Future of HS2 2b (Eastern Leg deprioritised)

[HSTEd]

Again that is assuming a completely new line between Manchester and Leeds will be built. I might be proved to be wrong on my assumption, but I can’t see Whitehall approving a new line via Bradford. NPR is purely a concept today with aspirations to deliver 6 tph and 40 minute journey times between Leeds & Manc. Given that frequency is already 6 tph, it doesn’t take a huge stretch of imagination to conclude that a 40 min journey time will be delivered through a partially built line via Huddersfield.

Does it?

All the stock being built for HS2 will be classic compatible so should be able to use the existing line?

 

[Ianno87]

Again that is assuming a completely new line between Manchester and Leeds will be built. I might be proved to be wrong on my assumption, but I can’t see Whitehall approving a new line via Bradford. NPR is purely a concept today with aspirations to deliver 6 tph and 40 minute journey times between Leeds & Manc. Given that frequency is already 6 tph, it doesn’t take a huge stretch of imagination to conclude that a 40 min journey time will be delivered through a partially built line via Huddersfield.

Euston-Manchester via HS2 2b is about 70 minutes.

Even if Manchester-Leeds is 40 minutes, that's Euston-Manchester-Leeds just under the 2 hour mark, including reversal.

 

[Killingworth]

Euston-Manchester via HS2 2b is about 70 minutes.

Even if Manchester-Leeds is 40 minutes, that's Euston-Manchester-Leeds just under the 2 hour mark, including reversal.

But after 20 years of improvements to the ECML I'd expect a Kings Cross - Leeds timing of near 2 hours could be achieved anyway.

 

[Purple Orange]

Euston-Manchester via HS2 2b is about 70 minutes.

Even if Manchester-Leeds is 40 minutes, that's Euston-Manchester-Leeds just under the 2 hour mark, including reversal.

Does it?

All the stock being built for HS2 will be classic compatible so should be able to use the existing line?

Ok, let’s assume Leeds-London traffic goes via Manchester. We should also assume Leeds-Birmingham traffic goes via Manchester too. Of the 6 tph from Leeds, we could easily see that split 2 x London, 2 x Birmingham and 2 x Liverpool. Yet the HS2 plan for Leeds has been 3 London (2 x 400m and 1 x 200m) and 2 x 200m Birmingham trains. Manchester requires 3 x 400m London and 2 x 200m Birmingham.

We’d end up with 5 tph from Manchester to London and 4 tph to Birmingham, plus 4 tph to Liverpool going through the tunnel via the airport.

Is it realistic to see 13 tph on the Manchester Airport leg and at least 2 x 400m trains on the existing transpennine line reversing at Piccadilly?

 

[daodao]

Ok, let’s assume Leeds-London traffic goes via Manchester. We should also assume Leeds-Birmingham traffic goes via Manchester too. Of the 6 tph from Leeds, we could easily see that split 2 x London, 2 x Birmingham and 2 x Liverpool. Yet the HS2 plan for Leeds has been 3 London (2 x 400m and 1 x 200m) and 2 x 200m Birmingham trains. Manchester requires 3 x 400m London and 2 x 200m Birmingham.

We’d end up with 5 tph from Manchester to London and 4 tph to Birmingham, plus 4 tph to Liverpool going through the tunnel via the airport.

Is it realistic to see 13 tph on the Manchester Airport leg and at least 2 x 400m trains on the existing transpennine line reversing at Piccadilly?

London to Leeds can already be done in 2 hours via the existing ECML - running such services on high speed lines via M/c is a waste of money.

 

[Purple Orange]

Crayonista.

How? I’m referring to the planned service provision.

 

[daodao]

How? I’m referring to the planned service provision.

It is completely daft to propose to run services from London to Leeds on a roundabout route via Manchester and over the Pennines.

 

[Purple Orange]

It is completely daft to propose to run services from London to Leeds on a roundabout route via Manchester and over the Pennines.

Exactly my point. Read the comments.

 

[Ianno87]

It is completely daft to propose to run services from London to Leeds on a roundabout route via Manchester and over the Pennines.

Not necessarily if it's faster, as speed offsets the extra distance.

In France, the fastest way between Paris and Toulouse is some distance out of the way via Bordeaux, for example.

 

[The Ham]

Not so, the long term trend needs to be a shift from using fossil fuels to electricity. And that is happening.

There's also a need to ensure that we don't use too much electricity, and so a shift from cars to rail (which are more efficient) helps with this.

Given that rail had broadly the same carbon emissions as EV's per user km (and rail is still using quite a lot of diesel) of by switching more travel to electric train it results in the need for less electricity to be generated. Which could result in less Electricity being required, which would result in a reduced power demand meaning a lowering of production needed less energy production going forwards.

 

[Class 170101]

Not necessarily if it's faster, as speed offsets the extra distance.

In France, the fastest way between Paris and Toulouse is some distance out of the way via Bordeaux, for example.

It also means potential for more services on the ECML that can call at intermediate stations between Kings Cross and York.

There's also a need to ensure that we don't use too much electricity, and so a shift from cars to rail (which are more efficient) helps with this.

Electric cars also don't solve the problem of road space and congestion. I doubt a lot of people want extra concrete near their back doors.

 

[HSTEd]

It is completely daft to propose to run services from London to Leeds on a roundabout route via Manchester and over the Pennines.

It's hardly roundabout.
It's only about 20km longer.

A train from London, doing the Manchester stopping pattern, would reach Manchester about the same time the Leeds via ECML train gets to the vicinity of Grantham/Newark.

We’d end up with 5 tph from Manchester to London and 4 tph to Birmingham

Why would we run 200m trains separetely from Manchester and Leeds given that the LEeds trains go via Manchester?
Surely we'd just run 2 x 400m trains per hour?

Is it realistic to see 13 tph on the Manchester Airport leg

Many HSLs in the world manage more than that, and I think it would probably be 11 rather than 13.

and at least 2 x 400m trains on the existing transpennine line reversing at Piccadilly?

Well reversing a train is probably easier than terminating it, which is apparently going to happen all the time.
As to 400m trains on the Transpennine, it seems likely that you could have SDO operation at Huddersfield without totally blocking up the station on at least a couple of the platforms with judicious placement of the stop boards, which means it should be ok to operate trains of that length assuming platforms can be arranged at Leeds to terminate them.

 

[jfowkes]

Not so, the long term trend needs to be a shift from using fossil fuels to electricity. And that is happening.

For carbon emissions alone sure, but there's also the environmental impact of manufacture and disposal to consider, congestion and air pollution (tyres and brake pads), deaths and injuries on the road, concreting of green spaces...

 

[Purple Orange]

Why would we run 200m trains separetely from Manchester and Leeds given that the LEeds trains go via Manchester?
Surely we'd just run 2 x 400m trains per hour?

Good point, if 400m trains on the trans pennine line is possible, then it does make sense to pair them up (I feel that is a very big if). Perhaps this boils down to what gives better value for money: the eastern branch with upgraded north transpennine route or an upgraded transpennine route with bypasses? I think the best option is to build the eastern branch.

 

[The Ham]

For carbon emissions alone sure, but there's also the environmental impact of manufacture and disposal to consider, congestion and air pollution (tyres and brake pads), deaths and injuries on the road, concreting of green spaces...

Indeed, Highways England (responsible for 4,800 numbers of network) had the lowest level of emissions in the last 5 years of 330,000 tonnes CO2e (total of 2,100,000 over that 5 year period, so an average amount of about 400,000 tonnes); whilst Network Rail (responsible for 9,800 miles of network) had a CP6 target of reducing from a baseline of 300,000 tonnes CO2e, and achieved a 18% reduction (resulting in a sub 250,000 tonnes figure)

Likewise the maintenance and use emissions for a 60 year period of motorway of comparable length of motorway (using current emissions, which will fall in time) to HS2 phase 1 are about 22 million tonnes. If we could build 5* the amount of rail infrastructure as Phase 1 (5*1.5 million tonnes CO2e for building & 120 years of maintenance and use, so 7.5 million tonnes) but could then close a motorway of comparable length to just phase 1, that would reach 7.5 million tonnes of CO2e savings after about 20 years, even if road emissions halve it's still better after 40 years (however that would likely be an average of half, as it's unlikely to have halved by the time of opening so in the latter years of would have to be more than half.

However you've still got the remainder of the 120 years of rail use of emissions which are then effectively free.

For road to get close to the rail's figures (bearing in mind that we're building 5* the number of miles of new HS lines compared to the length of motorway which is being closed) emissions would have to be cut by at least 1/3.

However with that much extra track (which would likely need to improve capacity for freight to get to the WCML and passengers to get to HS2 services) chances are other road use across a much larger area would reduce.

For instance if we had a plan to create a rail system which allowed us to remove enough road traffic to close the M40 between London and Birmingham, that would likely need better freight connections (which would also benefit passengers) to HS1, Southampton and Felixstowe along with better passenger rail connections across Birmingham between Oxford and London/Birmingham and a reduction of some key pinch points across the whole network.

In reality you'd be hard pushed to actually close a motorway, however you could make it that there was enough of a drop in demand that some of the secondary road routes could be closed to through traffic and there be a lot more Low Traffic Neighborhoods introduced as carry use had fallen so much.

Whilst people may still use cars for occasional travel it could well be that these are shared use cars and so less road space was needed for parking (freeing up today space for moving vehicles).

Often things like HS2 get looked at in isolation, rather than how they could be used as part of a wider solution for the reduction in our car use. However that's probably because no one is thinking about that (hopefully yet) as part of our tour to net carbon zero target. As to achieve that we need to do as much as we can to reduce our emissions.

If we cut out emissions by 80% that's still 20% to deal with, however if we have scope to get it to 15% or even 10% then that's less which needs dealing with. Schemes like carbon capture are likely to be quite expensive so the more we can cut will help us.

That's going to likely mean that our focused should be (on order of priority):
- do we need to travel and reduce this where we can and it's practical
- walk as much of what's left as possible
- then cycle
- then use public transport
- then use shared car systems (car clubs, car hire, even taxis)
- then and only if none of the above are suitable (although may be harder for some trips, but still be suitable) then have your own car, however even in doing so for each trip you'd still need to try and reduce the use of it.

That's not going to be popular with a population who are addicted to car use and the level of convenience (and therefore the lack of planning required, such as being able to go to the shops for all their food shopping rather than being able to have a fortnightly food delivery and picking up half a dozen items once or twice between those major deliveries - whilst you may need milk and fruit and veg the big, such as toilet rolls, or the heavy, such as washing powder, should be delivered, as such the top up shopping could be carried whilst walking or cycling by most people).

HS2 (any phase) by providing more rail capacity and improving journey options by rail then allows more occasional travel to be undertaken by rail, as such it reduces the need for car ownership from some people (i.e. those that justify car ownership because going and visiting family by train is slow/difficult and so use it day to day when they don't really need to). The more we improve rail and other public transport the more we'd be able to reduce our need for cars.

 

[stuu]

Many HSLs in the world manage more than that, and I think it would probably be 11 rather than 13.

Source? LGV SE currently has capacity to run 14 at most, even the Tokaido Shinkansen is at 16 only for the peak, so I would be very surprised if many other lines around the world run more than 14tph

 

[Ianno87]

Source? LGV SE currently has capacity to run 14 at most, even the Tokaido Shinkansen is at 16 only for the peak, so I would be very surprised if many other lines around the world run more than 14tph

Most lines are however capable of routinely planning trains at 3 minute headways, but:
-Are simply not used to that level of capacity as there isn't demand, or
-Have some other hard constraint that prevents this being used routinely - e.g. the Tokaido Shinkansen is limited by the 6 platforms at Tokyo.

 

[stuu]

But the claim was that many do carry that number, when that isn't correct. The French are spending €600m resignalling LGV SE to increase capacity from 13 to 16tph, and that's the busiest high speed line in Europe

 

[Ianno87]

But the claim was that many do carry that number, when that isn't correct. The French are spending €600m resignalling LGV SE to increase capacity from 13 to 16tph, and that's the busiest high speed line in Europe

It's possible to *manage* (i.e. be capable of) 14+ trains per hour, without actually *running* that many, if you have never (yet) needed to.

 

[stuu]

I'm well aware of that. The original post claimed that many do run that frequency, not the hypothetical capacity.

 

[Grumpy]

Approx 20 years ago the 1430 from Kings Cross picked up at Stevenage then ran non stop to Wakefield then Leeds. I caught it most weeks. I used to look at the station clock after alighting at Leeds and it invariably 1630. And that after hanging around at Westgate awaiting booked departure time. You don't need new High Speed lines to reliably schedule Leeds in 2 hours (or under with less padding).

 

[HSTEd]

Source? LGV SE currently has capacity to run 14 at most, even the Tokaido Shinkansen is at 16 only for the peak, so I would be very surprised if many other lines around the world run more than 14tph

14 is already greater than 13, or 11?

 

[daodao]

Approx 20 years ago the 1430 from Kings Cross picked up at Stevenage then ran non stop to Wakefield then Leeds. I caught it most weeks. I used to look at the station clock after alighting at Leeds and it invariably 1630. And that after hanging around at Westgate awaiting booked departure time. You don't need new High Speed lines to reliably schedule Leeds in 2 hours (or under with less padding).

Exactly. There is no need for the eastern arm of HS2 as such, but there should be a 2 tph service via HS2 and then existing ordinary lines via Derby to Sheffield.

 

[Ianno87]

Approx 20 years ago the 1430 from Kings Cross picked up at Stevenage then ran non stop to Wakefield then Leeds. I caught it most weeks. I used to look at the station clock after alighting at Leeds and it invariably 1630. And that after hanging around at Westgate awaiting booked departure time. You don't need new High Speed lines to reliably schedule Leeds in 2 hours (or under with less padding).

Exactly. There is no need for the eastern arm of HS2 as such, but there should be a 2 tph service via HS2 and then existing ordinary lines via Derby to Sheffield.

What about the intermediate locations on the ECML? The ECML is far busier now than it was 20 years ago.

Equalising the speed of trains and re-structuring the timetable to accommodate more services is not "padding" (I detest that lazy terminology)

 

[stuu]

14 is already greater than 13, or 11?

I was mistaken, its currently only 13. And that's the busiest line in Europe, so where are the many others that run at that frequency and higher?

 

[jfowkes]

Approx 20 years ago the 1430 from Kings Cross picked up at Stevenage then ran non stop to Wakefield then Leeds. I caught it most weeks. I used to look at the station clock after alighting at Leeds and it invariably 1630. And that after hanging around at Westgate awaiting booked departure time. You don't need new High Speed lines to reliably schedule Leeds in 2 hours (or under with less padding).

I'd quite like to get from Leicester/Nottingham/Derby to Leeds in under 12 hours or without changing 7 times though.

 

[edwin_m]

I'd quite like to get from Leicester/Nottingham/Derby to Leeds in under 12 hours or without changing 7 times though.

There's a through train every hour from Nottingham to Leeds, taking around 2hr, and a bit less from Derby. Not the best service in the world but way better than your exaggeration. Many people might prefer a train that takes a little longer than having to change at Toton. Leicester might get a through train to Leeds under Midlands Connect proposals but not under HS2 as it currently stands.

 

[Domh245]

I'd quite like to get from Leicester/Nottingham/Derby to Leeds in under 12 hours or without changing 7 times though.

HS2 2b certainly doesn't help with that from Leicester, and dependant on where you're starting in Nottingham & Derby, likely not there either. The only loser of 2b being cancelled is Sheffield and the 7 people who live closer to Toton interchange than Nottingham & Derby proper.

 

[Ianno87]

HS2 2b certainly doesn't help with that from Leicester, and dependant on where you're starting in Nottingham & Derby, likely not there either. The only loser of 2b being cancelled is Sheffield and the 7 people who live closer to Toton interchange than Nottingham & Derby proper.

Leicester - East Midlands Hub (change) - HS2 - Leeds will help immensely.

I suspect East Midlands Hub will attract *alot* of suppressed demand of people who find accessing Nottingham and Derby stations difficult, due to needing to get in the respective city centres.

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

I was mistaken, its currently only 13. And that's the busiest line in Europe, so where are the many others that run at that frequency and higher?

That's not actually a relevant question.

Whether or not there are "many" other such lines doesn't demonstrate anything about what HS2's capability can achieve. It's still being designed, so the relevant capability can be provided.

 

[HSTEd]

I was mistaken, its currently only 13. And that's the busiest line in Europe, so where are the many others that run at that frequency and higher?

Apologies, excepting the Tokaido Shinkansen 13 does appear to be on the top end, but it is commonly achieved abroad.
And HS2 is in major trouble if this section cannot reach 13 trains per hour, because then Old Oak is completely stuffed?

EDIT:

Hypotheticalyl we would be looking at:
4 trains per hour Liverpool-Leeds via Manchester (this seems unnecessarily high but there we go)
2 trains per hour Birmingham-Leeds via Manchester
~4-5 trains per hour London-Leeds via Manchester.

I make that more like 10-11 trains per hour, not 13 anyway.