Midlands and North - Rail Needs Assessment report

[30907]

Not sure if underground platforms are necessary, but if they are they'd probably be at a similar elevation to the existing ones, but further east and buried in the hill.

Good thought. I was assuming that there would be capacity issues at Sheffield

 

[Bald Rick]

That would be an impressive timing, quicker than I would have expected.

According to the report, Birmingham - Nottingham will be 27 mins.

Add 3 mins for a Nottingham call, 15 minutes to Newark (upgraded route), 45mins Newark to York with a stop at Doncaster (today’s LNER timings), QED.

The elephant in the room would be capacity on the ECML north of Newark, and particularly through Doncaster.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

According to the report, Birmingham - Nottingham will be 27 mins.

Add 3 mins for a Nottingham call, 15 minutes to Newark (upgraded route), 45mins Newark to York with a stop at Doncaster (today’s LNER timings), QED.

The elephant in the room would be capacity on the ECML north of Newark, and particularly through Doncaster.

One assumes the “upgraded ECML” means 140mph running north of Peterborough, no freight, and a big re-modelling at Doncaster and York as well as between Northallerton and Newcastle. It’s definitely possible to use it, but you might need more “deceleration lanes” around Doncaster. And grade separation.

 

[JonathanH]

15 minutes to Newark (upgraded route)

The line from Nottingham to Newark looks fairly straight and feasible for upgrading to higher speeds but it also level crossing heavy, with one at every station on the route, some like Carlton which are in built up areas and don't look feasible for bridging. Moreover, what would happen with the intermediate stations?

I assume a chord would be built just west of Newark where the line curves into Newark, broadly from Rolleston to north of South Muskham

 

[Purple Orange]

That would be an impressive timing, quicker than I would have expected.

It could be the fast Birmingham-Newcastle service with a slower one following largely the existing route but accelerated by using HS2 between Birmingham and EM Parkway and whatever happens between Sheffield and Leeds. One or other could terminate at York depending on demand.

A Birmingham-Nottingham-York (-NE) would be much more useful than that if as fast as suggested above. The paths are there to run it as a 200m if London-NE services stay on the ECML (and freight runs via Lincoln to release capacity via Newark). You could probably re-engineer Nottingham to take a 400m train.

Terminating at York would make sense, but it would be better to be a semi-fast with more intermediate stops.

 

[class26]

The line from Nottingham to Newark looks fairly straight and feasible for upgrading to higher speeds but it also level crossing heavy, with one at every station on the route, some like Carlton which are in built up areas and don't look feasible for bridging. Moreover, what would happen with the intermediate stations?

I assume a chord would be built just west of Newark where the line curves into Newark, broadly from Rolleston to north of South Muskham

It`s more than fairly straight, I would say almost it`s dead straight. I understand there are plans under the Midland Connect to upgrade to 90 mph. I presume that`s between Carlton and the approach to Newark. There would be a lot of time lost between Nottingham and Carlton though as it stands at present.
Would 90 mph be enough ? T

 

[edwin_m]

According to the report, Birmingham - Nottingham will be 27 mins.

Add 3 mins for a Nottingham call, 15 minutes to Newark (upgraded route), 45mins Newark to York with a stop at Doncaster (today’s LNER timings), QED.

The elephant in the room would be capacity on the ECML north of Newark, and particularly through Doncaster.

I'm not disagreeing with you, just hadn't thought about it before and surprised it was so quick.

Terminating at York would make sense, but it would be better to be a semi-fast with more intermediate stops.

What intermediate stops would it make?

It would be on HS2 from Birmingham to Trent with no stops except perhaps EM Parkway if they build HS platforms there. Apart from Nottingham there's nowhere significant enough to stop between there and Newark. I agree the curve would start somewhere near Rolleston, some five miles of new construction but anything shorter would be slower and would involve crossing the Trent twice. If so it would miss Newark. That leaves only Retford and Doncaster between there and York. So this probably steers it to being the fast service between the West Midlands and the North East, or could maybe run to Leeds instead, with other trains taking the existing route to serve Derby, Sheffield, Wakefield and Leeds.

I agree ECML capacity would be a concern, but running freight via Sleaford would help and there would also be the unspecified journey time upgrades that might improve capacity too. There would probably be a London-Lincoln train every two hours or maybe even hourly, and a train joining the ECML north of Newark might be able to drop into the "empty" path.

To pick up a previous point, I think Nottingham station could take 400m trains by extending a couple of platforms (probably 5 and 6) right to the London Road bridge. Other platforms could connect to a single track to the north of this, that would join back in on the eastern side.

 

[johnnychips]

Good thought. I was assuming that there would be capacity issues at Sheffield

Any plan to build underground towards Park Hill will meet a lot of opposition, especially as there is already a daft plan to relocate the inner ring road to where the tram tracks are. Already the residents are sourcing Great Crested Newts

 

[Bald Rick]

The line from Nottingham to Newark looks fairly straight and feasible for upgrading to higher speeds but it also level crossing heavy, with one at every station on the route, some like Carlton which are in built up areas and don't look feasible for bridging. Moreover, what would happen with the intermediate stations?

I assume a chord would be built just west of Newark where the line curves into Newark, broadly from Rolleston to north of South Muskham

It`s more than fairly straight, I would say almost it`s dead straight. I understand there are plans under the Midland Connect to upgrade to 90 mph. I presume that`s between Carlton and the approach to Newark. There would be a lot of time lost between Nottingham and Carlton though as it stands at present.
Would 90 mph be enough ? T

Before the crayons come out, it’s important to stress that sending services ex the HS2 EM branch on from Nottingham via Newark to the ECML is not a proposal that is being considered.

Level Crossings - yes there’s around 30 between Nottingham and Newark crossing. A linespeed improvement to, say, 100mph wouldn’t need them closed, although that might be the most cost effective solution for many. Many would need an upgrade, including all the AHBs and footpaths. But the road crossings that are already MCB could stay as they are (with strike in alterations).

A chord at Newark would almost certainly be the mirror image of the South to East chord there now. Anything longer would get rather expensive for little additional gain, either through length or Trent flood protection, or both.

100mph should be enough; it’s only 18 miles from Nottingham to the crossing. The quick trains now are timed at 24 mins to Castle including a Lowdham call and DMU running times. To do 18 miles in 15 minutes needs an average of 72mph start Nottm to pass Newark crossing, which would be easily done with 100mph max speed. For comparison, Cambridge fasts cover the (nearly) 18 miles to Hatfield start to pass in 14 mins, using 25 year old units.

140mph north of Newark would give, at best, a minute to Doncaster and another minute and a half or so from there to York.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Dec 2020 ==

I'm not disagreeing with you, just hadn't thought about it before and surprised it was so quick.

I didn’t think you were!

 

[fishwomp]

I see no viable future for the SW/NE cross country services, as we know them today, if the regions 25%+ option or the basic upgrade option is taken. Timings between Birmingham & Leeds via Manchester will superior to the route vis Sheffield by up to 40 minutes, including a 5 min reversal at Piccadilly (I’m sure some people will pick bones with my 5 min assumption there, but that would be missing the point of the huge time advantage Manchester has over Sheffield).

By up to 40 minutes? Well, assuming that you are arriving on a XC into Birmingham.. for that 40 minutes, you can spend 20 minutes walking to Curzon St. And then "up to" 20 minutes waiting for your connection... Don't mind me, I will stay on the XC.. and be able to get out at Derby, Sheffield or Wakefield.]

 

[Bald Rick]

I see no viable future for the SW/NE cross country services, as we know them today, if the regions 25%+ option or the basic upgrade option is taken.

Oh they’ll stay, maybe on a lower frequency, back dup with more regional services. Remember Cross Country isn’t all about flows between the big cities, it isn’t even mostly about that. The typical cross country journey is a 20-50 mile town to city or town to town trip.

 

[Purple Orange]

Oh they’ll stay, maybe on a lower frequency, back dup with more regional services. Remember Cross Country isn’t all about flows between the big cities, it isn’t even mostly about that. The typical cross country journey is a 20-50 mile town to city or town to town trip.

In which they’d still be worth no more than 4-car trains. Wouldn’t need 125 mph stock either.

What intermediate stops would it make?

It would be on HS2 from Birmingham to Trent with no stops except perhaps EM Parkway if they build HS platforms there. Apart from Nottingham there's nowhere significant enough to stop between there and Newark. I agree the curve would start somewhere near Rolleston, some five miles of new construction but anything shorter would be slower and would involve crossing the Trent twice. If so it would miss Newark. That leaves only Retford and Doncaster between there and York. So this probably steers it to being the fast service between the West Midlands and the North East, or could maybe run to Leeds instead, with other trains taking the existing route to serve Derby, Sheffield, Wakefield and Leeds.

I agree ECML capacity would be a concern, but running freight via Sleaford would help and there would also be the unspecified journey time upgrades that might improve capacity too. There would probably be a London-Lincoln train every two hours or maybe even hourly, and a train joining the ECML north of Newark might be able to drop into the "empty" path.

To pick up a previous point, I think Nottingham station could take 400m trains by extending a couple of platforms (probably 5 and 6) right to the London Road bridge. Other platforms could connect to a single track to the north of this, that would join back in on the eastern side.

I don’t think the service should take up space on the HS2 track. It would not need more than a 4-car train. Start at New Street, calling at all stops currently frequented by XC but make it all regular stopping patterns, including Tamworth, Burton, go to Sheffield, Doncaster and Leeds on the way to York. That route would not be on a par with Brum-Manc-Leeds-York-Newcastle.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Dec 2020 ==

By up to 40 minutes? Well, assuming that you are arriving on a XC into Birmingham.. for that 40 minutes, you can spend 20 minutes walking to Curzon St. And then "up to" 20 minutes waiting for your connection... Don't mind me, I will stay on the XC.. and be able to get out at Derby, Sheffield or Wakefield.]

Yes, up to 40 mins. Why would it take 20 mins to wait for your connection? I would say I don’t think you’ve been to Birmingham if you think Curzon Street to New Street is 20 mins. It takes 20 mins to walk across the whole city centre.

 

[edwin_m]

I don’t think the service should take up space on the HS2 track. It would not need more than a 4-car train. Start at New Street, calling at all stops currently frequented by XC but make it all regular stopping patterns, including Tamworth, Burton, go to Sheffield, Doncaster and Leeds on the way to York. That route would not be on a par with Brum-Manc-Leeds-York-Newcastle.

Are we talking about the same service here? I was proposing a Curzon-Nottingham-York via new curve at Newark, using HS2 between Curzon and East Midlands Parkway. There has also been a mention of a Curzon-Manchester-Leeds via HS2 and NPR, either of which could be a fast service between Birmingham and the North East.

There could also be a Curzon-Sheffield-Leeds which could use HS2 out of Birmingham then from EM Parkway either via Derby or via Erewash Valley. This replicates the existing service apart from Burton and Tamworth, which aren't really long-distance stops and could probably be served by another service from New Street via the existing route, with northward connections at Nottingham, Derby or Sheffield.

The snag in all this is that the fast trains have to use HS2 out of Birmingham (the ones I have noted as Curzon) so these have to start/finish there as there is no link to the lines onwards towards Reading or Bristol. So journeys such as Bristol-Leeds would have to stay on the existing route or require a change of station in Birmingham (although I agree it's nowhere near 20min walk and could be reduced if they used Moor Street instead of New Street). Not including provision for such a connection, probably between Washwood Heath and Water Orton, is starting to look like a serious mistake.

 

[Purple Orange]

Are we talking about the same service here? I was proposing a Curzon-Nottingham-York via new curve at Newark, using HS2 between Curzon and East Midlands Parkway. There has also been a mention of a Curzon-Manchester-Leeds via HS2 and NPR, either of which could be a fast service between Birmingham and the North East.

There could also be a Curzon-Sheffield-Leeds which could use HS2 out of Birmingham then from EM Parkway either via Derby or via Erewash Valley. This replicates the existing service apart from Burton and Tamworth, which aren't really long-distance stops and could probably be served by another service from New Street via the existing route, with northward connections at Nottingham, Derby or Sheffield.

The snag in all this is that the fast trains have to use HS2 out of Birmingham (the ones I have noted as Curzon) so these have to start/finish there as there is no link to the lines onwards towards Reading or Bristol. So journeys such as Bristol-Leeds would have to stay on the existing route or require a change of station in Birmingham (although I agree it's nowhere near 20min walk and could be reduced if they used Moor Street instead of New Street). Not including provision for such a connection, probably between Washwood Heath and Water Orton, is starting to look like a serious mistake.

We are talking about the same market, but a different way to service that market. Curzon Street has a planned capacity of 5 tph along the eastern branch, therefore if the eastern branch was to go and there was just a branch towards East Midlands Parkway (EMP), what would become of those paths? It may well be equitable for passengers from Doncaster, Chesterfield, Derby, Burton to still have a XC type service in to Leeds, Sheffield & Birmingham, but north of York (or even Leeds) I doubt this would be required as much as it is now. I see a case for linking Newcastl & Edinburgh with Sheffield. However, is it not better to have these trains running in to New Street and keep Curzon Street free for services that will be utilising HS2 more intensively?

There are plans for 6 tph from Leeds to Manchester, of which 2 could continue to Birmingham. This would be in addition to the 2 tph Manc-Brum HS2 services. With the remaining 3 paths, would a Liverpool service or additional Glasgow/Edinburgh services not be a better option than running a train to York which would mostly be on the existing network?

 

[edwin_m]

We are talking about the same market, but a different way to service that market. Curzon Street has a planned capacity of 5 tph along the eastern branch, therefore if the eastern branch was to go and there was just a branch towards East Midlands Parkway (EMP), what would become of those paths? It may well be equitable for passengers from Doncaster, Chesterfield, Derby, Burton to still have a XC type service in to Leeds, Sheffield & Birmingham, but north of York (or even Leeds) I doubt this would be required as much as it is now. I see a case for linking Newcastl & Edinburgh with Sheffield. However, is it not better to have these trains running in to New Street and keep Curzon Street free for services that will be utilising HS2 more intensively?

There are plans for 6 tph from Leeds to Manchester, of which 2 could continue to Birmingham. This would be in addition to the 2 tph Manc-Brum HS2 services. With the remaining 3 paths, would a Liverpool service or additional Glasgow/Edinburgh services not be a better option than running a train to York which would mostly be on the existing network?

I think it's more about making the best use of the number of paths that are there. Assuming for this post that the eastern leg is descoped, there's no point in running London-NE trains that way because the ECML will still be faster, so there will be empty paths on whatever part of the eastern leg is actually built. If the ECML is upgraded then this remains true in the long term even if the eastern leg is eventually completed. So there are opportunities to use those paths for other things, such as London-Nottingham.

Birmingham-Nottingham is now only additional on the Birmingham branch instead of all the way to Toton as originally proposed by Midlands Connect, so it's more likely that paths could be found for it. Extending it beyond Nottingham create extra journey opportunities without using any more HS2 capacity.

If not used for something like this, even if they spend some or most of their time on conventional tracks, then the paths between Curzon and EM Parkway are essentially wasted.

 

[Greybeard33]

There are plans for 6 tph from Leeds to Manchester, of which 2 could continue to Birmingham. This would be in addition to the 2 tph Manc-Brum HS2 services. With the remaining 3 paths, would a Liverpool service or additional Glasgow/Edinburgh services not be a better option than running a train to York which would mostly be on the existing network?

If not used for something like this, even if they spend some or most of their time on conventional tracks, then the paths between Curzon and EM Parkway are essentially wasted.

Which begs the further question: is there really an economic justification for building just the stub of the eastern leg to the E Midlands, as opposed to upgrading the existing line via Burton per the baseline package? Or is this essentially a political bone thrown to the E and W Midlands, to try to buy them off from joining Yorkshire and the NE in fighting the axing of the eastern leg?

After all, the biggest passenger flows on the original eastern leg would have been been Leeds and Newcastle to London.

 

[edwin_m]

Which begs the further question: is there really an economic justification for building just the stub of the eastern leg to the E Midlands, as opposed to upgrading the existing line via Burton per the baseline package? Or is this essentially a political bone thrown to the E and W Midlands, to try to buy them off from joining Yorkshire and the NE in fighting the axing of the eastern leg?

After all, the biggest passenger flows on the original eastern leg would have been been Leeds and Newcastle to London.

Difficult to answer that except to note that the report found the packages focusing on regional links looked to have more benefits than the ones focusing on building the eastern leg. The Birmingham-Derby line does need more commuter services especially at the Birmingham end, and taking the fastest trains off it would help with that. And the CrossCountry route is relatively slow and gains the most proportionately in journey time from the full Y network, whereas London to Leeds and the NE are among the route with the least time benefit. So in that sense it may make sense to focus on regional links such as East-West Midlands and Sheffield to Leeds, which also benefit the Cross Country route.

 

[Roast Veg]

Difficult to answer that except to note that the report found the packages focusing on regional links looked to have more benefits than the ones focusing on building the eastern leg. The Birmingham-Derby line does need more commuter services especially at the Birmingham end, and taking the fastest trains off it would help with that. And the CrossCountry route is relatively slow and gains the most proportionately in journey time from the full Y network, whereas London to Leeds and the NE are among the route with the least time benefit. So in that sense it may make sense to focus on regional links such as East-West Midlands and Sheffield to Leeds, which also benefit the Cross Country route.

Reinstatement of EMR services to Burton would probably be a quick win, and give Burton a much better timetable.

 

[frodshamfella]

South Liverpool Parkway has 311 FREE parking spaces, not exactly small, but I agree insufficient

Tiverton Parkway a ‘genuine’ Parkway station with 229 parking spaces with a daily charge of £6.90

Perhaps a similar fee at South Liverpool Parkway would significantly reduce demand? I am not advocating it though, as I oppose punitive parking fees for rail users at stations. Absolute maximum at any rail station for rail users should be £5 and free after 1400hrs.

I have used this station quite a lot, either to reach the airport, or to go into the city centre at weekends. I live near Frodsham, so do try to take the train from there into Liverpool, but its only one an hour . The great thing about LSP is the frequent services in the city and the free parking. Its amazingly popular and certainly in the week its full very quickly. What's needed is more parking, a multistory really.

 

[Purple Orange]

Which begs the further question: is there really an economic justification for building just the stub of the eastern leg to the E Midlands, as opposed to upgrading the existing line via Burton per the baseline package? Or is this essentially a political bone thrown to the E and W Midlands, to try to buy them off from joining Yorkshire and the NE in fighting the axing of the eastern leg?

After all, the biggest passenger flows on the original eastern leg would have been been Leeds and Newcastle to London.

Difficult to answer that except to note that the report found the packages focusing on regional links looked to have more benefits than the ones focusing on building the eastern leg. The Birmingham-Derby line does need more commuter services especially at the Birmingham end, and taking the fastest trains off it would help with that. And the CrossCountry route is relatively slow and gains the most proportionately in journey time from the full Y network, whereas London to Leeds and the NE are among the route with the least time benefit. So in that sense it may make sense to focus on regional links such as East-West Midlands and Sheffield to Leeds, which also benefit the Cross Country route.

Especially given that Birmingham-Derby is 125mph already, there exists a fast route away from Brum already. Unless the stub to EMP is designed to allow London-Nottingham, Derby & Sheffield services in place of the London-Leeds, York & Newcastle services. Effectively releasing capacity on the MML and not the ECML.

 

[Bald Rick]

Which begs the further question: is there really an economic justification for building just the stub of the eastern leg to the E Midlands, as opposed to upgrading the existing line via Burton per the baseline package? Or is this essentially a political bone thrown to the E and W Midlands, to try to buy them off from joining Yorkshire and the NE in fighting the axing of the eastern leg?

After all, the biggest passenger flows on the original eastern leg would have been been Leeds and Newcastle to London.

Look at the potential journey time savings and additional capacity to Nottingham, from London and Birmingham, neither of whichever could be delivered through upgrading the existing line through Burton, and you have your answer.

 

[Greybeard33]

Look at the potential journey time savings and additional capacity to Nottingham, from London and Birmingham, neither of whichever could be delivered through upgrading the existing line through Burton, and you have your answer.

Yes, from comparing Figs A.3 and 8.3 I can see that the report claims a London to Nottingham journey time of 58 minutes via HS2, versus 109 minutes via the MML, i.e. a 51 minute saving. But, puzzlingly, the journey time from London to Sheffield is only claimed to be reduced by 15 minutes, from 119 minutes (baseline package) to 104 minutes (regional "+25%" package). Surely the saving from using HS2 instead of the MML should be the same for both destinations?

Birmingham to Sheffield flows are apparently not considered important enough to include in the tables.

The text of Annex B highlights only the reduction in the Birmingham to Nottingham journey time, from 72 minutes to 27 minutes, as a direct benefit of the HS2 spur to East Midlands Parkway.

Nottingham is the city of my birth and I am sure it would benefit greatly from faster and more frequent services to Birmingham and London. But in the previous HS2 plans, Nottingham was not considered important enough to receive direct services from either city. Is it really the best use of scarce railway investment funds to build a new high speed spur from Birmingham to EMP?

 

[edwin_m]

Yes, from comparing Figs A.3 and 8.3 I can see that the report claims a London to Nottingham journey time of 58 minutes via HS2, versus 109 minutes via the MML, i.e. a 51 minute saving. But, puzzlingly, the journey time from London to Sheffield is only claimed to be reduced by 15 minutes, from 119 minutes (baseline package) to 104 minutes (regional "+25%" package). Surely the saving from using HS2 instead of the MML should be the same for both destinations?

Birmingham to Sheffield flows are apparently not considered important enough to include in the tables.

The text of Annex B highlights only the reduction in the Birmingham to Nottingham journey time, from 72 minutes to 27 minutes, as a direct benefit of the HS2 spur to East Midlands Parkway.

Nottingham is the city of my birth and I am sure it would benefit greatly from faster and more frequent services to Birmingham and London. But in the previous HS2 plans, Nottingham was not considered important enough to receive direct services from either city. Is it really the best use of scarce railway investment funds to build a new high speed spur from Birmingham to EMP?

The baseline via MML figures looks to be wrong. Current hourly off-peak London-Nottingham service takes about 100min, Sheffield about 127min.

Someone suggested further up the thread that HS2 considered Nottingham was "important" enough to warrant a station in the original studies, but providing one would have taken the route too far to the east. There's also no obvious way of providing one in the centre of Nottingham except by putting it underground or on a SW-NE axis on or parallel to the existing railway. The latter would involve sending it even further off the direct line to loop round the east of the city before resuming its northwesterly course.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Reinstatement of EMR services to Burton would probably be a quick win, and give Burton a much better timetable.

Given that nearly all EMR long-distance services to Derby are now (not including Covid changes) scheduled to continue to Sheffield which services did you have in mind?

Surely what would effectively be extra little local shuttles between Derby and Burton would just clutter up a route that is already bursting at the seams operationally?

 

[Purple Orange]

Yes, from comparing Figs A.3 and 8.3 I can see that the report claims a London to Nottingham journey time of 58 minutes via HS2, versus 109 minutes via the MML, i.e. a 51 minute saving. But, puzzlingly, the journey time from London to Sheffield is only claimed to be reduced by 15 minutes, from 119 minutes (baseline package) to 104 minutes (regional "+25%" package). Surely the saving from using HS2 instead of the MML should be the same for both destinations?

Birmingham to Sheffield flows are apparently not considered important enough to include in the tables.

The text of Annex B highlights only the reduction in the Birmingham to Nottingham journey time, from 72 minutes to 27 minutes, as a direct benefit of the HS2 spur to East Midlands Parkway.

Nottingham is the city of my birth and I am sure it would benefit greatly from faster and more frequent services to Birmingham and London. But in the previous HS2 plans, Nottingham was not considered important enough to receive direct services from either city. Is it really the best use of scarce railway investment funds to build a new high speed spur from Birmingham to EMP?

Yes Nottingham appears to benefit significantly. It is strange about the Sheffield timings. I’d have thought that if, under the Regional +25% option, Leeds & Newcastle are better off down the ECML, it does appear like MML destinations should also be able to benefit from using HS2 in to Euston. Of the 9 eastern branch services, 7 services would be removed if the full eastern leg was not built (4 x London and 3 x Birmingham).

Assuming the remaining two paths that call at Sheffield stay and the EMP branch is built, how should all 9 paths (6 London and 3 Birmingham) be allocated?

I would allocate the following:

• 2 x Sheffield-London via Derby
• 2 x Nottingham-London
• 1 x Liverpool-London
  • This would give 2 tph in total
• 2 x Newcastle-Birmingham via Leeds & Manchester
  • The planned 2 Brum-Manc services should also start from Newcastle or Leeds, making 4 tph on total.
• 1 x Liverpool-Birmingham
• 1 x spare path

This would result in:

• 16 tph to London
• 15 tph on the western branch (up from 11 tph)
• 11 tph arriving at Manchester Piccadilly HS2 station
  • 7 tph through the South Manchester tunnel
  • 4 tph coming in from Leeds via a completed TPRU
• 9 tph in to Birmingham
  • 3 from London
  • 6 from the north & Scotland
• 4 tph from MML destinations, relieving capacity into St. Pancras.

 

[Greybeard33]

The baseline via MML figures looks to be wrong. Current hourly off-peak London-Nottingham service takes about 100min, Sheffield about 127min.

The report gives the current London to Sheffield time as 132 minutes. 119 minutes via the MML is after MML upgrades between Derby and Sheffield, which are in both the baseline and the regional +25% packages. So, comparing apples with apples, it is saying that switching to HS2 saves 15 minutes - 119 to 104.

But it says that switching London - Nottingham services to HS2 saves 51 minutes - 109 to 58 (or still 42 minutes if we use your figure of 100 for the baseline).

One or other of the via HS2 times must be badly wrong.

 

[ChrisC]

The report gives the current London to Sheffield time as 132 minutes. 119 minutes via the MML is after MML upgrades between Derby and Sheffield, which are in both the baseline and the regional +25% packages. So, comparing apples with apples, it is saying that switching to HS2 saves 15 minutes - 119 to 104.

But it says that switching London - Nottingham services to HS2 saves 51 minutes - 109 to 58 (or still 42 minutes if we use your figure of 100 for the baseline).

One or other of the via HS2 times must be badly wrong.

I know that for some people it is never very popular to miss out Derby, but wouldn’t the Erewash Valley Line a faster route to Sheffield if HS2 is to end at East Midlands Parkway?
The Erewash Valley has very much been relegated to a secondary route in recent years but wouldn’t it be easier to electrify and upgrade it to high speed running than the route via Derby. Much of the line is quite straight, has plenty of space for 4 tracks and has far less tunnels, bridges and cuttings than the line via Derby. It is also not so prone to flooding as the Derby route.

If the Erewash Valley Line was electrified and upgraded to 125mph running, surely journey times from both London and Birmingham to Chesterfield and Sheffield via HS2 and an upgraded Erewash Valley could be reduced significantly. Nottingham would also do very well out of this with direct fast trains to London and Birmingham but also improved times for the currently very slow journeys north to Sheffield and Leeds. This would be improved even further if there could be significant upgrading of the route between Sheffield and Leeds.

 

[edwin_m]

I know that for some people it is never very popular to miss out Derby, but wouldn’t the Erewash Valley Line a faster route to Sheffield if HS2 is to end at East Midlands Parkway?
The Erewash Valley has very much been relegated to a secondary route in recent years but wouldn’t it be easier to electrify and upgrade it to high speed running than the route via Derby. Much of the line is quite straight, has plenty of space for 4 tracks and has far less tunnels, bridges and cuttings than the line via Derby. It is also not so prone to flooding as the Derby route.

If the Erewash Valley Line was electrified and upgraded to 125mph running, surely journey times from both London and Birmingham to Chesterfield and Sheffield via HS2 and an upgraded Erewash Valley could be reduced significantly. Nottingham would also do very well out of this with direct fast trains to London and Birmingham but also improved times for the currently very slow journeys north to Sheffield and Leeds. This would be improved even further if there could be significant upgrading of the route between Sheffield and Leeds.

The Erewash Valley is mostly fairly straight but it does have restrictive curves roughly evenly spaced along the route: crossing the canal at Ilkeston, passing onto viaduct at Codnor Park and joining the Derby line at the former Clay Cross Junction. All of these would be very difficult to straighten out. Without going to check, these are either restricted now or would prevent much increase in the line speed. So while the rest of the line is fairly straight, braking and accelerating for these sections is going to prevent really high speeds being achieved. This is part of my reason for suggesting the trains via Sheffield continue to use the Derby route, with faster alternatives for journeys like Birmingham-Leeds.

 

[Bald Rick]

The report gives the current London to Sheffield time as 132 minutes. 119 minutes via the MML is after MML upgrades between Derby and Sheffield, which are in both the baseline and the regional +25% packages. So, comparing apples with apples, it is saying that switching to HS2 saves 15 minutes - 119 to 104.

But it says that switching London - Nottingham services to HS2 saves 51 minutes - 109 to 58 (or still 42 minutes if we use your figure of 100 for the baseline).

One or other of the via HS2 times must be badly wrong.

I think it assumes that Sheffield trains stay on the MML the whole way. Something has to, otherwise Leicester is screwed. Which I know some people wouldn’t be too disappointed about.

 

[g22]

I think it assumes that Sheffield trains stay on the MML the whole way. Something has to, otherwise Leicester is screwed. Which I know some people wouldn’t be too disappointed about.

I am feeling rather left out by this report in the Leicester area. While it is mentioned it seems very much sidelined compared with Derby and Nottìngham. But that is very much the general feeling you get from this forum as well.