Midlands and North - Rail Needs Assessment report

[Bletchleyite]

I'd have just called it Garston or Allerton personally.

I think it's worth calling it out as more than just a normal wayside station because it connects two lines and has a reasonably sized bus station directly attached (the Germans would be proud) as well as the airport bus link. But "Garston Interchange" or "Allerton Interchange" (whichever you prefer) would have worked fine.

"Parkway", I'd agree it isn't, or no more than any other Merseyrail station that features a small car park (which is about half of them).

 

[Gareth]

I've never liked "Parkway" anyway. The American use of the term seems more natural to me; although that may be because I used to play Mario Kart 64 back in the day, which had a "Princess Parkway" circuit.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've never liked "Parkway" anyway. The American use of the term seems more natural to me; although that may be because I used to play Mario Kart 64 back in the day, which had a "Princess Parkway" circuit.

Princess Parkway is a road in Manchester, which in the morning rush is as described

 

[edwin_m]

The issue of Covid impact on travel comes up on every thread and the answer is the same: we just don't know. My own view is that many businesses have been trying to have meetings by teleconference particularly since 2009 and probably have a pretty good idea which ones work that way and which are best done in person. So the balance between the two may go back fairly close to what it was, once they have the flexibility to meet in person if they prefer. Commuting is another matter - I believe there is more of a step change in the acceptability of working from home and that will hit commuter numbers significant. But HS2 and most of the inter-urban links we are talking about here aren't so much about commuting.

 

[Gareth]

Princess Parkway is a road in Manchester, which in the morning rush is as described

Ah yes, forgot about that one. Think I went down that a year or so ago. Once is enough.

 

[The Ham]

The issue of Covid impact on travel comes up on every thread and the answer is the same: we just don't know. My own view is that many businesses have been trying to have meetings by teleconference particularly since 2009 and probably have a pretty good idea which ones work that way and which are best done in person. So the balance between the two may go back fairly close to what it was, once they have the flexibility to meet in person if they prefer. Commuting is another matter - I believe there is more of a step change in the acceptability of working from home and that will hit commuter numbers significant. But HS2 and most of the inter-urban links we are talking about here aren't so much about commuting.

Agreed, (and this isn't pointed at you, just that you was a good post and the last one) however it should also be noted that WFH would likely impact car use as well and may result in some switching to rail for some of their travel because the economics of car ownership no longer works (at least for a second car in a household).

Yes numbers may be small but 80% of our travel is by car be 10% by rail so small changes in car use can have much bigger changes in rail use.

 

[Llandudno]

I think it's worth calling it out as more than just a normal wayside station because it connects two lines and has a reasonably sized bus station directly attached (the Germans would be proud) as well as the airport bus link. But "Garston Interchange" or "Allerton Interchange" (whichever you prefer) would have worked fine.

"Parkway", I'd agree it isn't, or no more than any other Merseyrail station that features a small car park (which is about half of them).

South Liverpool Parkway has 311 FREE parking spaces, not exactly small, but I agree insufficient

Tiverton Parkway a ‘genuine’ Parkway station with 229 parking spaces with a daily charge of £6.90

Perhaps a similar fee at South Liverpool Parkway would significantly reduce demand? I am not advocating it though, as I oppose punitive parking fees for rail users at stations. Absolute maximum at any rail station for rail users should be £5 and free after 1400hrs.

 

[6Gman]

There's an interesting remark about the relatively low usage of Parkway stations, with Liverpool South Parkway as an example.
So what most people consider a significant regional success, is regarded by the NIC as "poor value".
That's in the sense of extending journeys for most passengers in order to serve relatively few people whose journeys are shortened.

I've never seen LSP as a true parkway as pioneered by Bristol. More of a suburban interchange that had to be given an impressive name.

I've also always considered the treatment of Nottingham and Derby to be one of the weakest features of the eastern leg of HS2. If we can get Derby Midland and Nottingham Midland better connected to London, Birmingham, Leeds and the North East that would be far better than faffing about at Toton.

 

[Bald Rick]

Absolute maximum at any rail station for rail users should be £5 and free after 1400hrs.

Slightly off topic, but that’s ridiculous. What if, like in (say) York, nearby non railway car parks charge £20+ for a day? The station car park would just be full of shoppers, tourists and local workers, meaning genuine rail users wouldn’t be able to park at all and would be lost to rail. Okay, so make car park users buy a rail ticket as well... but how do you enforce that, and in York’s case suddenly tickets to Poppleton start selling like hot cakes...

 

[Ianno87]

Slightly off topic, but that’s ridiculous. What if, like in (say) York, nearby non railway car parks charge £20+ for a day? The station car park would just be full of shoppers, tourists and local workers. Okay, so make them buy a rail ticket as well... but how do you enforce that, and in York’s case suddenly tickets to Poppleton start selling like hot cakes...

I look at Cambridge's full (even post-Covid) car park at £12.50/day. Clearly people are happy to pay that...so let them!

 

[The Ham]

Slightly off topic, but that’s ridiculous. What if, like in (say) York, nearby non railway car parks charge £20+ for a day? The station car park would just be full of shoppers, tourists and local workers, meaning genuine rail users wouldn’t be able to park at all and would be lost to rail. Okay, so make car park users buy a rail ticket as well... but how do you enforce that, and in York’s case suddenly tickets to Poppleton start selling like hot cakes...

Indeed, just like free hospital car parking...

 

[ChrisC]

South Liverpool Parkway has 311 FREE parking spaces, not exactly small, but I agree insufficient

Tiverton Parkway a ‘genuine’ Parkway station with 229 parking spaces with a daily charge of £6.90

Perhaps a similar fee at South Liverpool Parkway would significantly reduce demand? I am not advocating it though, as I oppose punitive parking fees for rail users at stations. Absolute maximum at any rail station for rail users should be £5 and free after 1400hrs.

I understand why parking charges at busy city centre stations are high but at Parkway stations, especially those in the middle of nowhere like East Midlands Parkway there should not be high prices. I know there are many reasons why EMP is not used as much as it could be but parking charges of £8.00 (£5.50 off peak), does not encourage people from surrounding villages to use the station as a park and ride facility for travelling into Nottingham, Leicester or Derby. Parking prices will probably be far higher if HS2 does come there. Other issues that make EMP a bit of a white elephant at present include the inconvenient timetable with badly spaced trains and extortionate prices for anyone doing day trips to destinations in the north compared to similar journeys from Nottingham and Derby.

 

[lancastrian]

South Liverpool Parkway has 311 FREE parking spaces, not exactly small, but I agree insufficient

Tiverton Parkway a ‘genuine’ Parkway station with 229 parking spaces with a daily charge of £6.90

Perhaps a similar fee at South Liverpool Parkway would significantly reduce demand? I am not advocating it though, as I oppose punitive parking fees for rail users at stations. Absolute maximum at any rail station for rail users should be £5 and free after 1400hrs.

About 15 years ago while on holiday near Pickering in North Yorkshire, my wife and I decided to travel by train to York from Malton. I cannot remember the exact charges but the Car Park charge was about £7.00 for the day. You got a discount of £5.00 if you booked a travel ticket, so we parked for about £2.00 and had a great day out in York. I din't have to drive to and park in York. To my mind that is how Car parks should be used at Rail Stations. Make the parking charge high to discourage non rail users BUT give an refund 80% of the cost when purchasing a rail ticket.

 

[The Ham]

Slightly off topic, but that’s ridiculous. What if, like in (say) York, nearby non railway car parks charge £20+ for a day? The station car park would just be full of shoppers, tourists and local workers, meaning genuine rail users wouldn’t be able to park at all and would be lost to rail. Okay, so make car park users buy a rail ticket as well... but how do you enforce that, and in York’s case suddenly tickets to Poppleton start selling like hot cakes...

The way that I'd do it would be to offer (say) 20% off the ticket up to 90% of the value of the parking charge.

That way those only going a few stops wouldn't save much, but those going to London may only pay £2 parking.

 

[Bald Rick]

The way that I'd do it would be to offer (say) 20% off the ticket up to 90% of the value of the parking charge.

That way those only going a few stops wouldn't save much, but those going to London may only pay £2 parking.

Given that most parking that is see at stations now is ticketless and contactless, I don’t see how that can work.

The current system works just fine in most cases, it’s called market economics!

 

[Ianno87]

The way that I'd do it would be to offer (say) 20% off the ticket up to 90% of the value of the parking charge.

That way those only going a few stops wouldn't save much, but those going to London may only pay £2 parking.

But that's the wrong way around for demand. If you're going to London you're less likely to *want* to drive, so are prepared to pay more, whereas a high charge for short trips disincentivises discretionary use where just driving the whole way is attractive.

 

[AndyW33]

3. I wonder whether Derby-Sheffield-Leeds would be best served by a substantially upgraded route (inevitably with a fair bit of new build and tunnelling, and probably underground platforms at Sheffield), capable of taking XC services as well as HS2.

Underground platforms at Sheffield? That's going to be interesting, given the significant gradients on the existing lines approaching from the south, and round from the Nunnery curve. And then, look at what's immediately below the existing platforms. That's right, the river, the one that floods regularly.

 

[daodao]

Princess Parkway is a road in Manchester, which in the morning rush is as described

It was an apt name for part of the A5103 when originally opened, with a wide expanse of parkland on both sides of the road between the River Mersey and Altrincham Road, including Wythenshawe Park on the western edge south of Wythenshawe Road. Sadly, construction of the M56 interchange with the A5103, together with its widening, has obliterated most of the parkland, and it has not been a pleasant area for a walk for over 40 years.

 

[edwin_m]

Underground platforms at Sheffield? That's going to be interesting, given the significant gradients on the existing lines approaching from the south, and round from the Nunnery curve. And then, look at what's immediately below the existing platforms. That's right, the river, the one that floods regularly.

Not sure if underground platforms are necessary, but if they are they'd probably be at a similar elevation to the existing ones, but further east and buried in the hill.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Some tentative thoughts on this:
1. the Eastern leg suffers from the geographical location of the key cities en route. Neither Toton nor the original Meadowhall are ideal locations (they make good Parkway stations but are miles from city centres).

2. I can see the logic of splitting the route south of Toton to serve Nottingham and Derby separately. Centre-to-centre journey times should be around 60min.

3. I wonder whether Derby-Sheffield-Leeds would be best served by a substantially upgraded route (inevitably with a fair bit of new build and tunnelling, and probably underground platforms at Sheffield), capable of taking XC services as well as HS2. This might imply a lower maximum speed, but HS1 copes with 140mph Javelins in between Eurostars over similar distances.

4. The question then is what to do about Leeds and the NE. Would Leeds be as well served via Manchester (there would be a time penalty, but then I think I have slowed the Eastern leg too... on the other hand, whichever of Bradford and Huddersfield was the en route stop would benefit, and that gives access to a fair bit of West Yorks!)?
As for the NE - direct from Sheffield to Church Fenton perhaps? Obviously with a stop at Pontefract or Castleford This might have implications for the Sheffield-Leeds section in 3...

As to service patterns, I haven't got that far, but whatever impacts Covid has will be broadly similar across all routes, so I don't think it's worth second-guessing.

(PS - I am assuming an ECML upgrade to 140mph south of Doncaster is a non-starter).

You'd want to be able to run XC trains on that new/upgraded East Midlands-Sheffield-Leeds route towards Doncaster and York too. Once that's in place, you're most of the way there to running HS2 services to Leeds and York/Newcastle via this line.

I think Toton is inevitable for London services. Yes, it would be nice to run into an existing city centre. However, neither Derby or Nottingham is large enough on its own to justify a call by a train heading onto HS2 Phase 1. If the route north of there is going to fragment into a series of classic-compatible upgrades and new lines, then there would be value in having a full spec HS2 station at Toton for all the various branches to join together to fill up a Phase 1 path. The alternative would be a messier split and join operation at Birmingham Interchange where paths are at a much greater premium.

The HS2 route along the Erewash Valley can be slowed down to cut costs and better support being deeply integrated into the rest of the classic rail network. E.g. a new 160km/h classic express route spec roughly reinstating the former GNR route through West Hallam. The 'HS2' mainline would now be the mainline route north for all express trains - e.g. any fast services from Derby to Sheffield, including those still running through Burton-on-Trent and not just HS2 ones. Likewise the 'HS2' route would link southwards towards Leicester.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think Toton is inevitable for London services. Yes, it would be nice to run into an existing city centre. However, neither Derby or Nottingham is large enough on its own to justify a call by a train heading onto HS2 Phase 1.

Where do you get that from? The same argument would result in Warrington, Wigan and Lancaster not getting one either, and they are.

Crikey, look at some of the local stops on the Southeastern HS1 services.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

The only realistic options option I can see, without getting the crayons out, is to run a HS2 leg into East Mids Parkway (perhaps not actually there, mind), and onto a Toton hub.

Toton gets trains from Derby etc; and the Erewash is a four-track main line with a 125mph line speed where possible. Approaches to Sheffield are ‘blazed’ to make them fit for purpose.

Stuff could go to Nottingham, and all you need then is work around Newark to allow stuff to do Birmingham - Nottingham - Doncaster - York (etc), meaning the ECML upgrade accommodates that lot as well at the northern end; conveniently with all freight going via the Joint and Werrington dive under.

 

[Ianno87]

I think Toton is inevitable for London services. Yes, it would be nice to run into an existing city centre. However, neither Derby or Nottingham is large enough on its own to justify a call by a train heading onto HS2 Phase 1.

Actually, the original Eastern Leg engineering report said that Nottingham *is* large enough to justify being served directly. But not to cost of engineering the whole Eastern Leg alignment that far east to satisfy it (i.e. the drawbacks to everywhere further north would outweigh this).

 

[Roast Veg]

The drawbacks further north that are mitigated anywhere that isn't Sheffield with NPR I suppose, hence the NIC findings.

 

[Purple Orange]

I see no viable future for the SW/NE cross country services, as we know them today, if the regions 25%+ option or the basic upgrade option is taken. Timings between Birmingham & Leeds via Manchester will superior to the route vis Sheffield by up to 40 minutes, including a 5 min reversal at Piccadilly (I’m sure some people will pick bones with my 5 min assumption there, but that would be missing the point of the huge time advantage Manchester has over Sheffield).

The timings in the NIC report for Leeds-London do not give any great time savings via Manchester, therefore only Leeds/Newcastle to Birmingham would be affected in this way.

Without the eastern branch, Curzon Street station will have spare capacity, while Euston could see Nottingham on the boards rather than Leeds. It could mean the following for Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham & Liverpool:

With eastern branch:

• 2 x 200m Birmingham-Manchester
• 2 x 200m Birmingham-Leeds
• 1 x 200m Birmingham-Newcastle

Without eastern branch (6 tph Leeds-Manc)

• 4 x 200m Birmingham-Manchester-Leeds-Newcastle
• 2 x 200m Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Hull (via Victoria)

 

[edwin_m]

The only realistic options option I can see, without getting the crayons out, is to run a HS2 leg into East Mids Parkway (perhaps not actually there, mind), and onto a Toton hub.

Toton gets trains from Derby etc; and the Erewash is a four-track main line with a 125mph line speed where possible. Approaches to Sheffield are ‘blazed’ to make them fit for purpose.

I don't see the purpose for Toton if HS2 doesn't continue northwards beyond it. The region is served much better by terminating trains in Nottingham and either terminating in Derby too, or running Sheffield ones by that route. So might as well drop the tricky section between Parkway and Toton.

Stuff could go to Nottingham, and all you need then is work around Newark to allow stuff to do Birmingham - Nottingham - Doncaster - York (etc), meaning the ECML upgrade accommodates that lot as well at the northern end; conveniently with all freight going via the Joint and Werrington dive under.

I see no viable future for the SW/NE cross country services, as we know them today, if the regions 25%+ option or the basic upgrade option is taken. Timings between Birmingham & Leeds via Manchester will superior to the route vis Sheffield by up to 40 minutes, including a 5 min reversal at Piccadilly (I’m sure some people will pick bones with my 5 min assumption there, but that would be missing the point of the huge time advantage Manchester has over Sheffield).

The timings in the NIC report for Leeds-London do not give any great time savings via Manchester, therefore only Leeds/Newcastle to Birmingham would be affected in this way.

Without the eastern branch, Curzon Street station will have spare capacity, while Euston could see Nottingham on the boards rather than Leeds. It could mean the following for Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham & Liverpool:

With eastern branch:

• 2 x 200m Birmingham-Manchester
• 2 x 200m Birmingham-Leeds
• 1 x 200m Birmingham-Newcastle

Without eastern branch (6 tph Leeds-Manc)

• 4 x 200m Birmingham-Manchester-Leeds-Newcastle
• 2 x 200m Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Hull (via Victoria)

Actually, the original Eastern Leg engineering report said that Nottingham *is* large enough to justify being served directly. But not to cost of engineering the whole Eastern Leg alignment that far east to satisfy it (i.e. the drawbacks to everywhere further north would outweigh this).

I was also thinking about whether Birmingham-Nottingham services could continue to York and beyond via a new curve at Newark. I wonder how the time would compare with via Manchester.

 

[Bald Rick]

l

I was also thinking about whether Birmingham-Nottingham services could continue to York and beyond via a new curve at Newark. I wonder how the time would compare with via Manchester.

Assuming calls at Nottingham and Doncaster, and an upgrade Nottingham - Newark, B’ham to York that way would be about 1h30. Roughly the same as via Manchester and Leeds (via new lines)

 

[Purple Orange]

l


Assuming calls at Nottingham and Doncaster, and an upgrade Nottingham - Newark, B’ham to York that way would be about 1h30. Roughly the same as via Manchester and Leeds (via new lines)

If those times are comparable, then it would ultimately become a Brum-Newcastle service, but that would be missing out all the big cities along the way and taking up a path on the ECML north of York, which could be better serviced by the services via Manchester.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Where do you get that from? The same argument would result in Warrington, Wigan and Lancaster not getting one either, and they are.

Crikey, look at some of the local stops on the Southeastern HS1 services.

Thankfully Warrington, Wigan and Lancaster are all located on the WCML in a line, so it's easy for one train to serve all of them. The HS2 plans for a 200m classic-compatible set to go Crewe-Warrington-Wigan-Preston-Lancaster mean a pretty much unbeatable service for the region between Liverpool and Manchester.

One of the reasons for that is that the WCML isn't actually that bad north of Crewe if you're only going as far as Lancaster. There are some areas where four tracks could be reinstated or a junction redesigned but the line doesn't fundamentally need replacing. It already goes straight into the core of the towns and cities along its route and is generally capable of 160-200km/h, which is optimal for the range between stops.

Actually, the original Eastern Leg engineering report said that Nottingham *is* large enough to justify being served directly. But not to cost of engineering the whole Eastern Leg alignment that far east to satisfy it (i.e. the drawbacks to everywhere further north would outweigh this).

Yes. Serving either Derby or Nottingham directly requires moving the mainline route and that has fairly major consequences. It's all a difficult balance.

Going back to the original HS2 plans, the consultants were asked to come up with a set of options which made sense for the core HS2 model of services to London. Even early on there was an understanding that the East Midlands and South Yorkshire might not be best served by a city centre station, while a city centre station was considered essential for Leeds (for West Yorkshire as a whole).

There's a mixture of passengers expected to use HS2, ranging from people starting or ending their journeys in urban areas and/or using local metro networks through to people needing to park and ride. Different urban regions were expected to have a different balance, and that lead to different decisions. Manchester needs a city centre station at Piccadilly for city centre connectivity with the local transport network as well as the dense urban area near the station. It also needs a second station located on the motorway network for park and ride, which ends up being best placed at the Airport. While Leeds was to get a city centre station, the basic location of the HS2 platforms is also much closer to the motorway network than for Manchester or even Birmingham. That means it could do double duty as both a city centre and a park and ride station.

I don't think these balances will have shifted much. If the Y model is to be retained at all (which I think is inevitable as all other options are just worse) then you'll end up needing to fill London trains in a fairly similar way. Accepting more classic-compatible branches and splitting/joining means that the cost of serving an urban area directly has gone down. In the case of the original Sheffield Midland spur plans, that even unlocked the possibility of a second South Yorkshire station. Since Midland could be served so cheaply, but would be quite a bit less accessible to park and ride passengers than Meadowhall, there was serious consideration of a new and presumably reasonably cheap M18 Parkway station on the realigned mainline route.

For HS2 to serve Nottingham directly, it would mean using up paths to run a 200m service which then wouldn't be that useful going anywhere else. That is, unless you made it meander back up to ECML destinations via Newark. I'd doubt an HS2 service would be that competitive against the ECML with that route. You'd still have the problem of accommodating East Midlands park and ride passengers. I guess that could be done with a station at EMP. Toton or EMP is probably immaterial for P&R passengers, but serving the centre of Nottingham would add in more urban passengers. Is that enough to make that path worthwhile? I'm not that sure. A path to Nottingham is one not available to other places further north. The incremental benefit of HS2 is greater the further north you go, and it may well be that those extra passengers would have been just fine using the MML services. These could be recast to aim for Derby/Nottingham as their primary destination, with Sheffield being really for connectivity rather than trying to provide the fastest InterCity link.

Keeping the Erewash Valley as the route for whatever new/heavily upgraded mainline HS2 services would use to go east of the Pennines means Nottingham has an easier time getting journey time savings to the north. The outline of a connection to Nottingham Midland is already largely there, and you can easily imagine new express links which cut from the MML/quasi-HS2 route over to the ECML route via Nottingham and Grantham. Demand for ECML services from York/Leeds towards East Anglia suffers from low passenger numbers on the fast ECML route and a tortuously slow route any further west where the passengers are.

 

[edwin_m]

Assuming calls at Nottingham and Doncaster, and an upgrade Nottingham - Newark, B’ham to York that way would be about 1h30. Roughly the same as via Manchester and Leeds (via new lines)

That would be an impressive timing, quicker than I would have expected.

If those times are comparable, then it would ultimately become a Brum-Newcastle service, but that would be missing out all the big cities along the way and taking up a path on the ECML north of York, which could be better serviced by the services via Manchester.

It could be the fast Birmingham-Newcastle service with a slower one following largely the existing route but accelerated by using HS2 between Birmingham and EM Parkway and whatever happens between Sheffield and Leeds. One or other could terminate at York depending on demand.

For HS2 to serve Nottingham directly, it would mean using up paths to run a 200m service which then wouldn't be that useful going anywhere else. That is, unless you made it meander back up to ECML destinations via Newark. I'd doubt an HS2 service would be that competitive against the ECML with that route. You'd still have the problem of accommodating East Midlands park and ride passengers. I guess that could be done with a station at EMP. Toton or EMP is probably immaterial for P&R passengers, but serving the centre of Nottingham would add in more urban passengers. Is that enough to make that path worthwhile? I'm not that sure. A path to Nottingham is one not available to other places further north. The incremental benefit of HS2 is greater the further north you go, and it may well be that those extra passengers would have been just fine using the MML services. These could be recast to aim for Derby/Nottingham as their primary destination, with Sheffield being really for connectivity rather than trying to provide the fastest InterCity link.

Keeping the Erewash Valley as the route for whatever new/heavily upgraded mainline HS2 services would use to go east of the Pennines means Nottingham has an easier time getting journey time savings to the north. The outline of a connection to Nottingham Midland is already largely there, and you can easily imagine new express links which cut from the MML/quasi-HS2 route over to the ECML route via Nottingham and Grantham. Demand for ECML services from York/Leeds towards East Anglia suffers from low passenger numbers on the fast ECML route and a tortuously slow route any further west where the passengers are.

A Birmingham-Nottingham-York (-NE) would be much more useful than that if as fast as suggested above. The paths are there to run it as a 200m if London-NE services stay on the ECML (and freight runs via Lincoln to release capacity via Newark). You could probably re-engineer Nottingham to take a 400m train.