Does HS2 Still Need 400m Trains?

[snowball]

There were plans for some classic compatible and some European gauge stock when full HS2 was planned.

Classic compatible would have been procured first for the phase 1 opening and European gauge later for the Manchester/Leeds opening.

I think that once the Leeds arm was dropped, the prospects for captive trains ever being ordered for just London, Birmingham and Manchester became fairly remote.

 

[Energy]

I think that once the Leeds arm was dropped, the prospects for captive trains ever being ordered for just London, Birmingham and Manchester became fairly remote.

Agreed, classic compatible was for phases 1 and 2a, with only a short extension to Manchester they wouldn't have needed much more rolling stock.

 

[fishwomp]

You’re not meant to walk 400m down the platform. Like Eurostar, a vital part of the station is multiple points of access to the platform.

Multiple points of _access_ at St Pancras - but not egress. There's pretty much only the one ramp down from around the 3rd coach along.

Gare du Nord is the same - two ways on, one way off. Bloody long walk.

 

[Halifaxlad]

With Crewe having a few 400m long platforms anyway, more trains could be run by combining them south of there and splitting/joining at Crewe

And of course, now there will be no HS2 trains to Leeds - the only trains diverted to use HS2 will be the Avanti WCML fasts

There is a scheme published under the Network North banner to extend Nottingham services to Leeds via a new chord at Newark, these might be from MML but it will be entirely feasible to extend HS2 Nottingham services this way too! As long of course if the leg from Birmingham to East Midlands Parkway is still built.

Splitting and joining 2 x 200m trains at Crewe is a good option. It requires minimal infrastructure upgrades and there are obvious services to join. 2 x Liverpool with 1 x Preston and 1 x Manchester. In the long run Chester and Holyhead would be another option if the government is serious about electrification. London - Birmingham still needs 400m trains in the long term to have sufficient capacity.

300m is too long for the second type, ~250m i.e. two additional coaches would fit the WCML platform lengths best. I don’t see the problem with having a mixture of 200m and 250m units because its simpler than the current and future Avanti fleet. The rolling stock order is now too big and varying the contract to have fewer units but the same number of coaches would be a good compromise between DfT and Alstom + Hitachi.

Splitting and joining trains limits the capacity benefit of HS2 to Birmingham and the South of England. Most of the WCML platforms arn't that much shorter than 300m.

300m could also fit the North East quite nicely at York, Darlington I don't think Doncaster or Newcastle are that far off either. Only having having either 400 or 200m sets prevents bringing any sort of capacity benefit for when this new Newark chord is constructed to enable Nottingham services up the ECML.

Apart from this a marginal different of only 50m/2 coaches is just plain silly to complicate things uneccesarily. I'm sure train planners and control operators would love to have 2 identical types of train but different classifications because one has 2 more carriages.

 

[Trainbike46]

There is a scheme published under the Network North banner to extend Nottingham services to Leeds via a new chord at Newark, these might be from MML but it will be entirely feasible to extend HS2 Nottingham services this way too! As long of course if the leg from Birmingham to East Midlands Parkway is still built.



Splitting and joining trains limits the capacity benefit of HS2 to Birmingham and the South of England. Most of the WCML platforms arn't that much shorter than 300m.

300m could also fit the North East quite nicely at York, Darlington I don't think Doncaster or Newcastle are that far off either. Only having having either 400 or 200m sets prevents bringing any sort of capacity benefit for when this new Newark chord is constructed to enable Nottingham services up the ECML.

Apart from this a marginal different of only 50m/2 coaches is just plain silly to complicate things uneccesarily. I'm sure train planners and control operators would love to have 2 identical types of train but different classifications because one has 2 more carriages.

Currently, the leg to EMP isn't being built - only Euston-OOC-Birmingham/Handsacre, so HS2 services won't go anywhere that isn't on the WCML

 

[zwk500]

I think that once the Leeds arm was dropped, the prospects for captive trains ever being ordered for just London, Birmingham and Manchester became fairly remote.

Captive stock would have had an incompatible profile with the Classic-compatible platforms and so you'd have needed dedicated platforms for each set or to have deliberately ordered UIC gauge stock with a non-standard lower profile, which defeats much of the point of captive stock.

 

[Trainbike46]

Captive stock would have had an incompatible profile with the Classic-compatible platforms and so you'd have needed dedicated platforms for each set or to have deliberately ordered UIC gauge stock with a non-standard lower profile, which defeats much of the point of captive stock.

When captive stock was still planned, how were they planning to resolve this?

Higher capacity could be a reason to order captive stock if needed in the future - as captive stock could be double-decker, and the extra space would probably allow a more efficient layout even if sticking with single-deck compared to the classic-compatible stock

 

[Energy]

Captive stock would have had an incompatible profile with the Classic-compatible platforms and so you'd have needed dedicated platforms for each set or to have deliberately ordered UIC gauge stock with a non-standard lower profile, which defeats much of the point of captive stock.

Classic Compatible platforms? HS2 is normal UIC platforms with a abnormal 1100mm height

 

[JamesT]

When captive stock was still planned, how were they planning to resolve this?

Higher capacity could be a reason to order captive stock if needed in the future - as captive stock could be double-decker, and the extra space would probably allow a more efficient layout even if sticking with single-deck compared to the classic-compatible stock

As I understand it, the plan was (is?) platforms at UIC loading gauge, so the classic compatible trains would use gap fillers to bridge the difference.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As I understand it, the plan was (is?) platforms at UIC loading gauge, so the classic compatible trains would use gap fillers to bridge the difference.

Correct. There was never an intention for low UIC style platforms, it was always a bit nonstandard at 1100mm (which, as I've mentioned before, is a bad choice as like the Lizzie it means no level boarding on classic lines for the next 30-40 years).

 

[LYuen]

I think the main point of adopting UIC loading gauge is to make it easier to fit equipments such as motors, inverters and cooling system under the floor.
No EMU has been built anywhere in the world to do beyond 200mph with a width less than 2.9m (width is important because it will affect the centre of gravity)

China high speed trains (CR400) can operate up to 250mph (400kmh) on the CR400 but they are 3.38m wide
The classic compatible high speed train in Japan (E6) and European high speed train with UIC gauge such German ICE3, Italian ETR 1000 can do 200-220mph, and operates under 200mph.
Eurostar Class 374 is just classic compatible but it has a speed just under 200mph

I won't say 225 mph isn't possible with the UK classic loading gauge, but for no doubt it will be very expensive and experimental.
With HS2 Phase 2 scrapped there is no longer a point to maintain a mixed fleet of UIC and classic compatible trains.
That means we are committed to gamble with the development of 225mph capable, classic compatible EMUs.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

In response to the thread query, is it still envisaged that train lengths of 400m are required to carry the normal expected passenger loadings from London to Birmingham...and the reverse journey?

 

[Bletchleyite]

In response to the thread query, is it still envisaged that train lengths of 400m are required to carry the normal expected passenger loadings from London to Birmingham...and the reverse journey?

I very much question if 400m is necessary for London to Birmingham other than a few peak trains, and suspect they'd end up running 3tph at 200m (slightly more capacity than the present 2tph at 265m) for most of the day.

There'd be more scope to fill 400m trains to Manchester I reckon, due to the lower amount of competition and bigger gain over going by car time-wise.

 

[RobShipway]

In response to the thread query, is it still envisaged that train lengths of 400m are required to carry the normal expected passenger loadings from London to Birmingham...and the reverse journey?

I very much question if 400m is necessary for London to Birmingham other than a few peak trains, and suspect they'd end up running 3tph at 200m (slightly more capacity than the present 2tph at 265m) for most of the day.

There'd be more scope to fill 400m trains to Manchester I reckon, due to the lower amount of competition and bigger gain over going by car time-wise.

But the HS2 trains would not just be for London - Birmingham. Once the HS2 trains have moved off of HS2 on to WCML they will be travelling with a destination such as either Manchester/Glasgow and Edingburgh. That means that there still would be a requirement for 400M trains.

 

[LYuen]

There'd be more scope to fill 400m trains to Manchester I reckon, due to the lower amount of competition and bigger gain over going by car time-wise.

Train is competitive between Manchester and London against car or even flying.
Hence occasionally the train ticket is more expensive than a plan ticket.
The reason it is putting people off at the moment are the price and reliability (much better now and if the superfare suits you the train is excellent)

But the HS2 trains would not just be for London - Birmingham. Once the HS2 trains have moved off of HS2 on to WCML they will be travelling with a destination such as either Manchester/Glasgow and Edingburgh. That means that there still would be a requirement for 400M trains.

One possible arrangement is 400m train stops at Birmingham Interchange to split for Curzon Street and Northwest/Scotland
But Birmingham Interchange means to be a passing station for fast services beyond Birmingham. if split/join operation occurs there, it is likely to add a 10 minutes dwell time minimum, and this basically removes the time advantage HS2 against WCML.
If the service skips Birmingham Interchange, stations on classic line are 250m-300m line so they can only accommodate 200m HS2 trains
200m HS2 trains has less capacity than a 11-coach Pendolino, as a result further reducing the capacity on WCML.

 

[The Planner]

Train is competitive between Manchester and London against car or even flying.
Hence occasionally the train ticket is more expensive than a plan ticket.
The reason it is putting people off at the moment are the price and reliability (much better now and if the superfare suits you the train is excellent)

One possible arrangement is 400m train stops at Birmingham Interchange to split for Curzon Street and Northwest/Scotland
But Birmingham Interchange means to be a passing station for fast services beyond Birmingham. if split/join operation occurs there, it is likely to add a 10 minutes dwell time minimum, and this basically removes the time advantage HS2 against WCML.
If the service skips Birmingham Interchange, stations on classic line are 250m-300m line so they can only accommodate 200m HS2 trains
200m HS2 trains has less capacity than a 11-coach Pendolino, as a result further reducing the capacity on WCML.

Why 10 minutes. Stop, split/dwell, first one departs, then the second. The rear train probably has a 5-6 minute dwell at most.

 

[LYuen]

Why 10 minutes. Stop, split/dwell, first one departs, then the second. The rear train probably has a 5-6 minute dwell at most.

Northbound is fine, assuming there is ATO so the train can be reliably on time.
For southbound, the service has travelled 3 hours from Scotland or around 1-1.5 hour from Manchester, Liverpool or so on.
It is already decent to arrive on time within 5 minutes before a dwell time allowance is applied.
Coupling operating could take 2 minutes. After the trains join, 2 more minutes for normal station stopping.
To timetable a 10 minutes dwell time I think is about right.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

But the HS2 trains would not just be for London - Birmingham. Once the HS2 trains have moved off of HS2 on to WCML they will be travelling with a destination such as either Manchester/Glasgow and Edingburgh. That means that there still would be a requirement for 400M trains.

How then would Manchester Piccadilly railway station cope with 400m length trains if the proposed new HS2 station there will not be built as was the case when its building costs were included as part of the original HS2 project cost budget?

 

[RobShipway]

How then would Manchester Piccadilly railway station cope with 400m length trains if the proposed new HS2 station there will not be built as was the case when its building costs were included as part of the original HS2 project cost budget?

What is the length of the through platforms 13 & 14 at Manchester Piccadilly?

If platforms 13 & 14 are long enough, then I suspect that the trains will have to go into those platforms, before going on to sidings somewhere. Otherwise, it will be a case that a HS2 station may still have to be built, but coming off existing lines into those platforms at Manchester Piccadilly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But the HS2 trains would not just be for London - Birmingham. Once the HS2 trains have moved off of HS2 on to WCML they will be travelling with a destination such as either Manchester/Glasgow and Edingburgh. That means that there still would be a requirement for 400M trains.

No, they wont. Services to Manchester and Scotland are, like now, separate. One may run as the slow Birmingham-Scotland, but that doesn't require 400m either.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What is the length of the through platforms 13 & 14 at Manchester Piccadilly?

If platforms 13 & 14 are long enough, then I suspect that the trains will have to go into those platforms, before going on to sidings somewhere. Otherwise, it will be a case that a HS2 station may still have to be built, but coming off existing lines into those platforms at Manchester Piccadilly.

I am unsure of your knowledge of Manchester Piccadilly railway station, but I can assure you that platforms 12 and 14 are heavily used through platforms and no train of the length you describe would either stop or would terminate there and those two platforms already have maximum capacity. Where are these very long sidings that you propose to use above?

With regards to long-distance northward trains from Manchester Piccadilly railway station, TransPennine Trains already run services to both Glasgow Central and to Edinburgh Waverley railway stations.

If the budgetary costs for HS2 north of Birmingham are now ended, then where is the money coming from to build a dedicated station as you describe above?

 

[Bletchleyite]

What is the length of the through platforms 13 & 14 at Manchester Piccadilly?

If platforms 13 & 14 are long enough, then I suspect that the trains will have to go into those platforms, before going on to sidings somewhere. Otherwise, it will be a case that a HS2 station may still have to be built, but coming off existing lines into those platforms at Manchester Piccadilly.

If you'd ever been on any of those platforms you wouldn't be suggesting such utter and total nonsense. A full 400m HS2 train on platform 14? You're having a laugh, it'd take an hour to clear the platform.

 

[3RDGEN]

Given there's talk of cutting Euston HS2 to maybe just six platforms would you not want the longest possible trains? 400m or 2 * 200m units are still OK for HS2 to Curzon Street and could be split at Birmingham International HS2 or Crewe for destinations north.

Given Preston/Carlisle take the sleeper could you not run fast to one of them and then split for Glasgow & Edinburgh perhaps? With SDO now standard on new stock platform length isn't vital, you just need the track/signalling layout to accommodate 400m. I assume HS2 services are going be reservation compulsory, with no standing, so for example put Glasgow/Edinburgh passenger in any carriages which aren’t platformed and remain locked.

 

[RobShipway]

I am unsure of your knowledge of Manchester Piccadilly railway station, but I can assure you that platforms 12 and 14 are heavily used through platforms and no train of the length you describe would either stop or would terminate there and those two platforms already have maximum capacity. Where are these very long sidings that you propose to use above?

With regards to long-distance northward trains from Manchester Piccadilly railway station, TransPennine Trains already run services to both Glasgow Central and to Edinburgh Waverley railway stations.

If the budgetary costs for HS2 north of Birmingham are now ended, then where is the money coming from to build a dedicated station as you describe above?

The dedicated HS2 station would come from other projects such as Northern Powerhouse Rail, which I believe from details I once saw would also need to be having extra platforms built for it at Manchester Piccadilly.

If you'd ever been on any of those platforms you wouldn't be suggesting such utter and total nonsense. A full 400m HS2 train on platform 14? You're having a laugh, it'd take an hour to clear the platform.

As @3RDGEN states in his post above, you make sure that the passengers for places are seated in the correct carriage and use SDO to lock out the carriages that cannot be used at platform 13 & 14. But in an ideal world, as I have stated above you would have dedicated platforms built, perhaps that is part of the Northern Powerhouse Rail scheme. But the platforms would be built to accept 400M trains, i.e. HS2 full length trains from London Euston. Otherwise, what is the point of HS2 and new trains for it being built, if it is not going to increase capacity?

 

[The Planner]

Northbound is fine, assuming there is ATO so the train can be reliably on time.
For southbound, the service has travelled 3 hours from Scotland or around 1-1.5 hour from Manchester, Liverpool or so on.
It is already decent to arrive on time within 5 minutes before a dwell time allowance is applied.
Coupling operating could take 2 minutes. After the trains join, 2 more minutes for normal station stopping.
To timetable a 10 minutes dwell time I think is about right.

That is down to operational procedures and regulation policy. If one train is sufficiently delayed you run one part as a "1Z" so you don't require that dwell.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Oct 2023 ==

The dedicated HS2 station would come from other projects such as Northern Powerhouse Rail, which I believe from details I once saw would also need to be having extra platforms built for it at Manchester Piccadilly.


As @3RDGEN states in his post above, you make sure that the passengers for places are seated in the correct carriage and use SDO to lock out the carriages that cannot be used at platform 13 & 14. But in an ideal world, as I have stated above you would have dedicated platforms built, perhaps that is part of the Northern Powerhouse Rail scheme. But the platforms would be built to accept 400M trains, i.e. HS2 full length trains from London Euston. Otherwise, what is the point of HS2 and new trains for it being built, if it is not going to increase capacity?

No, 13 and 14 is madness of the highest order. Any new platforms will be on the low side.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As @3RDGEN states in his post above, you make sure that the passengers for places are seated in the correct carriage and use SDO to lock out the carriages that cannot be used at platform 13 & 14.

OK, I think we can conclude from that that you've never used those platforms. Totally impractical. Avanti already avoid using 13/14 with Pendolinos on diversion for the same reason.

To explain why, as you clearly haven't been to them, the access and exit is basically two single file routes, one with an escalator, one with a very steep staircase, it can take several minutes just to clear it after a 6 car 331 from Blackpool shows up in 13. The idea of having nearly a thousand people try to leave those platforms at once would lead to severe delays at best and something akin to Hillsborough (or people falling on the track) at worst.

The only viable way for 400m units to serve Manchester Piccadilly is to build a new set of long platforms in the car park next to platform 1 (possibly also extend platform 1) as HS2 proposed for 2B, and if the classic line remained in use to access them a grade-separated route to get from the WCML to them.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Oct 2023 ==

Otherwise, what is the point of HS2 and new trains for it being built, if it is not going to increase capacity?

The point of HS2, as has been pointed out repeatedly, is to free up capacity on various parts of the classic network for increased local services and freight, most importantly (pre COVID anyway) south of Milton Keynes.

However, if we did go for a mid-length of 275 or 300m you would get a significant increase, as Pendolinos and Voyagers have very inefficiently laid out interiors.

 

[RobShipway]

OK, I think we can conclude from that that you've never used those platforms. Totally impractical. Avanti already avoid using 13/14 with Pendolinos on diversion for the same reason.

To explain why, as you clearly haven't been to them, the access and exit is basically two single file routes, one with an escalator, one with a very steep staircase, it can take several minutes just to clear it after a 6 car 331 from Blackpool shows up in 13. The idea of having nearly a thousand people try to leave those platforms at once would lead to severe delays at best and something akin to Hillsborough (or people falling on the track) at worst.

The only viable way for 400m units to serve Manchester Piccadilly is to build a new set of long platforms in the car park next to platform 1 (possibly also extend platform 1) as HS2 proposed for 2B, and if the classic line remained in use to access them a grade-separated route to get from the WCML to them.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Oct 2023 ==



The point of HS2, as has been pointed out repeatedly, is to free up capacity on various parts of the classic network for increased local services and freight, most importantly (pre COVID anyway) south of Milton Keynes.

However, if we did go for a mid-length of 275 or 300m you would get a significant increase, as Pendolinos and Voyagers have very inefficiently laid out interiors.

Even if the trains are not 400m, they need to be longer than the Pendolino's and Voyagers, so that they have enough capacity for future growth, so that when people turn from the roads, they can travel sitting rather than wishing that they had travelled in their car, where they at least would have had a seat!

With regards to freight, just having HS2 between London and Birmingham as per my post https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...n-going-further-north-than-birmingham.255980/ is not going to provide much if any extra capacity.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Even if the trains are not 400m, they need to be longer than the Pendolino's and Voyagers, so that they have enough capacity for future growth, so that when people turn from the roads, they can travel sitting rather than wishing that they had travelled in their car, where they at least would have had a seat!

An 11 car Pendolino is 265m with a very inefficient interior layout. A 275 or 300m HS2 unit could fit in a lot more seats.

But this really only applies to Manchester and possibly Scotland. Birmingham, the only part presently to get 400m trains, doesn't require capacity to be more than doubled (2tph at 265m vs. 3tph at 400m) - people would I think rather LNR and/or Chiltern upped their cheaper capacity. Indeed, if the Chiltern was wired and they just ran 12.350 or 10.730 semifast three times an hour at present prices they'd walk all over the Birmingham market now we have primarily a leisure railway.

 

[RailWonderer]

I doubt we will ever see a 400m 16 car train because the rear 4 or 5 cars will have to be locked out with ASDO which would mean much longer dwell times at stations having to wait for passengers with suitcases crawling down the train to exit. Shorter but more frequent is the way to go. Plus infrastructure like points, signalling and bridges and junctions would be blocked by significantly longer trains so pre-clearance would be a hassle (they won't want to order trains that cannot clear sections of the WCML and branches).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Oct 2023 ==

An 11 car Pendolino is 265m with a very inefficient interior layout. A 275 or 300m HS2 unit could fit in a lot more seats.

What? Pendolinos are very efficient. They need the crumple zone, luggage racks, disabled facilities and legroom. The Voyager on the other hand....

 

[JamesT]

I doubt we will ever see a 400m 16 car train because the rear 4 or 5 cars will have to be locked out with ASDO which would mean much longer dwell times at stations having to wait for passengers with suitcases crawling down the train to exit. Shorter but more frequent is the way to go. Plus infrastructure like points, signalling and bridges and junctions would be blocked by significantly longer trains so pre-clearance would be a hassle (they won't want to order trains that cannot clear sections of the WCML and branches).

400m trains would use 400m platforms. You wouldn't order them otherwise.
Freight trains can be up to 775m on the UK network, so a 400m passenger train isn't going to be a huge issue.

What? Pendolinos are very efficient. They need the crumple zone, luggage racks, disabled facilities and legroom. The Voyager on the other hand....

A 390/1 fits 589 people into 265m of train. An 801/2 can get 611 people into only 234m of train. The Azuma also has all of those features you mentioned on the Pendolino.