Roundabout Journeys via HS2 / NPR that may be quicker than current direct journeys

[BayPaul]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-rail-plan-for-the-north-and-midlands.224967/

A question earlier was whether Birmingham - Nottingham would just be a shuttle, or if it would do something else. Something that wasn't suggested, but seems very logical would be to run a Manchester - Birmingham service on to Nottingham. This would give an approx 70 min Manchester - Nottingham journey time on a through train (via Curzon Street), significantly faster than the current ~110 min journey via Sheffield.

It is certainly interesting looking at potential dog-leg type journey routes that are ridiculous today, but could suddenly get a lot faster

EDIT

I have changed the title of the thread (I hope no-one minds) to make it a bit more general, and emphasise the second paragraph in my original post.

Others that I saw mentioned in the original thread included Cheltenham to London, which looks like being quite a lot quicker via Curzon Street than via the GWML, and I suspect that there will be quite a few more.

 

[ABB125]

A question earlier was whether Birmingham - Nottingham would just be a shuttle, or if it would do something else. Something that wasn't suggested, but seems very logical would be to run a Manchester - Birmingham service on to Nottingham.

"But why would anyone want to go from Manchester to Nottingham via Birmingham?"

 

[Nottingham59]

A question earlier was whether Birmingham - Nottingham would just be a shuttle, or if it would do something else. Something that wasn't suggested, but seems very logical would be to run a Manchester - Birmingham service on to Nottingham.

Yes. And there should be capacity on both arms of the Y to run say a Liverpool - Crewe - Birmingham - Derby - Sheffield service too.

 

[Class 170101]

"But why would anyone want to go from Manchester to Nottingham via Birmingham?"

Because its quicker at 70 mins vice 110 mins?

 

[ABB125]

Because its quicker at 70 mins vice 110 mins?

I know, but given the number of people complaining about London-Leeds via (near) Birmingham, I dread to think what the wibble about Manchester-Nottingham via (the centre of) Birmingham would be like!

How about a Leeds-Manchester-Birmingham-Nottingham service (with two reversals, horror of horrors!)? That would really set the wibble generator going!

 

[Kettledrum]

"But why would anyone want to go from Manchester to Nottingham via Birmingham?"

because the most direct route (Manchester to Stoke to Derby to Nottingham) is too slow, and HS2 via Birmingham would be a lot quicker.

 

[BrianW]

"But why would anyone want to go from Manchester to Nottingham via Birmingham?"

Hard to see that it matters where a journey goes via; unless it means uncertainty about making the connection satisfactorily.
Nor would I be happy to plan such a journey with more than one connection.
I would have hoped a 'strategy' would expect to link most readily (quickly; frequently; reliably) the largest/ most important sources and destinations.
Thus all the DfT Category A with each other DIRECT: London/ Birmingham/ Bristol/ Cardiff/ Leeds/ Liverpool/ Manchester/ Newcastle/ York;
AND all Cat B's via max one change

 

[Austriantrain]

How about a Leeds-Manchester-Birmingham-Nottingham service (with two reversals, horror of horrors!)? That would really set the wibble generator going!

If you can make the train paths match up, that would actually be a very efficient use of both rolling stock and station capacity at Piccadilly and Curzon Street.

 

[tbtc]

IIRC Virgin used to run Manchester - Birmingham - Derby trains (back when they had XC, and there were some weird and wonderful interworking each side of New Street)

Nothing wrong with Manchester - Birmingham - Nottingham as a through service, if it's competitive with regular services - the Government clearly aren't going to spend huge money at the Hope Valley route, so there are times when it will be faster to do two sides of the triangle on a "High Speed" route than just one side of the triangle at Sprinter speeds

I know people who drive between Sheffield and Greater Manchester via the M1 and M62 because they find it a faster and more reliable journey at motorway speed than the more direct routes via Woodhead/ Snake Pass - nothing wrong with this kind of approach IMHO

And, even if it's not faster via Birmingham (than via Sheffield), it's a way of dumping some cheap tickets to relieve congestion on the Sheffield route, as well as matching up services (e.g. there's not going to be much demand to travel from Walsall to Wolverhampton through New Street, but it makes sense for some train services to do that because it ties up two routes that would otherwise be laying over in central Birmingham - there doesn't always have to be much demand from Place A to Place B to warrant a through service, sometimes it's more about operational convenience and any through passengers are a bonus

 

[Whistler40145]

IIRC Virgin used to run Manchester - Birmingham - Derby trains (back when they had XC, and there were some weird and wonderful interworking each side of New Street)

Nothing wrong with Manchester - Birmingham - Nottingham as a through service, if it's competitive with regular services - the Government clearly aren't going to spend huge money at the Hope Valley route, so there are times when it will be faster to do two sides of the triangle on a "High Speed" route than just one side of the triangle at Sprinter speeds

I know people who drive between Sheffield and Greater Manchester via the M1 and M62 because they find it a faster and more reliable journey at motorway speed than the more direct routes via Woodhead/ Snake Pass - nothing wrong with this kind of approach IMHO

And, even if it's not faster via Birmingham (than via Sheffield), it's a way of dumping some cheap tickets to relieve congestion on the Sheffield route, as well as matching up services (e.g. there's not going to be much demand to travel from Walsall to Wolverhampton through New Street, but it makes sense for some train services to do that because it ties up two routes that would otherwise be laying over in central Birmingham - there doesn't always have to be much demand from Place A to Place B to warrant a through service, sometimes it's more about operational convenience and any through passengers are a bonus

Yep, Virgin XC used to run an evening Manchester Piccadilly to Derby service via Birmingham New Street which I assume was to position the stock for an early morning departure, obviously running in service rather than ECS, 86 to BNS with a 47/8 forward to Derby, but wasn't unusual for a single 31/4 to turn up

 

[BayPaul]

Note - as I seem to be the OP on this one, and to hopefully encourage a wider debate I have changed the title of the thread from "Could we one day see a Manchester - Nottingham HS2 service via Birmingham" (I hope no-one minds) to make it a bit more general, and emphasise the second paragraph in my original post.

Others that I saw mentioned in the original thread included Cheltenham to London, which looks like being quite a lot quicker via Curzon Street than via the GWML, and I suspect that there will be quite a few more.

 

[PTR 444]

Examples as per the thread title:

• London to Hereford via Birmingham
• Taunton to Manchester via Old Oak Common
• Liverpool to Nottingham via Birmingham Interchange
• Norwich to Derby via London?

 

[30907]

Not totally impossible - in France, Lyon and points SE are served by a number of provincial TGV taking the long way round via Massy in the suburbs of Paris.

 

[BrianW]

Examples as per the thread title:

• London to Hereford via Birmingham
• Taunton to Manchester via Old Oak Common
• Liverpool to Nottingham via Birmingham Interchange
• Norwich to Derby via London?

Currently there must be many a journey made via London for a whole range of reasons.
I would imagine it will be similar via elsewhere (Birmingham, Crewe, Derby?, ....) as HS2 comes increasingly into service, influenced/ decided in relation to:
connection time(s) / ease/ reliability, crowding, fare, time of day, frequencies, ...
I imagine the PM focused on Birmingham >< Nottingham as the greatest (%) time reduction- I would

 

[HSTEd]

Ultimately capacity on HS2's legs will not be in short supply -especially the stub to East Midlands Parkway.

Indeed I might suggest that all Birmingham Curzon Street terminators be extended to run to Nottingham, given that they are all going to be classic compatibles in the short term anyway.

It's a pity noone builds electrodiesels for greater than 250km/h, because a Norwich to Liverpool via Birmingham and Manchester train could be an interesting option.......

 

[BayPaul]

It's a pity noone builds electrodiesels for greater than 250km/h, because a Norwich to Liverpool via Birmingham and Manchester train could be an interesting option.......
Indeed (though I think going via Manchester is a step too far - either go to Manchester or Liverpool). It would be a good way of extending the HS2 benefits into a whole new area as well. I have wondered before in the context of HS2 to the SW about loco-hauling HS2 EMUs, in a similar way to was tried and failed with Pendos to the N Wales coast.

Incidentally, I think I mentioned elsewhere that Leicester - Birmingham via East Midlands Parkway has the potential to be significantly quicker than direct - around 16 mins Curzon St- EM Parkway, and a similar time from Parkway to Leicester, compared to around 52 minutes direct. I'd suggest its a market big enough to make it worthwhile running a dedicated train for, if there was sufficient capacity at Curzon St, however even with a change it should be quicker.

 

[HS2isgood]

I think loco-hauling HS2 EMU's will be a thing in the North Wales coast. For the Southwest, I think the XC axis will just get reduced to SW-NE, Brum-Manchester via Wolves and Stok, and Brum-Reading(-points south)

 

[21C101]

I think loco-hauling HS2 EMU's will be a thing in the North Wales coast. For the Southwest, I think the XC axis will just get reduced to SW-NE, Brum-Manchester via Wolves and Stok, and Brum-Reading(-points south)

A Manchester, Birmingham International, Old Oak [Reverse] Reading, Basingstoke, Winchester, Soton, Bournemouth would have a journey time of a couple of minutes shy of three hours, compared with nearly five now.

While I can't see such a service actually running, it does show how travel patterns might change. With a "tube" interval service from Reading to Old Oak and one every 20 minutes from Old Oak to Manchester, I suspect some people will change twice and go that way, rather than getting from Euston to Waterloo or the grind via Coventry and New St.

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

The big one though in terms of roundabout journeys is London - Manchester - Leeds which is 4 minutes quicker with a dwell time and reversal at Piccadilly than KX Leeds is claimed to be by the IRP, post upgrade.

Doing that would enable ECML London to Leeds services to be reduced to a clockface 30 minute interval semifast service calling at Stevenage, Peterborough, Grantham, Newark, Retford, Doncaster, Wakefield & Leeds.

This in turn means that paths released and extra paths created in the ECML upgrade (allegedly two more per hour) could give a far better service, like an hourly one, between places like KX to Hull and KX to Middlesborough.

It would also make it a lot easier to travel between places like Newark and Grantham by rail, in much the way that Lichfield to Nuneaton was virtually impossible until quadrupling and institution of a clockface hourly LM Trent Valley service instead of skipstopping intercities.

 

[BayPaul]

A Manchester, Birmingham International, Old Oak [Reverse] Reading, Basingstoke, Winchester, Soton, Bournemouth would have a journey time of a couple of minutes shy of three hours, compared with nearly five now.

While I can't see such a service actually running, it does show how travel patterns might change. With a "tube" interval service from Reading to Old Oak and one every 20 minutes from Old Oak to Manchester, I suspect some people will change twice and go that way, rather than getting from Euston to Waterloo or the grind via Coventry and New St.

A reversal at Old Oak isn't possible as there's no connection between the surface level GWML and the subsurface HS2 lines at that point, but I agree with the principle, adding in a change to the journey still keeps the timing well below the XC route. I wonder if there is any way to find space on the GWML for a Basingstoke (or Southampton) to Paddington service, perhaps by dividing a 387 at Reading with half going to Newbury and half to Basingstoke, to make this journey much easier.

 

[Bald Rick]

The big one though in terms of roundabout journeys is London - Manchester - Leeds which is 4 minutes quicker with a dwell time and reversal at Piccadilly than KX Leeds is claimed to be by the IRP, post upgrade.

Doing that would enable ECML London to Leeds services to be reduced to a clockface 30 minute interval semifast service calling at Stevenage, Peterborough, Grantham, Newark, Retford, Doncaster, Wakefield & Leeds.

I’m afraid it wouldn’t, as there will still be a need for fast services (first stop York) to serve the North East in a reasonable time.

 

[Starmill]

I’m afraid it wouldn’t, as there will still be a need for fast services (first stop York) to serve the North East in a reasonable time.

I guess it depends on whether the best journey times are still offered on services to the North East rather than those to West Yorkshire.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think loco-hauling HS2 EMU's will be a thing in the North Wales coast. For the Southwest, I think the XC axis will just get reduced to SW-NE, Brum-Manchester via Wolves and Stok, and Brum-Reading(-points south)

North Wales will remain served by the classic line. A reasonable compensation would be for the Holyhead service to operate hourly all day (which would also tidy the timetable considerably), and people can change to HS2 at Crewe if they prefer.

If it was to be electrified later, then there is spare capacity in the phase 2A HS2 train plan for two more 200m portions, one of which could be an hourly Holyhead.

 

[Starmill]

It's a pity noone builds electrodiesels for greater than 250km/h, because a Norwich to Liverpool via Birmingham and Manchester train could be an interesting option.......

Is it? If Felixstowe to Nuneaton / Norwich to Birmingham doesn't have overhead wires up by 2045 we may as well all give up and go home now, there will be no need for HS2 and little railway left.

 

[21C101]

I’m afraid it wouldn’t, as there will still be a need for fast services (first stop York) to serve the North East in a reasonable time.

It will because if they stick with their current stated plans to run to Leeds in 1h 53m post ECML upgrade; they will have to run two an hour fast to Leeds, non stop to somewhere like Doncaster or Leeds itself, as well as two fast Northeast services an hour and two semifast services to Leeds (or York) an hour serving Wakefield, Newark, Grantham etc. So thats six an hour base service.

Put the fast Leeds on HS2 via Manchester and the base service is four per hour, two fast to York, two semifast to Leeds, leaving paths for hourly train to Hull and services to Middlesborough etc, first stop Doncaster, post ECML upgrade.

Giving Lincoln an hourly service by extending HS2 St Pancras to Nottingham services, assuming the ECML upgrade sorts the Newark Gridiron, would also help release ECML capacity for extra NE or Edinburgh services, without any degradation of end to end journey time Lincoln/London.

 

[daodao]

While roundabout journeys via HS2/NPR may be quicker than direct services for some journeys, the prices for such journeys may not be attractive or competitive given that a premium will be charged for travel on high speed trains (either incorporated into the ticket price or a supplementary fee) and the distance travelled will be much further. The time saving would need to be significant for such routes to attract patronage from those who can afford the higher fares.

 

[Bald Rick]

It will because if they stick with their current stated plans to run to Leeds in 1h 53m post ECML upgrade; they will have to run two an hour fast to Leeds, non stop to somewhere like Doncaster or Leeds itself, as well as fast Northeast services and semifast services to Leeds (or York) serving Wakefield, Newark, Grantham etc. So thats six an hour base service.

Put the fast Leeds on HS2 via Manchester and the base service is four per hour leaving paths for hourly train to Hull and Middlesborough, first stop Doncaster, etc. post ECML upgrade.

Presumably you’ve done sufficient timetabling development work on the ECML to know what it’s capabilities are?

 

[Austriantrain]

It will because if they stick with their current stated plans to run to Leeds in 1h 53m post ECML upgrade; they will have to run two an hour fast to Leeds, non stop to somewhere like Doncaster or Leeds itself, as well as fast Northeast services and semifast services to Leeds (or York) serving Wakefield, Newark, Grantham etc. So thats six an hour base service.

Put the fast Leeds on HS2 via Manchester and the base service is four per hour leaving paths for hourly train to Hull and Middlesborough, first stop Doncaster, etc. post ECML upgrade.

The current PBO - YRK nonstop time is approx 63 minutes (RTT today, IS09, KGX ex 9:00); even faster if it doesn’t stop at PBO. A stopper has an approx timing of 80-85 minutes. Whatever you do, if the stopper doesn’t get overtaken en-route, while this is pathable, you will hardly have space for anything else and basically reduce the capacity of Stoke Tunnel - DON to 4 tph (at a pinch you might fit in another nonstop PBO - DON that then turns off towards LDS, but that makes it very tight and you will probably have to slow down the fast paths to make it fit better.)

So either you have to invest in some capacity upgrade (overtaking possibilities, partial four-tracking) or you have to skip-stop.

In any case, having LON - LDS four minutes faster via MAN than via the ECML is not worth bothering with, especially as you severely reduce capacity on NPR trains after first investing billions to upgrade capacity.

 

[21C101]

Presumably you’ve done sufficient timetabling development work on the ECML to know what it’s capabilities are?

We are discussing the ECML post upgrade possibilities, not it's current timetabling. I quote from the IRP:

"..taking forward an ambitious package of further investment on the East Coast Main Line (ECML) "We will ensure digital signalling is delivered and also upgrade the power supply to allow longer and more frequent trains, increase maximum speeds up to 140mph in some places, improve the capacity of stations, and remove bottlenecks such as flat junctions and crossings."

"Development work will consider interventions from both NPR designs undertaken by Network Rail, mainly focussed on York and northwards, and work undertaken by Mott MacDonald for the Department for Transport focused on the line south of York. North of York we will look to increase the number of paths for long distance high speed trains from 6 to 7 or 8 per hour"

 

[Austriantrain]

We are discussing the ECML post upgrade possibilities, not it's current timetabling. I quote from the IRP:

"..taking forward an ambitious package of further investment on the East Coast Main Line (ECML) "We will ensure digital signalling is delivered and also upgrade the power supply to allow longer and more frequent trains, increase maximum speeds up to 140mph in some places, improve the capacity of stations, and remove bottlenecks such as flat junctions and crossings."

"Development work will consider interventions from both NPR designs undertaken by Network Rail, mainly focussed on York and northwards, and work undertaken by Mott MacDonald for the Department for Transport focused on the line south of York. North of York we will look to increase the number of paths for long distance high speed trains from 6 to 7 or 8 per hour"

But if you invest such amounts into the ECML, there will be exactly no reason to run LON - LDS via MAN as that will reduce the usefulness of ECML investment and capacity on NPR (since NPR is not a fully new line, you can’t simply add more trains there than what is planned).

 

[AM9]

While roundabout journeys via HS2/NPR may be quicker than direct services for some journeys, the prices for such journeys may not be attractive or competitive given that a premium will be charged for travel on high speed trains (either incorporated into the ticket price or a supplementary fee) and the distance travelled will be much further. The time saving would need to be significant for such routes to attract patronage from those who can afford the higher fares.

Why would there be a premium to travel on a route with twice as much capacity than that of the classic routes that will still need to stop at all shacks?