Post HS2 service assumptions using released capacity

[deltic]

The latest service pattern assumptions used to model the impacts of HS2 have been released

Of interest are the service patterns assumed to be in place to use released capacity

These include

Only 1tph East Coast service permitted north of Northallerton which is a slow London - Edinburgh with the present extensions to Aberdeen and Inverness
16tpd each King’s Cross to Middlesbrough, Lincoln, Nottingham and Hull (the latter in addition to Hull train services which I cant imagine will survive such an uplift in competition)
All Great Western and Heathrow Express trains to call at Old Oak Common
Euston to Crewe (London Midland) extended to Manchester Victoria via Warrington - untill Phase 2b opens when it goes to Piccadilly
Blackpool - Euston open access goes
All Euston to Blackpool / Preston services removed due to lack of capacity.
Cross Country services from Newcastle to south coast to run from Hull instead

Phased opening of HS2

a) 3tph Old Oak Common to Birmingham Curzon Street
b) as above plus 1 tph OOC to Manchester Piccadilly via Wilmslow, 1tph OOC to Liverpool and 1tph to Glasgow
c) 3tph London Euston to Curzon St, 3tph Euston to Manchester Picc, 2tph Euston to Liverpool, 1tph to Preston and 1tph to Glasgow

full phase 2b
3tph Euston to Birmingham
3tph Euston to Manchester
2tph Euston to Liverpool (1 splits at Crewe)
1tph Euston to Preston (Splits at Crewe from Liverpool service)
1tph to Macclesfield via Stoke
2tph to Glasgow/Edinburgh - both split at Carstairs
3tph to Leeds (1 splits at Toton)
2tph to Sheffield (splits at Toton from Leeds and York services )
1 tph to York (splits at Toton)
2 tph to Newcastle
2tph Birmingham to Manchester
1/2tph Birmingham to Glasgow
1/2tph Birmingham to Edinburgh
2tph Birmingham to Leeds
1tph Birmingham to Newcastle

Full details can be found at and can be found at https://assets.publishing.service.g...097/PFMv9_Assumptions_Report_Revision1_1_.pdf

Given the full Phase 2b if it does happen isn't likely to open till around 2040 a lot can change in the meantime

 

[Horizon22]

The latest service pattern assumptions used to model the impacts of HS2 have been released

All Great Western and Heathrow Express trains to call at Old Oak Common

Now that's a rather extreme shake up and probably highly unnecessary.

Blackpool - Euston open access goes
All Euston to Blackpool / Preston services removed due to lack of capacity.

Won't have lasted too long then, but I imagine the journey time is quicker anyway.

That's a rather more diverse set of destinations that I would initially have expected.

 

[irish_rail]

Wow seem to be quite a few losers here. Xc to Hull vice Newcastle isn't really beneficial, similarly Blackpool losing its london trains
And from a western point of view the fact all services will be made to stop at old oak common is plain daft, why oh why would anyone travelling from taunton westward go up north via old oak common when it would be just as quick to go via xc to Birmingham, and no doubt cheaper.

Hs2 will be great for London and maybe Manchester but the rest of us have to suffer it seems.

 

[FOH]

Wow seem to be quite a few losers here. Xc to Hull vice Newcastle isn't really beneficial, similarly Blackpool losing its london trains
And from a western point of view the fact all services will be made to stop at old oak common is plain daft, why oh why would anyone travelling from taunton westward go up north via old oak common when it would be just as quick to go via xc to Birmingham, and no doubt cheaper.

Hs2 will be great for London and maybe Manchester but the rest of us have to suffer it seems.

Will also be able to interchange for Heathrow and London Overground N/S there plus presumably it'll be easier to get on a Crossrail into London centre rather than heading for the depths at Paddington

 

[JonathanH]

Now that's a rather extreme shake up and probably highly unnecessary

As previously discussed, Old Oak Common on the GWR route really is all or nothing and it seems to be they are working on all.

I think we do need to read this document with a pinch of salt - it is just a summary of the base case of what is being modelled as part of assessing a business case for HS2, not what is actually going to happen as plans evolve.

 

[Horizon22]

Will also be interesting to see whether these growth assumptions of 30-40% actually are accurate considering the current circumstances. Seems much of the transport modelling was done based on 2019 matricies or earlier.

 

[irish_rail]

Will also be able to interchange for Heathrow and London Overground N/S there plus presumably it'll be easier to get on a Crossrail into London centre rather than heading for the depths at Paddington

I guess by that logic we will see the run down of paddington station and the end of an era. Great western travel just got even more soulless (tho I guess that's probably no bad thing for the DFT)

 

[Horizon22]

As previously discussed, Old Oak Commkn on the GWR route really is all or nothing and it seems to be they are working on all.

Quite, as I remember from the other thread. In the instance of "all" it will be interesting to see what the impact on Paddington which may end up being a convenient stack of platform space.

 

[CW2]

Old Oak Common becomes the largest / busiest transport interchange in Greater London.
Paddington will become significantly less busy in terms of footfall, but will still be pretty busy.

 

[Horizon22]

Will probably add more than the 4 minutes (3 Paddington - Old Oak, 1 min dwell) stated in the report. A 1min dwell is rather small for what is planned to be a major interchange, plus the acceleration/deceleration timings although with 80x still running it hopefully wouldn't add too much more.

Edit: Oddly Crossrail has 2min dwells.

 

[irish_rail]

Will probably add more than the 4 minutes (3 Paddington - Old Oak, 1 min dwell) stated in the report. A 1min dwell is rather small for what is planned to be a major interchange, plus the acceleration/deceleration timings although with 80x still running it hopefully wouldn't add too much more.

Edit: Oddly Crossrail has 2min dwells.

Also the pathings out of Padd where trains follow at sometimes 2 minute intervals will surely need to change?

 

[irish_rail]

Will probably add more than the 4 minutes (3 Paddington - Old Oak, 1 min dwell) stated in the report. A 1min dwell is rather small for what is planned to be a major interchange, plus the acceleration/deceleration timings although with 80x still running it hopefully wouldn't add too much more.

Edit: Oddly Crossrail has 2min dwells.

Also, one minute dwell times wont work on up trains, not in a million years, esp if the station is designed to get those with luggage off to Heathrow. I'd say 3 mins is more realistic.

 

[Horizon22]

Also the pathings out of Padd where trains follow at sometimes 2 minute intervals will surely need to change?

Yes probably but considering a whole new station is being built around current running lines and an old depot, I imagine there will be significant timetable changes from the mid 2020s anyway to accommodate the infrastructure works.

 

[irish_rail]

Yes probably but considering a whole new station is being built around current running lines and an old depot, I imagine there will be significant timetable changes from the mid 2020s anyway to accommodate the infrastructure works.

Indeed. Not considered acceptable to disrupt the precious WCML for upgrade works (hence why we are being lumbered with HS2) yet years of disruption to follow for southerners on the western whilst all this is built and the current GWML massively altered...

 

[CW2]

Indeed. Not considered acceptable to disrupt the precious WCML for upgrade works (hence why we are being lumbered with HS2) yet years of disruption to follow for southerners on the western whilst all this is built and the current GWML massively altered...

I think you'll find the WCML had more than its fair share of disruption and route closure during the West Coast Route Modernisation - or had that slipped your mind? Don't use that as a stick to beat HS2.
I expect there will be a need for some track alterations and sluing in the OOC area whilst the GWML platforms are constructed - and maybe some weekend blocks. Let's wait and see what they propose.

 

[irish_rail]

I think you'll find the WCML had more than its fair share of disruption and route closure during the West Coast Route Modernisation - or had that slipped your mind? Don't use that as a stick to beat HS2.
I expect there will be a need for some track alterations and sluing in the OOC area whilst the GWML platforms are constructed - and maybe some weekend blocks. Let's wait and see what they propose.

Yeah and the WCRM went so well didn't it....I think weekend blocks is being optimistic. I'd suggest blocks of several weeks during the summer / xmas etc are more likely. Time will tell, either way I dont think the benefits outweigh the negatives in terms of long distance travel on the western.

 

[si404]

Edit: Oddly Crossrail has 2min dwells.

The GWML (and HS2) will be one-way flows of passengers, whereas Elizabeth line trains (at least those not starting there) will have people both boarding and disembarking from trains in either direction.

 

[JonathanH]

I'd suggest blocks of several weeks during the summer / xmas etc are more likely.

None of that was necessary with Reading which was essentially the same thing - you build some new platforms at the side of the formation, slew the track and then build where the old lines were. Yes, some Christmas and Easter blocks when trains run from Ealing but not shutting the lines for weeks on end.

 

[mmh]

Yeah and the WCRM went so well didn't it....I think weekend blocks is being optimistic. I'd suggest blocks of several weeks during the summer / xmas etc are more likely. Time will tell, either way I dont think the benefits outweigh the negatives in terms of long distance travel on the western.

I'm no supporter of HS2, but I don't see why building OOC need be more disruptive to the passenger than rebuilding Reading, or electrification, or London Bridge... It's not like HS2 is being built on the cheap.

 

[Horizon22]

I'm no supporter of HS2, but I don't see why building OOC need be more disruptive to the passenger than rebuilding Reading, or electrification, or London Bridge... It's not like HS2 is being built on the cheap.

Well London Bridge was incredibly disruptive - no through Thameslink trains for years, various through SE trains not calling for 12-18 months at at a time.

 

[JonathanH]

Well London Bridge was incredibly disruptive - no through Thameslink trains for years, various through SE trains not calling for 12-18 months at at a time.

The Charing Cross / Cannon Street lines stayed open though didn't they. Thameslink moving away created 'swing space'. Old Oak Common isn't an existing station or on a viaduct of restricted width so there is no need to worry about not being able to stop for 12-18 months.

 

[irish_rail]

It's just a shame that for all those looking to get to central London, get in a taxi, get on a bus or get to various parts of the tube network, their journeys will be slower if coming from the west once HS2 opens.
Sure , there will be some who will benefit by joining crossrail at OOC , but I dont personally think the majority will alight here and so for them it will be longer journey times.

 

[Camden]

Interesting. Apparently the whole need for the HS2 tunnel under Manchester is because of congestion, however it proposes extending 2 London Midland services to Manchester (in addition to the HS2 Birmingham services it has). So are the lines congested or not?

Meanwhile, both London Midland (as it was) and the Liverpool authorities have been angling to get an additional service extended from Crewe for many years, only for it to be refused by the government's rail regulator. Apparently congestion there doesn't figure, as to any HS2 need.

Along with the city now needing the fudge of a joining of services at Crewe just to stand still on London services, it still remains disconnected from Birmingham via HS2. This is despite it now carrying more passengers than Manchester as of 2018, and certainly many times more passengers to Birmingham than Leeds (that gets 2 HS2 services).

I am also surprised by the amount of incorrect and out of date information in this report, that we have all paid for. It seems HS2 is badly out of the loop on even just current services, let alone what they might do with the supposed "freed capacity".

 

[158756]

Wow seem to be quite a few losers here. Xc to Hull vice Newcastle isn't really beneficial, similarly Blackpool losing its london trains

The XC to Hull seems very wasteful - avoiding Sheffield (??), Leeds and York; Doncaster much reduced in importance post-HS2, and an hourly London service between Hull and Doncaster as well, on top of Northern's offering.

Interesting. Apparently the whole need for the HS2 tunnel under Manchester is because of congestion, however it proposes extending 2 London Midland services to Manchester (in addition to the HS2 Birmingham services it has). So are the lines congested or not?

Meanwhile, both London Midland (as it was) and the Liverpool authorities have been angling to get an additional service extended from Crewe for many years, only for it to be refused by the government's rail regulator. Apparently congestion there doesn't figure, as to any HS2 need.

Along with the city now needing the fudge of a joining of services at Crewe just to stand still on London services, it still remains disconnected from Birmingham via HS2. This is despite it now carrying more passengers than Manchester as of 2018, and certainly many times more passengers to Birmingham than Leeds (that gets 2 HS2 services).

I am also surprised by the amount of incorrect and out of date information in this report, that we have all paid for. It seems HS2 is badly out of the loop on even just current services, let alone what they might do with the supposed "freed capacity".

The 2 'London Midland' services to Manchester replace 3 existing West Coast services, so that's one fewer long distance train between Manchester and Stockport. I don't know about Liverpool needing a fudge at Crewe to stand still - doubling the service from 1tph to 2 is hardly standing still.

The whole document is completely out of date though, because demand on all routes has evaporated.

 

[Camden]

Just one of the many things in the report that isn't right - HS2 won't be doubling the service to Liverpool. That will happen in the next couple of years with Avanti. The city's (non COVID) rail growth has far outstripped that originally forecast by HS2, but they still plan no uplift. No wonder when their documents are like this!

 

[The Planner]

Just one of the many things in the report that isn't right - HS2 won't be doubling the service to Liverpool. That will happen in the next couple of years with Avanti. The city's (non COVID) rail growth has far outstripped that originally forecast by HS2, but they still plan no uplift. No wonder when their documents are like this!

Most of that will be information worked up and provided by NR, HS2 won't have come up with those train specs.

 

[Ianno87]

Also, one minute dwell times wont work on up trains, not in a million years, esp if the station is designed to get those with luggage off to Heathrow. I'd say 3 mins is more realistic.

Entirely possible that main line calls will be set down/pick up only to help fast dwells. 3 minutes is overkill. Maybe 1 1/2 minutes is practical.

Yeah and the WCRM went so well didn't it....I think weekend blocks is being optimistic. I'd suggest blocks of several weeks during the summer / xmas etc are more likely. Time will tell, either way I dont think the benefits outweigh the negatives in terms of long distance travel on the western.

Crossrail etc works on the GWML were generally Christmas/Easter blocks. There's a bit of space to work with at Old Oak Common, so should be relatively easy to stage the build, with some weekends to do track slues / signalling changes.

Just one of the many things in the report that isn't right - HS2 won't be doubling the service to Liverpool. That will happen in the next couple of years with Avanti. The city's (non COVID) rail growth has far outstripped that originally forecast by HS2, but they still plan no uplift. No wonder when their documents are like this!

Avanti are doubling the service as a stepping stone to what was eventually the plan for HS2 anyway. Essesntially doing it "early", with the HS2 speed up to follow as a later benefit. Liverpool is effectively, the very first beneficiary of the eventual HS2 service pattern.

 

[swt_passenger]

The Charing Cross / Cannon Street lines stayed open though didn't they. Thameslink moving away created 'swing space'. Old Oak Common isn't an existing station or on a viaduct of restricted width so there is no need to worry about not being able to stop for 12-18 months.

...and Thameslink effectively didn’t run through London Bridge in the peaks as there was no capacity, so presumably wasn’t missed by peak travellers anyway?

But yes, Reading is a good example of a pretty straight forward programme, in terms of non interference with services.

 

[Camden]

Essesntially doing it "early", with the HS2 speed up to follow as a later benefit. Liverpool is effectively, the very first beneficiary of the eventual HS2 service pattern.

That's a rather amusing attempt at spin. Going half hourly is years overdue on raw passenger numbers. There is nothing early about it, and no dependence on HS2 to get it. It's a reluctant acceptance by the government that Liverpool's rail services do require upgrade to avoid becoming an acute embarrassment, whether they like it or not. It's astonishing just how begrudging and mean their concessions are to wholly incorrect demand assumptions.

 

[Ianno87]

That's a rather amusing attempt at spin. Going half hourly is years overdue on raw passenger numbers. There is nothing early about it, and no dependence on HS2 to get it. It's a reluctant acceptance by the government that Liverpool's rail services do require upgrade to avoid becoming an acute embarrassment, whether they like it or not. It's a do-minimum effort, because they have to.

Care to share the raw passenger numbers with us, then?