Longer trains on WCML - How much capacity would they have added, compared to HS2?

[MarkyT]

And you can bet that Lendlease will make sure that every square inch of spare space that might conceivably be used for more platforms in future will end up being developed for housing instead.

I don't think it's in a developer's interest necessarily to constrain future train service improvements. An attraction of the site is it's good transport, so if they can build their desired square footage while also safeguarding even better connectivity for the future in the basement, that could add to desirability and inflate sale/rental prices. While major terminal sites are large and theoretically valuable, if the railways concerned just shut up shop and went away, much of that value might evaporate, as the city struggled to function without it's long distance arteries.

 

[The Planner]

Phase One of this scheme releases capacity at both New Street, by switching most London traffic to Curzon St, and at Manchester by adding more platforms on the East side of the station, and by diverting the Glossop lines onto Metrolink. But agree that neither would add paths into or out of the city centre.

It releases capacity at New St, but nothing along the Coventry corridor as you have built a spur off to your new platforms at Curzon St. Adding platforms on the East side of Piccadilly involves some serious remodelling.

Phase Two would add many more paths into and out of the centre of Birmingham, for a relatively short length of new lines around Water Orton.

And all the electrification, infrastructure and signalling as noted previously to Derby. On its own, it doesn't.

Yes, you'd have to take platform 16 at Euston completely out of use, before extending the island between P16 and P17 alongside the existing tracks, plus a new island for P18 and P19. But because you're building that island on the land currently reserved for HS2 it wouldn't interact with the live railway at all until the weekend when you'd connect them in to Tracks E and D somewhere beyond Granby Terrace.

No, you would be taking much more out, the work is too close to live railway. You are going to need significant closures to tie in earthworks etc, not a weekend.

How long will it take for HS2 Ltd to extend the platforms at Crewe? Is it not possible to design a platform segment that can be simply lowered into place onto a precisely located narrow base in a single overnight possession?

Several closures, you are clearing, diverting buried services, building and working next to a live railway.

Platforms at Piccadilly could be lengthened to 400m relatively easily. What's going to happen at Stockport? My guess is that Stockport will get 2tph 400m HS2 passing through without stopping, and 1tph WCML Pendolino calling at Stockport. And if the HS2 Phase Two tunnel ever gets built, Stockport loses its express London service completely.

How? The longest platforms at Piccadilly are 5 (340m), 8 (340m) and 9 (330m), all the others are less than 280m. You are extending out into the throat by at least 60m on a curve and out beyond the signal gantry. The OLE, track and signalling alterations would be massive and could well trigger a full re-signalling.

Which is even more reason to make Wilmslow the main station for London from South Manchester. There seems to be plenty or undeveloped woodland to the north of the river Bollin to extend platforms northwards and add car parks and station access.

View attachment 172623

Far far cheaper than digging a 15km tunnel under Manchester and a four platform underground station at Manchester Airport.

Some very big viaducts you are widening, or rebuilding to add platforms on there.

While ~400m is likely possible for some platforms at Crewe, Preston, Carlisle, any more than that would be very difficult. Junctions can't necessarily just move if they're constrained by tunnels, bridges or other trackside development. The OPs consideration of Stockport Viaduct is an example.

Another concern at through stations is signalling overlaps. Best practice is to provide a fully clear plain track overlap beyond the platform starting signal appropriate for the approach speed before any pointwork. On platform loops with a 40/50mph entry speed, about 100m should suffice as an emergency overrun before any conflicting movement could be encountered if the approaching train passes the signal at danger. If the platform is on a fast line then a default 220m overlap applies. Where a clear plain line overlap isn't provided, an approaching movement's overlap locking will penetrate the throat junction at the other end of the station, possibly preventing some other simultaneous movements until the train has arrived and timed out on the berth track. ETCS doesn't solve this fully either. While a no or very limited overlap scenario can be catered for, this comes at the cost of a more restricted approach speed envelope. Where a full overlap is provided, a speedier approach can be made, with the safety benefit of the overlap allowing a higher release speed. Colour light signalling has a similar trick with alternative warning class routes able to be selected by the signaller, at the cost of a delayed yellow at the entry signal.

This.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In what way is Coventry going to be loosing out? Maybe slightly slower trains to London due to a few extra stops being added in.

Reduction of 3 to 2tph fast (from the WCML end state - all three don't run in every hour at present) and more stops added. The connectivity already exists so it is only negative to Cov.

 

[A S Leib]

Reduction of 3 to 2tph fast (from the WCML end state - all three don't run in every hour at present) and more stops added. The connectivity already exists so it is only negative to Cov.

It's less relevant now that there's an hourly Manchester service without HS2, but how many Coventry passengers would find Nuneaton, more convenient?

 

[Stossgebet]

Reduction of 3 to 2tph fast (from the WCML end state - all three don't run in every hour at present) and more stops added. The connectivity already exists so it is only negative to Cov.

But add in ability to reintroduce the XC service that runs non stop between Leamington and Birmingham new street, and you've doubled the number of Cross Country trains serving Coventry. Ergo, HS2 has enabled better regional connectivity and benefited passengers that won't even be in HS2.

 

[MarkyT]

It's less relevant now that there's an hourly Manchester service without HS2, but how many Coventry passengers would find Nuneaton, more convenient?

Some Trent Valley trains might run via Coventry and Bedworth post HS2. That could increase Coventry's fast provision to perhaps 4 limited stop London trains equispaced through each hour. 2 from Brum, 2 from TV. They'd likely all make 1 or 2 extra calls, even if alternately in a skip-stop pattern, at Rugby, Milton Keynes, Watford Junction.

 

[The Planner]

Some Trent Valley trains might run via Coventry and Bedworth post HS2. That could increase Coventry's fast provision to perhaps 4 limited stop London trains equispaced through each hour. 2 from Brum, 2 from TV. They'd likely all make 1 or 2 extra calls, even if alternately in a skip-stop pattern, at Rugby, Milton Keynes, Watford Junction.

Never quite understood that proposal. Cov to Nuneaton would need a complete overhaul and it would add a fair bit of time to people from TV stations.

 

[MarkyT]

Never quite understood that proposal. Cov to Nuneaton would need a complete overhaul and it would add a fair bit of time to people from TV stations.

Can't see the point of faster IC tier services from Tamworth, Lichfield etc going that way myself, but a couple of LNWR Trent Valley stoppers per hour via Coventry then limited stop to London might make sense if they could be pathed. New electrification would be required via Bedworth of course.

 

[Mgameing123]

530m is probably a bit excessive. Perhaps just over 300m, which would give you 13 coach Pendolinos?

Considering it’s the busiest mainline in the UK. Probably not as demand will grow overtime.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jan 2025 ==

There's two things which HS2 does which this wouldn't:

Extra capacity at somewhere like Manchester and Birmingham where the released platform capacity from removing the long distance services.


I've also said in the past that HS2 with 16 coaches would (when servicing Manchester) require the same number of coaches as the current train lengths due to the time saving from HS2.

If you want me explain again, let me know.

However, it does explain why something like HS2 could be better than just making trains longer as per this thread.

Well just think of this as the alternative universe where the government cancelled HS2 all together back in the early stages and now want us to look at options for upgrading the existing network without building HS2. (HS2 will always be the most logical solution).

 

[stuu]

Train twice as long as current ones will obviously take longer to cross switches and junctions, so you are likely to reduce the capacity at busy locations (i.e. most of the WCML)

 

[The Ham]

Well just think of this as the alternative universe where the government cancelled HS2 all together back in the early stages and now want us to look at options for upgrading the existing network without building HS2. (HS2 will always be the most logical solution).

To ensure people didn't even consider HS2 it would have to be a world where it wasn't even suggested.

Reduction of 3 to 2tph fast (from the WCML end state - all three don't run in every hour at present) and more stops added. The connectivity already exists so it is only negative to Cov.

If all three don't always run in the current state (presumably due to not needing to due to passenger numbers), then it's also possible that 3tph could also be run in the future if passenger numbers justified it (for example at peak hours). However, as others have highlighted there's other options for those paths to be used for other services (such as by XC).

The point about interconnectivity was for Coventry passengers, not between other station pairs. For example, there's realistically 1tph between Coventry and Watford Junction (as whilst there's 3tph two of those take so long that either it's quicker to wait for the faster service, or you only arrive about 5 minutes later if you catch the fastest service having had to spend well over an hour on the train) that means that it's poor service, so few would use it.

Double that to 2tph and it becomes a much more useful service.

As a 1tph service means that if the train doesn't turn up people have to wait an hour for the next one, which (unless you're traveling for leisure purposes, and even then it's still going to put people off) is likely to wreck your plans.

Whilst 30 minutes is still going to mess things up, no where near as much.

Alternatively, add in a stop at Bletchley (in a post East West world) and it becomes much easier to get to a load of other places without needing to go into Central London.

 

[A S Leib]

whilst there's 3tph two of those take so long that either it's quicker to wait for the faster service,

*2 tph; one of the LNR Euston – Northampton – Birmingham services is nonstop south of Leighton Buzzard. I'm not sure off-hand if the direct service or changing at Rugby and Milton Keynes Central is quicker for Birmingham / Coventry – Bletchley / Leighton Buzzard.

 

[The Planner]

Train twice as long as current ones will obviously take longer to cross switches and junctions, so you are likely to reduce the capacity at busy locations (i.e. most of the WCML)

Yes and no, depends on the junction speed. Station throat, yes it isn't good, elsewhere, not so much of an issue as its seconds.

 

[Ben427]

At vast cost.

As far as I can see, the bits of HS2 that actually deliver increased capacity are:

1. More and longer platforms in the centres of our biggest cities (London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds)
2. More tracks from those city centres to the edge of the conurbation
3. Grade separation at critical junctions on the network

Just building those bits that deliver 1, 2, and 3 above would have provided most of the capacity uplift from HS2 at a small fraction of the eventual cost. This proposal addresses (1). Short segments of new line could have provided (2) and (3).

All the rest of HS2 including its unnecessary cuttings and green tunnels and novel viaduct design and 400kph design speed just add to the cost without adding capacity.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jan 2025 ==


I'm sure it's not going to be cheap. Do you think my estimate of £50M per platform island is adequate? It seems an awful lot of money to me.

But it's a issue that needs addressing. They're going to have to extend platforms at Crewe and at least one other station on the northern WCML, or HS2 phase one will fail.

It would be a really good idea for the industry to demonstrate how to do that cheaply and with minimal disruption to the live railway.

HS2 would deliver extra capacity by having new lines to put on more services, and enable more paths for freight on the existing network

£50m is absurdly low. Lengthening platforms is not just a case of dropping in some prefab platforms.

Aside from land acquisition, environmental mitigation for all the trees you've mentioned you want to cut down etc, there's resignalling, electrics, utilities. Plus improving station infrastructure to handle the doubling in capacity (walkways, footbridges, interchange facilities for onward travel). Nevermind the disruption to the station and surrounding area during construction. Oh and forgot the planning requirements.

Upgrading the existing railway is not easier or cheaper as TRU is showing

How much HS2 would have been cheaper with a slower alignment is up for debate

The green tunnels, well that is an infrastructure and planning issue. I don't think it's as straightforward as ripping up all regs when our biodiversity is buggered and we need to reverse that.

To be honest I think you don't realise the impact and cost of new infrastructure and the (necessary) complexities it adds. I've barely touched the surface on the impacts and considerations needed.

Increasing platform lengths is being done in other parts of the network because it's recognised that there's no capacity to deliver increased frequency which from a passenger point of view is far more desirable

 

[Harpo]

How much HS2 would have been cheaper with a slower alignment is up for debate

I suspect that an alternative alignment might not even be HS.

 

[FMerrymon]

I suspect that an alternative alignment might not even be HS.

These were the alternative route considerations https://pie1-word-view.officeapps.l...7d-5212e74df9c9&access_token=1&wdMobileHost=2 still high speed, but some would have ended up slower to avoid settlements. Plus each was more expensive.

 

[Technologist]

HS2 would deliver extra capacity by having new lines to put on more services, and enable more paths for freight on the existing network

£50m is absurdly low. Lengthening platforms is not just a case of dropping in some prefab platforms.

Aside from land acquisition, environmental mitigation for all the trees you've mentioned you want to cut down etc, there's resignalling, electrics, utilities. Plus improving station infrastructure to handle the doubling in capacity (walkways, footbridges, interchange facilities for onward travel). Nevermind the disruption to the station and surrounding area during construction. Oh and forgot the planning requirements.

Upgrading the existing railway is not easier or cheaper as TRU is showing

How much HS2 would have been cheaper with a slower alignment is up for debate

The green tunnels, well that is an infrastructure and planning issue. I don't think it's as straightforward as ripping up all regs when our biodiversity is buggered and we need to reverse that.

To be honest I think you don't realise the impact and cost of new infrastructure and the (necessary) complexities it adds. I've barely touched the surface on the impacts and considerations needed.

Increasing platform lengths is being done in other parts of the network because it's recognised that there's no capacity to deliver increased frequency which from a passenger point of view is far more desirable

Without saying it you've hit on the principle point, what we do is far less important than how good we are at doing it, if we were as competent at building things as the Spanish we'd have built Cross Rail 4 by now on the existing budgets.

1: The planning regs need to change and the fundamental principle of placing the whole responsibility of bio diversity and climate change on the new marginal capacity needs to be ripped up. New housing estates contribute relatively little to run off pollution but need to jump through many hoops, whereas existing farms see much less regulatory/planning burden despite being orders of magnitude more polluting in their run-off. If we need to preserve bats there needs to be a bat preservation policy that looks at the best way to do this, not spend £500 million to avoid a trivial number being hit by trains.

We need to adopt a more proceed and fix if problems occur method with building in general, most people don't engage in the planning process and most problems of new development are only obvious once the thing is being built. Developments should have a decent fund in escrow to mitigate things that become obvious once built.

2: We need GBR to open a research division and then use the outputs, it should probably develop its own signals ideally using all the vastly more sophisticated technologies generated by autonomous cars, we should be vastly more demanding in terms of rolling stock again pulling technologies and capacities from elsewhere. We don't need additional money, 5-10% of the rail budget should go into R&D and coordination, if that unlocks getting to similar levels of efficiency seen in other countries never mind actually pushing the state of the art we could do a lot more with what we already spend.

3: Expanding on point 2 if we actually do things in a coordinated manner our construction industry will in itself consolidate and invest in proper technologies, automation and skills.

 

[Nottingham59]

Upgrading the existing railway is not easier or cheaper as TRU is showing

So why aren't they building a new line?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jan 2025 ==

EDIT:
That sounds more confrontational than I had intended. Apologies.

I'm genuinely curious about how much lengthening platforms will actually cost, not least because they're going to have to do it at Crewe and Preston if they're ever going to get the most out of HS2.

£50m is absurdly low. Lengthening platforms is not just a case of dropping in some prefab platforms.

So how much do you think it would cost to lengthen the platforms at, say, Milton Keynes? My first guess was £150m, for three platform islands. What do you think the figure should be?

 

[Harpo]

Comparisons with much larger and less densely occupied countries don’t really stand up.

The UK’s railways often started compact and got more so, locked into difficult footprints as every spare scrap of adjoining land was built on, which is why standardised pointwork is just a dream.

The space available in many countries permits a much bigger construction footprint on land of lower value. The NIMBY factor is also less apparent with towns often pressuring to be included on new HS routes.

Little wonder that other nations can construct at a faster pace.

 

[MarkyT]

I'm genuinely curious about how much lengthening platforms will actually cost, not least because they're going to have to do it at Crewe and Preston if they're ever going to get the most out of HS2.

At these major junction stations and a few others on the WCML, some platforms are or were nearly 400m long historically. That probably makes those locations a bit easier to reach what was required for HS2 as originally envisaged. Another 120m would be more difficult.

 

[Nottingham59]

Some very big viaducts you are widening, or rebuilding to add platforms on there.

Yes. Big viaducts, but still a lot cheaper than building a new station 15-20m below ground level at Manchester Airport.

I'd build a new viaduct to the East of the current one carrying the line towards Stockport, and then shift that line across. That would give enough space between the lines to carry wider platforms.

How? The longest platforms at Piccadilly are 5 (340m), 8 (340m) and 9 (330m), all the others are less than 280m. You are extending out into the throat by at least 60m on a curve and out beyond the signal gantry. The OLE, track and signalling alterations would be massive and could well trigger a full re-signalling.

See:

How to add 400m platforms to Manchester Piccadilly

If HS2 Phase 2B is not going to be built, then capacity to Manchester will be severely limited by the number of trains that can get through Colwich Juntion and Stafford. The only way to increase capacity to Manchester is to run longer trains. This is how I would add 3 x 400m platforms at...

www.railforums.co.uk

The third diagram on the first post shows a scheme for 420m platforms. 530m platforms would be similar. It's made much simpler by converting the Glossop and Marple stopper services to tram-train operation so they connect directly into the Metrolink network, and move out of the main shed at Piccadilly.

 

[Trainman40083]

Stoke on Trent, Wolverhampton, Milton Keynes and Liverpool are also likely to be losers to some extent. The time taken to split / combine trains at Crewe - probably around 10 minutes - will partially cancel benefits of higher speed running on HS2.

A simpler (and chesper) way - for a lesser boost in WCML capacity would have been to make all Pendolinos 11 coaches - with only 2 first class coaches. (11 coaches is the maximum that could fit into Liverpool Lime Street)

Yes, I think an eleven car Pendolino only just fits into Stoke. Can't easily extend the platforms because of road bridges either side.

 

[The Planner]

Yes. Big viaducts, but still a lot cheaper than building a new station 15-20m below ground level at Manchester Airport.

I'd build a new viaduct to the East of the current one carrying the line towards Stockport, and then shift that line across. That would give enough space between the lines to carry wider platforms.

So you are rebuilding the up side of the station as well as you would need the tie ins to keep the current line speed at either end. Probably taking out every business on the east side of the station in the process.

The third diagram on the first post shows a scheme for 420m platforms. 530m platforms would be similar. It's made much simpler by converting the Glossop and Marple stopper services to tram-train operation so they connect directly into the Metrolink network, and move out of the main shed at Piccadilly.

That is new build, not extending the existing. Your viaduct smashes through the new housing development in the Ardwick triangle as well

 

[Martin Lee]

While ~400m is likely possible for some platforms at Crewe, Preston, Carlisle, any more than that would be very difficult. Junctions can't necessarily just move if they're constrained by tunnels, bridges or other trackside development. The OPs consideration of Stockport Viaduct is an example.

Another concern at through stations is signalling overlaps. Best practice is to provide a fully clear plain track overlap beyond the platform starting signal appropriate for the approach speed before any pointwork. On platform loops with a 40/50mph entry speed, about 100m should suffice as an emergency overrun before any conflicting movement could be encountered if the approaching train passes the signal at danger. If the platform is on a fast line then a default 220m overlap applies. Where a clear plain line overlap isn't provided, an approaching movement's overlap locking will penetrate the throat junction at the other end of the station, possibly preventing some other simultaneous movements until the train has arrived and timed out on the berth track. ETCS doesn't solve this fully either. While a no or very limited overlap scenario can be catered for, this comes at the cost of a more restricted approach speed envelope. Where a full overlap is provided, a speedier approach can be made, with the safety benefit of the overlap allowing a higher release speed. Colour light signalling has a similar trick with alternative warning class routes able to be selected by the signaller, at the cost of a delayed yellow at the entry signal.

Does the ETCS system allow changes to track layout to be made relatively easily without requiring a huge effort in moving signaling systems. I'm guessing it also is more flexible in terms of allowing faster trains to catch up with slower ones at a safe distance. So that a train following one scheduled to stop at say Birmingham international can be at the optimum distance to pass as quickly as possible once the stopping train is into the platform loop it is going to use.

 

[MarkyT]

Does the ETCS system allow changes to track layout to be made relatively easily without requiring a huge effort in moving signaling systems. I'm guessing it also is more flexible in terms of allowing faster trains to catch up with slower ones at a safe distance. So that a train following one scheduled to stop at say Birmingham international can be at the optimum distance to pass as quickly as possible once the stopping train is into the platform loop it is going to use.

Engineers do a similar amount of site specific interlocking configuration and testing work for ETCS as with colour light systems. Train detection equipment and powered point drives are still required out on the trackside. A significant saving is marker boards in place of signal structures and complex heads and junction/route indicators, particularly for the big gantries and brackets often necessary on wide complex multitrack alignments around major stations. In more rural areas, where everything can be those folding lightweight LED signals and blocks are often much longer, ETCS doesn't save so much on capital or maintenance, nor does it really improve capacity, though it's a bit easier to break a long block with some intermediate boards and train detection if desired to allow trains to follow more closely. Hybrid train detection based on trains reporting clearance over radio in place of fixed train detection will eventually make providing shorter blocks even more economical.

Shorter blocks where provided (at a cost in complexity) allow a greater degree of 'closing up' on station approaches for example without the horrible compromises often neccesary in colour light schemes concerning aspect sequences etc. Block length can be varied as required for envisaged demand more easily in an ETCS scheme as 'signal' spacing is no longer constrained by braking distance. Block lengths can thus vary across a scheme, shorter where following trains tend to bunch in this way, longer where everything is travelling at full line speed, but it clearly doesn't allow an express to pass through the local in front, so once it's stuck behind it for a series of stations, its not going to make any more progress until a junction allows it to diverge and overtake!

 

[eldomtom2]

Comparisons with much larger and less densely occupied countries don’t really stand up.

The UK’s railways often started compact and got more so, locked into difficult footprints as every spare scrap of adjoining land was built on, which is why standardised pointwork is just a dream.

The space available in many countries permits a much bigger construction footprint on land of lower value. The NIMBY factor is also less apparent with towns often pressuring to be included on new HS routes.

Little wonder that other nations can construct at a faster pace.

Actually, high-speed rail in other countries is by no means universally supported, nor is it always built in areas where land is cheap.

 

[Harpo]

Does ETCS ………allowing faster trains to catch up with slower ones at a safe distance…….. to pass as quickly as possible once the stopping train is into the platform loop

Reducing platform re-occupation times on plain line stations (i.e. no loops) is possibly more valuable in capacity terms.

 

[MarkyT]

Reducing platform re-occupation times on plain line stations (i.e. no loops) is possibly more valuable in capacity terms.

Agreed because with short blocks you can easily have the equivalent of closing up 'signals' at all stations on a busy metro style route. You can even have additional block markers along the length of platforms like the Thameslink central core where the next train can start to enter a platform before the previous one has completely cleared it. ETCS also dramatically improves junction signalling in many cases as speed can be regulated gently down to the precise turnout location rather than trains being subject to a very restrictive approach release from red at a signal half a mile before reaching the junction for a slow speed divergence.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Actually, high-speed rail in other countries is by no means universally supported, nor is it always built in areas where land is cheap.

Spain has also had issues from its fast-build programme, leading to lower specs for new lines (single-track high speed lines must be a nonsense).
There are also new line sections from nowhere to nowhere in empty country, with no plan to complete.
All funded with EU money (some of which came from the UK).

 

[MarkyT]

Spain has also had issues from its fast-build programme, leading to lower specs for new lines (single-track high speed lines must be a nonsense).

Initially opening as single may be a fairly sensible strategy in some places to get something operating and earning quickly where there's a sparse service at a network extremity and only the one tier of service is using that infrastructure. Spain's railway system was terribly slow over the long distances between major cities before the new build lines. I suppose they could have built lots of motorways with the EU money instead like Ireland. I doubt much long distance rail would have survived in Spain without high speed with its straigher more direct routes. California has considered single track for part of its new HS line as an interim measure. Brightline uses single track on parts of its Orlando route and their new LA to Las Vegas line will be at least partly single too. The latter two are built largely in major highway median strips.