High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[Philip Elliott]

From what i can see rugby only has services to London Birmingham and Crewe. So actually HS2 may allow semi fast services to Manchester to call, giving them better city connections, slower London trains, well unfortunately... That is an occupational hazard but i can't imagine they will be that much slower and they will certainly be more frequent.

No document released thus far has Rugby with direct trains to anywhere further north than Crewe.

 

[YorkshireBear]

No document released thus far has Rugby with direct trains to anywhere further north than Crewe.

I used the word may

Because i know as well as you do that nobody knows the exact calling patterns for the WCML in 2033.

 

[Philip Elliott]

I used the word may

Because i know as well as you do that nobody knows the exact calling patterns for the WCML in 2033.

True but as soon as your start adding semi-fasts to here, there and everywhere there won't be room for these fabled additional commuter and freight trains.

 

[YorkshireBear]

True but as soon as your start adding semi-fasts to here, there and everywhere there won't be room for these fabled additional commuter and freight trains.

I did only add 1. :P

 

[AndyLandy]

True but as soon as your start adding semi-fasts to here, there and everywhere there won't be room for these fabled additional commuter and freight trains.

There are currently nine IC paths out of Euston during the day.
3x to Birmingham; 3x to Manchester; 1x to Liverpool and 1x to Glasgow could all be sent via HS2 to release WCML capacity. That only leaves the hourly Chester/North Wales services.

So, I'm not a diagrammer, but I'm led to believe that 110mph semi-fasts should be easier to path than 125mph fasts. So, what, maybe we can get 10 paths out of Euston? Two to Manchester via Stoke, one to Liverpool via Crewe and a couple to Birmingham? Maybe the Birmingham & Manchester trains can be ran together and split at Rugby (Assuming we'll be able to work out how to run 350s in multiple at 110mph.) Let's call it 4 paths. That still leaves 6.

If someone who knows better wants to correct any of my assumptions, please do. But at first glance, that looks a fairly reasonable starter for ten.

 

[HSTEd]

Really 1tph via Stoke and one via Crewe would do better for Manchester trains I think.

 

[AndyLandy]

Really 1tph via Stoke and one via Crewe would do better for Manchester trains I think.

Possibly. I'm acutely aware that Stoke loses out big time where HS2 is concerned. It currently gets two of the three Manchester services, with only one via Crewe, but post-HS2 won't get any. Will one semi-fast per hour be appropriate for the levels of demand from Stoke?

 

[tbtc]

Possibly. I'm acutely aware that Stoke loses out big time where HS2 is concerned. It currently gets two of the three Manchester services, with only one via Crewe, but post-HS2 won't get any. Will one semi-fast per hour be appropriate for the levels of demand from Stoke?

I don't want to get too drawn into "classic" timetables post-HS2 because we don't know for sure what frequencies/ services will be on routes that are seeing big changes over the next five years (e.g. CP5 electrification projects) so there's no guarantee of what things will be like in twenty years time on routes like Stoke - London.

Stoke only had one train an hour to London when Virgin took over the WCML franchise, the increase to two trains an hour seems to be because of the Manchester - London demand, rather than specific to Stoke.

 

[AndyLandy]

Stoke only had one train an hour to London when Virgin took over the WCML franchise, the increase to two trains an hour seems to be because of the Manchester - London demand, rather than specific to Stoke.

I'm curious as to why more Manchester trains are routed via Stoke rather than Crewe then? The time difference is minimal and it sounds like it may not be to do with demand along the corridor. Possibly just easier to path that way?

 

[edwin_m]

Going via Stoke avoids the busy junctions at Crewe and Stafford and the Shugborough bottleneck.

Very little other traffic on the Stoke route other than CrossCountry (also 125mph) and some slower passenger services which don't run the full length of the route so easier to path around.

Crewe has London services on other routes but there is no other way of improving Stoke's London services.

 

[tbtc]

I'm curious as to why more Manchester trains are routed via Stoke rather than Crewe then? The time difference is minimal and it sounds like it may not be to do with demand along the corridor. Possibly just easier to path that way?

Pre Virgin, when there was minimal Manchester - Crewe - London service, the vast majority of Crewe - London services were provided by trains from Glasgow/ Liverpool/ Holyhead, and there were Manchester - Crewe services provided by Regional Railways (inc longer distance services to Cardiff etc).

So it made sense for 99% of the Manchester - London services to run via Stoke, since there was no other Stoke - London service.

 

[HSTEd]

I am just worried about what happens if you axe Wilmslow-London trains entirely.

People are likely not going to be happy.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I am just worried about what happens if you axe Wilmslow-London trains entirely.

People are likely not going to be happy.

Make them drive to Manchester Airport like everybody else in Cheshire. If they want to travel to London they will need to get in their cars. Problem solved.

 

[HSTEd]

Make them drive to Manchester Airport like everybody else in Cheshire. If they want to travel to London they will need to get in their cars. Problem solved.

Then we should make Stoke passengers drive to Crewe to pick up a train there.

So we should not have any through trains to London from Manchester via Stoke either :P

 

[dggar]

Make them drive to Manchester Airport like everybody else in Cheshire. If they want to travel to London they will need to get in their cars. Problem solved.

This journey should become much easier when this is completed, (in a couple of years I think.)

http://www.semmms.info/

 

[The Planner]

There are currently nine IC paths out of Euston during the day.
3x to Birmingham; 3x to Manchester; 1x to Liverpool and 1x to Glasgow could all be sent via HS2 to release WCML capacity. That only leaves the hourly Chester/North Wales services.

You forget the LM ones, around 1700 I think you are up to 13 FL paths an hour.

So, I'm not a diagrammer, but I'm led to believe that 110mph semi-fasts should be easier to path than 125mph fasts.

No, it is the mix of speeds and station calls that causes the issues, if they all do the same calls it makes little difference if they all run at 125 or 110.

 

[HowardGWR]

Make them drive to Manchester Airport like everybody else in Cheshire. If they want to travel to London they will need to get in their cars. Problem solved.

I would be intrigued how many Wilmslow-ians actually walk to their station, anyway.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This journey should become much easier when this is completed, (in a couple of years I think.)

http://www.semmms.info/

Ooh lovely. Just right for the BBC types to commute by air to West London, thus more extraction from rail. This should help against global warming immensely (not). Will there be any countryside left in Cheshire soon?

 

[The Planner]

To be fair, SEMMMS was planned and meant to be completed long before the BBC even dreamt of going to Manchester.

 

[Philip Elliott]

There are currently nine IC paths out of Euston during the day.
3x to Birmingham; 3x to Manchester; 1x to Liverpool and 1x to Glasgow could all be sent via HS2 to release WCML capacity. That only leaves the hourly Chester/North Wales services.

So, I'm not a diagrammer, but I'm led to believe that 110mph semi-fasts should be easier to path than 125mph fasts. So, what, maybe we can get 10 paths out of Euston? Two to Manchester via Stoke, one to Liverpool via Crewe and a couple to Birmingham? Maybe the Birmingham & Manchester trains can be ran together and split at Rugby (Assuming we'll be able to work out how to run 350s in multiple at 110mph.) Let's call it 4 paths. That still leaves 6.

If someone who knows better wants to correct any of my assumptions, please do. But at first glance, that looks a fairly reasonable starter for ten.

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.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

There are currently nine IC paths out of Euston during the day.
3x to Birmingham; 3x to Manchester; 1x to Liverpool and 1x to Glasgow could all be sent via HS2 to release WCML capacity. That only leaves the hourly Chester/North Wales services.

So, I'm not a diagrammer, but I'm led to believe that 110mph semi-fasts should be easier to path than 125mph fasts. So, what, maybe we can get 10 paths out of Euston? Two to Manchester via Stoke, one to Liverpool via Crewe and a couple to Birmingham? Maybe the Birmingham & Manchester trains can be ran together and split at Rugby (Assuming we'll be able to work out how to run 350s in multiple at 110mph.) Let's call it 4 paths. That still leaves 6.

If someone who knows better wants to correct any of my assumptions, please do. But at first glance, that looks a fairly reasonable starter for ten.

The Norton Bridge upgrade now in progress will increase WCML paths.
It depends on how the extra paths are allocated, but 11tph out of Euston should be possible by 2017.
That should mean 2tph to Liverpool and Preston, and more trains from Birmingham northwards.

 

[YorkshireBear]

We also have all the existing LM paths and the fact that possibly removing 1 125mph path will give us 2 100/110 mph paths.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Then we should make Stoke passengers drive to Crewe to pick up a train there.

So we should not have any through trains to London from Manchester via Stoke either :P

Well thats effectively what we'll have when HS2 opens!

 

[The Planner]

The Norton Bridge upgrade now in progress will increase WCML paths.

Only by 2.

 

[The Planner]

We also have all the existing LM paths and the fact that possibly removing 1 125mph path will give us 2 100/110 mph paths.

Not sure it would, if it was a Watford stopper that went then you may get a 110 to MK/Hanslope and one to Ledburn.

 

[HowardGWR]

To be fair, SEMMMS was planned and meant to be completed long before the BBC even dreamt of going to Manchester.

Yes I know, but now the BBC has become so tabloidy, I feel I can use the same kind of treatment they dish out.

Seriously, I don't know whether this scheme will last out beyond the next election but if I were a local activist, I would be pleading for a tram / train to be incorporated into the design. I see there is no handy old (closed) trajectory for that stretch, ie. Stockport to the Airport. At least I don't see one.

 

[JamesRowden]

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.

Or people could use services that connect with HS2 services but do not originate at London. For example, Euston-CurzonStreet-Preston and Euston-Manchester-Preston.

 

[AndyLandy]

You forget the LM ones, around 1700 I think you are up to 13 FL paths an hour.

I'd not really considered those, mostly because I don't know a great deal about them. Presumably there are LM semi-fasts and LM stopping services?

No, it is the mix of speeds and station calls that causes the issues, if they all do the same calls it makes little difference if they all run at 125 or 110.

Sorry, more specifically I was thinking if any additional semi-fast services were added to the WCML post-HS2, they'd be at the same speed as the existing LM services, and as such, the pathing would be easier. But of course it all depends on what the calling patterns look like.

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.

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.

The Norton Bridge upgrade now in progress will increase WCML paths.
It depends on how the extra paths are allocated, but 11tph out of Euston should be possible by 2017.
That should mean 2tph to Liverpool and Preston, and more trains from Birmingham northwards.

Ahh yes, that makes sense. I'd heard rumours of a tenth fast path for another Euston-Glasgow service, an additional Liverpool is news to me though.

Still, if all of these paths can be realised pre-HS2, then all the better for WCML pathing post-HS2.

 

[Kettledrum]

Or people could use services that connect with HS2 services but do not originate at London. For example, Euston-CurzonStreet-Preston and Euston-Manchester-Preston.

Surely direct trains are better than having to change trains. Enthusiasts don't mind changing, but having to change trains adds inconvenience and time to journeys and will lead some people to decide to travel by car instead.

People I know will even prefer a slightly longer journey time if they can have a direct train.

Some of these are elderly people who are not as mobile as they used to be. Their priorities are to sit down, and not have to get up until they reach their destination.

Some of these are families with children and find it a nightmare to change at Birmingham New Street because it is so busy and difficult to keep an eye on the children there.

Some of these are business people who want to work on the train. At least if they are sitting down on the train with their laptop it gives them more time working than if they have to waste time changing trains.

 

[HSTEd]

You need at least 3tph to Coventry,

Why do you need 3tph to Coventry?
Thats insane, unless you want to run 4-5 car 350/444-esque jobs on that route, wasting paths gained at great expense.
There simply won't be the demand for 3 trains per hour, you might be able to justify two at most.

2tph Stoke (fast)

Does stoke alone truly justify 2tph?
Nothing else on that 'leg' of the Manchester route gets that many, so you are essentially wanting to run a train for the benefit of Stoke only.

Anyone who is driving into Stoke will likely just drive into Crewe instead because the journey is 35 minutes shorter.
The remainder should be able to pack on with the people from Macclesfield et. al.

2tph Trent Valley (semi-fast)

Such trains don't run now so you don't really "need" them, since those stations are currently served by London Midland, so its not really fair to claim they are going to eat up paths for extra commuter trains since they are extra commuter trains.

, 1tph Chester

If Chester's direct train survives it will have to pick up the Stafford call and a couple of others, which means it will be unlikely to be able to hold out against simply changing at Crewe which would enable the vast majority of passengers to be in Chester before the direct service even makes it into Crewe.

1tph Lake District (since HS2 won't stop at Lancaster/Oxenholme/Penrith/Carlisle).

Or I could add a 200m CC set to any one of the Classic Compatible paths that have been chalked in for 200m only trains. Or you could just extend the Preston terminator that is in some of the diagramms include to Scotland as a 'slow' working.

And remember the official timetables still assume 2tph to Heathrow which is looking less and less likely by the day.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Surely direct trains are better than having to change trains. Enthusiasts don't mind changing, but having to change trains adds inconvenience and time to journeys and will lead some people to decide to travel by car instead.

Perhaps they are, but the journey time savings from HS2 are so ridiculously enormous that you could take 20 minutes changing trains and you would still be up on many journeys.

People I know will even prefer a slightly longer journey time if they can have a direct train.

That "slightly longer journey time" will be 30-40 minutes or something in many cases.

Some of these are elderly people who are not as mobile as they used to be. Their priorities are to sit down, and not have to get up until they reach their destination.

Perhaps, but what fraction of railway traffic comes from this group?
We can't destroy the benefits of a major scheme for the benefit of a tiny, if rather vocal, fraction of the population.

Some of these are families with children and find it a nightmare to change at Birmingham New Street because it is so busy and difficult to keep an eye on the children there.

You don't have to go anywhere near Birmingham New Street.
There are other locations which will offer interchange with the HS2 network, Preston and Crewe for example.

Some of these are business people who want to work on the train. At least if they are sitting down on the train with their laptop it gives them more time working than if they have to waste time changing trains.

In the days of the blackberry (and post blackberry these days) even standing on a platform is unlikely to be entirely 'wasted'.
But lets say this is true, they will still have a 20 minute shorter journey time overall, and I imagine 20 minutes in their office will make it up to them.

 

[edwin_m]

Seriously, I don't know whether this scheme will last out beyond the next election but if I were a local activist, I would be pleading for a tram / train to be incorporated into the design. I see there is no handy old (closed) trajectory for that stretch, ie. Stockport to the Airport. At least I don't see one.

The Airport HS2 station isn't very near the Airport but it is close to a planned section of Metrolink that was deleted from Phase 3 (making a loop round Wythenshawe). The tram-train thread includes some discussion of TfGM's tram-train strategy where there are suggestions of buidling this route and making a new connection at Baguley to allow tram-trains to run to places including Stockport.