High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[HSTEd]

Well if they ever got around to building that line to Stockport you could just put in a curve where it leaves the Airport Line's route....

 

[The Ham]

You need at least 3tph to Coventry, 2tph Stoke (fast), 2tph Trent Valley (semi-fast), 1tph Chester, 1tph Lake District (since HS2 won't stop at Lancaster/Oxenholme/Penrith/Carlisle).

Not a lot of room for additional commuter trains which will extensively eat paths.

Could you not run some of those services pared up and splitting on route as needed, as you wouldn't need to run 3 lots of 12 coach trains to Coventry? Which would allow many of the above 9 services to be reduced into 5 or 6.

 

[Philip Elliott]

Do we really need all of these? That might be what these destinations currently get, but do they need that level of service? It sounds to me like you're suggesting even post-HS2 we still won't have enough WCML capacity.

Bingo, HS2 does not release train path capacity because it doesn't call at principal intermediate stations. We do need all those services unless you want people in these places to switch back to the their cars because the rail service is no longer convenient?

Perhaps we should be a high speed line to Bournemouth and let Southampton have a classic service of 1tph all stops....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Could you not run some of those services pared up and splitting on route as needed, as you wouldn't need to run 3 lots of 12 coach trains to Coventry? Which would allow many of the above 9 services to be reduced into 5 or 6.

When you look at the loadings then a 4-6 car unit is not sufficient. Splitting and joining units is best avoided particularly as it is introduces significant risk and further slows down services.

 

[tbtc]

You need at least 3tph to Coventry, 2tph Stoke (fast), 2tph Trent Valley (semi-fast), 1tph Chester, 1tph Lake District (since HS2 won't stop at Lancaster/Oxenholme/Penrith/Carlisle)

Why do we *need* at least those frequencies and speeds to be retained?

Take away the Manchester/ Birmingham (etc) passengers and would anyone really claim that Stoke/ Coventry justify those levels of service?

A lot of places get a good service at the moment because they are on a direct route between London and somewhere large further north - would Grantham get a couple of trains an hour to the capital were it not for the fact that trains from Leeds/ Newcastle pass through it?

 

[NSEFAN]

Bingo, HS2 does not release train path capacity because it doesn't call at principal intermediate stations. We do need all those services unless you want people in these places to switch back to the their cars because the rail service is no longer convenient?

Perhaps we should be a high speed line to Bournemouth and let Southampton have a classic service of 1tph all stops....

Why don't we rework the timetable so that the WCML south of Birmingham effectively has the same service pattern as it does now, only the express trains to destinations further north are now running on HS2 instead? The trains calling only at Coventry, Milton Keynes etc would instead start at Birmingham rather than Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, etc.

 

[Martin222002]

Personally I would think a service pattern similar to the below would work well at giving places like Stoke and Coventry reasonable frequency of 'fast' trains while still serving places further south of them on the WCML.

1tph Birmingham New Street, Birmingham International, Coventry, Rugby, Milton Keynes Central, London Euston
1tph Birmingham New Street, Birmingham International, Coventry, Milton Keynes Central, Watford Junction, London Euston

1thp Manchester Piccadilly, Stockport, Macclesfield, Stoke-on-Trent, Lichfield Trent Valley, Tamworth, Milton Keynes Central, London Euston
1thp Manchester Piccadilly, Stockport, Macclesfield, Stoke-on-Trent, Nuneaton, Milton Keynes Central, Watford Junction, London Euston

1tph Liverpool Lime Street, Liverpool South Parkway, Runcorn, or Chester, Crewe, Stafford, Lichfield Trent Valley, Tamworth, Rugby, Milton Keynes Central, London Euston
1tph Glasgow Central, Motherwell, Carlisle, Penrith or Oxenholme Lake District, Lancaster, Preston, Wigan North Western, Warrington Bank Quay, Crewe, Stafford, Nueaton, Milton Keneys Central, London Euston

Such a service pattern would give reasonable journey times from Coventry and Stoke while giving stations from the Trent Valley south faster and more frequent services to London. Such a service pattern would also give much improved links between stations south of the Trent Valley to destinations further north, which is not the case with the current WCML timetable.

 

[HSTEd]

Why do you have a liverpool Lime street train at all?

The only place that loses out if the Liverpool train is cut entirely is Stafford (as Runcorn and Crewe can pick up both HS2 services).

You can easily add the Stafford stop onto the Chester service.

And why are you putting a through service from Euston to Glasgow on the classic line?
Surely such a through service woudl be better placed running to Birmingham since anyone going to London will change at Preston or Crewe for a HS2 service?

Additionally, cutting one stop out of the Birmingham stopping pattern makes little sense from a journey time standpoint (since journey times are no longer paramount) and doesn't really improve pathing, so a clockface half hourly service makes more sense IMO.

 

[The Ham]

When you look at the loadings then a 4-6 car unit is not sufficient. Splitting and joining units is best avoided particularly as it is introduces significant risk and further slows down services.

Really both Chester and the Lake District need an hourly 12 coach train post HS2 which has such a high level of demand that thet can not stop on route at Coverntry?

Also, by having a servce which runs to both Chester and the Lake District which splits at Crewe, both locations could have a half hourly service whilst not increasing the number of paths required, which many would see as an improvement. If such a service also served Coverntry then it would allow passengers to/from Chester and the Lake District to get a direct service to/from Coverntry which would be more likely be where a number of those boading/alighting at Chester and the Lake District would be coming from rather than having sat on the train all the way from London. As those from London could well have used HS2 to get to Crewe and then changed. Meaning that they can get a later train out of London.

Yes there is an increased risk of delays, however what has to be remembered is that there are several services which do this already and very few people are arguing that they should be got rid of necause those users of the services would rather have a more frequent service with a slightly higher risk of delays than a lower risk of delays but have to use a less frequent service, (i.e. an hourly service rather than a half hourly service). Also, by doing so it reduces the number of paths into London (i.e. the busiest part of the network), so any delay there would be able to recover more easiliy as there would be less paths needed (i.e. if there were 6 paths an hour in use rather than 9 then any delay on any one of the 6 paths would result in a much lower risk of delays on the other paths than if it were being run using 9 paths).

It would be like saying, I want two water mains feeding my house as sometimes when I'm in the shower someone runs a tap elsewhere in the house and it makes the tempreture of the shower go funny for up to 20 seconds when I live in a house with one other person and it only happens once a week, if that.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why do you have a liverpool Lime street train at all?

The only place that loses out if the Liverpool train is cut entirely is Stafford (as Runcorn and Crewe can pick up both HS2 services).

You can easily add the Stafford stop onto the Chester service.

And why are you putting a through service from Euston to Glasgow on the classic line?
Surely such a through service woudl be better placed running to Birmingham since anyone going to London will change at Preston or Crewe for a HS2 service?

Additionally, cutting one stop out of the Birmingham stopping pattern makes little sense from a journey time standpoint (since journey times are no longer paramount) and doesn't really improve pathing, so a clockface half hourly service makes more sense IMO.

The reason for runnig services on the classic network is that not everyone is wanting to get to London. There will be a number of people who will want to get from one side of a HS2 station to the other and so HS2 will not be of benefit to them.

Likewise there will be those who want to travel from from somewhere between two HS2 stations (i.e. A & B) to somewhere between between another two (i.e. C & D) where they could use HS2 but to do so would require two changes of train and may well not save them any time. In that they may well board train 1 at location X, change to train 2 (HS2) from B to C and then wait at C until the next train to Y, which happens to be train 1 anyway.

Then of course there are those who are only travelling short distances.

Now although neither group of longer distance travellers are likely to be very big, however combined and with those travelling shorter distances there could well be enough to justify long end to end services even though no one travels end to end on them.

If by running end to end (i.e. London to Glasgow) it saves having to have a lot of services terminate at (say) Birmingham, it can increase the capcity of the station (i.e. Birmingham) in the same way that Thames Link and Crossrail increase the capacity of the London Terminii.

 

[HSTEd]

Yes, but maintaining a Classic Liverpool train would essentially only benefit the flow 'Stafford-LIverpool' which I can't imagine is large enough to justify the path into London by itself.

They can't change at Crewe if they really want to make such a journey and we save a path that is literally doing nothing that isn't done better by a combination of the HS2 Liverpool services and an extra stop on the Chester service.

There will be less trains moving about Birmingham New street post HS2 which means you should be able to handle additional Birmingham terminators, especially as many of them will probably not have to be 11x23m coaches long after the Pendos are gone.

 

[The Ham]

Personally I would think a service pattern similar to the below would work well at giving places like Stoke and Coventry reasonable frequency of 'fast' trains while still serving places further south of them on the WCML.

1tph Birmingham New Street, Birmingham International, Coventry, Rugby, Milton Keynes Central, London Euston
1tph Birmingham New Street, Birmingham International, Coventry, Milton Keynes Central, Watford Junction, London Euston

1thp Manchester Piccadilly, Stockport, Macclesfield, Stoke-on-Trent, Lichfield Trent Valley, Tamworth, Milton Keynes Central, London Euston
1thp Manchester Piccadilly, Stockport, Macclesfield, Stoke-on-Trent, Nuneaton, Milton Keynes Central, Watford Junction, London Euston

1tph Liverpool Lime Street, Liverpool South Parkway, Runcorn, or Chester, Crewe, Stafford, Lichfield Trent Valley, Tamworth, Rugby, Milton Keynes Central, London Euston
1tph Glasgow Central, Motherwell, Carlisle, Penrith or Oxenholme Lake District, Lancaster, Preston, Wigan North Western, Warrington Bank Quay, Crewe, Stafford, Nueaton, Milton Keneys Central, London Euston

Such a service pattern would give reasonable journey times from Coventry and Stoke while giving stations from the Trent Valley south faster and more frequent services to London. Such a service pattern would also give much improved links between stations south of the Trent Valley to destinations further north, which is not the case with the current WCML timetable.

I agree, such a service pattern would be good, however it may well be that some of the Birmingham and Manchester services go a little further. For instance the Birmingham services could also serve Shrewsbury and the Manchester services could also serve Blackpool. As although most people from such places going to London would then change to HS2 at the first point that they could, it would allow people travelling between (say) Coverntry and Shrewsbury to have a direct service, it would also allow passengers betwen (say) Blackpool and Milton Keynes to have a direct service (where otherwise they would have to change twice to use HS2 for one leg, which may not save them much time if any). Whilst providing a good service between places which are likely to require a good service any way (e.g. Manchester and Blackpool/Bolton or Birmingham and Shrewsbury/Wolverhampton).

 

[HSTEd]

I propose the following:

1tph Wolverhampton, Sandwell and Dudley, Birmingham New Street, Birmingham International, Coventry, Rugby, Milton Keynes Central, Watford Junction, London Euston
1tph Manchester Piccadilly, Stockport, Macclesfield, Stoke-on-Trent, Milton Keynes Central, London Euston
1tph Chester, Crewe, Stafford, Milton Keynes Central, London Euston
1tph Glasgow Central, Motherwell, Carlisle, Penrith, Oxenholme Lake District, Lancaster, Preston, Wigan North Western, Warrington Bank Quay, Crewe, Wolverhampton, Sandwell and Dudley, Birmingham New Street

This economises on paths and would be coordinated with modifications to the London Midland stopping pattern to develop Crewe and Milton Keynes as 'interconnection points' where passengers who wish to can transfer between trains, with Crewe serving as a primary tie in for northern passengers wishing to join HS2 and Milton Keynes allowing people to reach outlying London destinations like Watford Junction and so on from the north.

 

[The Ham]

Yes, but maintaining a Classic Liverpool train would essentially only benefit the flow 'Stafford-LIverpool' which I can't imagine is large enough to justify the path into London by itself.

They can't change at Crewe if they really want to make such a journey and we save a path that is literally doing nothing that isn't done better by a combination of the HS2 Liverpool services and an extra stop on the Chester service.

It's not using up a path into London it's effectivley tagged onto a Crewe to London service which calls at Stafford, Lichfield Trent Valley, Tamworth, Rugby, Milton Keynes Central, which all justify the path into London, it just provides a good (direct) conection between those locations and Liverpool as well.

Yes most people travel into and out of London, however there are still a lot of people who use the train who don't want to go to London.

i.e. if 33% rail passengers do not travel in.out.through London and there are 1.5bn passengers on the network then that is still 0.5bn people who want to travel by train and therefore they think that HS2 does nothing for them, however by removing a lot of passengers going to/from London form their services it then makes travel by train a better experiane for them.

It's like someone saying. I'll never use the by-pass to my town, why should I support it? As by building the by-pass it makes the roads they use quiter, so their journey is easier.

 

[Moonshot]

They're still won't be space for local trains to places like Tuxford if they're still Intercity services to Hull, Wakefield etc. If HS2 was about capacity then it would serve all the current key destinations.

That would depend on what your definition of key is......but from an overall perspective, clearly targeting the 4 biggest areas of economic activity ( London, Birmingham , Manchester and Leeds for a game changing investment makes sense. Capacity released by this has a knock on benefit elsewhere

 

[tbtc]

There will be less trains moving about Birmingham New street post HS2 which means you should be able to handle additional Birmingham terminators, especially as many of them will probably not have to be 11x23m coaches long after the Pendos are gone.

I doubt it.

Ignoring all of the competing claims for extra services on "classic" routes over the next couple of years (extending the Hereford services to a new turnback at Tamworth etc), you'll still need a frequent service from Birmingham to Coventry which HS2 won't be providing.

Am not saying that it needs to be 125mph stock with a buffet car, am not saying it needs to run all the way to London, but there'll still need to meet this local demand.

 

[joeykins82]

From HS2 explanation of the service patterns (p7 & 8)
Predicted service pattern:
3tph Birmingham New Street, Birmingham International, Coventry
1tph Birmingham New Street, Marston Green, Birmingham International, Coventry
2tph Birmingham New Street, Birmingham International, Hampton-in-Arden, Berkswell, Tile Hill, Canley, Coventry
1tph Birmingham New Street, Marston Green, Birmingham International, Hampton-in-Arden, Berkswell, Tile Hill, Canley, Coventry
(also 2tph just between New Street and International)

I've omitted the stations outside of the Birmingham New Street to Coventry route but you get the idea, it's not a corridor that's going to be starved of service!

 

[43074]

From HS2 explanation of the service patterns (p7 & 8)
Predicted service pattern:
3tph Birmingham New Street, Birmingham International, Coventry
1tph Birmingham New Street, Marston Green, Birmingham International, Coventry
2tph Birmingham New Street, Birmingham International, Hampton-in-Arden, Berkswell, Tile Hill, Canley, Coventry
1tph Birmingham New Street, Marston Green, Birmingham International, Hampton-in-Arden, Berkswell, Tile Hill, Canley, Coventry
(also 2tph just between New Street and International)

I've omitted the stations outside of the Birmingham New Street to Coventry route but you get the idea, it's not a corridor that's going to be starved of service!

Much of the fuss in Coventry is not over services to Birmingham but they are worried about service speed and frequency South thereof, which is IMO is just as significant as the service to Brum and the North.

 

[gordonthemoron]

has anyone suggested diverting Trent Valley services via Coventry to replace Brum-Euston services which are going to HS2?

 

[The Planner]

Yuck, that would import horrible conflicts at Coventry and Nuneaton and based on the spec above the service isn't really decreasing.

 

[Bonemaster]

There will be less trains moving about Birmingham New street post HS2 which means you should be able to handle additional Birmingham terminators

The direct current planned net effect is 1 train per hour less, the small impact here and at other bottlenecks is because the majority of the current service is still required. Some of the comparisons with service frequencies in the mid 1990s is irrelevant given the amount of growth in rail passenger traffic generated since then. Stoke as an example has doubled since 2004, Coventry up to 250% of its 2004 value. A visit to Coventry station in a morning would show that a 4 car train would be full, standing and wedged to the doors, just with the from Coventry southbound passenger numbers now, let alone with any future growth.

You can take a look at the "shopping list" of non core plan future services and almost three quarters can be ruled out because HS2 does not relieve the pinch points that currently exist sufficiently to allow them, the network that is currently full only gets at best a couple of paths released. As such you end up with £50bn spent and only a fraction of the benefits that you hope for.

 

[WessexEclectic]

As you indicate, this anti HS2 movement is not exactly ' a peasants' revolt' is it?

Given the fact that the 'peasants' are paying for it and will be unlikely to take avantage of it, it is surprising that they aren't 'revolting', no?

 

[TheGrew]

As some food for thought, how much capacity would be gained in a 390 set assuming the 1st/2nd class balance was altered post HS2. (I imagine a fair bit of 1st Class traffic is end to end that HS2 will satisfy).

 

[Philip Elliott]

Why do we *need* at least those frequencies and speeds to be retained?

Take away the Manchester/ Birmingham (etc) passengers and would anyone really claim that Stoke/ Coventry justify those levels of service?

A lot of places get a good service at the moment because they are on a direct route between London and somewhere large further north - would Grantham get a couple of trains an hour to the capital were it not for the fact that trains from Leeds/ Newcastle pass through it?

Look at it from the opposite direction, can we justify running 3tph to Brum and Manchester currently if they didn't stop at Cov/Stoke/MK/Macclesfield etc.? They would be very empty trains...

And aren't we supposed to be thinking of patronage in 2033 and beyond? Quite why so many seem to think that Brum/Manc usage will boom and everywhere else will stagnate I don't know...

 

[Spaceflower]

Look at it from the opposite direction, can we justify running 3tph to Brum and Manchester currently if they didn't stop at Cov/Stoke/MK/Macclesfield etc.? They would be very empty trains...

And aren't we supposed to be thinking of patronage in 2033 and beyond? Quite why so many seem to think that Brum/Manc usage will boom and everywhere else will stagnate I don't know...

Exactly, with HS2, Birmingham and Manchester WILL boom and everywhere else WILL stagnate. It's a means to end.

 

[Deerfold]

Exactly, with HS2, Birmingham and Manchester WILL boom and everywhere else WILL stagnate. It's a means to end.

And then everywhere else will be clamouring for the next HS line?

 

[Geezertronic]

Given the fact that the 'peasants' are paying for it and will be unlikely to take avantage of it, it is surprising that they aren't 'revolting', no?

There are lots of projects UK wide that my tax contributes to and that I won't take advantage of but I don't complain about it and neither should they

 

[Spaceflower]

....a line of some form or another.

****city living.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There are lots of projects UK wide that my tax contributes to and that I won't take advantage of but I don't complain about it and neither should they

Ahem, I think it's more about equity.

 

[Deerfold]

....a line of some form or another.

****city living.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Ahem, I think it's more about equity.

No, no idea what you're on about. Can you expand?

 

[Spaceflower]

No, no idea what you're on about. Can you expand?

Fairness. Equitable distribution of taxpayers money so benefits are maximised amongst all groups, not just the wealthy.

 

[Deerfold]

Fairness. Equitable distribution of taxpayers money so benefits are maximised amongst all groups, not just the wealthy.

I still can't tell if you're for or against it from this comment.

You've said everywhere except Manchester and London will stagnate but given no indication where you've got this from.

 

[Spaceflower]

I still can't tell if you're for or against it.

Nor am I to be honest.

I'm sceptical about who the biggest winners and losers are going to be.

I'm sceptical about the costs (not just financial).

I'm sceptical about the benefits.

What about you? For or against?