Alternatives to HS2

[Altnabreac]

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.

I think an HS2 service to a Park and Ride next to the M53 at Hooton could have an excellent business case.

Needs OHL to replace third rail and reinstatement of the extra platforms at Hooton but I'd expect Merseyrail stock to be dual voltage by 2033 so not too tricky to implement.

 

[HSTEd]

I'm not so sure about 25kV capable Merseyrail trains - it doesn't look particularily useful for them given the trackwork constraints and bi-mode appears to be higher on the priority list.

 

[DPWH]

I'm not so sure about 25kV capable Merseyrail trains - it doesn't look particularily useful for them given the trackwork constraints and bi-mode appears to be higher on the priority list.

Yes but as regards the traction when Merseyrail get new EMUs, or cascaded Electrostars, they will be to a modern standard design which can operate off of 3rd rail or OHLE power supply. They might not have pantographs, but even DC-only electrostars have the well for the pantograph and one can be easily fitted.

 

[po8crg]

I'm not so sure about 25kV capable Merseyrail trains - it doesn't look particularily useful for them given the trackwork constraints and bi-mode appears to be higher on the priority list.

I think there's a real safety issue with diesel engines in the tunnels.

Obviously it's all a bit dependent on 25kV electrification, but Hunt's Cross to Warrington Central, Ormskirk to Southport (with a restoration of one of the Burscough Curves), Kirkby to Wigan, Bidston to Wrexham and Runcorn to Chester (via a restored Halton Curve) are all plausible extensions.

 

[Class 170101]

Do we think that the WCML will still be a 125mph tilting railway by 2032 because the Pendolinos will be 30+years old by then.

 

[TBirdFrank]

In other words - hopefully they will be as much history as the MkIIIs by then - and superseded - except that the MKIIIs should have been cascaded, not lost!

 

[The Ham]

Do we think that the WCML will still be a 125mph tilting railway by 2032 because the Pendolinos will be 30+years old by then.

Personally, I would like to think that there could still be tilting trains on the line.

Depending on what passenger numbers do (and in some discussions on here I have suggested that it could well be that the WCML still has passenger long distance passenger numbers that it had just before privatisation) there could still be need for fast trains.

There are likely to be relatively large numbers between places not served by HS2 or where only one end is served by HS2.

There may not be need for full length 11 or even 9 coach trains, so it could be that train lengths fall to 5 or 6 (allowing double length services to run to much of the network).

There will likely be fewer very fast services, but it is likely that most long distance services would gain one or two additional stops (or that the calling pattern for those with two or three stops between London and Birmingham would stay the same and those that run fast would be new services with four or five stops).

 

[Chester1]

Personally, I would like to think that there could still be tilting trains on the line.

Depending on what passenger numbers do (and in some discussions on here I have suggested that it could well be that the WCML still has passenger long distance passenger numbers that it had just before privatisation) there could still be need for fast trains.

There are likely to be relatively large numbers between places not served by HS2 or where only one end is served by HS2.

There may not be need for full length 11 or even 9 coach trains, so it could be that train lengths fall to 5 or 6 (allowing double length services to run to much of the network).

There will likely be fewer very fast services, but it is likely that most long distance services would gain one or two additional stops (or that the calling pattern for those with two or three stops between London and Birmingham would stay the same and those that run fast would be new services with four or five stops).

Lord Adonis suggested that the Pendolinos could be used on Transpennine services post 2026 dependant on electrification. As I have said many times before I don't see a future for tilting trains on WCML after 2026. 110mph EMUs can run services on the fast tracks enabling a standardised stopping pattern increasing capacity. HS2 CC trains will only run at this speed off HS2. The pathing losses from running a handful of 125mph services mean they are not worth it. More places will be served by HS2 than currently planned. HS2 Ltd has no intention of paying to electrify lines like Crewe-Chester or Preston-Blackpool but they will most likely get services splitting and joining with other 200m CC sets at Crewe. Stockport, Macclesfield and Stoke will likely be served by a service joining and leaving HS2 near Lichfield. There are no other WCML stations that justify a Pendolino / Voyager service to London, accept North Wales for political reasons and only once every 2 hours.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In other words - hopefully they will be as much history as the MkIIIs by then - and superseded - except that the MKIIIs should have been cascaded, not lost!

The Mk3s have been cascaded. Very few of them were scrapped. And indeed there's rather a shortage of them at the moment for TOCs that want them!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Lord Adonis suggested that the Pendolinos could be used on Transpennine services post 2026 dependant on electrification. As I have said many times before I don't see a future for tilting trains on WCML after 2026. 110mph EMUs can run services on the fast tracks enabling a standardised stopping pattern increasing capacity. HS2 CC trains will only run at this speed off HS2. The pathing losses from running a handful of 125mph services mean they are not worth it. More places will be served by HS2 than currently planned. HS2 Ltd has no intention of paying to electrify lines like Crewe-Chester or Preston-Blackpool but they will most likely get services splitting and joining with other 200m CC sets at Crewe. Stockport, Macclesfield and Stoke will likely be served by a service joining and leaving HS2 near Lichfield. There are no other WCML stations that justify a Pendolino / Voyager service to London, accept North Wales for political reasons and only once every 2 hours.

I would agree. I see a future "classic WCML" train, once the Pendolinos get too old, being a 110 or 125mph EMU or bi-mode - perhaps Class 800. And I see an integrated service pattern - "VT" and "LM" becoming one.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There will likely be fewer very fast services, but it is likely that most long distance services would gain one or two additional stops (or that the calling pattern for those with two or three stops between London and Birmingham would stay the same and those that run fast would be new services with four or five stops).

I can see a case for everything stopping at Milton Keynes Central (it's only going to get bigger) and most trains stopping at Watford Junction and Rugby, FWIW.

 

[HSTEd]

Stockport, Macclesfield and Stoke will likely be served by a service joining and leaving HS2 near Lichfield. There are no other WCML stations that justify a Pendolino / Voyager service to London, accept North Wales for political reasons and only once every 2 hours.

Stockport is unlikely to justify any HS2 services at all.
Most of its fast market will be swallowed up by the Manchester Airport station or Manchester Picadilly.
A classic compatible to lichfield and then HS2 to London in one jump is likely to be much slower than doubling back to Manchester and taking a captive set.
And with the transport links in South Manchester improving all the time then I expect Manchester Airport will draw off much of the traffic that currently goes to Stockport or Wilmslow.

How about running trains from London to Stoke, Macclesfield etc via Birmingham, how much time would that actually lose between various intermediate destinations?

 

[Chester1]

Stockport is unlikely to justify any HS2 services at all.
Most of its fast market will be swallowed up by the Manchester Airport station or Manchester Picadilly.
A classic compatible to lichfield and then HS2 to London in one jump is likely to be much slower than doubling back to Manchester and taking a captive set.
And with the transport links in South Manchester improving all the time then I expect Manchester Airport will draw off much of the traffic that currently goes to Stockport or Wilmslow.

How about running trains from London to Stoke, Macclesfield etc via Birmingham, how much time would that actually lose between various intermediate destinations?

Stockport borough council is a Labour / Conservative and Lib Dem battle ground, it would be unwise for any government to run HS2 trains through without stopping. I can see your point post 2033 but prior to that at least 3 HS2 services will go through the station and one will stop to maintain a direct service (compared with the current 3tph). The government would then need to approve removing that service after 7 years of use, just to save less than 5 minutes on an already slow service. Stockport has no rail or light rail service to Manchester Airport despite significant local efforts to build a metro line or an interchange with Manchester Airport Metrolink or rail services that cross under the line between Stockport and Altrincham. In addition, Stockport to Piccadilly is likely to retain heavy traffic and its unlikely that DfT or TfN or TfGM will want to encourage unnecessary passengers.

Via Birmingham would probably work OK in terms of journey times but currently there is no connection between HS2 and existing lines within Birmingham and the paths will be needed for local services.

 

[TBirdFrank]

And there - writ large - is the achilles heel of the whole HS2 farce.

"There's no use stopping HS2 at Stockport - passengers will just have to go a few miles north to Piccadilly or West to MAN to board" - and thereby lose the whole of any speed benefit that HS2 is supposed to bring to the party.

HS2 and all it's breed are great for end to end city to city journeys - but anywhere else in the hinterland, or elsewhere in the country, is being written off by its adherents as not worth servicing, and that of itself makes HS2 a completely useless investment for over 90% of the UK population.

As electric vehicles come more to the fore this effect will only be magnified to the detriment of the rail industry overall. Rail is in competition with road and air and this kind of disdain for its clients will have its return in times to come in declining passenger tolerance at costs and discomfort.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

And there - writ large - is the achilles heel of the whole HS2 farce.

"There's no use stopping HS2 at Stockport - passengers will just have to go a few miles north to Piccadilly or West to MAN to board" - and thereby lose the whole of any speed benefit that HS2 is supposed to bring to the party.

HS2 and all it's breed are great for end to end city to city journeys - but anywhere else in the hinterland, or elsewhere in the country, is being written off by its adherents as not worth servicing, and that of itself makes HS2 a completely useless investment for over 90% of the UK population.

As electric vehicles come more to the fore this effect will only be magnified to the detriment of the rail industry overall. Rail is in competition with road and air and this kind of disdain for its clients will have its return in times to come in declining passenger tolerance at costs and discomfort.

Hardly a farce. It's not as if all Stockport's long distance rail travellers actually live in Stockport. Those who live to the west of the town will find a station at Manchester Airport just as convenient and those who live to the north-east (including much of Tameside) will need to travel just a few minutes further along the M60 to reach said station. As is always the case when making a significant change there will be winners and losers: the trick is to maximise the former and minimise the latter. Now if the Manchester Airport station was not being built there might be grounds for complaint but it is so there aren't. The alternative of course is to do nothing, which is effectively what we have been doing in this country for an awful long time; high time we got on with building a modern network to link our great conurbations. Roll on HS3/NPR.

Not sure why you mention electric road vehicles: they will still be subject to the same speed restrictions, and probably the same traffic congestion, as now while HS rail services will be achieving nearly three times their speed. And if we should ever come to the unfortunate position of having a shortfall in electricity generating capacity I hardly think that railways will be left short: far more likely that road vehicle use would be rationed in some way.

 

[The Ham]

And there - writ large - is the achilles heel of the whole HS2 farce.

"There's no use stopping HS2 at Stockport - passengers will just have to go a few miles north to Piccadilly or West to MAN to board" - and thereby lose the whole of any speed benefit that HS2 is supposed to bring to the party.

HS2 and all it's breed are great for end to end city to city journeys - but anywhere else in the hinterland, or elsewhere in the country, is being written off by its adherents as not worth servicing, and that of itself makes HS2 a completely useless investment for over 90% of the UK population.

As electric vehicles come more to the fore this effect will only be magnified to the detriment of the rail industry overall. Rail is in competition with road and air and this kind of disdain for its clients will have its return in times to come in declining passenger tolerance at costs and discomfort.

For some stations there could be the possibility that journey times to some stations may not be good as they currently are. However, this could be offset by there being more local services (which could benefit more people than lose out) and/or more frequent longer distance services (which may be slower could get people to where they want to be at a better time).

A case for the latter could be rather than a 2tph taking 90 minutes, 3tph taking 100 minutes could currently arrive at say 08:30 having left at 07:00, whilst in the future it could arrive at 08:45 having left at 07:05. For some those times would be better (say those needing to arrive for 09:00) even though the journey time is longer.

The other thing that can be overlooked is that not everyone wants to go to London and so by having a few extra stops could attract more passengers between stations on the WCML.

That's not going to be the case for everywhere, but it's likely to be the case for enough places that it will make virtually no difference on the number of people using any given station.

 

[HSTEd]

"There's no use stopping HS2 at Stockport - passengers will just have to go a few miles north to Piccadilly or West to MAN to board" - and thereby lose the whole of any speed benefit that HS2 is supposed to bring to the party.

Frequencies on Stockport-Manchester are enormous and the journey time is 8-12 minutes.
And the journey time from Manchester Picadilly to London via HS2 is something like 65 minutes, as opposed to something like 120 minutes from Stockport via the WCML.
With such high frequencies there is not much "change penalty" - which means the journey time saving of going via HS2 is overwhelming.

HS2 and all it's breed are great for end to end city to city journeys - but anywhere else in the hinterland, or elsewhere in the country, is being written off by its adherents as not worth servicing, and that of itself makes HS2 a completely useless investment for over 90% of the UK population.

So a change to save 40 minutes of journey time overall is useless?

 

[Altfish]

.... and that of itself makes HS2 a completely useless investment for over 90% of the UK population.

This really is a poor argument.
Take the new Forth Road Bridge it is probably true to say that it will be "a completely useless investment for over 99% of the UK population."
That doesn't mean it should not be built.

 

[Chester1]

Frequencies on Stockport-Manchester are enormous and the journey time is 8-12 minutes.
And the journey time from Manchester Picadilly to London via HS2 is something like 65 minutes, as opposed to something like 120 minutes from Stockport via the WCML.
With such high frequencies there is not much "change penalty" - which means the journey time saving of going via HS2 is overwhelming.

It would still take a very brave politician to authorise ending Stockport's direct services to London either in 2026 or 2033. The current services via Stoke are about 123 minutes from Stockport stopping at Macclesfield, Stoke and a stop further south. Stockport-Stoke is 27 minutes. With no tilting id guess 30 minutes. Birmingham Interchange to Euston will be 37 minutes. So a Stockport HS2 service would be 30 + 37 + the middle bit, majority of which would be on HS2. The bare minimum time via Piccadilly and a capitve service allowing for interchange would be 85 minutes. Id guess a direct service would therefore be at most 10 minutes slower and many people would prefer a short time penalty for a direct service, which would still be much faster than the existing service.

 

[The Ham]

It would still take a very brave politician to authorise ending Stockport's direct services to London either in 2026 or 2033. The current services via Stoke are about 123 minutes from Stockport stopping at Macclesfield, Stoke and a stop further south. Stockport-Stoke is 27 minutes. With no tilting id guess 30 minutes. Birmingham Interchange to Euston will be 37 minutes. So a Stockport HS2 service would be 30 + 37 + the middle bit, majority of which would be on HS2. The bare minimum time via Piccadilly and a capitve service allowing for interchange would be 85 minutes. Id guess a direct service would therefore be at most 10 minutes slower and many people would prefer a short time penalty for a direct service, which would still be much faster than the existing service.

I would suggest that there could still be a WCML direct service tracking 126-130 minutes with a few extra stops. As although the number of people using it to get to London would fall this could be partly offset by the number of people who can use it to get to more places which currently would be hard due to the limited calling pattern.

It is the reason on the thread about the impact on the existing lines by HS2 I have suggested that there would be more services which call at more stations than present (I.e. some of the services with two or three stops south of Birmingham would keep those service patterns but those that only have one or two may gain three or four extra stops) but would Lilkely be run with shorter (say 6 coaches) units. This could enable 12 coach trains to serve London commuters and then shorten to serve stations further out where they may only be feeding to HS2 stations.

 

[Altfish]

It would still take a very brave politician to authorise ending Stockport's direct services to London either in 2026 or 2033. The current services via Stoke are about 123 minutes from Stockport stopping at Macclesfield, Stoke and a stop further south. Stockport-Stoke is 27 minutes. With no tilting id guess 30 minutes. Birmingham Interchange to Euston will be 37 minutes. So a Stockport HS2 service would be 30 + 37 + the middle bit, majority of which would be on HS2. The bare minimum time via Piccadilly and a capitve service allowing for interchange would be 85 minutes. Id guess a direct service would therefore be at most 10 minutes slower and many people would prefer a short time penalty for a direct service, which would still be much faster than the existing service.

Most people travelling from Stockport to London have either driven to Stockport or caught a connecting train. I suspect that when HS2 arrives the majority will either drive to the Manchester Airport Station (I will, if I'm still around then) or catch a connection to Piccadilly or Crewe

 

[HSTEd]

The current services via Stoke are about 123 minutes from Stockport stopping at Macclesfield, Stoke and a stop further south. Stockport-Stoke is 27 minutes. With no tilting id guess 30 minutes. Birmingham Interchange to Euston will be 37 minutes. So a Stockport HS2 service would be 30 + 37 + the middle bit, majority of which would be on HS2. The bare minimum time via Piccadilly and a capitve service allowing for interchange would be 85 minutes. Id guess a direct service would therefore be at most 10 minutes slower and many people would prefer a short time penalty for a direct service, which would still be much faster than the existing service.

But that would be expending a valuable HS2 Core path on a train for the beenfit of some the people of Stoke, Macclesfield and some of the people in Stockport (people driving to Stockport station will likely divert to the Airport station which will be as easy, if not easier, to reach for most people who are driving). After all Stoke is so spread out that large parts of it are half way to Crewe - which will have an actual HS2 station.

The sums on that do not come out particularily good. Let alone for doing it multiple times per hour.

 

[The Planner]

Don't get that confused. HS2 will not have a dedicated station at Crewe, they will stop at whatever is built for the existing network.

 

[HSTEd]

Don't get that confused. HS2 will not have a dedicated station at Crewe, they will stop at whatever is built for the existing network.

Indeed, but it is likely to have significant traffic that is on HS2 basically until just short of the station.
Far superior to the offer Stoke could feasibly get.

 

[Holly]

Don't get that confused. HS2 will not have a dedicated station at Crewe, they will stop at whatever is built for the existing network.

Yes, but the issue is not so much whether there is to be a dedicated station.
The issue is whether or not Crewe station is to have any 2002/735/EC compliant platforms.

 

[The Planner]

If it only has classic compatible trains then why would it need to? Crewe station isnt a HS2 funded project.

 

[Holly]

If it only has classic compatible trains then why would it need to? Crewe station isnt a HS2 funded project.

Something to do with "Alternatives to HS2".
Which is the title of the thread

 

[JamesT]

If it only has classic compatible trains then why would it need to? Crewe station isnt a HS2 funded project.

I may have misunderstood, but I'd got the impression that the 'Crewe Hub' proposals from Higgins' HS2 Plus paper would make Crewe a fully-fledged stop for trains going to and from Manchester. Which does imply to me they'd need provision for captive trains as it would seem a waste to run a classic compatible train from London to Manchester for want of a short bit of track to go through Crewe.

 

[Holly]

I may have misunderstood, but I'd got the impression that the 'Crewe Hub' proposals from Higgins' HS2 Plus paper would make Crewe a fully-fledged stop for trains going to and from Manchester. Which does imply to me they'd need provision for captive trains as it would seem a waste to run a classic compatible train from London to Manchester for want of a short bit of track to go through Crewe.

From where you quickly get to the conclusion that if the existing Crewe Station site is to be used then a MAJOR reconstruction of the station would be needed.
It is widely acknowledged that the existing Crewe station has an appalling track layout.

 

[The Planner]

Something to do with "Alternatives to HS2".
Which is the title of the thread

Exactly, so as an alternative you save loads of cash by not doing captive and not having to deal with different platform train interfaces at existing stations.

 

[Altnabreac]

I may have misunderstood, but I'd got the impression that the 'Crewe Hub' proposals from Higgins' HS2 Plus paper would make Crewe a fully-fledged stop for trains going to and from Manchester. Which does imply to me they'd need provision for captive trains as it would seem a waste to run a classic compatible train from London to Manchester for want of a short bit of track to go through Crewe.

I suspect "Crewe Hub" will consist of some 400m long classic compatible platforms allowing trains to split/join en route to Liverpool, Preston and Chester.

No sense in stopping Manchester services or installing European gauge platforms at Crewe. 2-3tph will be quite sufficient to serve Crewe.

 

[DunfordBridge]

And there - writ large - is the achilles heel of the whole HS2 farce.

"There's no use stopping HS2 at Stockport - passengers will just have to go a few miles north to Piccadilly or West to MAN to board" - and thereby lose the whole of any speed benefit that HS2 is supposed to bring to the party.

HS2 and all it's breed are great for end to end city to city journeys - but anywhere else in the hinterland, or elsewhere in the country, is being written off by its adherents as not worth servicing, and that of itself makes HS2 a completely useless investment for over 90% of the UK population.

As electric vehicles come more to the fore this effect will only be magnified to the detriment of the rail industry overall. Rail is in competition with road and air and this kind of disdain for its clients will have its return in times to come in declining passenger tolerance at costs and discomfort.

Really could not have put it better myself!

Last night, my train was delayed massively and I was waiting for over one hour in the bitter cold. I am told that I can expect more trains to Scarborough from 2019 but I could have done with the extra services last night, not in three years time.

One of the disgruntled customers on the train last night devised the catch phrase, "An extra lane on the A64 means less pain!"
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Frequencies on Stockport-Manchester are enormous and the journey time is 8-12 minutes.
And the journey time from Manchester Picadilly to London via HS2 is something like 65 minutes, as opposed to something like 120 minutes from Stockport via the WCML.
With such high frequencies there is not much "change penalty" - which means the journey time saving of going via HS2 is overwhelming.


So a change to save 40 minutes of journey time overall is useless?

Does anyone actually know how much a ticket on HS2 is going to cost in comparison to conventional services taking into account inflation and any potential slide time of the project? I imagine it will not be cheap.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This really is a poor argument.
Take the new Forth Road Bridge it is probably true to say that it will be "a completely useless investment for over 99% of the UK population."
That doesn't mean it should not be built.

That is quite a good point on the surface!

The Forth Road Bridge would be a project of considerable magnitude but how much bigger is the HS2 project going to be and how many more people are going to feel the adverse effects and not reap the benefits?

There will probably be many more road projects once people became dissatisfied with the rail network as was exemplified last night on my way home.