Should the Birmingham - Stansted service continue in its current form post-HS2?

[Bald Rick]

As a former commuter on the route, there’s little traffic to/from Birmingham beyond Peterboro’, except at busy leisure times, eg Fri afternoon / evening and Sunday pm. But splitting it there would be difficult.

In any event what would be the benefit of splitting it? If it’s to save resource (ie units and crew) then the split needs to enable that, which in this case very likely means somewhere loses service.

Stansted is a bucket & spade airport

All airports are, save London City and Heathrow. Stansted does (or at least, did) have a lot of Eastern European traffic though; construction bucket and spade perhaps!

Norwich-Birmingham hourly
-Cambridge-Nottingham hourly.

A bit like it used to be, albeit two hourly to each.

 

[Jim the Jim]

HS2 may compete with the direct Cambridge-Birmingham route for speed, but will it compete for price or convenience? Even as it stands, the XC route doesn't give a massive time benefit, but ordinary tickets are cheaper (though you can sometimes get better prices on WCML advances), and you don't have to walk down a horribly congested road in central London.

As has been said, though, people going all the way from Cambridge to Birmingham are in a distinct minority: but plenty stay on at both Peterborough and Leicester, so I expect keeping the through service is the best option.

 

[Ianno87]

and you don't have to walk down a horribly congested road in central London.

What road is that? It's not the shorter, quicker way I go....

 

[Purple Orange]

HS2 may compete with the direct Cambridge-Birmingham route for speed, but will it compete for price or convenience? Even as it stands, the XC route doesn't give a massive time benefit, but ordinary tickets are cheaper (though you can sometimes get better prices on WCML advances), and you don't have to walk down a horribly congested road in central London.

As has been said, though, people going all the way from Cambridge to Birmingham are in a distinct minority: but plenty stay on at both Peterborough and Leicester, so I expect keeping the through service is the best option.

It is counterintuitive that HS2 tickets will definitely more expensive than a slower direct service. A HS2 train, with significantly greater capacity, may well likely have lower overheads per passenger than a 3-car DMU. The same is likely to be true for services heading out of Kings Cross and Liverpool Street given they run with higher capacity trains than any XC service. Therefore the only way for the 3-car DMU to compete is by taking a bigger hit to the margin they make on the sale of a given ticket. However in a world where train operators will not be receiving the sales revenue, (the recipient for the train fare being the DfT), there is no incentive to compete on price in that way at all.

 

[zwk500]

It is counterintuitive that HS2 tickets will definitely more expensive than a slower direct service. A HS2 train, with significantly greater capacity, may well likely have lower overheads per passenger than a 3-car DMU. The same is likely to be true for services heading out of Kings Cross and Liverpool Street given they run with higher capacity trains than any XC service. Therefore the only way for the 3-car DMU to compete is by taking a bigger hit to the margin they make on the sale of a given ticket. However in a world where train operators will not be receiving the sales revenue, (the recipient for the train fare being the DfT), there is no incentive to compete on price in that way at all.

The thing is a HS2 Birmingham-London train will only carry 1 passenger per seat on the total journey (maybe the average will be slightly over 1 if people change at Interchange). Whereas the XC Birmingham-Stansted can often have 2 or 3 people in a single seat over the course of it's journey. E.g. Birmingham-Leicester, Leicester-Peterborough and Peterborough-Stansted. So XC can charge less per ticket but achieve higher revenue for the overall journey.

 

[Purple Orange]

The thing is a HS2 Birmingham-London train will only carry 1 passenger per seat on the total journey (maybe the average will be slightly over 1 if people change at Interchange). Whereas the XC Birmingham-Stansted can often have 2 or 3 people in a single seat over the course of it's journey. E.g. Birmingham-Leicester, Leicester-Peterborough and Peterborough-Stansted. So XC can charge less per ticket but achieve higher revenue for the overall journey.

I’m not sure I follow your logic there. It would obviously be less per ticket, given the 3 passengers are travelling a much shorter distance.

What I am interpreting your point to be is that the price of a Birmingham-Stansted ticket on the direct train would be less than the combined revenue from a Birmingham-Leicester, Leicester-Peterborough and Peterborough-Stansted ticket, which an individual passenger could purchase.

 

[Aictos]

I think that the priority for the Birmingham - Stansted service should be additional capacity on the Birmingham - Leicester section (two large places separated by only thirty five miles - yet only a couple of Turbostars per hour between them - one of the worst linked pairs of city within a reasonable daily commute of each other IMHO).

If any part of the route need extra capacity it's between Peterborough and Leicester as pre covid it was always advisable to reserve a seat as it's only 1tph pre covid compared to 2tph for Leicester to Birmingham and when a 2 car Class 170 turns up which was frequent then it's a first come first serve to any seats.

Ideally the route shouldn't have any 2 car Class 170s on it as longer trains are needed on the service, with the Leicester terminator extended to Peterborough so you have 2tph Birmingham to Peterborough with 1tph extended to Cambridge/Stansted Airport.

In a ideal world, the route would be electrified thoughout and 4 car EMUs used on a 2tph service but that will never happen in my lifetime.

 

[zwk500]

I’m not sure I follow your logic there. It would obviously be less per ticket, given the 3 passengers are travelling a much shorter distance.

What I am interpreting your point to be is that the price of a Birmingham-Stansted ticket on the direct train would be less than the combined revenue from a Birmingham-Leicester, Leicester-Peterborough and Peterborough-Stansted ticket, which an individual passenger could purchase.

My point is that although xc may have higher overheads, it can charge less for longer journeys as it generates revenue with other tickets. This allows XC to charge the full route at a level that competes with driving the A14, the true competition.
HS2 between Birmingham and London has to charge comparatively higher fares because the opportunity for additional revenue per seat is reduced. Things like pick-your-seat fees and purchases from the buffet/trolley are part of this.

There are separate points about people placing a higher value on journey time: you can charge more simply because people will pay it. And HS2 not necessarily having cheaper overheads than XC because HS lines often cost more to maintain than classic lines. Edit: Hs2 are managing the cost on that one because they have a high tph to spread the costs over.

 

[Bald Rick]

And HS2 not necessarily having cheaper overheads than XC because HS lines often cost more to maintain than classic lines

HS2 won’t need much maintenance. Not much more than track inspection and mowing.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

HS2 won’t need much maintenance. Not much more than track inspection and mowing.

Is that permanently or just for the first few years?

 

[Bald Rick]

Is that permanently or just for the first few years?

That depends what you call maintenance, but for straight maintenance more than a few years. I’m guessing here, but I imagine that the most intensively maintained pieces of kit will be the plant needed for the tunnels, and points operating equipment.

 

[zwk500]

That depends what you call maintenance, but for straight maintenance more than a few years. I’m guessing here, but I imagine that the most intensively maintained pieces of kit will be the plant needed for the tunnels, and points operating equipment.

Is the entire route being laid on slab track? Because if that all comes up for renewal at once that's going to cost a fair bit to get done. But, as you say, not very much ongoing maintenance.

 

[Ianno87]

My point is that although xc may have higher overheads, it can charge less for longer journeys as it generates revenue with other tickets. This allows XC to charge the full route at a level that competes with driving the A14, the true competition.

They could do that today but don't. It is very easy to get a much, much cheaper Birmingham-Cambridge ticket by splitting on-route, either walk up or Advance.

The current pricing strategy on XC is to charge a premium for longer journeys, particularly to "captive" places like Cambridge (e.g. student.population without car access)

 

[Purple Orange]

My point is that although xc may have higher overheads, it can charge less for longer journeys as it generates revenue with other tickets. This allows XC to charge the full route at a level that competes with driving the A14, the true competition.
HS2 between Birmingham and London has to charge comparatively higher fares because the opportunity for additional revenue per seat is reduced. Things like pick-your-seat fees and purchases from the buffet/trolley are part of this.

There are separate points about people placing a higher value on journey time: you can charge more simply because people will pay it. And HS2 not necessarily having cheaper overheads than XC because HS lines often cost more to maintain than classic lines. Edit: Hs2 are managing the cost on that one because they have a high tph to spread the costs over.

Sorry but that concept doesn’t sit right. You can’t sell a seat twice. if XC sell a direct Birmingham-Stansted ticket at a cheap rate, that seat can’t then be sold for any other ticket type.

 

[Bald Rick]

Is the entire route being laid on slab track? Because if that all comes up for renewal at once that's going to cost a fair bit to get done. But, as you say, not very much ongoing maintenance.

The whole of Phase 1, yes. Not sure about Phase 2.

And yes re renewal - cost a lot and potentially quite disruptive. But hopefully at least 40 years before that happens.

 

[D365]

Why would Birmingham to Peterborough via London even be a valid route?

Exactly this. The Birmingham to Stansted is not only for Birmingham to Stansted (and vice versa) journeys.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 May 2021 ==

Another observation that may be worth considering is how much time the services between Peterborough and Ely spend under wires.

Err, next to none.

 

[The Planner]

Is the entire route being laid on slab track? Because if that all comes up for renewal at once that's going to cost a fair bit to get done. But, as you say, not very much ongoing maintenance.

Its been said that if phase 1 was ballast that the HOBC would be out pretty much from the beggining.

 

[Bald Rick]

Its been said that if phase 1 was ballast that the HOBC would be out pretty much from the beggining.

I heard that too. Not sure I believed it, mind.

 

[PTR 444]

Err, next to none.

Only if you include the Peterborough - Ely line in isolation. This is irrelevant in the context since all services that use this stretch continue to other destinations at one or both ends, most of which involve running under wires for some distance.

 

[D365]

Only if you include the Peterborough - Ely line in isolation. This is irrelevant in the context since all services that use this stretch continue to other destinations at one or both ends, most of which involve running under wires for some distance.

Ah I misunderstood your message.

 

[adrock1976]

My suggestion would be as follows:

Birmingham New Street - Peterborough every 30 minutes, calling Coleshill Parkway, Nuneaton (both the parkway and the Trent Valley stations), Leicester, Melton Mowbray, Oakham, Stamford, Peterborough, then one train every 60 minutes continuing to Norwich calling March, Thetford, Norwich, with the opposite half hourly train continuing to Cambridge calling March, Ely, Cambridge North, Cambridge.

Coventry - Leicester (or Nottingham) every 30 minutes, calling all stations to Leicester (including the parkway at Nuneaton), then if continued to Nottingham calling Loughborough, East Mids Parkway, Beeston, Nottingham. This would require the dive under at Nuneaton reinstated, and for trains to call and reverse at Nuneaton, a connecting curve from Platform 1 at the Coventry end to the former alignment of the diveunder (unsure if that would be easy or not, or whether to have the tracks from Bermuda Park running directly to Hinckley, even though this means that the trains would not be able to call and reverse at Nuneaton). Leamington Spa - Nuneaton would run every 30 minutes too, calling all stations so as to provide a 15 minute frequency between Coventry and Bermuda Park/Nuneaton.

Wolverhampton - Leicester every 30 minutes, calling Willenhall, Darlaston James Bridge, Walsall, Aldridge, maybe Streetley Thornhill Road, Sutton Park, Sutton Coldfield Town, maybe Penns Lane, Water Orton, Coleshill Parkway, Nuneaton (both the parkway and Trent Valley stations), maybe Hinckley, Leicester. New Platform 7 required at Wolverhampton so as not to interact with the New Street trains, grade separation of the triangle at Water Orton/Park Lane/Castle Bromwich, and reopening of the Sutton Park line stations (Streetley and Penns Lane can wait if need be).

 

[Bald Rick]

New Platform 7 required at Wolverhampton so as not to interact with the New Street trains,

Where’s that going to go?

 

[adrock1976]

Where’s that going to go?

When I had a quick look on Google Maps recently, it appears that from just beyond the crossover on the Portobello line near Qualcast Road, a single track could be run round to the vicinity of Platform 4, which would not meet the junction at Crane Street.

Obviously, this track would have to be on a viaduct and there does seem to be space for that, even though it would be close to the ex GWR station and the pub.

 

[Bald Rick]

When I had a quick look on Google Maps recently, it appears that from just beyond the crossover on the Portobello line near Qualcast Road, a single track could be run round to the vicinity of Platform 4, which would not meet the junction at Crane Street.

Obviously, this track would have to be on a viaduct and there does seem to be space for that, even though it would be close to the ex GWR station and the pub.

There isn’t space. You’d have to demolish the pub. And for something that’s not needed, for a service that’s not needed.

 

[The Planner]

My suggestion would be as follows:

Birmingham New Street - Peterborough every 30 minutes, calling Coleshill Parkway, Nuneaton (both the parkway and the Trent Valley stations), Leicester, Melton Mowbray, Oakham, Stamford, Peterborough, then one train every 60 minutes continuing to Norwich calling March, Thetford, Norwich, with the opposite half hourly train continuing to Cambridge calling March, Ely, Cambridge North, Cambridge.

Coventry - Leicester (or Nottingham) every 30 minutes, calling all stations to Leicester (including the parkway at Nuneaton), then if continued to Nottingham calling Loughborough, East Mids Parkway, Beeston, Nottingham. This would require the dive under at Nuneaton reinstated, and for trains to call and reverse at Nuneaton, a connecting curve from Platform 1 at the Coventry end to the former alignment of the diveunder (unsure if that would be easy or not, or whether to have the tracks from Bermuda Park running directly to Hinckley, even though this means that the trains would not be able to call and reverse at Nuneaton). Leamington Spa - Nuneaton would run every 30 minutes too, calling all stations so as to provide a 15 minute frequency between Coventry and Bermuda Park/Nuneaton.

Wolverhampton - Leicester every 30 minutes, calling Willenhall, Darlaston James Bridge, Walsall, Aldridge, maybe Streetley Thornhill Road, Sutton Park, Sutton Coldfield Town, maybe Penns Lane, Water Orton, Coleshill Parkway, Nuneaton (both the parkway and Trent Valley stations), maybe Hinckley, Leicester. New Platform 7 required at Wolverhampton so as not to interact with the New Street trains, grade separation of the triangle at Water Orton/Park Lane/Castle Bromwich, and reopening of the Sutton Park line stations (Streetley and Penns Lane can wait if need be).

Lots of fantasy stations there that arent going to get built as well as screwing over any connectivity the small stations at Leicester have to Brum. You would be grade seperating Water Orton too. All those Sutton Park shacks would want to go to New St anyway, not Wolves or Nuneaton.

 

[adrock1976]

Lots of fantasy stations there that arent going to get built as well as screwing over any connectivity the small stations at Leicester have to Brum. You would be grade seperating Water Orton too. All those Sutton Park shacks would want to go to New St anyway, not Wolves or Nuneaton.

Regarding Sutton Park, although not mentioned in my previous post, I anticipate and suggest also there being a Birmingham Moor Street - Sutton Park - Walsall in addition to Wolverhampton - Leicester. Also Birmingham Moor Street - Leicester calling all stations too (Camp Hill curves required for running to/from Moor Street).

I read some reports that one or some of the transport organisations (and maybe Walsall Met Borough Council) in the West Midlands are (or have been) pushing for the reopening of Willenhall, Darlaston James Bridge, and Aldridge, with Warwickshire County Council pushing for a parkway station at Nuneaton.

Regarding the Sutton Park former stations, I thought about Sutton Coldfield Town as that is not far from the present day Cross City Line station, so as to provide interchange between the nearby lines. There does appear to be a large residential area in the vicinity of Streetley Thornhill Road, but Blake Street station is not too far away. Penns Lane was close to a main road junction, with some residential areas nearby, but would be happy to forego those two reopening.

Although not directly related to this particular thread, I also suggest Wolverhampton - New Street via Aston which would also call at Willenhall and Darlaston, so as to provide a direct Birmingham service from those two towns.

Hope I have made some sense of what was behind my thinking in the previous post.

 

[Bald Rick]

Also Birmingham Moor Street - Leicester calling all stations too (Camp Hill curves required for running to/from Moor Street).

Added to your other suggestion, don’t you think that 8tph between Nuneaton and Leicester is overegging the pudding, a smidge? (Not to mention what you’d need between Wigston and Leicester!)

I read some reports that one or some of the transport organisations (and maybe Walsall Met Borough Council) in the West Midlands are (or have been) pushing for the reopening of Willenhall, Darlaston James Bridge, and Aldridge, with Warwickshire County Council pushing for a parkway station at Nuneaton.

Willenhall and Darlo are both funded and (almost) under construction.

Aldridge is a Restoring your Railway bid. Has a good chance, as it would be an extension of the existing Walsall terminator and the new Wolves - Walsall via Darlo service.

Nuneaton Parkway is a Warks CC proposal. Personally I don’t see the point in it. Parkway stations on that line do not have a good record.

 

[adrock1976]

Added to your other suggestion, don’t you think that 8tph between Nuneaton and Leicester is overegging the pudding, a smidge? (Not to mention what you’d need between Wigston and Leicester!)




Willenhall and Darlo are both funded and (almost) under construction.

Aldridge is a Restoring your Railway bid. Has a good chance, as it would be an extension of the existing Walsall terminator and the new Wolves - Walsall via Darlo service.

Nuneaton Parkway is a Warks CC proposal. Personally I don’t see the point in it. Parkway stations on that line do not have a good record.

Having realised that the 8tph Nuneaton - Leicester is rather optimistic, I was trying to initially incorporate Coventry into the mix as well. Perhaps that may be better if it was 2tph Leamington - Nuneaton and 2tph Coventry - Nuneaton and not bother with reinstating the dive under at Nuneaton?

Also, is grade separation at Winston still going ahead?

It is good to see progress is being made on Willenhall, Darlaston, and Aldridge.

I do have reservations about the parkway at Nuneaton, as what you mentioned above. Perhaps the ex Midland lines are jinxed regarding parkway stations i.e. East Mids and back how I remember in the GBTT book in 1988 Alfreton & Mansfield Parkway (closer to Sutton-in Ashfield than Mansfield I believe).

There isn’t space. You’d have to demolish the pub. And for something that’s not needed, for a service that’s not needed.

That's that previous suggestion of mine scuppered then.

 

[The Planner]

Having realised that the 8tph Nuneaton - Leicester is rather optimistic, I was trying to initially incorporate Coventry into the mix as well. Perhaps that may be better if it was 2tph Leamington - Nuneaton and 2tph Coventry - Nuneaton and not bother with reinstating the dive under at Nuneaton?

Also, is grade separation at Winston still going ahead?

Very optimistic as it would likely need re-signaling of Nuneaton Wigston to allow any freight as well. If Coventry Leicester has any proper chance then it needs the dive under. The reversal at Abbey Jn etc would add on too much to the journey time. Wigston grade separation is off the table now.

 

[Aictos]

Just a question but why have 2tph Leamington Spa to Coventry and 2tph Coventry to Nuneaton when you could just operate 2tph Leamington Spa to Nuneaton?