Could/should HS2 Eastern leg be shelved?

[Purple Orange]

That would mean the Manchester line would need to carry 8 services.

What would those services be? If the line is carrying passengers to Leeds, it still needs to accommodate trans-pennine passengers too, which has been modelled on there being six 200m trains each hour between Leeds & Manchester. That line may need to accommodate:

• Birmingham to Newcastle via Manchester & Leeds
• Liverpool to Newcastle via Manchester & Leeds
• London to Leeds via Manchester

This is assuming it will remain faster on the ECML to travel between London & Newcastle (2 tph max).

 

[HSTEd]

What would those services be? If the line is carrying passengers to Leeds, it still needs to accommodate trans-pennine passengers too, which has been modelled on there being six 200m trains each hour between Leeds & Manchester. That line may need to accommodate:

• Birmingham to Newcastle via Manchester & Leeds
• Liverpool to Newcastle via Manchester & Leeds
• London to Leeds via Manchester

Well extending the London trains solves all but the Liverpool to Newcastle one.

This is assuming it will remain faster on the ECML to travel between London & Newcastle (2 tph max).

The via Manchester route is likely to be at least competitive with the ECML route, at which point the capacity limitations will force rerouting via Manchester. [NPR Targets put Manchester-Newcastle at about 85 minutes or so, so ~2hr35 to London]

So just imagine extending all the Manchester Picadilly/Manchester Airport TPE terminators to London.

If you want Newcastle to receive 2tph that is still only one extra train over the status quo.

 

[Purple Orange]

Well extending the London trains solves all but the Liverpool to Newcastle one.



The via Manchester route is likely to be at least competitive with the ECML route, at which point the capacity limitations will force rerouting via Manchester.

So just imagine extending all the Manchester Picadilly/Manchester Airport TPE terminators to London.

If you want Newcastle to receive 2tph that is still only one extra train over the status quo.

How many London, how many Birmingham and how many Liverpool services will be needed and if there are constraints, what gets chopped?

 

[HSTEd]

How many London, how many Birmingham and how many Liverpool services will be needed and if there are constraints, what gets chopped?

4tph would be enough, at least in the medium term, for London-Manchester-Leeds, if we send 2tph to Newcastle you can send the other two to other TPE North destinations.

That leaves 2tph for Liverpool-TPE North/NPR within the 6 in the NPR baseline.

If you want to push it to 8tph on TPE North/NPR you can include two from Birmingham, or just have people for Birmingham change at Picadilly - it will still crush the direct journey time.

EDIT:

Ideally NPR would approach the capacity of HS2 and allow 4tph all round, but that probably isn't going to get paid for.

EDIT #2: And this is why I would have ideally preferred a through station in Birmingham, even if it was in the same place as Curzon Street, but I know ££.

 

[Purple Orange]

4tph would be enough, at least in the medium term, for London-Manchester-Leeds, if we send 2tph to Newcastle you can send the other two to other TPE North destinations.

That leaves 2tph for Liverpool-TPE North/NPR within the 6 in the NPR baseline.

If you want to push it to 8tph on TPE North/NPR you can include two from Birmingham, or just have people for Birmingham change at Picadilly - it will still crush the direct journey time.

EDIT:

Ideally NPR would approach the capacity of HS2 and allow 4tph all round, but that probably isn't going to get paid for.

EDIT #2: And this is why I would have ideally preferred a through station in Birmingham, even if it was in the same place as Curzon Street, but I know ££.

Would 4 tph really be enough? Medium term planning can be anything, but how does that fit with the long-term? HS2 has planned for the long term view of there being 3 x 400m trains to Manchester from London plus one growth path, and to Leeds 2 x 400m and 1 x 200m train. That is in total 2,200m of train each hour, providing 6,050 seats each hour leaving London for Manchester & Leeds. With 4 tph that is at best 4,400 seats leaving Euston for Manchester & Leeds each hour. On day 1 that might be fine, but it won’t allow for the passenger volumes HS2 has predicted because there won’t be the room.

 

[HSTEd]

Would 4 tph really be enough? Medium term planning can be anything, but how does that fit with the long-term? HS2 has planned for the long term view of there being 3 x 400m trains to Manchester from London plus one growth path, and to Leeds 2 x 400m and 1 x 200m train. That is in total 2,200m of train each hour, providing 6,050 seats each hour leaving London for Manchester & Leeds. With 4 tph that is at best 4,400 seats leaving Euston for Manchester & Leeds each hour. On day 1 that might be fine, but it won’t allow for the passenger volumes HS2 has predicted because there won’t be the room.

There is still time to put in place infrastructure upgrades now that would arrive in time for the "long" term, so getting a dramatic uplift in capacity now (20% uplift on today) is still a major win.

Future infrastructure impromements on NPR might eventually allow a fifth path.

 

[Ken H]

We can’t take short term covid impacts as a measure for long term needs.

Really? Working from home is a genie that wont go back in the bottle.

 

[Ianno87]

Really? Working from home is a genie that wont go back in the bottle.

Although commuting is only a smallish percentage of rail use. Travelling for meetings will become a thing again.

 

[Ken H]

Although commuting is only a smallish percentage of rail use. Travelling for meetings will become a thing again.

Not sure about that. Travel at my pan-european client stopped at the start of Covid. The world has not stopped, major IT projects have been delivered. Workarounds for Covid have been shown to work, and now the costs or doing things the old way will be hard to justify. And the client has spent heavily on the infrastructure to do stuff in Teams*, i.e bandwidth in the internet connection used by WFH staff.

*The Microsoft version of Zoom

 

[Ianno87]

Not sure about that. Travel at my pan-european client stopped at the start of Covid. The world has not stopped, major IT projects have been delivered. Workarounds for Covid have been shown to work, and now the costs or doing things the old way will be hard to justify. And the client has spent heavily on the infrastructure to do stuff in Teams*, i.e bandwidth in the internet connection used by WFH staff.

*The Microsoft version of Zoom

All very well, but we’re hardly “post COVID“ yet.

I do agree that there’ll be an end to travelling across the country solely for a 30 minute meeting, but travelling for several meetings and catch-ups all in one go, to make the most of it.

 

[edwin_m]

Assuming 17tph starting at London and ignoring the Birmingham starting (Southern end) services and a 15 hour day and 300 days a year then for HS2 services to carry 110 million passengers (so a 10% uplift on what's been models) you'd need each service to carry an average 720 passengers per service.

Whilst that sounds a lot when you compare it to 1,100 seats/service is possible that some seats can be used more than once per service.

I've also been fairly generous with allowing for start/end of day service reductions, number of days running, lack of services running (i.e. assuming no Birmingham starters) and of course numbers of passengers using the services.

As such there's a good chance that by diverting the NE services to go via Manchester would have suitable seating capacity.

As to if the track could, well the Birmingham to Manchester services could just be extended to Leeds to cover those two services, if needed just longer units.

That then just leaves the question of what to do with the remaining 7 services which head to the NE.

Assuming that there's the ability to go Birmingham to Newcastle via whatever sub of the Eastern Arm is retained (or would the junction for the Eastern Arm going to deleted from phase 1?) then that's likely to do so (as it'll still much faster than the existing route).

Likewise at least 1 of the London to Leeds and the London to York which splits in the East Midlands (mostly to provide connectivity to/from Old Oak Common), if that's the case then it's only 4 services.

However chances are at least one service could be deleted between London and Leeds or York.

That would mean the Manchester line would need to carry 8 services.

Not sure what models you refer to but I assume here that it is some long-term figure from the HS2 demand modelling.

The 720 passengers is an average including many services that are only a single unit with about 550 seats, so the number on the peak London to Manchester and Leeds services will be considerably more, and probably too much to accommodate both on the same train. Otherwise why would the HS2 train service spec be proposing these trains are formed of two units?

It could perhaps work for Birmingham-Leeds which are planned to be single units, perhaps adding an extra unit as far as Manchester as suggested above.

 

[Purple Orange]

There is still time to put in place infrastructure upgrades now that would arrive in time for the "long" term, so getting a dramatic uplift in capacity now (20% uplift on today) is still a major win.

Future infrastructure impromements on NPR might eventually allow a fifth path.

In the case of London-Leeds via Manchester, we have to assume there is a full build NPR line, capable of carrying 400m trains to Leeds. Failing that you’re splitting London & Birmingham HS2 services at Manchester, with one half carrying on to Leeds. That half of the train is intended to be carrying London/Birmngham to Leeds passengers, i.e. no seats for Manc-Leeds passengers. The only way I see it working with London-Manc-Leeds, is to continue with Liverpool-Leeds via Victoria.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Aug 2021 ==

Really? Working from home is a genie that wont go back in the bottle.

Again, this affects commuting patterns, not long distance intercity.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Aug 2021 ==

All very well, but we’re hardly “post COVID“ yet.

I do agree that there’ll be an end to travelling across the country solely for a 30 minute meeting, but travelling for several meetings and catch-ups all in one go, to make the most of it.

That reason will not go away and nor will business travel. people might be working from home 2 days a week on average going forward, but the other three days is where you’ll do the long distance trip of needed. What will be reduced is working at your ‘home’ office location.

 

[HSTEd]

In the case of London-Leeds via Manchester, we have to assume there is a full build NPR line, capable of carrying 400m trains to Leeds.

All you need for 400m trains is platform extensions, really?

Or even just modifications to the trackwork at major stations to avoid mass disruption from longer trains.

 

[Ken H]

In the case of London-Leeds via Manchester, we have to assume there is a full build NPR line, capable of carrying 400m trains to Leeds. Failing that you’re splitting London & Birmingham HS2 services at Manchester, with one half carrying on to Leeds. That half of the train is intended to be carrying London/Birmngham to Leeds passengers, i.e. no seats for Manc-Leeds passengers. The only way I see it working with London-Manc-Leeds, is to continue with Liverpool-Leeds via Victoria.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Aug 2021 ==


Again, this affects commuting patterns, not long distance intercity.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Aug 2021 ==



That reason will not go away and nor will business travel. people might be working from home 2 days a week on average going forward, but the other three days is where you’ll do the long distance trip of needed. What will be reduced is working at your ‘home’ office location.

Business travel will be done on Teams too. Technical meetings work fine. We have been doing them since 2015. As are company 'town halls'
No idea about sales meetings. Not in sales.

 

[takno]

Not sure about that. Travel at my pan-european client stopped at the start of Covid. The world has not stopped, major IT projects have been delivered. Workarounds for Covid have been shown to work, and now the costs or doing things the old way will be hard to justify. And the client has spent heavily on the infrastructure to do stuff in Teams*, i.e bandwidth in the internet connection used by WFH staff.

*The Microsoft version of Zoom

We've spent a lot of the last 18 months staggering along without that much office interaction (although even then there were meetings every 2 weeks or so for all but 6 months of that). We've certainly pretended it's okay, but I'd estimate we're about 4 months behind where we ought to be as a company, and almost everybody is less fulfilled in their job. And that's using less awful tech than Teams.

You can call it a genie and pretend it's going to make this, that and the other difference to travel plans, but realistically there's no evidence at all that it will extend to the many jobs where it currently doesn't apply, or that it will carry on on the current scale longer term. More importantly, there's basically no evidence that it will have any negative impact on longer-distance travel.

 

[NoRoute]

You can call it a genie and pretend it's going to make this, that and the other difference to travel plans, but realistically there's no evidence at all that it will extend to the many jobs where it currently doesn't apply, or that it will carry on on the current scale longer term. More importantly, there's basically no evidence that it will have any negative impact on longer-distance travel.

While we can't know the impact on longer distance travel for certain, the pandemic has massively accelerated uptake and usage of video conferencing, I think that will likely have persistent effects and reduce the need for long distance business travel to some degree. Clearly it won't stop it, but it will cut the number of journeys.

Because organisations had to adopt video conferencing, equipping staff with the hardware, software and user accounts and because organisations had to start using it for meetings, the old IT and psychological hurdles of dialing in to events have gone, it has become normal. I can't see that reverting completely to how it was before, people will retain the easy ability to video conference and people will see it as suitable for some of the meetings and events where they would previously have travelled.

How great that impact will be, who knows, but there will be a permanent impact.

 

[JKF]

They could still build the Leeds HS2 station, and a fast connecting track that runs to meet the ECML somewhere around Outwood, using some of the alignment that serves the old goods depot (Crown Point). That would speed up access to the station (that slow long bend used to seem like an eternity) and remove some conflicts from the west end. This way some benefit would be gained and it’ll be future proofed for if/when the eastern leg is built.

 

[HSTEd]

While we can't know the impact on longer distance travel for certain, the pandemic has massively accelerated uptake and usage of video conferencing, I think that will likely have persistent effects and reduce the need for long distance business travel to some degree. Clearly it won't stop it, but it will cut the number of journeys.

Because organisations had to adopt video conferencing, equipping staff with the hardware, software and user accounts and because organisations had to start using it for meetings, the old IT and psychological hurdles of dialing in to events have gone, it has become normal. I can't see that reverting completely to how it was before, people will retain the easy ability to video conference and people will see it as suitable for some of the meetings and events where they would previously have travelled.

How great that impact will be, who knows, but there will be a permanent impact.

One thing I have learned from video conferencing is that it is a terrible substitute for actual meetings.

But that is just me

 

[The Ham]

Not sure what models you refer to but I assume here that it is some long-term figure from the HS2 demand modelling.

The 720 passengers is an average including many services that are only a single unit with about 550 seats, so the number on the peak London to Manchester and Leeds services will be considerably more, and probably too much to accommodate both on the same train. Otherwise why would the HS2 train service spec be proposing these trains are formed of two units?

It could perhaps work for Birmingham-Leeds which are planned to be single units, perhaps adding an extra unit as far as Manchester as suggested above.

I excluded the Birmingham starters, as they are the majority of the half length services, so that 720 is basically the number of passengers who would likely be using the full length services.

If I added 5 Birmingham starters the average falls to 555, in reality that would be 390 for the shorter services and 720 for the longer (+30% over the base average even though the longer trains have double the capacity).

It's also worth noting that a 15 hour day is 8-23, 300 days a year has excluded 65 days a year of any capacity, that there's 10% more passengers than HS2 is expected to carry and passengers using a service isn't the same as passengers on the train at any one time. All of which would result in a reduction in the number of seats which would be occupied.

To illustrate what reducing some of those generous assumptions does; if I only reduced the year by 25 days rather than 65 days then the average would fall to 490. This would likely be 345 passengers using each of the services run by the shorter trains and 640 for the longer.

 

[Purple Orange]

Business travel will be done on Teams too. Technical meetings work fine. We have been doing them since 2015. As are company 'town halls'
No idea about sales meetings. Not in sales.

There are plenty of meetings that have taken place by VC or TC for years and it has been a part of the day-to-day routine for companies I have worked for, for well over a decade now. However during that time, there has still been the need for business travel. Videoconferencing has not at any point during that time replaced the benefit of face-to-face engagement. You can’t build as strong a rapport on VC. It is completely naive to think business travel will go.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Aug 2021 ==

All you need for 400m trains is platform extensions, really?

Or even just modifications to the trackwork at major stations to avoid mass disruption from longer trains.

Thea is still a lot of work. Either way, you can’t run all London, Birmingham, and Liverpool services to Leeds & Manchester.

 

[The Ham]

While we can't know the impact on longer distance travel for certain, the pandemic has massively accelerated uptake and usage of video conferencing, I think that will likely have persistent effects and reduce the need for long distance business travel to some degree. Clearly it won't stop it, but it will cut the number of journeys.

Because organisations had to adopt video conferencing, equipping staff with the hardware, software and user accounts and because organisations had to start using it for meetings, the old IT and psychological hurdles of dialing in to events have gone, it has become normal. I can't see that reverting completely to how it was before, people will retain the easy ability to video conference and people will see it as suitable for some of the meetings and events where they would previously have travelled.

How great that impact will be, who knows, but there will be a permanent impact.

Of course it's entirely possible that with video calls that it means that most business can be done remotely but as someone in (say) Reading can do 98% of the work as well as someone in (say) Manchester who is local to the client, however for that last 2% they then have a very long trip.

As such rather than it being a local car journey, and so they can do other work, they then take the train.

It's worth reading the study on the SWML capacity into Waterloo which predicts that rail growth under all options (including a 45% fall across all rail travel trains) would see passenger numbers back to needing more capacity by 2026 (much shorter than the 15 years of 2% growth I suggested up thread).

 

[HSTEd]

Thea is still a lot of work. Either way, you can’t run all London, Birmingham, and Liverpool services to Leeds & Manchester.

I don't think its anywhere near comparable to any of the other projects being proposed in this thread, which would likely require massive remodelling in addition to substantial new construction.

You only need platform extensions at Leeds, York, Newcastle and possibly Hull and Scarborough.

Scarborough and Hull look workable, at least for getting a long enough siding to get the train clear of the other platform approaches, without going outside the railway boundary.

York looks the same, if you use the longest platforms and remodel the south approach, but more involved given how much stuff is packed in around York.

I can't comment at all on Leeds and Newcastle due to the complexity of the station and the annoying tendency forr it all to be under giant roofs.

Can anyone authoritatively comment on the practicalities of providing 400m platforms at these stations?

EDIT:

Simplistically, at Newcastle, you could probably sacrifice the provincial siding (does anything use it regularly) and the up slow track (that bypasses the platforms) and then move the pointwork around to get enough space by allowing the tail end of trains to stand on the viaduct at the west end of the station. Access to the driving cab would be problematic though, so the train might not be able to reverse.

 

[Purple Orange]

I don't think its anywhere near comparable to any of the other projects being proposed in this thread, which would likely require massive remodelling in addition to substantial new construction.

You only need platform extensions at Leeds, York, Newcastle and possibly Hull and Scarborough.

Scarborough and Hull look workable, at least for getting a long enough siding to get the train clear of the other platform approaches, without going outside the railway boundary.

York looks the same, if you use the longest platforms and remodel the south approach, but more involved given how much stuff is packed in around York.

I can't comment at all on Leeds and Newcastle due to the complexity of the station and the annoying tendency forr it all to be under giant roofs.

Can anyone authoritatively comment on the practicalities of providing 400m platforms at these stations?

EDIT:

Simplistically, at Newcastle, you could probably sacrifice the provincial siding (does anything use it regularly) and the up slow track (that bypasses the platforms) and then move the pointwork around to get enough space by allowing the tail end of trains to stand on the viaduct at the west end of the station. Access to the driving cab would be problematic though, so the train might not be able to reverse.

No chance there will be that level of infrastructure built if the eastern leg is canned. A likely outcome would be an NPR line capable of 200m trains.

 

[The Ham]

No chance there will be that level of infrastructure built if the eastern leg is canned. A likely outcome would be an NPR line capable of 200m trains.

And in doing so crippling the ability to cater for trains even as long that currently serve Manchester and Leeds currently (10 coach 80x's are 260m long and 11 coach class 390's are about 255m long, even a pair of Voyagers, other than 4+4, wouldn't fit).

If we are designing to cater for those existing trains then it's about 50% more platform length to give us the flexibility to allow 400m trains to call there. Without which the services would need to pause at Manchester to split/join and to ensure that even a 5 minutes delay didn't cause ongoing issues.

The extra cost for those end stations to have the extra platform length would typically be fairly small compared to the cost of building the rest of the line.

 

[daodao]

And in doing so crippling the ability to cater for trains even as long that currently serve Manchester and Leeds currently (10 coach 80x's are 260m long and 11 coach class 390's are about 255m long, even a pair of Voyagers, other than 4+4, wouldn't fit).

If we are designing to cater for those existing trains then it's about 50% more platform length to give us the flexibility to allow 400m trains to call there. Without which the services would need to pause at Manchester to split/join and to ensure that even a 5 minutes delay didn't cause ongoing issues.

The extra cost for those end stations to have the extra platform length would typically be fairly small compared to the cost of building the rest of the line.

Is it not unduly optimistic to expect that a high speed Manchester-Leeds-York NPR line will be built if the eastern leg of HS2 is scrapped? The proposal to run trains from London to Leeds (and beyond) via the western arm of HS2 also depends on HS2b from Crewe to Manchester being built. While it is intended to take a bill through Westminster soon to approve this construction, there could be a volte-face on actually building it, if it becomes to be seen as too costly as well.

 

[The Ham]

Is it not unduly optimistic to expect that a high speed Manchester-Leeds-York NPR line will be built if the eastern leg of HS2 is scrapped? The proposal to run trains from London to Leeds (and beyond) via the western arm of HS2 also depends on HS2b from Crewe to Manchester being built. While it is intended to take a bill through Westminster soon to approve this construction, there could be a volte-face on actually building it, if it becomes to be seen as too costly as well.

Whilst a high speed NPR may be optimistic, there's a lot politically to bear in mind.

How likely is it that the government could claim leveling up if there are almost no new HS lines built north of Birmingham (and certainly no stations which could take 400m trains).

As such that could be very costly for them in the polls. As those in the Chilterns would be angry that they havea HS line which they can't use, whilst those anywhere other than Birmingham would be angry as they wouldn't see any benefit, as their stations would only be able to be severed by the same number of trains at the same lengths. Places elsewhere (for instance Wales and the SW) would be angry that all this money was spent on something which would only see about 1/2 the number of services (and most of those much shorter in length) from London and none of the Birmingham starters and therefore little chance of covering the costs of building it (presumably including a rather expensive Junction in the Birmingham area with few if any services heading to the East Midlands).

As such, politically it's likely to be the worst possible outcome.

At least a NPR HS line continuing from Manchester could be fast tracked so that it opened mid 2030's, so that the government could point to plans for at least some works to be happening during the 2024 to 2029 parliament.

They could also claim to be listening, saying "we paused the Eastern Arm, and have pushed it back in favour of starting from the north, something that many have been calling for".

 

[Purple Orange]

Whilst a high speed NPR may be optimistic, there's a lot politically to bear in mind.

How likely is it that the government could claim leveling up if there are almost no new HS lines built north of Birmingham (and certainly no stations which could take 400m trains).

As such that could be very costly for them in the polls. As those in the Chilterns would be angry that they havea HS line which they can't use, whilst those anywhere other than Birmingham would be angry as they wouldn't see any benefit, as their stations would only be able to be severed by the same number of trains at the same lengths. Places elsewhere (for instance Wales and the SW) would be angry that all this money was spent on something which would only see about 1/2 the number of services (and most of those much shorter in length) from London and none of the Birmingham starters and therefore little chance of covering the costs of building it (presumably including a rather expensive Junction in the Birmingham area with few if any services heading to the East Midlands).

As such, politically it's likely to be the worst possible outcome.

At least a NPR HS line continuing from Manchester could be fast tracked so that it opened mid 2030's, so that the government could point to plans for at least some works to be happening during the 2024 to 2029 parliament.

They could also claim to be listening, saying "we paused the Eastern Arm, and have pushed it back in favour of starting from the north, something that many have been calling for".

A fast tracked NPR line would at least be a partial new build and in reality it would be foccussed on Leeds-Manchester (its intended purpose) and perhaps Leeds-Birmingham. London will probably be faster on the ECML.

 

[The Ham]

A fast tracked NPR line would at least be a partial new build and in reality it would be foccussed on Leeds-Manchester (its intended purpose) and perhaps Leeds-Birmingham. London will probably be faster on the ECML.

Sorry, want clear I meant fast tracked as delivering a new high speed line quickly rather than improving line speed of existing lines.

 

[CdBrux]

How many voters would consider better bus and local train services (which can include quality as well as quantity) in the coming years as less important for levelling up vs barely completed legislation for HS rail (or 140mph NPR) that remains 10 or 15 years away?

 

[jfollows]

One thing I have learned from video conferencing is that it is a terrible substitute for actual meetings.

But that is just me

I don't think you're alone; one major reason I left my job in 2008 was because it had turned into almost totally working from home. I need the contact.
But there will equally have been many employers "appalled" by the concept of working from home who have discovered, now they've been forced to implement it, that it's workable. My partner's company had a cock-up with the number of VPN licenses it had paid for, but then all worked fine.
So a new balance will be struck.
During the pandemic I've worked occasionally and had meetings by video conference. It's really hard, I find I can't switch off in the same way that I need to in a real meeting because in an actual meeting there are many visual and audio cues which switch me back on again, but the brain needs its idle periods which are hard to come by on video conference. Earlier, audio-conferences by telephone were a waste of time because nobody took any notes and then forgot about what was said as they "rushed" to their next meeting.