How could Birmingham to Manchester journeys be sped up?

[philosopher]

Currently it takes roughly an hour and half to travel between Birmingham and Manchester, which for a journey of approx 70 miles comes out at 47mph, which I think is quite slow for an intercity service, particularly when you consider that they are the second and third largest cities in the UK.

Since it looks increasingly unlikely HS2 will be built to Manchester, passengers travelling between these two cities will have to continue to rely on the current rather slow CrossCountry service in the future. Therefore is there anything that could feasibly be done to speed these journeys up if HS2 does not get built past Birmingham or Crewe?

 

[sprinterguy]

Birmingham to Manchester is 81 miles 65 chains by the usual route taken by Crosscountry services, but admittedly I hadn't realise the average speed was so low.

The Norton Bridge flyover has already accelerated timings, and the West Coast route modernisation allowed for 125mph (non-tilt) running between Wolverhampton and Stafford and 115mph between Kidsgrove and Macclesfield, so I'm not sure how much more could be done: Bypassing the restrictive curve at Stone somehow would save a small amount of time, along with increasing Norton Bridge - Stone to more than 75mph max. I think most time is lost on the interminable trundle over the congested section of line between Birmingham and Wolverhampton: Dynamic loops centered around Dudley Port might be the pie-in-the-sky solution there.

 

[HSTEd]

I think most time is lost on the interminable trundle over the congested section of line between Birmingham and Wolverhampton: Dynamic loops centered around Dudley Port might be the pie-in-the-sky solution there.

Any idea what times would be like if the trains ran into Curzon Street over the Handsacre connection that is (I assume) still being built now that Phase 2 looks like its going to be cancelled?

That would let you run trains into a non congested Birmingham Terminus without trundling through Wolverhampton or other suburban areas.

 

[The Planner]

Any idea what times would be like if the trains ran into Curzon Street over the Handsacre connection that is (I assume) still being built now that Phase 2 looks like its going to be cancelled?

That would let you run trains into a non congested Birmingham Terminus without trundling through Wolverhampton or other suburban areas.

Depends which way they went, I would expect the Stafford call to be kept. There probably would be a few minutes in it. By the time you got to Handsacre a XC would be approaching Wolves.

 

[snowball]

Any idea what times would be like if the trains ran into Curzon Street over the Handsacre connection that is (I assume) still being built now that Phase 2 looks like its going to be cancelled?

For some time now it has looked likely that either phase 2a or the Handsacre link might be dropped, but that if either is dropped, the other will almost certainly survive.

In the last week the chances of phase 2a being dropped have increased, so Handsacre's chances of surviving have also increased.

 

[cle]

I would think an express via Handsacre would be first stop Stoke. If it's only phase 2, I'm assuming there will be no access from Birmingham, correct?

The answer to the broader question is the stopping pattern, though. The current lines are fast enough but the service stops a lot. Also going Stafford-Stoke. It'd be far quicker to go via Crewe.

If an additional service an hour ran { New St - Wolves - Stockport - Manchester } or also adding Crewe (via Wilmslow / Styal but passing) - you might see faster times. But the current ones are a bit like the B'ham-Liverpools in that they are used for a lot of intermediate journeys and shorter regional commutes, vs end to end.

 

[lindenmeyer11]

Manchester being the third largest city in the UK and with a conurbation as big as Birmingham, should have been the obvious target designing HS2. With a Through station in Birmingham, trains coming from London would opt stopping at Birmingham Airport, and after a mandatory stop at Birmingham could also stop at Manchester Airport (Also a Through station) before reaching Manchester city center Station (Piccadilly, also through station), before heading to Leeds (as 4th largest city in the UK). HS trains require through stations to be efficient, dedicated tracks, with ETCS technology, and tunnels through city centers to avoid traffic. I really wish they'd reconsider the Terminal HS Station in Birmingham for a through station.

 

[JonathanH]

I really wish they'd reconsider the Terminal HS Station in Birmingham for a through station.

If HS2 had been running Manchester to London services calling at Birmingham Airport, and Manchester to Birmingham services, why do they need to be the same service?

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Currently it takes roughly an hour and half to travel between Birmingham and Manchester, which for a journey of approx 70 miles comes out at 47mph, which I think is quite slow for an intercity service, particularly when you consider that they are the second and third largest cities in the UK.

Since it looks increasingly unlikely HS2 will be built to Manchester, passengers travelling between these two cities will have to continue to rely on the current rather slow CrossCountry service in the future. Therefore is there anything that could feasibly be done to speed these journeys up if HS2 does not get built past Birmingham or Crewe?

I once suggested a XC to WCML chord near Tamworth to route Birmingham to Manchester services, but it wouldn't have been much quicker. Indeed Birmingham to Manchester is one of the best and unused arguments for HS2.

 

[Chester1]

An easier win than new infrastructure would be new rolling stock. The XC Voyagers don't tilt and modern 125 mph stock accelerates much faster.

 

[lindenmeyer11]

If HS2 had been running Manchester to London services calling at Birmingham Airport, and Manchester to Birmingham services, why do they need to be the same service?

I imagine the demand to airports lower then to city centers, therefore stoping at both Manchester's and Birmingham's airport would be intermitent, every other train would stop there. The Beauty of trains, contrary to airplanes is that they can easely stop in major cities or strategic ones. Most main stations in Europe that are still Terminal stations are planing or already under construction to transform them into Through stations. On terminal station train drivers must walk the whole length of the train (230~450m) and then set all computers on agian, insert keys, security check ups, so trains can reverse again. Meaning trains takes at least 10 minutes stop on terminal stations. Then there is the Taxiing speed approaching Terminal Station, very low for security reasons, translating in ~12 minutes difference when compared to a through Station (Trains stop for around 5 minutes, sometimes even less (2min in some cases in Germany)). Furthermore, Manchester is almost a direct path when coming from London to Birmingham (Airport included), it could be IMHO an obvious direct route between these 3 cities (One could argue that Leeds would also be an obvious path headig north to Newcastle and Scotland). This would be my take on a High Speed Line for UK:

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think absent HS2 frequency would probably bring more than raw speed, because an hourly service is all very well but if you need to leave 59 minutes earlier than necessary due to the time of an appointment or similar that's effectively added journey time.

Three semifast trains per hour using something like the 350/2s would be an excellent service for the route.

 

[The Planner]

An easier win than new infrastructure would be new rolling stock. The XC Voyagers don't tilt and modern 125 mph stock accelerates much faster.

Doubt you get much out of it. The one section of 125 the Voyagers can already use and there arent enough stops for acceleration to make a dent. The win would be via HS2 and direct to Stoke.

 

[JonathanH]

On terminal station train drivers must walk the whole length of the train (230~450m) and then set all computers on agian, insert keys, security check ups, so trains can reverse again.

If the train operation is set up suitably, a second driver can key in at the other end of the train in the terminal station and leave sooner than it takes for the driver to walk from end to end.

We clearly aren't talking about some rural outpost.

 

[The Planner]

I imagine the demand to airports lower then to city centers, therefore stoping at both Manchester's and Birmingham's airport would be intermitent, every other train would stop there. The Beauty of trains, contrary to airplanes is that they can easely stop in major cities or strategic ones. Most main stations in Europe that are still Terminal stations are planing or already under construction to transform them into Through stations. On terminal station train drivers must walk the whole length of the train (230~450m) and then set all computers on agian, insert keys, security check ups, so trains can reverse again. Meaning trains takes at least 10 minutes stop on terminal stations. Then there is the Taxiing speed approaching Terminal Station, very low for security reasons, translating in ~12 minutes difference when compared to a through Station (Trains stop for around 5 minutes, sometimes even less (2min in some cases in Germany)). Furthermore, Manchester is almost a direct path when coming from London to Birmingham (Airport included), it could be IMHO an obvious direct route between these 3 cities (One could argue that Leeds would also be an obvious path headig north to Newcastle and Scotland). This would be my take on a High Speed Line for UK:
View attachment 147026

That assumes the same driver for a reversal. Dwell times are as low as two minutes on most inter city trains already.

 

[TheSmiths82]

The service is so slow that if I am going to Birmingham unless I can get some very cheap singles I usually get the National Express coach. It is often a fraction of the price and less than an hour slower. Manchester to Birmingham is one of the few routes that the savings are well worth the extra journey time. It should be no more than hour from Manchester to Birmingham but without HS2 I just can't see any possible solution due to the congestion on the current WMCL.

It doesn't help that the service is mainly voyagers too. Next time I go to Birmingham though I might look at split ticking via Stoke or Crewe and get a London North Western train.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I think absent HS2 frequency would probably bring more than raw speed, because an hourly service is all very well but if you need to leave 59 minutes earlier than necessary due to the time of an appointment or similar that's effectively added journey time.

Three semifast trains per hour using something like the 350/2s would be an excellent service for the route.

Agreed - and just a bit cheaper than expensive 22x trains. Crashingly obvious - but a fact missed for far too long.

Yes - it would require timetabling and unit working changes ......

 

[JonathanH]

It should be no more than hour from Manchester to Birmingham but without HS2 I just can't see any possible solution due to the congestion on the current WMCL.

Not just congestion but also linespeed. Even with a clear run and running non stop, the 83 miles from Birmingham to Manchester couldn't be done on the existing lines in under an hour.

 

[TheSmiths82]

Not just congestion but also linespeed. Even with a clear run and running non stop, the 83 miles from Birmingham to Manchester couldn't be done on the existing lines in under an hour.

Is it impossible to scientifically upgrade the current lines without modifying the cuttings?

 

[cle]

Until Handsacre becomes clear, I would suggest stopping patterns are the solve here. Stafford and Macclesfield could be dropped from a service each to save a few minutes. Stafford has a lot of services north, and of course has the Liverpools for Birmingham also. But that's not meaningfully doing much.

Being run as diesels is absurd. New 110mph EMUs would probably make a good dent. Ship the old diesels to a route that needs them - Manchester-Cardiff maybe, or Nottingham-Cardiff.

 

[The Planner]

Until Handsacre becomes clear, I would suggest stopping patterns are the solve here. Stafford and Macclesfield could be dropped from a service each to save a few minutes. Stafford has a lot of services north, and of course has the Liverpools for Birmingham also. But that's not meaningfully doing much.

Being run as diesels is absurd. New 110mph EMUs would probably make a good dent. Ship the old diesels to a route that needs them - Manchester-Cardiff maybe, or Nottingham-Cardiff.

Removing Stafford and Macc would save 6 minutes tops. Possibly slightly less as its slow on the approaches. As I said earlier, an EMU won't make that much difference, especially now you are suggesting taking stops out as well. Voyagers aren't slouches.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Nov 2023 ==

Is it impossible to scientifically upgrade the current lines without modifying the cuttings?

You can do very little with Birmingham Wolves. Wolves to Stafford is 125. Stafford has a low approach you can do little with. Norton Bridge to Stone could be uplifted from 75 but will save you little as Stone is 20 odd. That would need huge works to solve. Once you start getting over 90mph the returns diminish in terms of improvements.

 

[The Ham]

Ultimately (which could be 30 years away) links like this which will be why the full HS2 netwy (or at least something fairly similar) may end up getting built.

Not only due to the journey time savings but also the likely increase in frequency.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Being run as diesels is absurd. New 110mph EMUs would probably make a good dent. Ship the old diesels to a route that needs them - Manchester-Cardiff maybe, or Nottingham-Cardiff.

It's because they're through services onto other parts of non-electrified XC, but I still wonder if those through services have as much value as making the service not rubbish for journeys between the two cities would do. I don't hear a lot of crying about Liverpool's loss of XC services per-se, indeed to be honest I'd rather a 5 car 730 twice* an hour than a Voyager with far less capacity.

* With some thought of incorporating local services on a skip-stop basis, more than 2tph could be envisaged for Manchester-Birmingham. Three should certainly be feasible, if you could get to four with good-value walk-up fares then you would in my view get massive growth from a super-convenient almost metro-style service even were it slightly slower so each did say two of the local stations.

 

[cle]

I agree with that, and you could even out patterns. Also you could run via Wilmslow for some variation. Likely something would have to go though, or be merged / redirected (eg Cardiff-Manc into Victoria)

 

[FlyingPotato]

Could you extend an Avanti terminator from Birmingham new Street to Manchester Piccadilly

 

[Bletchleyite]

Could you extend an Avanti terminator from Birmingham new Street to Manchester Piccadilly

It wouldn't be an utterly terrible idea to do this with the semifast Euston-Birmingham which, being little faster than a LNR service but priced at Avanti levels, is likely to be VERY quiet as it will only likely carry passengers going to/from Watford, MK or Rugby. However that would require more 807s unless the second Liverpool never happens?

Some of these semifasts run now, I used one which was a double Voyager with about 30 people on it.

 

[Bald Rick]

On terminal station train drivers must walk the whole length of the train (230~450m) and then set all computers on agian, insert keys, security check ups, so trains can reverse again. Meaning trains takes at least 10 minutes stop on terminal stations.

This just is not tthe case. There are regular examples of trains reversing at main stations in 3 minutes. I have,
personally, turned a Wolverhampton to Euston train round and sent it back to Birmingham in under 5. And none of that is with the benefit of ATO.

 

[cle]

It wouldn't be an utterly terrible idea to do this with the semifast Euston-Birmingham which, being little faster than a LNR service but priced at Avanti levels, is likely to be VERY quiet as it will only likely carry passengers going to/from Watford, MK or Rugby. However that would require more 807s unless the second Liverpool never happens?

Some of these semifasts run now, I used one which was a double Voyager with about 30 people on it.

Are Coventry (and B'hams) passengers really not using these? What is the time penalty, like 10 mins?

But yes, that service would probably be a good candidate if you could get it to Wolves... you could skip Sandwell and even Stafford - maybe run non-stop to Crewe, Wilmslow, Stockport.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are Coventry (and B'hams) passengers really not using these? What is the time penalty, like 10 mins?

The odd one who misses the xx17 might, as it goes from New St at xx21, but I can't see it being popular unless the xx17 is heaving or they release a load of very cheap Advances.

Same at the Euston end - fast at xx10, semi at xx16, so only any use if you just miss the fast or it's utterly heaving.

They might have some chance of filling it from making it a budget Euston-Manchester that happens also to provide for WFJ/MKC/RUG to BHM - there's no point competing with LNR and Chiltern as a budget Birmingham as they'll undercut you massively.

 

[The Planner]

Could you extend an Avanti terminator from Birmingham new Street to Manchester Piccadilly

The current set up has the Scotland and Brum swapped during the day. The original Dec 22 off Euston is xx.10 Birmingham fast, xx.16 Birmingham semi and xx.40 Scotland. If you look at the morning peak where it stays in that format then it is the semi fast that would be the only one that "works". The xx.10 fast clashes with the XC to Manchester northbound as it arrives at xx27 with the XC at xx.30 and a Liverpool at xx.34, and you wouldn't want two Manchester trains that close to each other. The semi fast arrives at xx.48 and the earliest it could go is xx.51. That would be 10 minutes in front of the xx.01 XC departure. So again, not a decent margin. The XC would start to catch it up as well and be around 5 or 6 minutes behind unless you removed Sandwell and Dudley as a call from the Avanti.