Future of HS2 2b (Eastern Leg deprioritised)

[Ianno87]

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

Yes, the intention is that every half hour a 400m train runs from Euston to Carlisle, then splits with one portion to Edinburgh and the other to Glasgow. Obviously first/last trains etc may follow a different pattern.

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

It'll also depend on how well passengers spread down the platform. If NPR is turn up and go (no seat reservations etc) the last thing you want is everybody boarding at Piccadilly all crowding into the two seats of doors nearest the buffer stops rather than spread along the train. Station design (like London Bridge and Reading) can help with this by designing where passengers feed onto platforms.

 

[Bald Rick]

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

You said ‘current XC services will dissapear’ which I took to mean Birmingham to NE services.

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

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.

Length of train doesn’t matter. What matters is door configuration and number of people on each coach. A 200m train with high density layout will take longer to dwell than a 400m train in a low density layout.

 

[HSTEd]

Length of train doesn’t matter. What matters is door configuration and number of people on each coach. A 200m train with high density layout will take longer to dwell than a 400m train in a low density layout.

One would hope this modern, high capacity station, built above ground, will have sufficient capacity on the platform entrances to avoid it "choking" after all.

 

[Purple Orange]

You said ‘current XC services will dissapear’ which I took to mean Birmingham to NE services.

Oh sorry I should’ve been more prescriptive. I do think the NE/SW cross country services will go, but I would expect a Leeds MML service to come about, certainly if electrified and it could become the route to London from Leeds if there is a junction on to HS2.

 

[ABB125]

Length of train doesn’t matter. What matters is door configuration and number of people on each coach. A 200m train with high density layout will take longer to dwell than a 400m train in a low density layout.

Makes sense.
HS2 trains with no seats anyone and four double doors per side anyone?

 

[Austriantrain]

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

Interesting reading, even though (or because) it goes against what we have been doing on the continent for ages (ie replacing or complementing Terminal stations with through stations).

What I cannot really understand, though, is why platform reoccupation time in a through station would be double the time in a terminal station. Doesn’t make sense; maybe someone can explain.

 

[Ianno87]

Interesting reading, even though (or because) it goes against what we have been doing on the continent for ages (ie replacing or complementing Terminal stations with through stations).

What I cannot really understand, though, is why platform reoccupation time in a through station would be double the time in a terminal station. Doesn’t make sense; maybe someone can explain.

I think his point is that it's not that the reoccupations times are twice as long, but there are twice as many reoccupation times required - that is "dead" capacity between departure of one train and arrival of the next.

Say you've got two trains per hour turning back on one platform. Then there are two reoccupation periods per hour - after the departure of each train and the arrival of the next.

If these trains now work through (two trains per hour each way) then you end up with four "dead" periods after each departure.

That's the simplest way I can think to explain it!

 

[edwin_m]

Oh sorry I should’ve been more prescriptive. I do think the NE/SW cross country services will go, but I would expect a Leeds MML service to come about, certainly if electrified and it could become the route to London from Leeds if there is a junction on to HS2.

Any London-Leeds route that uses part of HS2 and then the MML is likely to be no quicker than the existing ECML route, and it will probably be slower.

 

[Bald Rick]

Oh sorry I should’ve been more prescriptive. I do think the NE/SW cross country services will go, but I would expect a Leeds MML service to come about, certainly if electrified and it could become the route to London from Leeds if there is a junction on to HS2.

If the NE / Sw services go, how do you get from Bristol or Birmingham to Derby or Sheffield ?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I think his point is that it's not that the reoccupations times are twice as long, but there are twice as many reoccupation times required - that is "dead" capacity between departure of one train and arrival of the next.

Say you've got two trains per hour turning back on one platform. Then there are two reoccupation periods per hour - after the departure of each train and the arrival of the next.

If these trains now work through (two trains per hour each way) then you end up with four "dead" periods after each departure.

That's the simplest way I can think to explain it!

I'm confused by that.

How I imagine it is this:

Say you have through platforms, and a Liverpool-Leeds train stops at Manchester Piccadilly. The instant it's cleared the platform on its way to Leeds, that platform is available for the next Eastbound train. And since, on a through station, there are probably no conflicting moves, the train does not at any time block any Leeds-Liverpool trains.

On the other hand, if you have a reversal at Manchester Piccadilly, then the platform is not available immediately the train leaves it: The train also has to first clear the junction at which the eastbound and westbound lines separate before another train can get in. In the process of clearing that junction the train could be blocking not only the next Eastbound train, but it might also be blocking Westbound trains - depending, obviously, on how much (expensive) grade separation is built.

That logic seems to imply that a terminus station must have lower capacity, and more conflicting moves leading to more dead periods at platforms, than a corresponding through station would have. So what am I missing?

 

[Purple Orange]

If the NE / Sw services go, how do you get from Bristol or Birmingham to Derby or Sheffield ?

Perhaps such a service will run from Leeds to Brum and maybe on to Bristol, but the XC route we know today won’t exist surely. North of Leeds I doubt there will continue. HS2 will mean some towns that once had direct services will need to change, while others may gain direct services.

PS I don’t think we can assume that because a long distance intercity service exists today, that it will necessarily exist in 2035 or 2040. The answer to the question of how do you get to Bristol or Edinburgh from Derby could be met with the same answer as a journey starting at Nottingham. How do you get to Leicester from Manchester? You have to change trains. But in 20 years time, Leicester may have a direct route, but Nottingham has lost out.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Oct 2020 ==

I'm confused by that.

How I imagine it is this:

Say you have through platforms, and a Liverpool-Leeds train stops at Manchester Piccadilly. The instant it's cleared the platform on its way to Leeds, that platform is available for the next Eastbound train. And since, on a through station, there are probably no conflicting moves, the train does not at any time block any Leeds-Liverpool trains.

On the other hand, if you have a reversal at Manchester Piccadilly, then the platform is not available immediately the train leaves it: The train also has to first clear the junction at which the eastbound and westbound lines separate before another train can get in. In the process of clearing that junction the train could be blocking not only the next Eastbound train, but it might also be blocking Westbound trains - depending, obviously, on how much (expensive) grade separation is built.

That logic seems to imply that a terminus station must have lower capacity, and more conflicting moves leading to more dead periods at platforms, than a corresponding through station would have. So what am I missing?

Your logic seems sound to me, but the bit you’re missing is a) cost b) the purpose of NPR. The whole NPR project has never been about connecting Liverpool with Leeds, but rather better connections with Manchester.

 

[WatcherZero]

Has the bit on Carlisle station in the station profiles section of the consultation website been seen before?

HS2 trains will serve Oxenholme, Penrith and Carlisle stations. These will become ‘integrated high speed stations’ where passengers can catch HS2 trains and access the high speed network to the south. When fully open, there will be a connection to the West Coast Main Line at Wigan, which will allow us to run trains along the existing line north of Wigan serving Edinburgh, Glasgow and other stations. This will include more services at Carlisle station, where some services south of Carlisle will run as 400m long trains, while services running north, to Edinburgh and Glasgow, will be 200m long trains.

This means we need to make changes at the station to accommodate longer trains, split northbound trains to make them 200m, and join southbound trains back together to make them 400m. To achieve this, we intend to extend platforms 3 and 4, and fill in platform 2. We will also create a new platform on the southern side of the station to replace the capacity lost at platform 2 and build a new footbridge for passenger access to the new platform.

Says you can find out more in the consultation but the station modifications arent mentioned in the consultation document, instead there is the following section on the proposed new depot:

The proposed Annandale train stabling facility would be approximately 18km north of Carlisle Station, situated 3.5km northwest of Gretna Green in greenfeld land south of the adjacent West Coast Main Line (WCML). To the south of the proposed Annandale stabling facility is the B7076 and A74(M). Please see pages 48-56 of the accompanying Western Leg Design Refnement Consultation Mapbook for further details.

The proposed site is approximately 80 hectares in size. The width of the site is approximately 400m at its widest and stretches approximately 3.15km in length.

The site would perform the following functions:
● stabling trains overnight;
● internal and external cleaning;
● light servicing, inspection and maintenance;
● training and meeting facilities; and
● equipment spares storage facilities.

Most trains stabled at the Annandale Depot would start and end passenger service at Carlisle.

The proposed train stabling facility would include:
● 14 stabling slides, that can each accommodate two 200m trains;
● two connections to the existing WCML to the south for trains to enter and leave in quick succession;
● one connection to the existing WCML to the north for empty stock movements to Scottish termini, which would join the southern connection to form a loop;
● automatic carriage wash machine;
● overhead catenary system and power substation;
● waste water treatment plant;
● offce and welfare building; and
● car parking and a maintenance shed for undertaking light maintenance.

 

[Austriantrain]

I'm confused by that.

How I imagine it is this:

Say you have through platforms, and a Liverpool-Leeds train stops at Manchester Piccadilly. The instant it's cleared the platform on its way to Leeds, that platform is available for the next Eastbound train. And since, on a through station, there are probably no conflicting moves, the train does not at any time block any Leeds-Liverpool trains.

On the other hand, if you have a reversal at Manchester Piccadilly, then the platform is not available immediately the train leaves it: The train also has to first clear the junction at which the eastbound and westbound lines separate before another train can get in. In the process of clearing that junction the train could be blocking not only the next Eastbound train, but it might also be blocking Westbound trains - depending, obviously, on how much (expensive) grade separation is built.

That logic seems to imply that a terminus station must have lower capacity, and more conflicting moves leading to more dead periods at platforms, than a corresponding through station would have. So what am I missing?

Exactly my thoughts. Having slept over it, saying that a Terminus can have more capacity than a through station really does not make sense to me.

Doesn‘t mean of course that a terminus cannot have enough capacity for a particular purpose and can be cheaper to build!

 

[The Ham]

Exactly my thoughts. Having slept over it, saying that a Terminus can have more capacity than a through station really does not make sense to me.

Doesn‘t mean of course that a terminus cannot have enough capacity for a particular purpose and can be cheaper to build!

The issue isn't that through stations don't have more capacity, but rather to obtain that capacity costs a lot more but the capacity isn't proportionally more when compared to the cost increases.

Whilst there's some improvement over a train reversing back out a train continuing on along the track still has to move off before the next one can enter the station, however given that this time saving is fairly small compared to the length of time a train would be in the platform.

Whilst the loading/unloading of the trains is fairly quick the issue is having that number of people on the platforms at a given time.

Once you start getting 300+ people off a train and a similar number on again may only take 90 seconds you're going to need a reasonable amount of time to clear them and get the next train load onto the platform.

Station design can help with this with lots of routes to/from platforms, however where there's high frequency services but because there's lots of different services could cause platform congestion. For instance who's going to leave a platform if the next train is the one they wish to change to.

Through stations therefore make sense where you're doing short distance travel, but less so where you've got one station for a city on a service.

 

[Ianno87]

I'm confused by that.

How I imagine it is this:

Say you have through platforms, and a Liverpool-Leeds train stops at Manchester Piccadilly. The instant it's cleared the platform on its way to Leeds, that platform is available for the next Eastbound train. And since, on a through station, there are probably no conflicting moves, the train does not at any time block any Leeds-Liverpool trains.

On the other hand, if you have a reversal at Manchester Piccadilly, then the platform is not available immediately the train leaves it: The train also has to first clear the junction at which the eastbound and westbound lines separate before another train can get in. In the process of clearing that junction the train could be blocking not only the next Eastbound train, but it might also be blocking Westbound trains - depending, obviously, on how much (expensive) grade separation is built.

That logic seems to imply that a terminus station must have lower capacity, and more conflicting moves leading to more dead periods at platforms, than a corresponding through station would have. So what am I missing?

Exactly my thoughts. Having slept over it, saying that a Terminus can have more capacity than a through station really does not make sense to me.

Doesn‘t mean of course that a terminus cannot have enough capacity for a particular purpose and can be cheaper to build!

The claim isn't that a terminus can have more capacity than a through station.

The claim is the statement that "a terminus station always has less capacity than a through station" is not necessarily true. "It depends" is the point being made. For example, on what track layout feeds into these platforms, grade separation etc.

Especially when you don't design every new railway for its maximum theoertical capaciy, but the level of capacity and flexibility to do what it needs to do whilst retaining choices about how to plan the service in future.

For example, I could imagine a terminus being better for accommodating a mix of through and terminating services.

 

[The Planner]

I'm confused by that.

How I imagine it is this:

Say you have through platforms, and a Liverpool-Leeds train stops at Manchester Piccadilly. The instant it's cleared the platform on its way to Leeds, that platform is available for the next Eastbound train. And since, on a through station, there are probably no conflicting moves, the train does not at any time block any Leeds-Liverpool trains.

On the other hand, if you have a reversal at Manchester Piccadilly, then the platform is not available immediately the train leaves it: The train also has to first clear the junction at which the eastbound and westbound lines separate before another train can get in. In the process of clearing that junction the train could be blocking not only the next Eastbound train, but it might also be blocking Westbound trains - depending, obviously, on how much (expensive) grade separation is built.

That logic seems to imply that a terminus station must have lower capacity, and more conflicting moves leading to more dead periods at platforms, than a corresponding through station would have. So what am I missing?

Technically it isn't available for the next train on a through platform as you still have the re-occupation as stated thus the dead time. You don't plan to go in on a red aspect.
The blocking of a station throat isn't a new thing and is something that is dealt with on a day by day basis at any terminus. You don't have to conflict all the time depending on the throat layout. For example you could have simultaneous arrivals and departures into platforms east and west bound if design allows it without grade separation.

 

[Meerkat]

Has the bit on Carlisle station in the station profiles section of the consultation website been seen before?



Says you can find out more in the consultation but the station modifications arent mentioned in the consultation document, instead there is the following section on the proposed new depot:

How come they can extend P4 without closing P5, but can’t extend P3 without closing P2?
From that I assume the new P2 will be a remote platform way out against the wall with convoluted access - like P0 at Doncaster?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Oct 2020 ==

Oh and.....I still don’t understand why 2b stops south of Wigan. Through Wigan looks pretty congested 2 track, and Wigan can be served by the trains leaving HS2 at Crewe.
Bypassing Wigan and Euxton, with a six track southern approach into Preston seems more logical - Preston being a significant interchange opportunity in many directions.

 

[yorkie]

Regarding people posting alternative ideas/suggestions, just to clarify this forum absolutely does welcome any such discussion (and it's great to hear of alternative suggestions and the pros and cons of any alternative suggestions) but we do ask that these are posted in the appropriate forum section for ideas/suggestions please.

I have therefore moved @daodao's proposal into a new thread:

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/alternative-suggestions-for-hs2-extensions-and-npr.210073/#post-4814290

If anyone wishes to make alternative proposals please either post in the above thread if appropriate, or create a new one if your proposal is radically different to @daodao's. Thanks

 

[Starmill]

How come they can extend P4 without closing P5, but can’t extend P3 without closing P2?
From that I assume the new P2 will be a remote platform way out against the wall with convoluted access - like P0 at Doncaster?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Oct 2020 ==

Oh and.....I still don’t understand why 2b stops south of Wigan. Through Wigan looks pretty congested 2 track, and Wigan can be served by the trains leaving HS2 at Crewe.
Bypassing Wigan and Euxton, with a six track southern approach into Preston seems more logical - Preston being a significant interchange opportunity in many directions.

There's a long campaign being fought against the so-called 'Golborne Link'. Of course, if it's scrapped in 2022, a connection that reaches Preston could then be designed and accomodated during the 2040s.

There will be quite a bit of ongoing work between Wigan and Carlisle too to upgrade infrastructure for higher speeds for HS2 trains. I do not know if further details of modifications at Wigan, Preston or Lancaster are planned or here and I've missed them.

The York to Newcastle section had a number of proposals published recently to accommodate post HS2 growth. Of course, nothing funded.

 

[The Planner]

There's a long campaign being fought against the so-called 'Golborne Link'. Of course, if it's scrapped in 2022, a connection that reaches Preston could then be designed and accomodated during the 2040s.

There will be quite a bit of ongoing work between Wigan and Carlisle too to upgrade infrastructure for HS2's higher train speeds. I do not know if further details of modifications at Wigan, Preston or Lancaster are planned or here and I've missed them.

The York to Newcastle section had a number of proposals published recently to accommodate ppst HS2 growth. Of course, nothing funded.

Preston needs sorting, plans are afoot for that. Lancaster will stay as it is.

 

[JamesT]

There's a long campaign being fought against the so-called 'Golborne Link'. Of course, if it's scrapped in 2022, a connection that reaches Preston could then be designed and accomodated during the 2040s.

There will be quite a bit of ongoing work between Wigan and Carlisle too to upgrade infrastructure for higher speeds for HS2 trains. I do not know if further details of modifications at Wigan, Preston or Lancaster are planned or here and I've missed them.

The York to Newcastle section had a number of proposals published recently to accommodate post HS2 growth. Of course, nothing funded.

If the Golborne Link is binned, all HS2 trains to Scotland would leave HS2 at Crewe and use the WCML for their remaining journey?

 

[Starmill]

If the Golborne Link is binned, all HS2 trains to Scotland would leave HS2 at Crewe and use the WCML for their remaining journey?

Presumably so. And presumably there will be a need for further upgrades at Warrington, and elsewhere between Crewe and Wigan.

 

[30907]

How come they can extend P4 without closing P5, but can’t extend P3 without closing P2?
From that I assume the new P2 will be a remote platform way out against the wall with convoluted access - like P0 at Doncaster?

At a guess, singling the immediate approach to 5/6 from the NER route and redoubling round the curve would give sufficient capacity.
I would hope the new P2 would be served by a passage from the existing footbridge through the building, then a new footbridge - a bit like Newcastle.

 

[Meerkat]

Isn’t the Golborne Link pretty much inevitable unless HS2 is to never go further north?

 

[edwin_m]

Presumably so. And presumably there will be a need for further upgrades at Warrington, and elsewhere between Crewe and Wigan.

I guess it's possible that a link could be built east to north between NPR and WCML in the Warrington area so that HS2 trains going north could use part of NPR before joining the WCML. However this depends on what route NPR takes, and capacity issues would remain on the WCML north of the connection.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Isn’t the Golborne Link pretty much inevitable unless HS2 is to never go further north?

You've also done two-thirds of the Crewe-Golborne route on the committed Crewe-Manchester leg.
The short link from Rostherne/High Legh to Golborne is mostly over marshland and Risley Moss.
Turning sharp left along NPR to Warrington, and then right onto the WCML is just daft, no better than the WCML direct.
Of course, there used to be a handy Wigan by-pass via Whelley to Standish Jn, but I guess reinstatement would be very destructive of property today.
A new approach to Preston would be very expensive and destructive.
There are 6 tracks over the Ribble viaduct already (two of which are hardly used), plus a disused western island platform.

 

[Ianno87]

Of course, there used to be a handy Wigan by-pass via Whelley to Standish Jn, but I guess reinstatement would be very destructive of property today.

Also very twisty and slow.

 

[cle]

Would these improvements between Wigan/Preston and Carlisle enable today's Scotland services from Brum/Manc/Liv to also speed up?

Or would they be 110 -> 125 EPS type solves for non-tilt speedier stock?

 

[Horizon22]

The claim isn't that a terminus can have more capacity than a through station.

The claim is the statement that "a terminus station always has less capacity than a through station" is not necessarily true. "It depends" is the point being made. For example, on what track layout feeds into these platforms, grade separation etc.

Especially when you don't design every new railway for its maximum theoertical capaciy, but the level of capacity and flexibility to do what it needs to do whilst retaining choices about how to plan the service in future.

For example, I could imagine a terminus being better for accommodating a mix of through and terminating services.

Exactly. It totally depends on how your through and terminal stations are being used such as the average turnaround time and the average dwell time. Through can have theoretical more capacity with lower platforms because the occupancy is a much lower percentage. However, if a terminus has a lot of conflicts depending on the ratio of platforms to outbound tracks, you're adding platforms with no major benefit to capacity other than having longer turnarounds.

Again all dependent on what sort of timetable HS2 plans on running.

 

[Starmill]

It's been discussed several times in light of increasing the max permissible speed for the TransPennine Express services yes. ETCS would also permit some more general speed increases. I don't think all of this work has been confirmed yet though.