High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[HSTEd]

Well, it now appears that HS2 is actually going to happen.....
But one of the political arguments used is that it is "just the beginning" of a High Speed network that will stretch the length and breadth of the country and so on and so on (insert buzz words here).

Problem is, in the interests of ensuring that the route is as heavily utilised as possible from day one of Phase 2, sufficient trains have been planned to ensure that the route is effectively full.

We have something like proposed:
3tph Leeds
3tph Manchester
3tph Birmingham
2tph Liverpool*
2tph Newcastle/Edinburgh (East)*
1tph Glasgow*
1tph Edinburgh (West)*
1tph York*
1tph Preston*

Which takes us to 17tph.
Even if we fold in all the CC trains (marked with an asterisk) into joined pairs, assuming something like that is even practical, we still end up with a full 13 paths per hour being used.

There are then numerous other proposals for additional service possibilities, such as a clockface hourly service to Chester and Hull. Then there is that there will apparently be a fourth path to Birmingham Curzon Street during Phase 1 which will then be stripped away during Phase 2... as that is unlikely to be popular it may prove neccesary to maintain a fourth path per hour into Birmingham.

Possibility of future northern extensions
Future extensions of the network further north are likely to require significant upgrades of the service provision to those locales.
As a through station at Newcastle seems to be impractical paths assigned to trains heading there cannot be used to provide service to lcoales further north.

With significantly reduced journey times we could expect to demand 2tph to Newcastle formed of captive stock in addition to a service formed from a Classic compatible service stations on the northern ECML that will be served by the CC sets. (Darlington/Durham?)
That takes the demand for Newcastle services from 1 path per hour (2CC) to 2.5 paths (2 captive and 1 CC).

Likewise any attempt to extend the line into Scotland, even by the proposed Newcastle-Central Belt route will require significantly larger numbers of paths.
Currently there are two dedicated CC sets per hour to Scottish destinations, but with the arrival of the captive line it can be expected that reduced journey times woul dlead to a demand for half hourly captive service to both destinations. (Attempting through trackwork at Edinburgh appears to be doomed to failure thanks to the topography in the city centre)

That takes us from 1 path (2CC) to 4 paths (4 captive) plus the possibility of additional CC paths to Aberdeen and so on brought about by the travel time being reduced by ~1hr30-2hrs.

And then there is the possibility of modifications to Crewe station to add a northward facing High Speed access point and clearing the station for captive trains in preparation of building a High Speed spur to Liverpool from the vicinity of Wigan using a complex curve tunnel to access some sort of new station in central Liverpool from a North Easterly approach (it gives the shortest length of new track required by a rather large amount) which would allow captive trains into Liverpool and shorten journey times.

Regardless of the exact figures it appears that the existing HS2 core section to Birmingham will be unable to support the demands placed upon it by an extended High Speed Network.

A proposed solution

There are several options for increasing capacity south of Birmingham, and I will outline the basics of three of them.

The first is the, on the face of it, obvious choice, which is to quadrouple the proposed High Speed line out of Euston to the West Midlands.
Unfortunately this has several problems.
It is likely that the work to allow quadroupling in the tunnels and green cuttings would have to be done during the construction of Phase 1 of the line, which is a long way in advance of the actual demand for the capacity that the would provide.

It will cause numerous problems with the campaigners along the route, they are likely to fight all the harder against High Speed rail in general if they discover that the route will support upwards of 30 trains per hour rather than 18, which all the attendant increases in noise pollution.

A four track route will generate additional questions in the public mind as to why the route will not be provided with intermediate stations since normally a four track railway has "fast" and "slow" lines.
Having a 4 track route with only "fast" lines is likely to be politically unacceptable.

The junction work north of Birmingham International (or Interchange or whatever you want to call it, I will refer to it here as International as that is what I touchtype so it saves me going back to correct it over and over again) would have to be made be far more complicated in the initial phases with significant additional expense to account for an extra pair of through lines.

I will however refer to this as option 'Q'.

The second solution is to build a new high speed line to Birmingham International via a more Westerly route, with the London terminus being a reconstructed Paddington (would require the demolition of the Vodafone HQ building to account for the lengthened platforms).

This route would proceed in tunnel from just outside the new station entrance to Heathrow airport, where a new station would be constructed along the lines of OOC.
The line would then proceed to somewhere in the vicinity of Twyford where a triangle junction would be provided to connect to the GWML's existing lines in the Reading approach.

The line would then bear north and have an intermediate station at a completely reconstructed Oxford station (make room by demolishing the car parks and some light industrial units south of the station to allow for 4 400m HS platforms and two high speed through lines). Alternatively an Ashford style station reconstruction with the high speed line itself bypassing the location in a tunnel could be more feasible in cost terms.

North of there the high speed line would proceed directly to Birmingham International, feeding nito a duplicate station directly adjacent to the existing one. (This avoids disruption due to upgrade works to the initial station, apart from perhaps concourse expansion works).

The line from this duplicate station would remain seperate from the existing HS2 but would have its own set of junctions that would allow it to connect to all three routes north from the junction complex (the western route, eastern route and Birmingham spur).

This would enable all destinations to be reached by the line via Oxford, although it would not be able to use all platforms at Birmingham International for obvious reasons.

This route would allow approximately ~8tph to be provided for destinations beyond Birmingham International, with the remaining ~10tph being dispersed on classic compatible trains on the GWML and on a classic compatible train going beyond Oxford to Hereford/Great Malvern.

This is my preferred option as it connects Heathrow to the system, provides additional platform capacity in London for High Speed trains (in Paddington) and provides capacity benefits in the Western Region, as well as starting the construction of a high speed line towards BRistol and South Wales.

I will define this option as 'W'.

The third option is to construct a new line from either a additionally expanded Euston or from a reconstructed King's Cross St Pancras complex (although fitting 400m platforms in at KGX-SP would be a nightmare).
The route would run via Luton airport and probably have a run in to Leicester station (although a through station is considerably mroe difficult to arrange than at Oxford).

It would then connect, either by a triangle or a simple north facing delta (which would be cheaper but less flexible in terms of future service patterns) to the line somewhere to the south of the Toton station.

This would provide the full capacity of the route, possibly some ~12-14tph (depending on service to Leicester) to the north but they would only be available to stations in the "Eastern" arm of the High Speed network.

I will call this option 'M'.

Analysis of the Options

The three options I have outlined appear to be the obvious choices for improving capacity over the "core" section of HS2.
In my opinion it goes 'W' > 'M' > 'Q' with Q being by far the least desirable, however there are problems with all three.

So what does everyone else think?

 

[LE Greys]

Which won't go on Thameslink, as that's full (unless they extend Crossrail 2 to WGC, which is highly unlikely), but that doesn't really matter.

That remains to be seen, although this is somewhat of a 'worst case'.

Edinburgh (and beyond), not Newcastle. While obviously not the quickest service anymore, it looks like the EC services between Newcastle and Edi will stay, the XC will be replaced with TPX to Liverpool.

It's highly unlikely that anyone will travel on them, though. If you had a choice, would you spend an extra hour on the train to go to London? Unless they are priced massively below HS2 fares (meaning high-density seating and no on-board services) I can't see anything to attract passengers to them. "No passengers means no trains," as Revd Awdrey once put it.

That's a bit overkill, especially given the 2tph extra at Newark, and the 1tph extra at Grantham. Also, no Sunderland?
I'd imagine something more like:
1tph Doncaster - Retford - Newark - Peterborough - Stevenage - Kings Cross (from Leeds)
1tph Doncaster - Retford - Newark - Grantham - Peterborough - Stevenage - Kings Cross (from York)
1tph Newark - Grantham - Peterborough - Stevenage - Kings Cross (from Lincoln)
1tph Doncaster - Grantham - Peterborough - Kings Cross (from Sunderland)
1tph Doncaster - Grantham - Peterborough - Kings Cross (from Hull)
1tph Doncaster - Newark - Peterborough - Kings Cross (from Scotland)

I'm assuming a uniform stopping pattern with shorter trains, mainly to make pathing simpler. This is a reasonable alternative version, although I still reckon HS2 will corner the market north of the junction, because of the unquestionable speed and cost advantages. They should get 100% of London-Scotland passengers, probably about 75% of London-Newcastle, 75% of London-Leeds and at least 50% of Durham, Darlington, York, Sunderland, etc. Think about a comparative French route (the Paris à Lyon et à la Méditerranée for instance). Since the opening of LGV SudEst, let alone LGV Méditerranée, how many passengers have travelled the whole length of the classic line? Not many, I'll bet.

This gives Stevenage 3tph, Peterborough 3tph non-stop, Grantham 4tph, Newark 4tph and Retford 2tph. Seems about right.

This partly depends on stopping patterns. In an absolute worst-case scenario, even the Newcastle trains will become just another York semi-fast. My assumption is based on short, frequent, semi-fast trains (probably 5-car IEPs or their replacement).

It will certainly look empty, but there will still be suburban trains (even if CR2 runs to WGC. Only Crossrail 3 could allow a full transfer of suburban services) and ex-Scotland trains. The role will have completely changed - direct (but slower) services to Scottish destinations, Intercity services to the second-tier cities of Hull and Sunderland, fast regional services to the east East Midlands (that also extend into Yorkshire, giving a slower alternate route) and commuter/regional services through Herts into Fenland.

That remains to be seen. I do tend to fear the worst (just a personality trait) but I'm gravely concerned.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I have to agree with Chris here.

What is there are only suggestions, but one thing which makes me pretty much ignore this when it comes to potential furture service patterns post HS2 is that it only has 2tph going to Northampton for the majority of the day, which would actually be a reduction in service from today. The suggested calling patterns for the southern WCML are also very differnet to those proposed by Network Rail and Passenger Focus, in this report.

Going back to the ECML in particualr. I really don't understand why it has be suggested that XC services should be terminated at Newcastle and basically replaced by extending TPE services to replace them. I can't see any benefits in doing so.

Thank you for this, exactly what I was looking for. I found this little gem on Page 9. Speaks for itself, doesn't it?

Edinburgh, Berwick upon Tweed, Alnmouth, Newcastle, Durham, Darlington, York, Doncaster, Peterborough, London King's Cross (through trains to Glasgow, Dundee, Aberdeen and Inverness are withdrawn)

I don't understand that TPX transfer either, unless they're thinking that the Birmingham-Edinburgh HS2 services will extend to Bristol and onwards.

 

[si404]

That remains to be seen, although this is somewhat of a 'worst case'.

They won't all fit on Thameslink. 8tph is allocated for the ECML, as the MML takes the others. Unless the ground swallows up Luton as an abomination and thus removing demand on the MML, the ECML won't get more than 4 8-car trains and 4 12-car trains each hour.

It's highly unlikely that anyone will travel on them, though. If you had a choice, would you spend an extra hour on the train to go to London?

It's a case of 'not all the way', surely? There's countless situations where slower trains run between two stations where a far faster services runs.

Think about a comparative French route (the Paris à Lyon et à la Méditerranée for instance). Since the opening of LGV SudEst, let alone LGV Méditerranée, how many passengers have travelled the whole length of the classic line? Not many, I'll bet.

But the French didn't have direct 125mph classic lines, did they? But again, this 'whole length' thing is a fallacy.

That remains to be seen. I do tend to fear the worst (just a personality trait) but I'm gravely concerned.

Gravely concerned that Kings Cross isn't going to be as important anymore? Even under your doomsday scenarios, it's not the end of Kings Cross, let alone the end of the world!

I don't understand that TPX transfer either, unless they're thinking that the Birmingham-Edinburgh HS2 services will extend to Bristol and onwards.

Makes perfect sense - W Yorks to Edinburgh gets direct trains, Birmingham to Edinburgh doesn't need the slower route (S Yorks has Doncaster and faster trains to Newcastle than XC would be, the small amount of SW - Scotland traffic changes at Birmingham, or somewhere like Stockport as faster). Therefore, it's E Mids - Edi vs W Yorks - Edi traffic, and W Yorks wins.

You've been complaining that surely no one would use ECML services north of the HS2 junction, as HS2 does it faster, but then are mystified when they've decided to do change services so as to favour a route that is less duplicated by HS2!

 

[tbtc]

[*]If you're travelling to Scotland or Newcastle, it's obviously good to have through trains (especially if they stop at Peterborough or Doncaster)

A lot of the Scottish trains (especially the HSTs) don't stop at the southern stations on the ECML, so the few passengers in Stevenage/ Grantham etc wanting to travel to northern Scotland have to change somewhere. Does it really matter whether the train that they are changing onto has run fast over Welwyn or fast via the HS2 route?

[*]The line saw massive investment by BR to speed up travel to Scotland

...and we are now seeing more "massive investment" to speed up travel to Scotland. It just happens not to be on "your" route.

[*]More widely, commuting would suburbanise the local economy, increasing house prices and probably reducing local jobs in everything except tertiary industry (mainly retail)
[*]Commuting would tie the local economy much more in with London

I really don't see how removing the non-stop trains through Hertfordshire is going to make the area more dependant upon commuting to London?

It's if the Underground becomes 'St Pancras-King's Cross' that worries me!

I appreciate your historical views, but this really doesn't bother me. Other termini have gained/ lost "significance" over the years, other lines have seen their London terminus change - if Kings Cross becomes less important than Euston and St P then so be it.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Option M is what is recommended in all the greengauge and HS2 documents. Taking all North East Services down a different route.

 

[steamdrivenand]

I'd go for Option M too, in fact we only posted here the other day that they missed a trick not going that way in the first place.

In some ways it would mean that all the track across from the west to Toton would be wasted and although it's nice to have the connection for XC type routeing (Newcastle to Brum say) it's expensive for the amount of business it would carry once the main business is tanking up and down both sides of the country. And that money could go into Option M from the beginning.

Again I think this is another example of extra costs and issues bought about by planning the whole thing in Phases. Each Phase has had to have somewhere that's deemed important to aim for (Brum then Leeds and Manchester). If the project had been looked at from Day 1 on the basis of a complete network we might have had a much more cost effective and less zigzag solution.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I'd go for Option M too, in fact we only posted here the other day that they missed a trick not going that way in the first place.

In some ways it would mean that all the track across from the west to Toton would be wasted and although it's nice to have the connection for XC type routeing (Newcastle to Brum say) it's expensive for the amount of business it would carry once the main business is tanking up and down both sides of the country. And that money could go into Option M from the beginning.

Again I think this is another example of extra costs and issues bought about by planning the whole thing in Phases. Each Phase has had to have somewhere that's deemed important to aim for (Brum then Leeds and Manchester). If the project had been looked at from Day 1 on the basis of a complete network we might have had a much more cost effective and less zigzag solution.

Yes it isnt great but its a good starting point. And if you consider that the current timetable has 2tph Leeds Birmingham Czn St, 1tph Newcastle Birmingham Czn St and 1tph Leeds Heathrow. So 4tph in each direction over the bit from Toton to Birmingham isnt all that bad... its not like it will be dead.

 

[Martin222002]

It's highly unlikely that anyone will travel on them, though. If you had a choice, would you spend an extra hour on the train to go to London? Unless they are priced massively below HS2 fares (meaning high-density seating and no on-board services) I can't see anything to attract passengers to them. "No passengers means no trains," as Revd Awdrey once put it.

I'm assuming a uniform stopping pattern with shorter trains, mainly to make pathing simpler. This is a reasonable alternative version, although I still reckon HS2 will corner the market north of the junction, because of the unquestionable speed and cost advantages. They should get 100% of London-Scotland passengers, probably about 75% of London-Newcastle, 75% of London-Leeds and at least 50% of Durham, Darlington, York, Sunderland, etc. Think about a comparative French route (the Paris à Lyon et à la Méditerranée for instance). Since the opening of LGV SudEst, let alone LGV Méditerranée, how many passengers have travelled the whole length of the classic line? Not many, I'll bet.

In terms of ECML London to Edinburgh (and beyond) services I think you need to remember that there will be demand from destinations along the ECML south of York for services to Scotland and vice versa.

Of cause the London to Scotland traffic will 99.9% move to the HS2 services, but in turn this will mean that Scotland services along the ECML will be better able to deal with the demand from the intermediate station to Scotland and the north of England, with speed of cause then being a lesser priority.

There will also be places where HS2 wont directly serve which will still want direct services to London, such as Wakefield, Durham (which currently will only be served by HS2 services to Birmingham), Hull, Bradford, Sunderland, Harrogate, Skipton and Lincoln, as well as others. Also, as HS2 services are currently not planned to go any further north on the ECML than Newcastle, Morpeth, Almouth, Berwick-upon-tweed and to a lesser extent Dunbar will also want to keep there direct services to London.

On the terms of catering, just because there wouldn't be the London-Scotland market doesn't mean catering would go altogether. I can't actually think of any long distance routes (with the exception of some regional services) that doesn't have any catering at all.

 

[LE Greys]

A lot of the Scottish trains (especially the HSTs) don't stop at the southern stations on the ECML, so the few passengers in Stevenage/ Grantham etc wanting to travel to northern Scotland have to change somewhere. Does it really matter whether the train that they are changing onto has run fast over Welwyn or fast via the HS2 route?

Yes, but (for the hundredth time) these trains use the same rolling stock, are maintained in the same sheds, have the same staff, sell the same food and drink and are generally very similar. Is it seriously possible to maintain that level of service when the big, luctraive markets at the north end are using a different route? Of course it isn't.

...and we are now seeing more "massive investment" to speed up travel to Scotland. It just happens not to be on "your" route.

So please don't expect me to be happy about it. It's all very well being told "you're not very important," but it's far worse to hear "you're not very important any more". In the 40s, we will have a fight on our hands to defend the ECML from "rationalisation", that's the lesson I take from history. I'm fully prepared to support HS2, but not at the expense of the ECML. Incidentally, I can't see the MML doing that well out of it either, especially the Leicester-Bedford section. Yes, there will be winners and losers, but nobody wants to lose.

I really don't see how removing the non-stop trains through Hertfordshire is going to make the area more dependant upon commuting to London?

The area is dependent on commuting to London anyway. That's a growing trend, part of its economic development (one I don't especially like either). However, the question of the local economy this century depends in part on its transport links. We are currently placed very well, a short distance from London and on a major link to the north, a good location for some company headquarters, distribution centres, light industry and so on. If your main manufacturing base/import pipeline/whatever is in Tyneside/Scotland and a lot of your market is based in London, then this is a good place to be (the biggest examples local to me are Astrium and Betfair). Lose part of that competitive advantage, and there as a risk a company might relocate somewhere else. That's the 'push factor'.

Then take the 'pull factor', improved suburban services. This attracts commuters, who think the area is a good place to live. It also attacts businesses who cater for commuters, the service sector (retail, leisure and so on). Now, I don't see that as positive (here's where personal views come in). Firstly, if something goes wrong with the London economy, you have a lot of unemployed people living in an area with little work (that's a major problem in Herts today). Secondly, it affects things such as house prices. Thirdly, if half a town's population heads off to London every day, that affects the character of the area. Finally, it encourages out-of-town development and that's bad for town centres.

I appreciate your historical views, but this really doesn't bother me. Other termini have gained/ lost "significance" over the years, other lines have seen their London terminus change - if Kings Cross becomes less important than Euston and St P then so be it.

I understand that, but it's not your terminus. Put it this way, wind the clock back to the 1960s and think of Sheffield Victoria.

 

[HSTEd]

It is worth mentioning that both Options 'M' and 'W' require ~109 miles of new route, and both require massive reconstruction of the London termini.

While Option 'W' only delivers 8 paths per hour to the north extra compared to ~12-14 for 'M', 'W' provides ~45km of a new high speed line to the South West that absorbs 9 paths per hour from the 'W' core and will allow significant improvements in service in the Thames Valley by emptying out the fast lines into Paddington and making them available for non Crossrail services.

Overall I think 'W' is the better choice, since I think 8tph extra for the north is acceptable in the medium term... and because rebuilding Kings Cross and St Pancras appears to be a nightmare (the canal abstructs King's Cross and there isn't enough width in the station to get enough capacity out of the existing MML platforms at St Pancras even if they are lengthened).
Running into Euston would also dump even more traffic on what is sure to be an extremely busy station, while Paddington would allow some of the high speed loading to be dispersed on another part of the tube network.

 

[LE Greys]

In terms of ECML London to Edinburgh (and beyond) services I think you need to remember that there will be demand from destinations along the ECML south of York for services to Scotland and vice versa.

I can assure you I'm fully aware of that fact! I have made thousands of journeys one the ECML, and only one started from King's Cross and ran north of Peterborough (and that was Valenta-bashing the GC sets). That's my whole point. However, I believe that this entire market is being written off as a consequence of HS2 and the generally London-centric nature of planning in this country. Look at the VHF timetable from the point of view of someone living in Milton Keynes for another example, or the current EC timetable for that matter.

Of cause the London to Scotland traffic will 99.9% move to the HS2 services, but in turn this will mean that Scotland services along the ECML will be better able to deal with the demand from the intermediate station to Scotland and the north of England, with speed of cause then being a lesser priority.

There will also be places where HS2 wont directly serve which will still want direct services to London, such as Wakefield, Durham (which currently will only be served by HS2 services to Birmingham), Hull, Bradford, Sunderland, Harrogate, Skipton and Lincoln, as well as others. Also, as HS2 services are currently not planned to go any further north on the ECML than Newcastle, Morpeth, Almouth, Berwick-upon-tweed and to a lesser extent Dunbar will also want to keep there direct services to London.

A combination of political pressure from Scotland and the existance of HS2 will inevitably force changes. There's no way the Scottish Government would stand for HS2 services only getting as far as Newcastle, they would demand Edinburgh and Glasgow at least. Aberdeen and Inverness have lobbied hard to retain their through trains, and will no doubt lobby hard for an HS2 service - whether they get one is anybody's guess. Durham and Sunderland, change to HS2 at Darlington. Wakefield, Bradford, Harrogate and Skipton, change to HS2 at Leeds. That just leaves Hull and Lincoln.

On the terms of catering, just because there wouldn't be the London-Scotland market doesn't mean catering would go altogether. I can't actually think of any long distance routes (with the exception of some regional services) that doesn't have any catering at all.

Do they have catering on Waterloo-Exeter? It's a question of the market they are aiming at. The only way to retain market share is to cut costs.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It is worth mentioning that both Options 'M' and 'W' require ~109 miles of new route, and both require massive reconstruction of the London termini.

While Option 'W' only delivers 8 paths per hour to the north extra compared to ~12-14 for 'M', 'W' provides ~45km of a new high speed line to the South West that absorbs 9 paths per hour from the 'W' core and will allow significant improvements in service in the Thames Valley by emptying out the fast lines into Paddington and making them available for non Crossrail services.

Overall I think 'W' is the better choice, since I think 8tph extra for the north is acceptable in the medium term... and because rebuilding Kings Cross and St Pancras appears to be a nightmare (the canal abstructs King's Cross and there isn't enough width in the station to get enough capacity out of the existing MML platforms at St Pancras even if they are lengthened).
Running into Euston would also dump even more traffic on what is sure to be an extremely busy station, while Paddington would allow some of the high speed loading to be dispersed on another part of the tube network.

I suppose York/Leeds-Stratford via Peterborough and Stansted is out of the question. That would redress the balance very firmly, and provide a much more direct link to France. Let's call it option E (for 'Eastern' or 'Europe', whichever you prefer).

Surely, Paddington has an additional priority, a line running west to Bristol, South Wales and Plymouth, presumably serving Heathrow and Reading on the way. Ideally, it would also take in Swindon, allowing it to absorb traffic to Cheltenham as well, but running farther south can't be out of the question.

 

[steamdrivenand]

What sort of timescale are we talking here? If Phase 2 is 20 years from opening and further phases are required to generate the traffic bottleneck it could be many decades before the issue arises. Getting politicians to actually think of a project with a 20 year timecycle is an enormous achievement, getting them to think even longer term is just not going to happen surely?

 

[Martin222002]

I can assure you I'm fully aware of that fact! I have made thousands of journeys one the ECML, and only one started from King's Cross and ran north of Peterborough (and that was Valenta-bashing the GC sets). That's my whole point. However, I believe that this entire market is being written off as a consequence of HS2 and the generally London-centric nature of planning in this country. Look at the VHF timetable from the point of view of someone living in Milton Keynes for another example, or the current EC timetable for that matter.

Ok, I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say here, as the two point contradict one another? If there are plenty of people from stations on the southern ECML? I don't really understand why you are comparing what may happen on the ECML to what has happened after VHF was introduced on the WCML, and as you mention after the Eureka timetable on the ECML? As the fast services will be on HS2 and not the ECML, thus not taking up paths that could be used to give southern ECML intermediate stations more frequent services to London, Yorkshire, the North East and Scotland. That is one of the main benefits on HS2 for the ECML, and as such I don't understand as why you feel the ECML will actually have less services, as my understanding of your use of "written off".

A combination of political pressure from Scotland and the existance of HS2 will inevitably force changes. There's no way the Scottish Government would stand for HS2 services only getting as far as Newcastle, they would demand Edinburgh and Glasgow at least. Aberdeen and Inverness have lobbied hard to retain their through trains, and will no doubt lobby hard for an HS2 service - whether they get one is anybody's guess.

Glasgow and Edinburgh are to be served by HS2, with a half hourly service via the western arm of the HS2 Y and the WCML which splits (currently proposed at Carstairs) with one 200m classic compatible train to Glasgow and the other Edinburgh and vice-versa. There will also be an hourly service from Birmingham alternating between Glasgow and Edinburgh every 2 hours (just as the current WCML service from Birmingham does). As such this will be why the services along the eastern arm of the WCML currently don't appear to be going any further north than Newcastle, but I would think that the proposed Birmingham to Newcastle HS2 service would be a likely candidate to be extended to Edinburgh to give the Toton and Sheffield Meadowhall stations a faster service to the Scottish capital.

As for services into Scotland beyond Edinburgh and Glasgow, I think you are right in saying there would be pressure for a HS2 service(s) to Aberdeen and Inverness, and rightly so. There are currently 17tph proposed, excluding the Heathrow service(s) which will most likely not happen now, which gives you a free path for northern Scotland services, bring the total 18tph. In my opinion would be a much better use of the path than serving Heathrow, which will see frequent connection too at Old Oak Common via Crossrail and Heathrow Express.

Durham and Sunderland, change to HS2 at Darlington. Wakefield, Bradford, Harrogate and Skipton, change to HS2 at Leeds. That just leaves Hull and Lincoln.

People in the UK appear to have a preference to direct services over having change. After the opening HS2 it's looking likely that Wolverhampton will see additional services to London, and in the Network Rail and Passenger Focus proposals in linked to earlier show that Coventry would retain it's 3 fast tph to London. As such why wouldn't similar happen on the ECML for Wakefield and services extended beyond Leeds to give better direct links to London and destinations throughout West Yorkshire, as appears to be the case with Birmingham and the West Midlands post HS2.

Well, it now appears that HS2 is actually going to happen.....
But one of the political arguments used is that it is "just the beginning" of a High Speed network that will stretch the length and breadth of the country and so on and so on (insert buzz words here).

Problem is, in the interests of ensuring that the route is as heavily utilised as possible from day one of Phase 2, sufficient trains have been planned to ensure that the route is effectively full.

Personally I can't see what the issue is.

As I have stated above an 18th path would be better used in my opinion to serve infrequent long distance destinations such as services to Inverness and Aberdeen. As for an hourly service to Chester, I think this would be best resolved by having with a double 200m classic compatible trains dividing at Crewe, with one train to Preston and the other to Chester, and possibly beyond. As for serving Hull, the only way that would be possible would be a reversal at York, but surly going that far north to go back south then east would make the journey time nearly as long as the direct ECML service.

I also have to agree with steamdrivenand. If any additional capacity was required then surly this wouldn't be till the 2040s at the earliest. I also wouldn't be surprised if there were to be up to 20tph (one every 3 minutes which is the maximum HS2 ltd have said could run on the line) during the peaks, to give additional peak services to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds if required. Which reminds me, the 4th tph HSTEd mention is a additional peak service, which again suggests additional services in the peaks.

 

[JohnB57]

A combination of political pressure from Scotland and the existance of HS2 will inevitably force changes. There's no way the Scottish Government would stand for HS2 services only getting as far as Newcastle, they would demand Edinburgh and Glasgow at least. Aberdeen and Inverness have lobbied hard to retain their through trains, and will no doubt lobby hard for an HS2 service - whether they get one is anybody's guess.

But what will the justification be to the Scots, who would have to fund such an extension themselves? Scotland is already effectively independent in terms of transport policy after all and it's not a case of what their government will stand or otherwise, it's a case of what they're prepared to fund.

 

[HSTEd]

What sort of timescale are we talking here? If Phase 2 is 20 years from opening and further phases are required to generate the traffic bottleneck it could be many decades before the issue arises. Getting politicians to actually think of a project with a 20 year timecycle is an enormous achievement, getting them to think even longer term is just not going to happen surely?

The "Phase 3" that is often talked about is simply impractical without relieving the bottleneck though.

So it has to occur directly after Phase 2 and before any "Phase 3".... it is next in the queue.


And the additional service to Birmingham in the Peaks will only exist because the line in Phase 1 is effectively empty.
Once Phase 2 occurs it willl be politically impossible to withdraw it so it is likely the path will be formalised, at which point there would be little reason not to make it run all the time.

 

[Ironside]

What sort of timescale are we talking here? If Phase 2 is 20 years from opening and further phases are required to generate the traffic bottleneck it could be many decades before the issue arises. Getting politicians to actually think of a project with a 20 year timecycle is an enormous achievement, getting them to think even longer term is just not going to happen surely?

Probably best to get the current phases through parliament and building underway before announcing more parts of the high speed network, otherwise the anti campaign will become strengthened with more members.

 

[HSTEd]

Probably best to get the current phases through parliament and building underway before announcing more parts of the high speed network, otherwise the anti campaign will become strengthened with more members.

But the pro campaign will also be strengthened with more members, many people don't really care about HS2 as they consider it will have no significant effect on them.

 

[JohnB57]

Probably best to get the current phases through parliament and building underway before announcing more parts of the high speed network, otherwise the anti campaign will become strengthened with more members.

Stealth is never the best way forward.

I think there are two groups whose views should be ignored. Those who would object whatever the advantages and those who would blindly support HS2 despite any shortfall in benefit. Looking at the big picture over the long term will allow those who are going to pick up the bill for this to make a rational judgement.

 

[Ironside]

But the pro campaign will also be strengthened with more members, many people don't really care about HS2 as they consider it will have no significant effect on them.

Fair point.


Thinking about Aberdeen and Inverness, is there Enough of a current or forecast lack of capacity or is the justification just about line speed improvements?

 

[HSTEd]

Fair point.


Thinking about Aberdeen and Inverness, is there Enough of a current or forecast lack of capacity or is the justification just about line speed improvements?

Mainly its about the fact that it currently takes the very fastest ECML service something like 4hrs to reach Edinburgh, so even the Highland Chieftain must take that long (or slightly longer?) to reach London from there.

A non stop HS2 service could do Edinburgh in 2.5hrs assuming we go for the eastern route.
That is 90 minutes off the journey time to Inverness and Aberdeen before we even start.
I am not sure they would be happy with continuing to have one train per day down the ECML when they save 90 minutes by changing trains in Edinburgh.

Once you cut 1hr30 from the Northern Lights schedule you will get a journey time of ~5hr30, which is sure to generate rather more demand than the present 7hr schedule. Ditto the Highland Chieftain.

And this is before we consider journey time savings from electrification of the Aberdeen and Inverness routes north of the Central Belt in support of such a conversion.

 

[tbtc]

Yes, but (for the hundredth time) these trains use the same rolling stock, are maintained in the same sheds, have the same staff, sell the same food and drink and are generally very similar. Is it seriously possible to maintain that level of service when the big, luctraive markets at the north end are using a different route? Of course it isn't

Does the traffic at stations on the southern end of the ECML justify a restaurant service, buffet car etc? In which case any replacement service ought to aim to meet that market.

I understand that, but it's not your terminus. Put it this way, wind the clock back to the 1960s and think of Sheffield Victoria

Again, not something I'm overly sentimental about (unlike a certain Lincolnshire-obsessed poster on here...). The difference with Victoria is that its withdrawl meant the end of some other stations/ lines too - if in twenty years time the "first stop York" service from London to Edinburgh now leaves from Euston rather than Kings Cross then I doubt most passengers on board will mind/ notice.

If Sheffield's termini in London moved to Paddington or Waterloo I wouldn't mind, so long as the service/ time wasn't impacted. You could even argue that our service has moved to another station, given how spartan the "add on" to the old St Pancras train shed is compared to the old platforms that MML services used to run into.

 

[stephen_c]

Problem is, in the interests of ensuring that the route is as heavily utilised as possible from day one of Phase 2, sufficient trains have been planned to ensure that the route is effectively full.
...
The three options I have outlined appear to be the obvious choices for improving capacity over the "core" section of HS2.
In my opinion it goes 'W' > 'M' > 'Q' with Q being by far the least desirable, however there are problems with all three.

I favour 4 tracking, but not under the model you're proposing. It seems to me that 18 to 20tph of super-hi-speed trains is probably just about sufficient to serve the UK's top tier cities for at least 40 years. What it doesn't allow for is the next tier down of cities, Chester, Stoke, Stafford, Hull, Doncaster, Wolverhampton, Coventry and similar, plus city centres of Derby, Nottingham, Sheffield. Should these places get super-hi-speed 200mph+ services? Probably not. But they must continue to get a decent service to London of at least 1tph, because that it what customers actually want (direct services). Note that all of these would be classic compatible.

So, the clear option is four tracks south of Birmingham, but with the second set being something like 150mph and served with Javelin-like trains. The London terminus could be OOC, as smaller trains with fewer passengers should be managable by Crossrail. Links from the south to Warwick/Leamington, Lichfield, Tamworth & Notingham, from the North to Oxford & Heathrow, and intermediate stations at Aylesbury and the East-West line would be possibilities due to the lower speeds. Services might include:
* London - Aylesbury - Birmingham Rural - Lichfield - Rugely - Stafford - Stoke
* London - Calvert - Birmingham Rural - Tamworth - Burton-on-Trent - Derby -Chesterfield - Sheffield.
* London - Leamington - Warwick - Solihull - Birmingham Snow Hill -Walsall/Wolverhampton
* Reading - Oxford - Banbury - Birminham Rural - Nottingham - Lincoln

And to clarify, I think Northampton/MK commuters and freight need the existing WCML's four tracks. Critically, it also means that the WCML can be downgraded to 100mph at the south end, rather than having to continue to try and maintain the "Victorian" infrastructure at a level higher than is really sensible.

What it requires is a concrete proposal for all the second-tier cities to get behind. Because if they don't they will get left behind. Call it option 'B' (for broadening the appeal).

 

[Ironside]

Mainly its about the fact that it currently takes the very fastest ECML service something like 4hrs to reach Edinburgh, so even the Highland Chieftain must take that long (or slightly longer?) to reach London from there.

A non stop HS2 service could do Edinburgh in 2.5hrs assuming we go for the eastern route.
That is 90 minutes off the journey time to Inverness and Aberdeen before we even start.
I am not sure they would be happy with continuing to have one train per day down the ECML when they save 90 minutes by changing trains in Edinburgh.

Once you cut 1hr30 from the Northern Lights schedule you will get a journey time of ~5hr30, which is sure to generate rather more demand than the present 7hr schedule. Ditto the Highland Chieftain.

And this is before we consider journey time savings from electrification of the Aberdeen and Inverness routes north of the Central Belt in support of such a conversion.

So electrification of the Aberdeen and Inverness lines are required rather than new high speed lines? And this will have to be done by the time the second phase is done to allow passengers to get the speed benefit and not have to change train? Super IEP anybody? (joke).

 

[aylesbury]

I have noticed that the scottish parliament is agitating for the link to go to Scotland ,but looking at traffic camera,s on the M74 there is a distinct lack of traffic at all times.This being Scotlands main road link to the south and add in passenger loadings on the WCML and the conclusion must be ,why do they need HS2?

 

[steamdrivenand]

Not sure if I follow Stephen C's logic.

A network with city centre stations that runs to OOC which isn't a city centre station.

Forgive me but one could argue that what's good for the goose is good for the gander and that terminating at OOC is terminating at London's version of Manc Airport/Meadowhall/Toton which people are sniffy about because they're not central.

Central stations are an outmoded idea and are only on current lines because the cities were much, much smaller when the railways were built and Victorian voters were few and far between. Parking and car access is abysmal and costly, whereas Parkway stops give the builder flexibility, plenty of parking and much less environmental hassle/costly tunnelling etc. Why are the Manchester/Leeds/Birmingham Central stations on spurs? To avoid running right through a city, thereby cutting the routes footprint by 50%.

I used to drive 45 minutes to York to pick up the ECML and I'd be happy to do the same to catch HS2 if I still lived that way, but getting into Leeds as an alternative (the same distance in miles) was a nightmare. A Parkway station near York would be even better.

 

[nerd]

I have noticed that the scottish parliament is agitating for the link to go to Scotland ,but looking at traffic camera,s on the M74 there is a distinct lack of traffic at all times.This being Scotlands main road link to the south and add in passenger loadings on the WCML and the conclusion must be ,why do they need HS2?

The key point is that the Scotland Act specifies that the promotion and construction of new railway lines that 'start finish and remain entirely within Scotland' are the responsibility of Holyrood (and fall within the Scots element of the Barnet formula); but that Scotland-England cross-border railway lines are entirely a UK responsibility and are not within the Barnet formula totals.

Hence the Scots argument is that the whole of HS2 within Scotland is part of a cross-border railway line, and they should get it for free.

(all of which presumes that Scotland remains within the UK; if the Scots vote yes in the independence refrendum, then there is no UK to take responsibility for funding).

But assuming a 'no' vote - as most Scots alerady are; (though the SNP will not admit to this, which makes negotiation around HS2 Phase 3 akin to knitting fog) - there needs to be an understanding of how far into Scotland HS2 continues to count as a cross-border service. It seems that the current Westmisnter government are minded to accept that an Edinburgh-Glasgow HSR line can be considered cross-border, so long as trains from England are proposed to run along it; but that destinations further north would not be cross-border.

In terms of Phase 3, that may imply that some sort of deal could follow a 'no' vote under which Westiminster will fund Edinburgh-Glasgow via Gogar as the Scots end of HS2 Phase 3; to be constructed concurrently with HS2 Phases 1 and 2. The Scot have yet to commit themselves to whether from Gogar the line should go south-west via Carstairs, or south-east via Coldstream; but it seems from the Phase 2 documenttation just released that HS2 Ltd still very much fvaour the western route, and it is probable that Aberdeen, Inverness and points north will do so to.

But how far this Scots line will actually be built southwards into England concurrently with Phases 1 and 2 is still up in the air. The latest Phase 2 document does refer to the proposed joing DfT/TS Scotland study into this route; but is entirely non-committal as to where and when.

 

[Philip Elliott]

Central stations are an outmoded idea and are only on current lines because the cities were much, much smaller when the railways were built and Victorian voters were few and far between.

Eh? So no passengers ever want to arrive somewhere then?

 

[steamdrivenand]

Parking and car access is abysmal and costly, whereas Parkway stops give the builder flexibility, plenty of parking and much less environmental hassle/costly tunnelling etc. Why are the Manchester/Leeds/Birmingham Central stations on spurs? To avoid running right through a city, thereby cutting the routes footprint by 50%.

A touch ingenuous leaving out my next bit Philip, so I've added it above.

My point is that people hanker after city centre stations because that's what they're generally used to because the Victorians built the originals that way. Looked at through modern eyes it's probably why the railway industry has never quite managed to acknowledge and properly adapt to the existence of road transport, in all its forms. One hundred plus years after cars were invented and 50 years since they became the prime means of transport for the great majority of people you'd hope that railways could adapt better.

 

[HowardGWR]

Eh? So no passengers ever want to arrive somewhere then?

For car drivers 'somewhere' is where their car is parked. You want a car park where you leave from and a city centre station where you are going, (if its an office), or an OOT location if its a factory out by the motorway, say. In the latter case you'll take a taxi probably, or your host will meet you and start the meeting in the car and / or drive you to a gastro. If he's the client you pay, and if you are, he will. (You can only dream about the 'she').

That's the way it works now. The London end is different because they have local public transport for which you don't need a timetable. Everywhere else, with a few exceptions, it's a no no.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A touch ingenuous leaving out my next bit Philip, so I've added it above.

My point is that people hanker after city centre stations because that's what they're generally used to because the Victorians built the originals that way. Looked at through modern eyes it's probably why the railway industry has never quite managed to acknowledge and properly adapt to the existence of road transport, in all its forms. One hundred plus years after cars were invented and 50 years since they became the prime means of transport for the great majority of people you'd hope that railways could adapt better.

Snap SDA.

 

[class26]

I have noticed that the scottish parliament is agitating for the link to go to Scotland ,but looking at traffic camera,s on the M74 there is a distinct lack of traffic at all times.This being Scotlands main road link to the south and add in passenger loadings on the WCML and the conclusion must be ,why do they need HS2?

Because most of the pax that are likely to transfer to High Speed Rail are on Easy Jet / BA / Ryan air etc