About HS2

[Stephen Lee]

As mentioned in both videos, it was stated that Building High-Speed Rail like HS2 can release capacity in Conventional Railways like what China usually think. I just wondered in what ways they can achieve this purpose.

 

[hexagon789]

As mentioned in both videos, it was stated that Building High-Speed Rail like HS2 can release capacity in Conventional Railways like what China usually think. I just wondered in what ways they can achieve this purpose.

You cut back existing long-distance fast services that the high-speed ones now fulfil and thus free paths on the conventional line(s).

 

[CW2]

It's more than a one-for-one capacity gain by moving the fast trains off the conventional routes. When you have a mixture of train speeds on a route, the fastest (and slowest) trains consume more capacity than the "average speed" services. By providing a dedicated high speed line - where all trains run at the same speed - you gain much more capacity on the existing routes, by averaging out the average speeds and stopping patterns.

 

[Stephen Lee]

You cut back existing long-distance fast services that the high-speed ones now fulfil and thus free paths on the conventional line(s).

OK, but do you mean remove them from the conventional lines? Also i wondered will the crosscountry route be benefitted from the released capacity....

 

[Bletchleyite]

OK, but do you mean remove them from the conventional lines?

Yes. The 9tph (10 peak) of IC trains that operate in each direction into and out of Euston will be reduced to most likely 3 or 4.

Also i wondered will the crosscountry route be benefitted from the released capacity....

To some extent yes, though the WCML, MML and ECML will benefit more.

 

[Stephen Lee]

Yes. The 9tph (10 peak) of IC trains that operate in each direction into and out of Euston will be reduced to most likely 3 or 4.



To some extent yes, though the WCML, MML and ECML will benefit more.

3 or 4 what

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

OK, but do you mean remove them from the conventional lines? Also i wondered will the crosscountry route be benefitted from the released capacity....

Yes freed up capacity at New Street, also some capacity relief from Birmingham to the North East, extra stop at Coventry and Birmingham International (which will be the Newcastle to Reading service

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Jun 2021 ==

3 or 4 what

Trains per hour instead of 9 trains per hour for WCP

 

[waverley47]

OK, but do you mean remove them from the conventional lines? Also i wondered will the crosscountry route be benefitted from the released capacity....

When you build a high speed railway, you are trying to solve two different problems.

The first, which is what a lot of new build high speed lines try for (where there wasn't previously a line) is to cut journey times. This can attract air passengers onto rail, can speed up journeys, and offer new journeys. The channel tunnel and HS1 fall into this category.

The second category is capacity reasons, and usually these are built where an existing line is already full. HS2 falls into this category. You take off the highest speed trains, and put them onto their own tracks. These fast trains can run faster on new, dedicated infrastructure, and they don't get held up at flat junctions or stuck behind a freight. Journey times improve.

But as a side effect, you've removed all the high speed trains from a full railway. The remaining trains are slower, they all stop at the same places, and you don't have to get out of the way of fast trains any more. Suddenly, you can run a lot more trains on the existing route, be it freight or passenger trains.

HS2 will remove all the long distance, high speed passenger trains full of intercity passengers, and put them on their own line. The space freed up can benefit container trains from the haven ports, or local journeys from Manchester to Birmingham, or a cleaner timetable for London commuters.

Crosscountry benefits because a lot of the faster trains have gone. There is more space at Birmingham for their trains, less other trains to fit around. Also, when the lines to Manchester and Leeds open, a lot of the intercity passengers will.love onto HS2, meaning the existing trains can stop more often and carry more medium distance journeys, such as Sheffield to Leeds.

 

[Stephen Lee]

When you build a high speed railway, you are trying to solve two different problems.

The first, which is what a lot of new build high speed lines try for (where there wasn't previously a line) is to cut journey times. This can attract air passengers onto rail, can speed up journeys, and offer new journeys. The channel tunnel and HS1 fall into this category.

The second category is capacity reasons, and usually these are built where an existing line is already full. HS2 falls into this category. You take off the highest speed trains, and put them onto their own tracks. These fast trains can run faster on new, dedicated infrastructure, and they don't get held up at flat junctions or stuck behind a freight. Journey times improve.

But as a side effect, you've removed all the high speed trains from a full railway. The remaining trains are slower, they all stop at the same places, and you don't have to get out of the way of fast trains any more. Suddenly, you can run a lot more trains on the existing route, be it freight or passenger trains.

HS2 will remove all the long distance, high speed passenger trains full of intercity passengers, and put them on their own line. The space freed up can benefit container trains from the haven ports, or local journeys from Manchester to Birmingham, or a cleaner timetable for London commuters.

Crosscountry benefits because a lot of the faster trains have gone. There is more space at Birmingham for their trains, less other trains to fit around. Also, when the lines to Manchester and Leeds open, a lot of the intercity passengers will.love onto HS2, meaning the existing trains can stop more often and carry more medium distance journeys, such as Sheffield to Leeds.

OK, btw anyone have the service pattern pre-HS2?

 

[waverley47]

OK, btw anyone have the service pattern pre-HS2?

The current service pattern is constantly in flux with unlocking and various engineering works, but for a pre pandemic service pattern try the map on this thread.

 

[Stephen Lee]

When you build a high speed railway, you are trying to solve two different problems.

The first, which is what a lot of new build high speed lines try for (where there wasn't previously a line) is to cut journey times. This can attract air passengers onto rail, can speed up journeys, and offer new journeys. The channel tunnel and HS1 fall into this category.

The second category is capacity reasons, and usually these are built where an existing line is already full. HS2 falls into this category. You take off the highest speed trains, and put them onto their own tracks. These fast trains can run faster on new, dedicated infrastructure, and they don't get held up at flat junctions or stuck behind a freight. Journey times improve.

But as a side effect, you've removed all the high speed trains from a full railway. The remaining trains are slower, they all stop at the same places, and you don't have to get out of the way of fast trains any more. Suddenly, you can run a lot more trains on the existing route, be it freight or passenger trains.

HS2 will remove all the long distance, high speed passenger trains full of intercity passengers, and put them on their own line. The space freed up can benefit container trains from the haven ports, or local journeys from Manchester to Birmingham, or a cleaner timetable for London commuters.

Crosscountry benefits because a lot of the faster trains have gone. There is more space at Birmingham for their trains, less other trains to fit around. Also, when the lines to Manchester and Leeds open, a lot of the intercity passengers will.love onto HS2, meaning the existing trains can stop more often and carry more medium distance journeys, such as Sheffield to Leeds.

With the Bordesley Chords being built, I believe Birmingham New Street will become less crowded.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Jun 2021 ==

Just ask a question -- is the crosscountry route crowded and busy???

 

[D365]

Just ask a question -- is the crosscountry route crowded and busy???

In normal times - yes. Very.

 

[waverley47]

With the Bordesley Chords being built, I believe Birmingham New Street will become less crowded.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Jun 2021 ==

Just ask a question -- is the crosscountry route crowded and busy???

There is a lovely thread going on currently about the (fairly well documented at this point) ongoing capacity issues on crosscountry. While that threat looks at the benefits or drawbacks of cutting XC north of Leeds, it's a useful insight into the headache that is XC.

And the bordesley chords haven't been signed off yet. It's best to assume that everything that hasn't yet been agreed to by the DfT isn't going to happen. While yes, they may help overcrowding at Birmingham New Street after they're built, they still have to be built first.

 

[zwk500]

With the Bordesley Chords being built, I believe Birmingham New Street will become less crowded.

It won't become less crowded, it will stop it from becoming even more so. If it's even built, which as @waverley47 says is very much not confirmed yet.

 

[NoRoute]

You cut back existing long-distance fast services that the high-speed ones now fulfil and thus free paths on the conventional line(s).

A lot of high speed services stop at one or two intermediate stations along their route, providing those cities and towns with a high speed service. If you cut the high speed services by shifting them to HS2, many towns and cities along the route will actually end up with a worse service. There will be more capacity, but it comes at the cost of fewer and slower services at your local station which isn't good for attracting people to use the train.

But as a side effect, you've removed all the high speed trains from a full railway. The remaining trains are slower, they all stop at the same places, and you don't have to get out of the way of fast trains any more. Suddenly, you can run a lot more trains on the existing route, be it freight or passenger trains.

HS2 will remove all the long distance, high speed passenger trains full of intercity passengers, and put them on their own line. The space freed up can benefit container trains from the haven ports, or local journeys from Manchester to Birmingham, or a cleaner timetable for London commuters.

I think that's a major simplification though because many of those high speed trains also serve at least one or two stations along their route, stations which are not served by HS2. So if all of the high speed services are in effect removed, then a significant number of towns and cities will find themselves with a combination or either much slower, or less frequent services.

Also the stopping pattern issues will remain, HS2 only serves a small number of cities, there's lots of cities which will still depend on the existing network and will need fast services stopping at only the major stations and the slower stopping services, so HS2 may help a bit but it won't remove the problem.

 

[waverley47]

A lot of high speed services stop at one or two intermediate stations along their route, providing those cities and towns with a high speed service. If you cut the high speed services by shifting them to HS2, many towns and cities along the route will actually end up with a worse service. There will be more capacity, but it comes at the cost of fewer and slower services at your local station which isn't good for attracting people to use the train.



I think that's a major simplification though because many of those high speed trains also serve at least one or two stations along their route, stations which are not served by HS2. So if all of the high speed services are in effect removed, then a significant number of towns and cities will find themselves with a combination or either much slower, or less frequent services.

Also the stopping pattern issues will remain, HS2 only serves a small number of cities, there's lots of cities which will still depend on the existing network and will need fast services stopping at only the major stations and the slower stopping services, so HS2 may help a bit but it won't remove the problem.

This is an argument I actually hear a lot, that intermediate stations will lose out due to HS2. With the risk of going off topic, although this is speculative anyway, I feel it's probably good to go through it.

Firstly, what there is already. Of the 17 services per hour leaving Euston, six go to Birmingham and 3 go to Manchester. There are also 2tph from Marylebone to Birmingham. That's half the trains leaving from Euston every hour going to either Birmingham or Manchester.

Each of those services makes on average three intermediate stops. Crewe, Milton Keynes, Stockport, Coventry and Birmingham International all feature prominently, although West Midlands Trains (WMT) make a number of other stops at smaller stations.

If we remove all the fast services, as they're moving to HS2 (3tph to each of Birmingham and Manchester) some stations inevitably lose out more than others. Stoke, International, Stockport and Coventry lose all their London stops, but everywhere else keeps some London services. But, and this is a big but, HS2 still serves Manchester airport and Birmingham International.

Indeed, many intermediate stations will now find it significantly quicker to travel to their nearest HS2 stop for a service to London than their existing services are. Coventry loses 3tph direct to London, but gains 5tph to London taking 45 minutes from ten minutes up the railway. Stockport loses their direct services, but gains 4tph from Manchester airport, taking half the time.

We lose some calls on fast services at intermediate stations, but those intermediate stations still have fast (much faster in fact) London services from a nearby station.

HS2 doesn't just move fast London services though, it also improves intermediate journeys as well. As mentioned above, about half the trains leaving Euston every hour go to Manchester or Birmingham. A vase majority of passengers on those trains are going end to end, and therefore their journeys are improved.

But not all of those passengers go end to end, so how does it benefit intermediate stations?

We'll, all those paths taken up by fast trains are now empty. They don't need to cater for journey times any more, as the fastest trains have all gone. Suddenly your 6tph super fast services can be replaced by 3tph stoppers and 3tph semi-fasts. Places like Rugby and Milton Keynes will find lots more trains stopping there, and therefore gain a lot more connectivity. Journeys between intermediate stations get easier; instead of 2tph all stations between Coventry and Watford, you might have 4tph semi fasts. Yes, places like Rugby lose 1tph fast to London, but they gain 2tph semi fast that takes only 15 minutes more.

HS2 isn't about speed for intermediate journeys. It's about end to end intercity speed, as well as intermediate capacity.

 

[NoRoute]

Firstly, what there is already. Of the 17 services per hour leaving Euston, six go to Birmingham and 3 go to Manchester. There are also 2tph from Marylebone to Birmingham. That's half the trains leaving from Euston every hour going to either Birmingham or Manchester.

Each of those services makes on average three intermediate stops. Crewe, Milton Keynes, Stockport, Coventry and Birmingham International all feature prominently, although West Midlands Trains (WMT) make a number of other stops at smaller stations.

Some of the services from the North West stop at Trent Valley stations so I'm guessing these may be affected as well.

Indeed, many intermediate stations will now find it significantly quicker to travel to their nearest HS2 stop for a service to London than their existing services are. Coventry loses 3tph direct to London, but gains 5tph to London taking 45 minutes from ten minutes up the railway. Stockport loses their direct services, but gains 4tph from Manchester airport, taking half the time.

But that depends on what services remain to connect those towns and cities to the HS2 stations, for example will Coventry still have regular fast services to Birmingham International? If these become stopping services, then it's just under 20 minutes from Coventry to International, add in some time to get to and board HS2 and it's no quicker than the current service. Even with current services it'll be marginal, for Rugby probably worse.

Same with lots of other stations, particularly those further from HS2, by the time you've travelled to the nearest HS2 hub the time saving has gone.

We lose some calls on fast services at intermediate stations, but those intermediate stations still have fast (much faster in fact) London services from a nearby station.

I don't think you can claim that because it depends on the particular station, the future travel time to their nearest HS2 station. For some intermediate stations travel times are likely to get longer.

We'll, all those paths taken up by fast trains are now empty. They don't need to cater for journey times any more, as the fastest trains have all gone. Suddenly your 6tph super fast services can be replaced by 3tph stoppers and 3tph semi-fasts. Places like Rugby and Milton Keynes will find lots more trains stopping there, and therefore gain a lot more connectivity. Journeys between intermediate stations get easier; instead of 2tph all stations between Coventry and Watford, you might have 4tph semi fasts. Yes, places like Rugby lose 1tph fast to London, but they gain 2tph semi fast that takes only 15 minutes more.

HS2 isn't about speed for intermediate journeys. It's about end to end intercity speed, as well as intermediate capacity.

I think that is likely to be proven wrong because it won't be economic to run all those trains. If you take away all of the end to end traffic then the passenger volumes carried along the conventional network, passing those intermediate stations will be lower, when it is serving only the volumes to or from the intermediate stations they won't justify such frequent services. So I think the effect will be the opposite, with the bulk of the end to end passenger volume gone, moved to HS2, the remaining services will be reduced to serve the lower remaining passenger volumes, they'll be slower, more stopping services and less frequent.

HS2 frees up capacity but it also takes away passengers and subsidy/funding which then makes the economics of the remaining network and services more challenging.

 

[waverley47]

Some of the services from the North West stop at Trent Valley stations so I'm guessing these may be affected as well.


But that depends on what services remain to connect those towns and cities to the HS2 stations, for example will Coventry still have regular fast services to Birmingham International? If these become stopping services, then it's just under 20 minutes from Coventry to International, add in some time to get to and board HS2 and it's no quicker than the current service. Even with current services it'll be marginal, for Rugby probably worse.

Same with lots of other stations, particularly those further from HS2, by the time you've travelled to the nearest HS2 hub the time saving has gone.



I don't think you can claim that because it depends on the particular station, the future travel time to their nearest HS2 station. For some intermediate stations travel times are likely to get longer.



I think that is likely to be proven wrong because it won't be economic to run all those trains. If you take away all of the end to end traffic then the passenger volumes carried along the conventional network, passing those intermediate stations will be lower, when it is serving only the volumes to or from the intermediate stations they won't justify such frequent services. So I think the effect will be the opposite, with the bulk of the end to end passenger volume gone, moved to HS2, the remaining services will be reduced to serve the lower remaining passenger volumes, they'll be slower, more stopping services and less frequent.

HS2 frees up capacity but it also takes away passengers and subsidy/funding which then makes the economics of the remaining network and services more challenging.

Eh, kind of. You seem to have a slightly too pessimistic view of the WCML service pattern post HS2, which in all honesty probably balanced my fairly optimistic one.

Noone knows what the post HS2 service pattern on the WCML will be. I've personally read about fifteen government reports outlining prospective service patterns (and contributed to about seven of those), and each report outlined a different timetable.

So, what do we know. There is a policy of 'no net loss' for most of the rail network these days, so we can assume that any two platform station with a max of 2tph will probably stay at or above that level. Places like Long Buckby, Stone or Tamworth aren't going to lose anything when HS2 comes; it would be too politically sensitive and you won't save anything by removing 1tph semi.fast from much of the network.

There isn't going to be a culling of existing stopping services or semi-fast services anywhere on the network, because the demand that made those services feasible before HS2 will still be there.

HS2 removes fast services, the majority of passengers on which are end to end. By removing these services, you don't suddenly remove the semi-fast services that also exist, nor do.you remove demand from intermediate stations. All that goes are the big, bulk flows of passengers from one end of a journey to the other. The grand sum of these flows is Manchester or Birmingham to London.

So, the only places that stand to lose are reasonably big places, that currently enjoy lots of stops because of geographical happenstance, but wouldn't justify 2tph from London on their own. These places have to be served by the Avanti high speed services, as those are the ones getting replaced.

A list of those places would go something like this:

Milton Keynes
Coventry
Birmingham international
Crewe

Watford junction won't lose out, as most semi-fasts already stop there, and you're not going to lose any semi-fast services. Rugby, Northampton, Trent Valley stations, and Stafford fall in the same boat. Existing services that stop there aren't going, all that's going are the fast services that fly through at 125mph.

Crewe won't lose out because it will continue to be a junction, and enjoys artificially high device levels anyway.

Birmingham international loses 3tph fast to London, but gains HS2 on its doorstep.

Coventry loses 3tph to London, but gains trains on HS2 that are the same journey time give or take. It still keeps trains to London, only these trains are semi fasts and take approximately 30 minutes longer.

Milton Keynes loses 3tph fast to London, but that doesn't really affect anything. Avanti/Virgin always tried to have Milton Keynes as a set down southbound/pick up northbound anyway, and even then the journey time goes up by about fifteen minutes. More interesting is the loss of 3tph fast northbound, and is the only discernable net loss from HS2.

Nowhere directly loses out (Milton Keynes northbound passengers aside). You don't just remove the fast trains and leave the empty space on the network. The current WMT provision is the minimum service level for after HS2, not the end result. HS2 will make a very, very small selection of journeys more difficult, and an even smaller number of journeys longer. You have to remember, that it may be quicker for a Milton Keynes northbound passenger to travel into Euston and back northbound on HS2.

HS2 isn't about moving trains onto their own dedicated tracks, it's about moving journeys into those tracks. By moving the fast journeys, you still have the intermediate trips or commuting journeys, and you still need the slower trains to support those.

Your assumption that HS2 will lead to a culling of trains at local stations is at best unfounded. The pandemic may have lessened commuting traffic into London, but HS2 won't. The infrastructure is still there, and there will still be trains to run on the WCML. All that changes is those trains are slightly slower, not getting gummed up in fast trains, and are more geared towards capacity and acceleration than top speed.

 

[SteelWeelApeal]

A lot of high speed services stop at one or two intermediate stations along their route, providing those cities and towns with a high speed service. If you cut the high speed services by shifting them to HS2, many towns and cities along the route will actually end up with a worse service. There will be more capacity, but it comes at the cost of fewer and slower services at your local station which isn't good for attracting people to use the train.



I think that's a major simplification though because many of those high speed trains also serve at least one or two stations along their route, stations which are not served by HS2. So if all of the high speed services are in effect removed, then a significant number of towns and cities will find themselves with a combination or either much slower, or less frequent services.

Also the stopping pattern issues will remain, HS2 only serves a small number of cities, there's lots of cities which will still depend on the existing network and will need fast services stopping at only the major stations and the slower stopping services, so HS2 may help a bit but it won't remove the problem.

That will indeed be the case for a very small number of stations, but even then, it is not as bad as you make it sound. Coventry is the main one I can think of, together with maybe Leicester. Coventry will get a slightly slower direct service to London, as instead of stopping once before Euston, trains will probably stop at most/all of the principle stations (Rugby, Milton Keynes, Watford Junction, perhaps Northampton). Even then, the journey won’t be that much slower, and the trains will be much less crowded. Perhaps there will be two instead of three fast train per hour, but then perhaps there’ll also be an extra semi-fast/stopper, it’s hard to know. However, a much larger number of stations where trains currently pass through without stopping (e.g. Watford Junction, Milton Keynes, Rugby, Nuneaton, Tamworth, the list goes on) will get far more frequent, far less crowded, but sometimes slightly slower services. This also ignores the fact that therell be far better connections between these places, and many will benefit in other ways from HS2 (e.g. Coventry potentially having more XC services to the north and south).

You‘re right that the stopping pattern issues won’t be resolved completely, but they will be significantly improved on many lines. Having all ”fast” (non-HS2) trains stopping at all/most significant towns/cities, with much more similar stopping patterns than today, will inevitably mean more paths, as trains won’t catch up to each other.

 

[The Ham]

OK, but do you mean remove them from the conventional lines? Also i wondered will the crosscountry route be benefitted from the released capacity....

As an example, although it would require changes of train, the journey time from Southampton or Reading would be similar via HS2 as it is to Birmingham, however travel to Manchester, Leeds, York, Newcastle, etc. would be about an hour fthere..

Whilst there may not be all that many who make such long journeys on XC, it would provide some capacity relief. That's before you consider travel between Birmingham and other major cities will be much faster, which is likely to be where there's much more capacity relief.

In addition by removing some of the fast services from the likes of Manchester (chances are, as others have said rather than calling at a handful of stations they'll call at a handful more, such as a service running Manchester to London via Nuneaton and Coventry - where such a service would still see a fast London - Coventry service but also opens up direct journeys which otherwise don't exist) that then frees up platform space at Manchester to allow other services to be longer.

If you remove 1 service and replace it with a longer XC service (say 9 coaches) you've still got the platform space which the 5 coach Voyager took up before, so you lengthen a 3 coach service to 5, but you've still got the space from the 3 coach train, so you can lengthen another 3 coach service to 5 coaches. That's 3 services which now have more capacity than they did before.

Only that's not the end of the story, as the IC trains tend to sit around for longer, with a bit of a recast chances are another service could be lengthened.

Then there's the potential to run a pair of trains to Coventry and split it to two services, one to Manchester and one to Birmingham.

That then means that the new Manchester service is shorter, allowing you to then use that platform capacity too.

It also means that for some there's then no need to go to Birmingham to then get to Manchester, further releasing capacity on XC services.

Whilst it would have been good to know what the future timetable would look like, it wouldn't be very useful in other regards. For instance Coventry has seen a significant growth in passenger numbers since 2009, as such if a timetable was written then it would have likely seen a lower level of service than it now deserves.

Also it's worth noting that every time there's a change in the network there's a chance that it allows something new to happen.

For instance if you have more electrification that could allow a through train so as to free up capacity at the major city station which otherwise is blocked for 30 minutes by having an intercity train terminate there.

There's likely to be several things which happen which aren't obvious at the moment, for instance few realise that Southampton benefit from faster journey times (it's only because I've looked that I know) however chances are there'll be others who could cite other routes which start away from the HS2 network and don't rely on going via London which could also see benefits.

 

[NoRoute]

Eh, kind of. You seem to have a slightly too pessimistic view of the WCML service pattern post HS2, which in all honesty probably balanced my fairly optimistic one.

I think it's a difference of analysis, if you focus on the physical network and availability of capacity then removing high speed services and passengers helps, by free up capacity allowing the launch of new services, it makes sense from the perspective of timetabling and network operation, but that view doesn't consider the economics of the situation.

If you focus on it from the perspective of a business, then removing the high speed services and their passengers means removing large numbers of highly revenue generating customers, possibly many of your most valuable customers, who were using and paying toward the cost of the infrastructure and losing them is pretty much entirely bad. You've now got this network which is carrying fewer high value passengers, earning less money and while new services might recover that a bit, it's unlikely to fully compensate. So there isn't going to be the revenue to fund lots of extra services, or significant future investment into that network, that business has shrunk.

If you have a business and a new competitor comes along and creams off your most valuable customers, that isn't good. It's only good if you ignore the economics and assume you get the same revenue or government support, in reality it doesn't work like that for businesses and it won't work like that for rail.

You don't just remove the fast trains and leave the empty space on the network.

If you've moved a large proportion of passengers onto HS2 and these are not replaced by new passengers, then empty space will be left on the network because it isn't economically viable to fill it. Empty space is worthless unless you have unserved passengers wanting to travel in sufficient numbers to justify adding new services to use that capacity. Of course if you don't, then ultimately that excess capacity gets rationalised by downgrading the infrastructure.

 

[AM9]

I think it's a difference of analysis, if you focus on the physical network and availability of capacity then removing high speed services and passengers helps, by free up capacity allowing the launch of new services, it makes sense from the perspective of timetabling and network operation, but that view doesn't consider the economics of the situation.

If you focus on it from the perspective of a business, then removing the high speed services and their passengers means removing large numbers of highly revenue generating customers, possibly many of your most valuable customers, who were using and paying toward the cost of the infrastructure and losing them is pretty much entirely bad. You've now got this network which is carrying fewer high value passengers, earning less money and while new services might recover that a bit, it's unlikely to fully compensate. So there isn't going to be the revenue to fund lots of extra services, or significant future investment into that network, that business has shrunk.

If you have a business and a new competitor comes along and creams off your most valuable customers, that isn't good. It's only good if you ignore the economics and assume you get the same revenue or government support, in reality it doesn't work like that for businesses and it won't work like that for rail.


If you've moved a large proportion of passengers onto HS2 and these are not replaced by new passengers, then empty space will be left on the network because it isn't economically viable to fill it. Empty space is worthless unless you have unserved passengers wanting to travel in sufficient numbers to justify adding new services to use that capacity. Of course if you don't, then ultimately that excess capacity gets rationalised by downgrading the infrastructure.

All pretty negative stuff there when viewed in the vacuum of existing (even 2019) passenger levels and flow patterns. Stand back and look at the other forces on the horizon:

1) HS2 will encourage inter-city passengers to move from their existing modes, (air, cars) onto trains where the additional time savings present a gain (particularly high value business travellers).
2) The rapid move to EVs will to a degree discourage long non-stop road trips by some (a practice that can be regarded as potentially unsafe for other road users) and some will turn to rail.
3) The availability of paths on the existing main lines will make service planning easier when trying to match actual journey requirements (as opposed to those inconvenienced by non-stop trains starving their local stations of slots for trains to stop).
4) There will be more paths available for freight, when it gets pushed off trunk roads.

When HS2 is launched, there will be a period (maybe 3-5 years) where the timetables of all services, - including HS2 ones, are tweaked to match travel flows. Those travel flows will also develop, so making assumptions about how they will stabilise is pointless without looking at the whole picture.

 

[lachlan]

I think it's a difference of analysis, if you focus on the physical network and availability of capacity then removing high speed services and passengers helps, by free up capacity allowing the launch of new services, it makes sense from the perspective of timetabling and network operation, but that view doesn't consider the economics of the situation.

If you focus on it from the perspective of a business, then removing the high speed services and their passengers means removing large numbers of highly revenue generating customers, possibly many of your most valuable customers, who were using and paying toward the cost of the infrastructure and losing them is pretty much entirely bad. You've now got this network which is carrying fewer high value passengers, earning less money and while new services might recover that a bit, it's unlikely to fully compensate. So there isn't going to be the revenue to fund lots of extra services, or significant future investment into that network, that business has shrunk.

If you have a business and a new competitor comes along and creams off your most valuable customers, that isn't good. It's only good if you ignore the economics and assume you get the same revenue or government support, in reality it doesn't work like that for businesses and it won't work like that for rail.


If you've moved a large proportion of passengers onto HS2 and these are not replaced by new passengers, then empty space will be left on the network because it isn't economically viable to fill it. Empty space is worthless unless you have unserved passengers wanting to travel in sufficient numbers to justify adding new services to use that capacity. Of course if you don't, then ultimately that excess capacity gets rationalised by downgrading the infrastructure.

You're looking at HS2 and the rest of the railway network as two separate networks when in reality services will run on HS2 and then transfer on to the existing network further north. This is a case of chicken and egg, add the extra services and increase frequencies and more people will travel. It's also time we started using rail freight more, for environmental reasons, even if it's not the cheapest option.

 

[Purple Orange]

What do people think buiłding the eastern branch in a ‘smarter way’ and much faster really means? It’s great news that the eastern branch has backing, but I’m suspicious it means a downgrade in some way shape or form compared to the current HS2 design.

 

[lachlan]

What do people think buiłding the eastern branch in a ‘smarter way’ and much faster really means? It’s great news that the eastern branch has backing, but I’m suspicious it means a downgrade in some way shape or form compared to the current HS2 design.

Could we see the original plans to stop at Meadowhall reinstated? It could also see a re-jig of Leeds to allow through running. While I share your suspicions I'm holding out hope it won't be a negative.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What do people think buiłding the eastern branch in a ‘smarter way’ and much faster really means? It’s great news that the eastern branch has backing, but I’m suspicious it means a downgrade in some way shape or form compared to the current HS2 design.

"a cheaper way"?

 

[Bald Rick]

Coventry loses 3tph to London, but gains trains on HS2 that are the same journey time give or take. It still keeps trains to London, only these trains are semi fasts and take approximately 30 minutes longer.

Milton Keynes loses 3tph fast to London, but that doesn't really affect anything.

Please read the HS2 full business case and service provision documents. The assumed service pattern is:

Coventry will retain 2tph ‘fast’ services to London that will call intermediately at only 2 stations - MK and one of Watford / Rugby. Coventry will also have a further 3 ‘semi fast’ services via Northampton, one of which will call only at 4 intermediate stations. Given the trains will be relieved of most of their West Midlands passengers, they will be emptier. I’d regard this as a pretty good service.

Milton Keynes will have more fast services than today (6 vs 5), 3 non stop and 3 calling at Watford. Plus a further 3 ‘semi fast’, one of which calls only at Bletchley and Leighton Buzzard (as today).

What do people think buiłding the eastern branch in a ‘smarter way’ and much faster really means? It’s great news that the eastern branch has backing, but I’m suspicious it means a downgrade in some way shape or form compared to the current HS2 design.

Shorter?

 

[Grumpy Git]

"a cheaper way"?

.... which normally ends up cosing more!

 

[hexagon789]

A

Well I didn't mean all of them, but you would cut the limited stop ones and move to more a system of long-distance semi-fasts to continue to provide connections at smaller stations and those not served by the high-speed network.

 

[WideRanger]

What do people think buiłding the eastern branch in a ‘smarter way’ and much faster really means? It’s great news that the eastern branch has backing, but I’m suspicious it means a downgrade in some way shape or form compared to the current HS2 design.

Could this be a possibility? Through to just south of Trent Junction, with one branch going up the (four-tracked) Erewash Valley to Sheffield and one branch going through Nottingham to Newark, with a link onto the East Coast Main Line for locations North of Sheffield. Combined with full electrification of the Midland Main Line, and speed enhancements on the lines taken over. If that happened, I suspect it would mean 1) rebuilds of Ilkeston and Langley Mill, whose platforms seem to be on the 'wrong' side of the trackbed, 2) possible four-tracking from Trent Junction to where 4 tracking starts just past Beeston, 3) Closure of stations between Nottingham and Newark.

Don't know how much cheaper all of that would be than just building it as planned.