Instructions to select committee

[swt_passenger]

new instructions to the select committee on issues to deal with are being confirmed in parliament today, amongst which are these three:

High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill: Instruction (No.3)
(a) amendments relating to the vertical and horizontal alignment of the proposed railway in the vicinity of the A38 and Trent and Mersey Canal in the parishes of Fradley and Streethay, King's Bromley and Whittington in the County of Staffordshire;

(b) amendments conferring additional power to carry out works in the Borough of Slough and in the parish of Iver in the County of Buckinghamshire for the purpose of providing a new Heathrow Express depot in the Borough of Slough (to the north east of Langley railway station), in consequence of the displacement of the existing depot because of the exercise of powers conferred by the Bill;

(c) amendments conferring additional power to provide sidings for Crossrail services at Old Oak Common in the London Boroughs of Ealing and Hammersmith and Fulham that could be extended in the future to create a connection between the West Coast Main Line Railway and the Great Western Main Line;

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmagenda/fb150622.pdf

Good to see them getting down to the details. Seems odd we still get so many posts from people who don't believe it should happen at all...

 

[Taunton]

providing a new Heathrow Express depot in the Borough of Slough (to the north east of Langley railway station), in consequence of the displacement of the existing depot

How bizarre. It is generally accepted that Crossrail will take over certainly the Heathrow Connect service initially, and that HEx itself will not survive past the end of its 25-year franchise in 2023, instead being rolled into extended Crossrail services. Such a new depot, way off route and stupidly inconvenient for either HEx terminus, surely cannot even be ready before 2023 anyway.

Does the Select Committee even understand these points?

 

[swt_passenger]

How bizarre. It is generally accepted that Crossrail will take over certainly the Heathrow Connect service initially, and that HEx itself will not survive past the end of its 25-year franchise in 2023, instead being rolled into extended Crossrail services. Such a new depot, way off route and stupidly inconvenient for either HEx terminus, surely cannot even be ready before 2023 anyway.

It isn't way off route if WRaTH is completed at the same time, and there is another view that Hex will be subsumed into the GW franchise to provide the WRaTH service anyway...

 

[civ-eng-jim]

It isn't way off route if WRaTH is completed at the same time, and there is another view that Hex will be subsumed into the GW franchise to provide the WRaTH service anyway...

The current plans for Western Rail Link to Heathrow only allow for a connection between the Up Relief line and the proposed HEX depot at Langley. That would mean lots of empty stock running from the HEX depot into Paddington in the mornings and vice versa in the evenings.

A direct connection between the "Airport lines" and HEX depot cannot be made due to the constraints of the grade-separated junction just east of Langley station.

WRLtH is due to be complete by 2021.

 

[D365]

The current plans for Western Rail Link to Heathrow only allow for a connection between the Up Relief line and the proposed HEX depot at Langley. That would mean lots of empty stock running from the HEX depot into Paddington in the mornings and vice versa in the evenings.

A direct connection between the "Airport lines" and HEX depot cannot be made due to the constraints of the grade-separated junction just east of Langley station.

Not sure what you're saying; is there an existing grade-separated junction or is this referring to plans under WRaTH which predate the depot relocation?

It would also interest me to see what type of rolling stock will be put into use, if not Crossrail.

 

[snowball]

Details of the amendments here for those interested:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/additional-provision-2-july-2015-explanatory-information

 

[Bletchleyite]

Good to see them getting down to the details. Seems odd we still get so many posts from people who don't believe it should happen at all...

I'm not clear why it happening would change peoples' views on whether it should happen or not. There are clearly things that have been built that some people think should not have been.

Personally, FWIW, I think it should be built as far as Birmingham but not beyond, and should be operated Swiss- or German-style as an effective 3rd pair of WCML tracks using classic compatible stock only, with no new station in Birmingham.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Personally, FWIW, I think it should be built as far as Birmingham but not beyond

I agree with this bit but would add the word YET. The advantage is, the cost can be spread over many, many more years which in these financial times would surely be a good thing.

 

[CharlieSpotted]

Personally, FWIW, I think it should be built as far as Birmingham but not beyond, and should be operated Swiss- or German-style as an effective 3rd pair of WCML tracks using classic compatible stock only, with no new station in Birmingham.

How would that work? New Street is operating at maximum capacity, isn't it? And with literally no space for new platforms. Moor Street?

 

[The Planner]

It wouldnt work at New St.

 

[Taunton]

How would that work? New Street is operating at maximum capacity, isn't it? And with literally no space for new platforms. Moor Street?

What's wrong with platforms underneath the current ones? It seems a bit silly to put so much of it underground across rural Buckinghamshire and then not do so to get to the centre and national interchange station of the major destination. While we're doing this, put the Moor Street-Snow Hill line into platforms alongside, then we can have everything all in one lace.

 

[CharlieSpotted]

What's wrong with platforms underneath the current ones? It seems a bit silly to put so much of it underground across rural Buckinghamshire and then not do so to get to the centre and national interchange station of the major destination. While we're doing this, put the Moor Street-Snow Hill line into platforms alongside, then we can have everything all in one lace.

I should think such an endeavour would probably double the cost of the scheme!

 

[D365]

If land use is not the issue here, a people mover system would surely be more effective to connect with the city centre.

 

[CharlieSpotted]

If land use is not the issue here, a people mover system would surely be more effective to connect with the city centre.

There was at one point talk of a cable car to connect Curzon Street with New Street. Yes, a cable car. And then there's the Metro extension. Which seems more likely, but still sounds like some dim and distant vision. Who knows what we'll get?

 

[Bletchleyite]

It wouldnt work at New St.

It would work fine at New St if all you did (as I believe is all we should do for now at least) is to divert existing services onto it using higher-speed stock than at present. This would achieve what I believe is needed, which is to remove InterCity services from the south WCML so more commuter services and freight can be operated.

There is no need for an *additional* 3tph London to Birmingham - certainly not using 400m trains. Nor is there likely to be such a need as technology reduces commuting and business travel over the kind of horizon HS2 is going to be built.

 

[muddythefish]

This is where HS2 falls down IMO. It seems daft to build a new station in Brum that does not connect to New Street and a terminus in London that requires continent bound passengers to lug their suitcases down Euston Road to travel on HS1. Where is the sense in that ?

 

[D365]

There was at one point talk of a cable car to connect Curzon Street with New Street. Yes, a cable car.

Have the Emirates Air Line; a London cast-off alright

And then there's the Metro extension. Which seems more likely, but still sounds like some dim and distant vision. Who knows what we'll get?

That would be on top of the outstanding city extension I presume?

Where is the sense in that ?

So since we've established that there are no plans for any underground termini (beyond OOC), what do you suggest?

 

[muddythefish]

So since we've established that there are no plans for any underground termini (beyond OOC), what do you suggest?

Some common sense ?

 

[CharlieSpotted]

That would be on top of the outstanding city extension I presume?

Indeed, it would be part of the proposed "Eastside" extension project through Digbeth.

http://centro.org.uk/transport/metro/other-metro-extensions/birmingham-eastside/

 

[The Planner]

It would work fine at New St if all you did (as I believe is all we should do for now at least) is to divert existing services onto it using higher-speed stock than at present. This would achieve what I believe is needed, which is to remove InterCity services from the south WCML so more commuter services and freight can be operated.

There is no need for an *additional* 3tph London to Birmingham - certainly not using 400m trains. Nor is there likely to be such a need as technology reduces commuting and business travel over the kind of horizon HS2 is going to be built.

I am a bit lost here then, so you remove the 3tph to Euston along the Cov corridor but not use the released capacity which would have to use New St?

 

[civ-eng-jim]

Not sure what you're saying; is there an existing grade-separated junction or is this referring to plans under WRaTH which predate the depot relocation?

It would also interest me to see what type of rolling stock will be put into use, if not Crossrail.

The current proposed design for WRLtH has a grade-separated junction east of Langley. From what I've seen, the Up Relief line is diverted to the north by 20-30m. The airport lines branch off the relief lines into the gap created between the Up Relief and Down Relief lines before descending down and diving under the Main lines and Down Relief before entering a tunnel.

The line will be capable of carrying IEP trains, electrostars, cross rail and the proposed EMU commuter trains to name a few.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I am a bit lost here then, so you remove the 3tph to Euston along the Cov corridor but not use the released capacity which would have to use New St?

The biggest need for additional services is south of Rugby, which don't need to go to New St. I don't think 3tph from New St to Cov is in any way inadequate - this needs to be upped if and only if the trains are 12-car all day and still full.

Edited: However I would retain 1tph EUS-WFJ-MKC-RUG-COV-BHI-BHM then on to Scotland via Wolves, as well as 1tph EUS-WFJ-MKC-RUG and onto Manchester via the Trent Valley and Crewe (for "high speed" connections). That still removes 7tph of fasts from the south WCML - loads of capacity for additional fast commuter services south of Northampton, for instance, which is the crunch point. Doing this would for instance make it possible to make those two remaining ICs pick up only northbound/set down only southbound at MKC and provide more targetted local capacity for the significant market developing there.

 

[Taunton]

It does seem bizarre to build from Langley to Terminal 5 wholly in tunnel, which is pretty much just parkland and golf courses, because it is in the Green Belt, but then to exempt this supposed new depot at Langley from these same regulations and scoop up woodland and farmland for it.

I still can't see any purpose for it. Who is going to pay for building it; Heathrow certainly won't with their franchise for HEx expiring in 2023 and all around saying they will never get another and it's going to be incorporated in some other service like Crossrail, maybe even getting bought out before that time. Network Rail will surely not build it for a separate operator that all regard as a nuisance to other Paddington operations. So who will? And surely it will be a heaven-sent opportunity for the Select Committee to get one over on what is widely seen as an overpriced rip-off service from the nation's principal airport.

 

[The Planner]

The biggest need for additional services is south of Rugby, which don't need to go to New St. I don't think 3tph from New St to Cov is in any way inadequate - this needs to be upped if and only if the trains are 12-car all day and still full.

Edited: However I would retain 1tph EUS-WFJ-MKC-RUG-COV-BHI-BHM then on to Scotland via Wolves, as well as 1tph EUS-WFJ-MKC-RUG and onto Manchester via the Trent Valley and Crewe (for "high speed" connections). That still removes 7tph of fasts from the south WCML - loads of capacity for additional fast commuter services south of Northampton, for instance, which is the crunch point. Doing this would for instance make it possible to make those two remaining ICs pick up only northbound/set down only southbound at MKC and provide more targetted local capacity for the significant market developing there.

So Coventry loses all of its fast services to Euston and New St? and you wouldn't expect the Cov corridor to grow at all apart from the fact you have allowed the second XC to go that way? Let alone the small detail that only International can hold 12 cars?

 

[NotATrainspott]

It does seem bizarre to build from Langley to Terminal 5 wholly in tunnel, which is pretty much just parkland and golf courses, because it is in the Green Belt, but then to exempt this supposed new depot at Langley from these same regulations and scoop up woodland and farmland for it.

I still can't see any purpose for it. Who is going to pay for building it; Heathrow certainly won't with their franchise for HEx expiring in 2023 and all around saying they will never get another and it's going to be incorporated in some other service like Crossrail, maybe even getting bought out before that time. Network Rail will surely not build it for a separate operator that all regard as a nuisance to other Paddington operations. So who will? And surely it will be a heaven-sent opportunity for the Select Committee to get one over on what is widely seen as an overpriced rip-off service from the nation's principal airport.

The route is in tunnel until around the same point as the HEx tunnel because it has been designed to allow the airport to expand to the north. Yes, they could run on the surface at the moment, but if they were ever allowed to build a third (or fourth) runway to the north they would then need to completely rebuild the railway when it is in use.

The Heathrow Express project involved creating a private railway service between Paddington and Heathrow over BR/Railtrack/Network Rail tracks rather than actually connecting Heathrow to the wider rail network. The WRAtH project actually does connect Heathrow to the wider rail network, not only to stations in the Thames Valley but to the East-West rail line (and beyond) and to the entire Great Western network. Slower connecting services (think Great Western equivalent of London Midland) could run from any electrified place through Heathrow on the way to London.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So Coventry loses all of its fast services to Euston and New St? and you wouldn't expect the Cov corridor to grow at all apart from the fact you have allowed the second XC to go that way?

There are winners and losers with any new line. A 4-stop service to London isn't bad, particularly if it remains a Pendolino, and no doubt LM's successor would speed up their services to London as well, there being more capacity for more semifast services south of Northampton. So it might actually be not so bad.

As for New St, if it were Germany commuters would be priced off ICs for that journey anyway. Local services should provide local journeys - capacity can then be better targeted. It makes no sense dealing with significant local flows by cramming them into ICs.

I take the same view of MKC - the changes would allow a significantly enhanced MKC-London fast regional service - how about a regular interval 4tph 12-car NMP-MKC-EUS express? Who cares about the VTs then? Those would be available only to long-distance passengers.

Let alone the small detail that only International can hold 12 cars?

Extend the platforms, then. It has after all been done at all south WCML stations, and is probably cheaper than the "HS2 as a separate line" work.

 

[Metrailway]

As much as I think HS2 is a flawed design, I'm glad you are not in charge Neil! I wonder what you think Wolverhampton, Stoke and Leicester deserve!

I don't think reducing Cov's services to London from 3tph to 1 semi-fast is politically acceptable, especially considering 20% of Coventry's traffic is to/from London. (35% is to/from Brum)

And no I do not think via Northampton services would be a suitable replacement as the fastest Coventry - London via Northampton service takes 1 hour 28 minutes which is non stop after Northampton.

Birmingham on its own would not be able to fill 3tph; the reason why 3tph to Brum is well patronised is due to the demand from Cov and International as well as Brum.

IMHO, if you really want to maximise capacity on the WCML south of Rugby (which is the most pressing concern), you should remove the need for 125mph trains south of Rugby. This would mean shifting HS2 phase 1 eastwards joining near Rugby / Cov with connections to the Coventry corridor, Trent Valley, and the East Midlands HS branch.

This would mean you have removed all VT paths south of Rugby allowing for more 100/110 mph paths increasing commuter capacity to London when compared to the current plan. You still have the issue of the Cov corridor but then HS2 in its current guise does not release paths here anyway.

 

[Deerfold]

Nor is there likely to be such a need as technology reduces commuting and business travel over the kind of horizon HS2 is going to be built.

Which technology is this? At the moment both commuting and business travel seem to be on the up despite technology making virtual meetings easier.

Your plan also seems to have no relief for Leeds. I already catch trains that are full on the ECML with limited prospects for extra paths in the near future.