Improving Commuter Services in to Manchester

[HSTEd]

Presumably no scope for the Wales service to run onto HS2b into Manchester (due to max speed/acceleration). Perhaps scope for the WCML Manchester-Wimslow-Crewe-Rugby service to stop at Sandbach or Holmes Chapel?

Well the speed limit between the airport and Picadilly is likely to be only ~230km/h.
Which is within the capability of extant IEP-type bi-modes.

So a chord onto the Mid-Cheshire line is entirely plausible from a purely engineering standpoint.

It helps the Castlefield corridor indirectly by allowing the ATW service to serve Manchester Airport withouth aving to go through Oxford Road after all.

 

[miami]

I assumed we're talking the TFW service from Cardiff, Shrewsbury, Crewe, Wilmslow, Stockport, Piccadilly.

Post HS2, will people from Manchester to Newport Cardiff and South Wales be travelling via Birmingham instead of direct?

 

[HSTEd]

I assumed we're talking the TFW service from Cardiff, Shrewsbury, Crewe, Wilmslow, Stockport, Piccadilly.

Post HS2, will people from Manchester to Newport Cardiff and South Wales be travelling via Birmingham instead of direct?

I was proposing a chord from the south end of Manchester Airport station onto the Mid-Cheshire line, with the ATW Manchester services rerouted over it, calling at the airport and terminating on the HS2 side at Picadilly.

 

[miami]

So they would go

Shrewsbury
Crewe (stop)
('Fast' through Sandbach/Middlewich/Northwich/Knutsford)
New Chord
Join HS2 just west of Airport?

 

[HSTEd]

So they would go

Shrewsbury
Crewe (stop)
('Fast' through Sandbach/Middlewich/Northwich/Knutsford)
New Chord
Join HS2 just west of Airport?

Yes, and depending on the bi-modes and the location of the chord, you might be able to get rid of the mess that is the Mid-Cheshire line's local service and have that run the same way.

 

[si404]

Surely spending a little bit more on track and doing the Airport branch extension to the Mid-Cheshire and saving on trains makes more sense than piggybacking on HS2 for a short distance makes more sense? And doesn't NPR want those paths through Manchester Interchange?

 

[HSTEd]

Surely spending a little bit more on track and doing the Airport branch extension to the Mid-Cheshire and saving on trains makes more sense than piggybacking on HS2 for a short distance makes more sense? And doesn't NPR want those paths through Manchester Interchange?

An Airport branch extension is likely to cost much more than a simple chord.
As to capacity limitations.
HSLs are apparently rated for 14-18tph per direction.
NPR/HS2s normal services are not going to saturate that connection any time soon.

There are three services that potentially benefit from a rerouting - Manchester to South Wales, Manchester to North Wales and the Mid Cheshire Locals. The Manchester-Wales trains can even run coupled through Manchester Airport if necessary (divide either at the Airport or with a stop at Northwich).

That gets you two additional paths through stockport and one through the Castlefield corridor.

 

[si404]

An Airport branch extension is likely to cost much more than a simple chord.

Remember that HSR junctions need the merge point to be full speed - they aren't cheap. I can't see a chord costing much less than half-a-billion. You'd probably end up 4-tracking all the way to Manchester Interchange (if there doesn't become a frequency bigger than capacity problem). It's not much more construction to build the link into the current station, especially when train costs come in as you'll need the fancy trains to go on HS2.

As to capacity limitations.
HSLs are apparently rated for 14-18tph per direction.
NPR/HS2s normal services are not going to saturate that connection any time soon.

5* HS2, 6*NPR = 11tph, so perhaps there's room. But Old Oak Common has 3 tracks per direction to deal with 18tph, whereas Manchester Interchange only has 2.

 

[miami]

So
Manchester to North Wales services would then completely bypass Warrington, and run fast Picadilly, Airport, Chester? Presumably you'd have a WBQ-Chester service?
Manchester to South Wales would still have to cross the WCML, then trundle up a painfully slow single-track line past Middlewich, cross onto the Mid Cheshire line, and eventually join at Airport? Surely that's going to be slower than running through Stockport
And you're also suggesting a high speed service to Cuddington?

Moving the intercity Cardiff-Manchester service onto HS2 at Crewe (if a bi-mode could run quickly enough) to save 20 minutes on the end-to-end journey time might be beneficial (I believe there will be a Crewe-HS2 connection north of Crewe for some reason), with no infrastructure costs, but I don't see that route getting trains that can run quickly enough to not burn paths.

 

[HSTEd]

Remember that HSR junctions need the merge point to be full speed - they aren't cheap.

The merge point would be in the station approach for Manchester Airport station.
This somewhat relaxes the need for the approach to be "full speed".

I can't see a chord costing much less than half-a-billion. You'd probably end up 4-tracking all the way to Manchester Interchange (if there doesn't become a frequency bigger than capacity problem).

(EDIT: Is Interchange the PR name for the Airport station now or is this the name for the proposed NPR through station? I assume the latter here)

Why?
The speed limit will only be 230km/h.
It's not going to have trains tearing down it at 360km/h, if differential speeds are still an issue the best answer is to stop more trains at the Airport.

It's not much more construction to build the link into the current station, especially when train costs come in as you'll need the fancy trains to go on HS2.

Getting any through tracks at all into the new station without tearing it down entirely and rebuilding it would be an incredibly interesting experience.

The cost of such a scheme is going to be absolutely enormous.

Meanwhile IEPs probably have the required performance between Manchester Airport and the centre of Manchester

5* HS2, 6*NPR = 11tph, so perhaps there's room. But Old Oak Common has 3 tracks per direction to deal with 18tph, whereas Manchester Interchange only has 2.

Have NPR proposed to eliminate the terminating platforms at Manchester Picadilly for HS2? (EDIT: Again assuming you mean the centre of Manchester station)

So
Manchester to North Wales services would then completely bypass Warrington, and run fast Picadilly, Airport, Chester? Presumably you'd have a WBQ-Chester service?

Assuming there is sufficient independent demand for such a service between WBQ and Chester, yes.

Manchester to South Wales would still have to cross the WCML, then trundle up a painfully slow single-track line past Middlewich, cross onto the Mid Cheshire line, and eventually join at Airport? Surely that's going to be slower than running through Stockport

It takes 48+ minutes for TfW to cover Crewe to Manchester. Apparently 55 minutes sometimes.
It's not that fast.

Northwich to Mobberley apparently takes about 16 minutes, ~30 minutes to get that far, even with multiple intermediate stops.

Also if the Middlewich line is too slow you can build a chord onto the Crewe-Chester line if you desire it.

Even assuming the current stopping pattern the line between Mobberley and Chester is going to be competive with the existing route, assuming HS2 can deliver on its journey times from Picadilly to the Airport.

And you're also suggesting a high speed service to Cuddington?

They get high speed services to Martin Mill, with rather more actual high speed running?

 

[si404]

The merge point would be in the station approach for Manchester Airport station.

Fantastic - that's my plan - that rather than plugging it to HS2, you use the existing Airport line to go into Manchester!

Oh wait, you seem to not know that Manchester Interchange is the name for the HS2 station near the airport to distinguish it from the existing Manchester Airport station.

Why?

Because you just said so:

The merge point would be in the station approach for Manchester Airport station.

stop more trains at the Airport.

What trains aren't stopping? There's no capacity gains to eke out by doing that as it's already been done. The problem is perhaps more all the merging and diverging - by adding in Cheshire and Wales services you've effectively made sure that similar problems to the Castlefield corridor of lots of diverging and converging with a two-track bottleneck are created. Only this is a 140mph+ section of intercity track, not a 30mph city centre crawl.

Have NPR proposed to eliminate the terminating platforms at Manchester Picadilly for HS2?

Goodness me, this is the source of all the misunderstanding isn't it? That you think that Piccadilly would be renamed 'Interchange' and so every time I said 'Manchester Interchange' you read 'Manchester Picadilly' instead of 'Manchester Airport HS2'.

 

[HSTEd]

Fantastic - that's my plan - that rather than plugging it to HS2, you use the existing Airport line to go into Manchester!

Oh wait, you seem to not know that Manchester Interchange is the name for the HS2 station near the airport to distinguish it from the existing Manchester Airport station.

The HS2 website has not yet filled me in on this latest idiotic PR exercise.
I thought Manchester Interchange was the new PR name for NPR's Picadilly low level.

What trains aren't stopping? There's no capacity gains to eke out by doing that as it's already been done. The problem is perhaps more all the merging and diverging - by adding in Cheshire and Wales services you've effectively made sure that similar problems to the Castlefield corridor of lots of diverging and converging with a two-track bottleneck are created. Only this is a 140mph+ section of intercity track, not a 30mph city centre crawl.
Goodness me, this is the source of all the misunderstanding isn't it? That you think that Piccadilly would be renamed 'Interchange' and so every time I said 'Manchester Interchange' you read 'Manchester Picadilly' instead of 'Manchester Airport HS2'.

The Mid Cheshire line crosses the proposed HS2 route about 3,000m south of Manchester Airport (HS2) station, which is the beginning of the 230km/h speed limit.

Castlefield corridor's problems are not really caused by diverging and two track bottlenecks, but by multiple flat junctions that are positioned close to one another, which is not a problem here.

Trains that are stopping at the Airport(HS2) will already be moving quite slowly, and trains that are not will still be moving slower than might be anticipated because they will be braking for the speed restriction north of the airport.

I dont think there are drastic losses of capacity from 1tph/2tph turning off onto the Mid Cheshire line.
And even if it became a problem I doubt four track would be needed rather than a single line running from the southern approach of the airport station.

I don't have an IEP acceleration curve, but a Class 395 (demonstrating what a modern EMU can do) would be able to accelerate to 100mph and then brake down to 60mph again in the 3,000m space.
With a complete running time of about 100 seconds.

Slower than a continuously accelerating unit, but even at 230km/h continuous we would be looking at a running time 47 seconds.

We lose something like a minute, which is much less than the design headway.
If we stopped all trains at Manchester Airport(HS2) station this change would be even smaller.

EDIT:

Attempting to use the existing line to the airport would require even more track and somehow picking a way through the airport infrastructure, and then you end up on the crowded side of the Picadilly throat (ie. the Castlefield Corridor/Styal line side).
Even if you require 3,000m of track from the divergence point to the Manchester Airport-HS2 station, you are not going to get a connection to the Airport line that is as useful for that much money.

 

[si404]

The HS2 website has not yet filled me in on this latest idiotic PR exercise.

It's the original name from the early days of putting a station there - the latest (actually it seems to be about 8 years ago) 'idiotic PR exercise' was to expunge all references to 'Manchester Interchange' and replace with 'Manchester Airport High Speed Station' in order to please the people paying towards the station.

All the references I can find for "Manchester Interchange" relate to that station - you've invented this concept of a new name for Piccadilly post-NPR.

 

[HSTEd]

All the references I can find for "Manchester Interchange" relate to that station - you've invented this concept of a new name for Piccadilly post-NPR.

Probably, it just sounded so relentlessly focus grouped.

 

[daodao]

The proposed Crewe-Manchester segment of HS2 would be a white elephant if built, carrying only 3 tph (1 to Birmingham, 2 to London), and has absolutely no relevance to the title of the thread header (improving rail commuting into M/c).

The most useful things that could be done to improve rail commuting into Manchester are:
a) to create more Metrolink lines (either new or conversions of existing heavy rail lines, such as the ex-GC lines to the SE of M/c); and
b) to electrify (where possible) and simplify routings and stopping patterns on retained heavy rail lines to provide a more frequent service that would actually be useful to potential passengers (compared for example to the current service at Chassen Road). It would assist if all trains to the Airport were run only by Northern Rail.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

The proposed Crewe-Manchester segment of HS2 would be a white elephant if built, carrying only 3 tph (1 to Birmingham, 2 to London), and has absolutely no relevance to the title of the thread header (improving rail commuting into M/c).

The most useful things that could be done to improve rail commuting into Manchester are:
a) to create more Metrolink lines (either new or conversions of existing heavy rail lines, such as the ex-GC lines to the SE of M/c); and
b) to electrify (where possible) and simplify routings and stopping patterns on retained heavy rail lines to provide a more frequent service that would actually be useful to potential passengers (compared for example to the current service at Chassen Road). It would assist if all trains to the Airport were run only by Northern Rail.

HS2 is planned to have 3 tph from London to Manchester and 2 from Birmingham to Manchester as well as 2 to Scotland on both routes. If NPR is built then more services will use that section of track.

 

[Jozhua]

HS2 is planned to have 3 tph from London to Manchester and 2 from Birmingham to Manchester as well as 2 to Scotland on both routes. If NPR is built then more services will use that section of track.

Presumably this gets rid of the 2 Avanti services to Euston and 2 XC services to Bristol/Bournemouth. One of the Euston services goes down the airport way towards Crewe, with the other through Stockport, Stoke, etc I believe. Both XC services go through Stockport and Stoke too I think.

This freeing up of paths is backed up by HS2's statement that:

The two new HS2 tracks to Manchester Airport and Manchester Piccadilly will create space for additional train paths on the corridors to Crewe and Stockport, providing options for more frequent local or regional services.

I'm just gonna say, from the fairly simple routing that exists in the East Midlands, the North West's network is hellishly confusing.

 

[daodao]

HS2 is planned to have 3 tph from London to Manchester and 2 from Birmingham to Manchester as well as 2 to Scotland on both routes. If NPR is built then more services will use that section of track.

I presumed that 1 of each of these services from the south were planned to run via Macclesfield, and thus uncompetitive in terms of time compared to services via HS2 to Crewe. I don't see the point of running Manchester-Scotland services (1 not 2 tph) out via the proposed new HS2 line; any time saved due to greater speed would be outweighed by the much shorter distance from M/c to Preston via Bolton.

On the basis of pre-Covid traffic figures, there might be some justification, in terms of providing extra capacity, for the initial parts of HS2, i.e. London to Birmingham and onto Crewe, with services branching off to Derby/Sheffield and Stafford/Stoke/Macclesfield and then splitting at Crewe to serve (separately) Liverpool, Manchester, Lancashire and the Scottish Central Belt. However, the eastern leg of HS2 and sections north of Crewe cannot be justified in this way; they are mere vanity projects, and very destructive. The section between Manchester Airport and the city centre would be extremely expensive to build as a cut-and-cover tunnel and is not value-for-money. HS2 does nothing to help local transport, but purloins most of transport's share of the national budget.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

I presumed that 1 of each of these services from the south were planned to run via Macclesfield, and thus uncompetitive in terms of time compared to services via HS2 to Crewe. I don't see the point of running Manchester-Scotland services (1 not 2 tph) out via the proposed new HS2 line; any time saved due to greater speed would be outweighed by the much shorter distance from M/c to Preston via Bolton.

On the basis of pre-Covid traffic figures, there might be some justification, in terms of providing extra capacity, for the initial parts of HS2, i.e. London to Birmingham and onto Crewe, with services branching off to Derby/Sheffield and Stafford/Stoke/Macclesfield and then splitting at Crewe to serve (separately) Liverpool, Manchester, Lancashire and the Scottish Central Belt. However, the eastern leg of HS2 and sections north of Crewe cannot be justified in this way; they are mere vanity projects, and very destructive. The section between Manchester Airport and the city centre would be extremely expensive to build as a cut-and-cover tunnel and is not value-for-money. HS2 does nothing to help local transport, but purloins most of transport's share of the national budget.

Nope. This is the plan:

3tph from London Euston to Manchester via Crewe (2) and one non-stop through Cheshire
1tph from London Euston to Macclesfield via Stoke
2tph from Birmingham Curzon Street to Manchester Piccadilly
2tph from London Euston to Glasgow/Edinburgh
2tph from Birmingham Curzon Street to Scotland

 

[Bletchleyite]

Nope. This is the plan:

3tph from London Euston to Manchester via Crewe (2) and one non-stop through Cheshire
1tph from London Euston to Macclesfield via Stoke
2tph from Birmingham Curzon Street to Manchester Piccadilly
2tph from London Euston to Glasgow/Edinburgh
2tph from Birmingham Curzon Street to Scotland

That's a plan but it isn't the one I saw, in particular it doesn't include any Lancaster terminators which I believe are in the current plan.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

That's a plan but it isn't the one I saw, in particular it doesn't include any Lancaster terminators which I believe are in the current plan.

oh yes i forgot about those which is 1tph. 2tph to Liverpool of which one splits and goes to Preston.

 

[Bletchleyite]

oh yes i forgot about those which is 1tph. 2tph to Liverpool of which one splits and goes to Preston.

Lancaster now I think; there has been a lot of shouting about the idea that that could end up with no London service as the Scottish services won't stop between Preston and Carlisle.

Personally I'd extend it to Carlisle calling at all stations, but we're getting very speculative now

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Lancaster now I think; there has been a lot of shouting about the idea that that could end up with no London service as the Scottish services won't stop between Preston and Carlisle.

Personally I'd extend it to Carlisle calling at all stations, but we're getting very speculative now

Thats what I’d do. Though it is important to note that no final timetable has been made.

 

[daodao]

Nope. This is the plan:

3tph from London Euston to Manchester via Crewe (2) and one non-stop through Cheshire
1tph from London Euston to Macclesfield via Stoke
2tph from Birmingham Curzon Street to Manchester Piccadilly
2tph from London Euston to Glasgow/Edinburgh
2tph from Birmingham Curzon Street to Scotland

That is massive overkill for the likely traffic demand, particularly as the fares are likely to be prohibitively expensive.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

That is massive overkill for the likely traffic demand, particularly as the fares are likely to be prohibitively expensive.

well most west coast services will be diverted to this line so more commuter trains can use the existing line

 

[Purple Orange]

That is massive overkill for the likely traffic demand, particularly as the fares are likely to be prohibitively expensive.

The fares are likely to be in line with what we see today. I will never understand how people seem to think that it will automatically require extortionate fares on HS2, while claiming it will be a white elephant due to nobody travelling on it. It is like folk are not considering how businesses seek to use pricing to maximise revenue. If too few people are travelling, prices will drop to attract them on the train. If too high a demand, prices will not drop.

If I hear or read someone say it is for “rich business men”, I know instantly that individual is hard of critical thinking. It goes in the same category as anyone who believed the UK sends £350m to the EU each week, or believes the 5G conspiracy theories.

 

[markymark2000]

The fares are likely to be in line with what we see today. I will never understand how people seem to think that it will automatically require extortionate fares on HS2, while claiming it will be a white elephant due to nobody travelling on it. It is like folk are not considering how businesses seek to use pricing to maximise revenue. If too few people are travelling, prices will drop to attract them on the train. If too high a demand, prices will not drop.

If I hear or read someone say it is for “rich business men”, I know instantly that individual is hard of critical thinking. It goes in the same category as anyone who believed the UK sends £350m to the EU each week, or believes the 5G conspiracy theories.

My view on HS2 was I wanted money being spent elsewhere but since it has been approved, it's useless me not supporting it, I might as well support it now. I watched a video though about Kent and the HS1. They had all the same arguments to stop HS1 being built and now people down there couldn't live without it and it got me thinking the same could be for HS2.

The main reason for the fares being expensive on HS2 is based on the service being more business orientated. Look at some of the Avanti peak time fares, HS2 is faster and generally faster means more expensive. Less stations means less potential passengers and therefore you need a lot more passengers between the stations or you need to increase the fares so that the service makes money. Look at peak time fares on longer distance services. They are aimed at business travellers where the company pays for the travel, not the passenger. Any train where this is generally the case will be more expensive because they know the passenger isn't going to not travel on the basis of the price.

 

[Purple Orange]

Like today, business travel needs to be in the peak hours. If I am travelling for leisure, I wouldn’t expect there to be a significant level of business demand. It seems that the argument for the increased fares and low passenger numbers is, aside from not being a logical outcome, predicated on there being a segment of the existing rail passenger market being unserved once HS2 opens up. It’s almost as if people are expecting these people to migrate to the road.

 

[The Planner]

The section between Manchester Airport and the city centre would be extremely expensive to build as a cut-and-cover tunnel and is not value-for-money. HS2 does nothing to help local transport, but purloins most of transport's share of the national budget.

What cut and cover tunnel?

 

[Purple Orange]

What cut and cover tunnel?

It strikes me that daodao is overlooking (knowingly or not) the fact that, in combination with NPR, almost all long distance services will be removed from the current Manchester rail network. Even with just HS2, paths between Piccadilly-Stockport-Crewe/Stoke will become available for different services. That presents the opportunity to provide greater frequency in 20 years from now, but then part of the question is what can be done in the meantime.