of course, an incoming government can still promise such a bill, which is why I see the way Lord Adonis put it as wrong.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Oct 2020 ==

Even if only the Leeds services were to be diverted via Manchester, that would still double the number of reversing services in the HS2 Piccadilly platforms. If the revised plans were calling for 8 or more platforms there would be a stronger suspicion that this was being planned. As they stand the plans look adequate for NPR reversals but no more.

If changing trains at either Manchester or Crewe saved 10 or 15 minutes for a Leeds to London journey that was on NPR or HS2 infrastructure throughout, or nearly throughout, but existing direct Leeds to London services were also maintained, I imagine only a small portion of travellers would switch, which would be quite possible for what capacity is available in Manchester to cope with. Through trains running that way doesn't seem terribly likely unless Manchester and Leeds are to share capacity which rather defeats the point.

 

[Purple Orange]

@quantinghome and @Ianno87 On first inspection Leeds to London via Manchester seems a complete non-starter, but perhaps the devil is in the detail here. The NPR proposal is for 4 tph Manchester to Liverpool and 6 tph to Manchester to Leeds. The question is how will those 4 Liverpool and 6 Leeds services link up and what happens to the 2 additional Leeds trains?

We might see all 4 Liverpool trains continue to Leeds, with the additional Leeds services terminating at Piccadilly. We could see those 2 additional Leeds services continue to Birmingham, using a 200m unit. But if it is going to Birmingham, could it go to London instead? I think that would be problematic given that the train would likely need to be 400m and travel through Huddersfield (I predict NPR services will be operational long before any new line is ever built - TPE is NPR but on Victorian infrastructure). A London service would probably need to be in addition to the 3 Manchester and 2 Birmingham services.

There is also a question about the MML and IF the line is electrified and linked to HS2 via an electrified Derby-Birmingham line, could that be a faster route to London from Leeds than the ECML and via Manchester? So the most logical situation to me might be for the 6 Manchester-Leeds NPR services to consist of:

• 2 tph Birmingham-Manchester-Leeds-York-Newcastle (1 tph continues to Edinburgh)
• 2 tph Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-York-Newcastle (1 tph continues to Edinburgh)
• 1 tph Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Hull
• 1 tph Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-York-Middlesbrough

Current XC services will disappear too.

 

[Bald Rick]

There is also a question about the MML and IF the line is electrified and linked to HS2 via an electrified Derby-Birmingham line, could that be a faster route to London from Leeds than the ECML and via Manchester? So the most logical situation to me might be for the 6 Manchester-Leeds NPR services to consist of:

• 2 tph Birmingham-Manchester-Leeds-York-Newcastle (1 tph continues to Edinburgh)
• 2 tph Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-York-Newcastle (1 tph continues to Edinburgh)
• 1 tph Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Hull
• 1 tph Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-York-Middlesbrough

That’s not good for Derby / Chesterfield / Sheffield to Leeds and North thereof.

 

[Meerkat]

I assume the freight operators have something to say about adding all the Carlisle to Annandale ECS onto the two track bit, even if it is short?
Shame at not having a through Manchester station, but the Ardwick link presumably means the case for Liverpool-Manchester NPR is pretty good as it could be used by TPE/NPR going on via Guide Bridge with little extra building. But mean Stalybridge being realigned AGAIN!

 

[ABB125]

There's a BBC article here about the proposed stabling facility.
BBC News - High-speed train 'stabling' facility proposed near Gretna

High-speed train 'stabling' facility proposed near Gretna

The site in the south of Scotland could house up to 28 trains for cleaning and light maintenance.

www.bbc.co.uk

A high-speed train "stabling" facility - creating up to 100 jobs - could be constructed in southern Scotland.

 

[Robertj21a]

The Sop will be - an announcement almost simultaneously about MML electrification - I just feel it in my bones!

Probably the best solution for many anyway.

 

[The Planner]

I assume the freight operators have something to say about adding all the Carlisle to Annandale ECS onto the two track bit, even if it is short?
Shame at not having a through Manchester station, but the Ardwick link presumably means the case for Liverpool-Manchester NPR is pretty good as it could be used by TPE/NPR going on via Guide Bridge with little extra building. But mean Stalybridge being realigned AGAIN!

FOCs will have to petition against it in the hybrid bill as I doubt it would sit in any protective provisions.

 

[Purple Orange]

That’s not good for Derby / Chesterfield / Sheffield to Leeds and North thereof.

What would derby, Chesterfield, Sheffield have to do with the via Manchester services? They would have their own service to Leeds on the MML.

 

[Ianno87]

I assume the freight operators have something to say about adding all the Carlisle to Annandale ECS onto the two track bit, even if it is short?

If its just some early trains starting at Carlisle and heading south, and/or late trains from Euston terminating at Carlisle then heading to the depot, then arguably no more of a capacity load than the standard hour passenger service. In fact its possibly better as the entire train could head to depot from Carlisle as a complete 400m train in one path, rather than a 200m train to each of Edinburgh and Glasgow needing two paths.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Oct 2020 ==





NEW POST about Terminal vs Through stations:

Great thread just appeared on Twitter explaining how it's not nearly as simple as "Through stations are better than terminal stations". Recommend reading all the way through: https://twitter.com/WilliamBarter1/status/1314241848265904130?s=20

Through stations versus terminal station? Through stations sound attractive for many reasons, but the reality is not so clear. And you can’t ignore costs.

 

[ABB125]

NEW POST about Terminal vs Through stations:

Great thread just appeared on Twitter explaining how it's not nearly as simple as "Through stations are better than terminal stations". Recommend reading all the way through: https://twitter.com/WilliamBarter1/status/1314241848265904130?s=20

Very interesting, I agree with quite a lot of it. The moral of the story is, "it depends". As with so much in life, there's no black or white answer.
One thing that he's possibly not mentioned is that HS2 trains, with 400m of passengers to board/alight, will no doubt need 5 or 10 minutes' dwell. However, shorter (200m?) NPR trains, possibly with a more "commuter" layout, perhaps need less time (or rather, don't need as much), so could probably cope better.

 

[Meerkat]

If its just some early trains starting at Carlisle and heading south, and/or late trains from Euston terminating at Carlisle then heading to the depot, then arguably no more of a capacity load than the standard hour passenger service. In fact its possibly better as the entire train could head to depot from Carlisle as a complete 400m train in one path, rather than a 200m train to each of Edinburgh and Glasgow needing two paths.

AIUI it is a load of the trains dropping a unit at Carlisle and that unit popping to the depot?
i had thought that the units were splitting to go to both Glasgow and Edinburgh though

 

[edwin_m]

That would probably depend on whether *all* Eastern leg services would be re-routed in such a scenario. Whereas Leeds-NPR-Manchester-HS2-Euston would be reasonably attractive compared to (and still faster than) the ECML and you could see Leeds services being re-routed, York-Leeds-NPR-Manchester-HS2-Euston would likely be slower than a non-stop run to King's Cross.

Having worked this through I think there's enough capacity for Birmingham-Manchester trains to be lengthened and extended to Leeds (possibly splitting in Manchester if NPR won't take 400m trains, although that introduces problems of its own). But London-Manchester trains are proposed to be 400m so they can't be lengthened to take London-Leeds passengers too, and there isn't capacity to run any more trains between the Birmingham junctions and Crewe.

My feeling is that a better package might be a mini-Y network going south from Leeds, with one leg to Sheffield and the other joining the ECML somewhere south of Doncaster. This could use some of the alignment of the eastern leg and might also have a link towards York. It would speed up London-ECML-Leeds trains (possibly those going further north too) as well as providing better fast service between Sheffield and Leeds including Cross Country. The East Midlands could have a connection off HS2 onto the Birmingham-Derby line in the Tamworth area, an upgrade of the Stenson to Sheet Stores line and an east-west bypass of the Trent junctions with electrification throughout, to accelerate services from London and Birmingham to Derby/Sheffield and Nottingham.

 

[HSTEd]

One thing that he's possibly not mentioned is that HS2 trains, with 400m of passengers to board/alight, will no doubt need 5 or 10 minutes' dwell. However, shorter (200m?) NPR trains, possibly with a more "commuter" layout, perhaps need less time (or rather, don't need as much), so could probably cope better.

Assuming your platforms are large enough, the length of train should make little difference to the time to disembark and embark passengers.