Alternatives to HS2

[Altfish]

If the old GCR still existed it may have been best used to take freight off the main lines, plus some local services.

 

[glbotu]

If the old GCR still existed it may have been best used to take freight off the main lines, plus some local services.

Sure, if it still existed, it could have taken some freight off the WCML, but it wouldn't be worth re-opening for freight paths and locals.

Currently, there are 4 freight paths an hour on the WCML south of Rugby each way where the GC and WCML meet. I'm quite happy to be creative and suggest we actually have a line to route the freight from the WCML to the GC at Rugby and additionally onto the Dudding Hill route from the North, as well as paths available between Amersham and Rickmansworth. Of those paths, two of those are to Wembley Freightliner Terminal. Those, we can't take off the South WCML. So now, we have 2 tph which, let's say, we can route off the WCML. The only decently sized settlement between Rugby and Aylesbury is Brackley, so an hourly local service would probably do.

Let's say each freight path allows an extra 2 local services on the WCML. For the South WCML, you've now added 2 tph between Rugby and Euston as well as 1 tph between Rugby and Marylebone (we'll just extend the Aylesbury Vale service).

Compare this to taking all 9 tph fast off the WCML, you're not even scratching the surface.

 

[Altfish]

Sure, if it still existed, it could have taken some freight off the WCML, but it wouldn't be worth re-opening for freight paths and locals.

Currently, there are 4 freight paths an hour on the WCML south of Rugby each way where the GC and WCML meet. I'm quite happy to be creative and suggest we actually have a line to route the freight from the WCML to the GC at Rugby and additionally onto the Dudding Hill route from the North, as well as paths available between Amersham and Rickmansworth. Of those paths, two of those are to Wembley Freightliner Terminal. Those, we can't take off the South WCML. So now, we have 2 tph which, let's say, we can route off the WCML. The only decently sized settlement between Rugby and Aylesbury is Brackley, so an hourly local service would probably do.

Let's say each freight path allows an extra 2 local services on the WCML. For the South WCML, you've now added 2 tph between Rugby and Euston as well as 1 tph between Rugby and Marylebone (we'll just extend the Aylesbury Vale service).

Compare this to taking all 9 tph fast off the WCML, you're not even scratching the surface.

I wasn't suggesting it!
Just pointing out that it was a probable use for it

 

[The Ham]

Sure, if it still existed, it could have taken some freight off the WCML, but it wouldn't be worth re-opening for freight paths and locals.

Currently, there are 4 freight paths an hour on the WCML south of Rugby each way where the GC and WCML meet. I'm quite happy to be creative and suggest we actually have a line to route the freight from the WCML to the GC at Rugby and additionally onto the Dudding Hill route from the North, as well as paths available between Amersham and Rickmansworth. Of those paths, two of those are to Wembley Freightliner Terminal. Those, we can't take off the South WCML. So now, we have 2 tph which, let's say, we can route off the WCML. The only decently sized settlement between Rugby and Aylesbury is Brackley, so an hourly local service would probably do.

Let's say each freight path allows an extra 2 local services on the WCML. For the South WCML, you've now added 2 tph between Rugby and Euston as well as 1 tph between Rugby and Marylebone (we'll just extend the Aylesbury Vale service).

Compare this to taking all 9 tph fast off the WCML, you're not even scratching the surface.

It's not just taking 9tph off the WCML but also removing the desire for more long distance services in the future, as the HS2 versions of those trains will be 400m long trains rather than circa 265 long meaning on just a like for like seating capacity (i.e. 2.22 seats per metre of train) the 400m trains would have 888 seats vs 589 which the current 11 coach 390's have (or 50% extra capacity plus whatever extra capacity is provided on the existing line by services using the express train paths).

That is why regardless of what is suggested unless there is a new line the scope for future growth just won't cut it. In that we might just about be able to scrape out 50% on the express services if we find one or two more paths and/or lengthen every train to 12 coaches and/or make them standard class only trains. However, that is 10 years of growth at 4% a year. It could be enough to see if passenger numbers are going to fall in the next few years, but it won't be enough to not need to build a new line if passenger numbers don't fall.

However that would require a new fleet of at least 10 new 12 coach tilt enabled trains to release enough coaches to lengthen the existing fleet to 12 coaches, for what? 10 years of use? (OK you may be able to build a few less new units if the existing units are reformed to 6 and 12 coach versions, but then you may want more if you use the 6 coach versions to retire the some of the 221's).

 

[Voglitz]

It's not just taking 9tph off the WCML but also removing the desire for more long distance services in the future, as the HS2 versions of those trains will be 400m long trains rather than circa 265 long meaning on just a like for like seating capacity (i.e. 2.22 seats per metre of train) the 400m trains would have 888 seats vs 589 which the current 11 coach 390's have (or 50% extra capacity plus whatever extra capacity is provided on the existing line by services using the express train paths).

That is why regardless of what is suggested unless there is a new line the scope for future growth just won't cut it.

What does "scope for future growth" actually mean?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Currently, there are 4 freight paths an hour on the WCML south of Rugby each way where the GC and WCML meet.

Are there 4 freight trains an hour on the WCML south of Rugby each way where the GC and WCML meet? And can you explain why it's a good idea to run freight trains from Felixstowe, southwards to London, and then north again, past Rugby?

 

[The Planner]

You wouldn't if we sorted out Felixstowe to Nuneaton to a proper extent (but that doesn't help you with DIRFT or the planned freight terminals south of Northampton)

 

[Chester1]

What does "scope for future growth" actually mean?

The amount of potential capacity available to cope with increase in passenger numbers. The alternatives to HS2 would provide extra capacity but even combined they do not provide as much extra capacity.

HS2 and not doing HS2 are both risks. If we build HS2 and passenger growth stops then a great amount of taxpayers money could be wasted. If we don't build HS2 and pasenger growth continues then we will have a rail network were four mainlines are completely overloaded. My view is passenger numbers in 2026-2033 will be at worst sufficient to justify 16 200m long services because that is only slightly more than capacity than currently provided by the services they will replace. In this situation allot of train paths into London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds will become available for new local services.

 

[Chris125]

I should have been clearer in my previous post regarding the London Extension of the GCR.

I believe that the London Extension was designed with the stations having island platforms and wide road overbridges so as the track could be moved slightly away from the platform edge so as to allow wider trains to run.

Could somebody clarify if that was the case indeed?

Everything I've read by people who looked into the idea of a 'continental loading gauge' suggests nothing more than an urban myth.

 

[Philip Elliott]

Compare this to taking all 9 tph fast off the WCML, you're not even scratching the surface.

Where do you get this nonsense from? There will be plenty of express trains post HS2 - to Rugby, Coventry & Wolverhampton, to Stoke & Macclesfield, to Chester & North Wales and to Trent Valley stations

 

[Class 170101]

You wouldn't if we sorted out Felixstowe to Nuneaton to a proper extent (but that doesn't help you with DIRFT or the planned freight terminals south of Northampton)

And that's not happening any time soon. Ely North, Soham redoubling and Haughley Jn Redoubling all delayed indefinitely in the last couple of years.

 

[185]

oops wrong thread

 

[The Ham]

Where do you get this nonsense from? There will be plenty of express trains post HS2 - to Rugby, Coventry & Wolverhampton, to Stoke & Macclesfield, to Chester & North Wales and to Trent Valley stations

Of all the services on the WCML, there are those like you list that won't be able to use HS2, but there are those services which don't stop much on the WCML or at least don't stop on the southern end which could switch to HS2 without altering the stations that they serve. It is those that firm the 9 express which will be removed from the WCML. That is not to say that there won't be any edited services left on the WCML.

 

[absolutelymilk]

Of all the services on the WCML, there are those like you list that won't be able to use HS2, but there are those services which don't stop much on the WCML or at least don't stop on the southern end which could switch to HS2 without altering the stations that they serve. It is those that firm the 9 express which will be removed from the WCML. That is not to say that there won't be any edited services left on the WCML.

By my reckoning, 3 to Birmingham (including the one that then goes to Glasgow), 3 to Manchester, 1 to Liverpool, 1 to Glasgow. The 1tph to Chester/North Wales will presumably stay on the WCML (unless the North Wales Coast line is electrified?).

However, some of these will presumably be replaced by stopping services, and indeed the projected service pattern on page 44 and 45 of the 2013 report has 7tph (2 of which are directional peak hours only)

 

[Chester1]

By my reckoning, 3 to Birmingham (including the one that then goes to Glasgow), 3 to Manchester, 1 to Liverpool, 1 to Glasgow. The 1tph to Chester/North Wales will presumably stay on the WCML (unless the North Wales Coast line is electrified?).

However, some of these will presumably be replaced by stopping services, and indeed the projected service pattern on page 44 and 45 of the 2013 report has 7tph (2 of which are directional peak hours only)

There is a good business case for electrifying Crewe to Chester and I think it will be done by 2033. After that the business case is very poor but it could be done for political reasons. Id expect a 2 hourly HS2 service to Chester being seperated and joined with Liverpool or Preston train for pathing reasons. North Wales will only need a 2 hourly service on the WCML, currently only one service per day along the coast is 10 coaches and the rest are 5.

I would guess that the London-Birmingham-Scotland service will be replaced by 110mph EMUs. Its not meant for end to end journeys and north of Preston the line speed is mostly 100mph or less. There is likely to be a huge effort to standardise rolling stock and stopping patterns to squeeze out extra paths. The remaining ICWC services don't fit into this and will likely be replaced or significantly changed.

 

[Philip Elliott]

Of all the services on the WCML, there are those like you list that won't be able to use HS2, but there are those services which don't stop much on the WCML or at least don't stop on the southern end which could switch to HS2 without altering the stations that they serve. It is those that firm the 9 express which will be removed from the WCML. That is not to say that there won't be any edited services left on the WCML.

When you read comments like that you realise the individual concerned hasn't a clue about the current timetable...

The xx.10, xx.20 and xx.43 departures off Euston stop at Milton Keynes.
The xx.23 stops at Watford Junction
The xx.03 stops at Rugby.

That is 5 out 9 or 4 that could move to HS2 without losing standard hours stops. 4 is considerably less 9....

 

[The Planner]

The Dec 2026 timetable will clearly be different though, stick the Watford and Rugby stops in other trains and you are up to 6.

 

[DunfordBridge]

How many times does it have to be pointed out that there is no capacity for them on the Brighton line, which is why they were binned after the XC franchise changes in 2007?

So why is all the money being invested in a line to Birmingham? I am sure the obvious response is that Birmingham is a contender for the second largest city but how much money could be freed by using slower trains on this route than what have been proposed?

Slower trains would also remove or reduce the necessity for straighter alignments.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The problems with the Great Central are numerous.

If it hadn't closed down in the first place, then sure, it would have been useful and someone would probably come up with a creative way of terminating the trains in London, and possibly increasing the line speed.

However, as it stands, the alignment barely allows for speeds above 80mph, and you only have two tracks into London for what would be a mixed-traffic line . Currently, Chiltern manage 14 tph into Marylebone in the morning peak, with nigh-on identical stock between Neasden South Junction and Marylebone.

Additionally, how do you deal with the problem the Great Central struggled with for the entirety of its 60 year life-span; how do you get passengers off the Midland, Great Northern and North-Western routes? Other than local services (which might be useful), the expresses just couldn't compete against what were otherwise better alignments.

Pardon my ignorance but what restrictions on line speed were imposed by the alignment of the Grand Central line? As you say, it could have been useful for local stoppers, maybe also as a freight artery.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Personally, I think it would be a major achievement if the Grand Central was extended from Aylesbury to join the West Coast Main Line at Rugby, even better if it could also join the national rail network just South of Leicester.

One question I have in my mind about HS2 is how are all these extra passengers going to descend onto the HS2 stations in Birmingham, Manchester, etc? The respective suburban rail networks for these cities are all going to have to be augmented but there may not be the money to do this with the investment focused on HS2 itself.

By the time HS2 is delivered, road congestion in these cities is going to be at saturation point, if not beforehand.

 

[class26]

So why is all the money being invested in a line to Birmingham? I am sure the obvious response is that Birmingham is a contender for the second largest city but how much money could be freed by using slower trains on this route than what have been proposed?


Birmingham IS the 2nd largest city by a mile. There is no other city that comes anywhere near the size of Birmingham on mainland Britain.

 

[najaB]

Birmingham IS the 2nd largest city by a mile. There is no other city that comes anywhere near the size of Birmingham on mainland Britain.

Depends on what you call Birmingham - in terms of urban areas, Greater Manchester is slightly larger (population wise) than the West Midlands Urban Area.

 

[HSTEd]

Where do you get this nonsense from? There will be plenty of express trains post HS2 - to Rugby, Coventry & Wolverhampton, to Stoke & Macclesfield, to Chester & North Wales and to Trent Valley stations

As I have demonstrated before - there is no need for more than one IC tph to Birmingham from London, and 1, possibly 2tph to Manchester.
No need for any Liverpool trains at all, and no need to any trains going anywhere north of Crewe.

It all adds up rather quickly.
LM can pick up most of the remaining slakc.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

When you read comments like that you realise the individual concerned hasn't a clue about the current timetable...

The xx.10, xx.20 and xx.43 departures off Euston stop at Milton Keynes.
The xx.23 stops at Watford Junction
The xx.03 stops at Rugby.

That is 5 out 9 or 4 that could move to HS2 without losing standard hours stops. 4 is considerably less 9....

One train can pick up Watford, Rugby and one of the stops at MKC.
That reduces it to 3 that "can't be removed" - and MKC stops can be added in on other trains to compensate for the loss of the remainder.

 

[TBirdFrank]

My daughter has been to the NEC from Manchester today - a routine and regular mainline traffic corridor.

She had to detrain at New St due to overcrowding and only got back on by being allowed into the crew area.

It's not HST fifteen years into the future we need - its a railway fit for purpose now!

The current UK franchise model with companies unable to man up and cater for additional but regular traffic flows will forever fail the travelling public and cause travellers to use the alternatives of motorway and air simply to make journeys because rail is so awful, and anyone who says otherwise is a fool.

Businesses are there to serve the needs of their customers, not their own internal aspirations. Fail in the former and there is no latter anyway, and that is why HS2 is the last thing we need just now.

 

[The Ham]

My daughter has been to the NEC from Manchester today - a routine and regular mainline traffic corridor.

She had to detrain at New St due to overcrowding and only got back on by being allowed into the crew area.

It's not HST fifteen years into the future we need - its a railway fit for purpose now!

The current UK franchise model with companies unable to man up and cater for additional but regular traffic flows will forever fail the travelling public and cause travellers to use the alternatives of motorway and air simply to make journeys because rail is so awful, and anyone who says otherwise is a fool.

Businesses are there to serve the needs of their customers, not their own internal aspirations. Fail in the former and there is no latter anyway, and that is why HS2 is the last thing we need just now.

Other than "shuffling deckchairs" anything that is going to make a real difference to the rail network is probably 15 years away anyway. As either you build a new line (which takes a long time) or you make improvements to the existing rail network one weekend at a time (which could take even longer and wouldn't bring much in the way of extra capacity.

The problem is that all the east upgrades (read quick) have already been done.

Standard only trains are only going to gain a (relatively) few extra seats and would be OK if rail growth was flat (in that we wouldn't need to find more seats again in a year or two's time.

If anything your argument is that HS2 should be built sooner (I.e. already started or given more resources to finish it sooner)...

 

[The Planner]

As I have demonstrated before - there is no need for more than one IC tph to Birmingham from London, and 1, possibly 2tph to Manchester.
No need for any Liverpool trains at all, and no need to any trains going anywhere north of Crewe.

It all adds up rather quickly.
LM can pick up most of the remaining slakc.

It is more likely to be the other way round, 2 to Brum 1 to Manchester. There will be a legacy service north of Crewe as well, that won't go.

 

[The Ham]

When you read comments like that you realise the individual concerned hasn't a clue about the current timetable...

The xx.10, xx.20 and xx.43 departures off Euston stop at Milton Keynes.
The xx.23 stops at Watford Junction
The xx.03 stops at Rugby.

That is 5 out 9 or 4 that could move to HS2 without losing standard hours stops. 4 is considerably less 9....

There are two questions that would need to be asked with regards to those services:
- would running the service so it didn't stop at those stations south of Birmingham mean that the express services was not viable to run?
- would there be enough passengers to run another train if you replaced the long distance service (I.e. north of Birmingham) with one that was focused on those stores?

The answer to the first is that it is unlikely make much of a difference to the business case for running the service.

The second is harder to answer, however given the example of XC running Penzance to Aberdeen it is likely that there would still be need to run long distance (I.e serving both north and south of Birmingham) services to continue. As such, there may not be 5tph with 9+ coaches. However, there could well be a LM style service running say 4tph with up to 8 coaches which may well as in one or two extra stops (read only a few minutes slower than the current express services).

That would be a fairly significant level of service and though not as good as present, it's not going to be too noticeable given that there is likely to be more available seats than the current situation (or at least after allowing for passenger growth, over crowding won't be any worse).

 

[quantinghome]

My daughter has been to the NEC from Manchester today - a routine and regular mainline traffic corridor.

She had to detrain at New St due to overcrowding and only got back on by being allowed into the crew area.

It's not HST fifteen years into the future we need - its a railway fit for purpose now!

The current UK franchise model with companies unable to man up and cater for additional but regular traffic flows will forever fail the travelling public and cause travellers to use the alternatives of motorway and air simply to make journeys because rail is so awful, and anyone who says otherwise is a fool.

Businesses are there to serve the needs of their customers, not their own internal aspirations. Fail in the former and there is no latter anyway, and that is why HS2 is the last thing we need just now.

I think we can all agree that more rolling stock would be helpful and that the current system of franchising has some serious deficiencies. We should also be able to agree, as other have posted, that major improvements to our railways will take time, whatever form they take.

Your example is a rather strange one to use if you are trying to argue against HS2. After all, HS2 plans include a new station right next to the NEC which will give most conurbations in the country direct access to it. Your cited example will become a 37 minute journey compared to 1:46 currently. As a direct journey, it will avoid central Birmingham completely, thus removing some significant passenger flows from one of the most congested parts of the network.

HS2 will also provide much-needed relief of the lines into Birmingham by providing a brand new twin-track railway into the city centre. The current line serving the NEC will be able to run more frequent local and regional services, which are currently not possible due to the timetabling constraints imposed by the need to run high-frequency fast services to London on the same line.

 

[HSTEd]

It is more likely to be the other way round, 2 to Brum 1 to Manchester. There will be a legacy service north of Crewe as well, that won't go.

2 to Manchester would enable one to be routed over both routes to Manchester.
Birmingham only really needs one - after all with the apparently planned expansion of Midland Metro I expect a lot of the traffic decant to HS2 via the Airport.

 

[The Planner]

You are assuming that Coventry will be left with LM type services, that wont happen, they will still keep 2 fast-ish trains to London. Not sure how the metro will make any difference.

 

[po8crg]

Birmingham IS the 2nd largest city by a mile. There is no other city that comes anywhere near the size of Birmingham on mainland Britain.

Nonsense. The second largest city in the UK is Leeds: 774,060. Birmingham is the largest with 1,111,307.

London, of course, has a population of 7,375, the third-smallest city.

 

[HSTEd]

You are assuming that Coventry will be left with LM type services, that wont happen, they will still keep 2 fast-ish trains to London. Not sure how the metro will make any difference.

A combination of metro expansions and the fact that the Birmingham International HS2 station will have drastically superior car access to the current Coventry station will bleed off an enormous fraction of the classic london-bound traffic.

Being right next to a motorway/dual carriageway tends to do that - as I have shown before.

2 "fastish" trains that will be significantly slower than the current ones perhaps, after all I would expect all trains to Coventry to stop at least at Watford Junction, MKC and Rugby.

 

[The Planner]

Would add about 8 minutes if you added two more stops. So 68 minutes journey time I would suspect Cov to Euston.