Post HS2 service assumptions using released capacity

[CW2]

Presumably the reason why Liverpool services have not been running at 2 tph is two-fold:
1) 1 tph + 2 tph in the peaks is sufficient for current (pre-COVID) demand levels; and
2) There aren't enough sets available to run an all-day 2tph service without somebody else losing out.
My anecdotal evidence of using the Euston - Liverpool services is that off-peak they load OK, but aren't overcrowded. In the peak they can be very full indeed.
I don't link the step-up from 1 to 2 tph with HS2, it's just normal business development by Avanti.
Of course, nobody can be sure how passenger numbers will boune back post-COVID, nor how much funding will be available.

 

[Camden]

Agree broadly with that, although have also used off peaks that have been very busy. It's worth noting that Manchester got VHF at similar passenger numbers as Liverpool had two years ago.

One aspect also much overlooked is how often Liverpool stages events that result in large influxes. Especially as HS2 states it intends to move to seat booking only, that means people intending on visiting will be told they can't!

One thing HS2 can't explain away at all is also the lack of Birmingham services. Leeds to Birmingham is a fraction of Liverpool to Birmingham. Even when Sheffield was included, the predicted levels of usership in HS2 own docs was dire.

 

[Bletchleyite]

One aspect also much overlooked is how often Liverpool stages events that result in large influxes. Especially as HS2 states it intends to move to seat booking only, that means people intending on visiting will be told they can't!

But large events aren't a reason for an hourly Takt to be overcapacity, they're more a reason for running additional special trains. It might be for example that diverting the Lancaster portion to Liverpool might make sense on certain specific days at certain specific times. A 400m train won't be possible, but you could run both bits there separately.

 

[irish_rail]

Agree broadly with that, although have also used off peaks that have been very busy. It's worth noting that Manchester got VHF at similar passenger numbers as Liverpool had two years ago.

One aspect also much overlooked is how often Liverpool stages events that result in large influxes. Especially as HS2 states it intends to move to seat booking only, that means people intending on visiting will be told they can't!

Indeed if seat booking is compulsory then Hs2 will be a backward step to places like Liverpool. I still can't see any real winners with it other than London.

 

[quantinghome]

We need to remember what this document is for. It certainly isn't a detailed plan about what rail services are going to be like in 2040. It's been produced to allow some assumptions about the effect of future service changes to be modelled and included in the HS2 business case.

What it does show is that some serious work is needed to establish the best use of released capacity post-HS2. It's one of the major benefits of HS2, removing major impediments to capacity produced by the jack-of-all-trades mixed use railway of today. We could double or triple services on some routes as a result, but this is not being looked at properly. This has got to change. The aim should be to have frequent services with a fixed stopping pattern. For example there is no need for London-Leeds services on the ECML to be limited stop. High connectivity and high frequency should be the driver for classic lines.

 

[Camden]

Liverpool is looking at trains being solidly booked at weekends all year round. Events will simply be a no go.

 

[Camden]

We need to remember what this document is for. It certainly isn't a detailed plan about what rail services are going to be like in 2040. It's been produced to allow some assumptions about the effect of future service changes to be modelled and included in the HS2 business case.

Then it should be spot on, not riddled with errors and dubious assumptions.

 

[quantinghome]

Indeed if seat booking is compulsory then Hs2 will be a backward step to places like Liverpool. I still can't see any real winners with it other than London.

As you keep saying... ad infinitum.

It's very likely that booking systems will be sufficiently advanced that you can book a seat almost up to the moment of departure.

 

[quantinghome]

Then it should be spot on, not riddled with errors and dubious assumptions.

It can never be 'spot on' - it's a prediction about rail services 20 years into the future, made in the absence of any overarching national plan for the railways. That's a quite ridiculous demand to make.

 

[Camden]

As you keep saying... ad infinitum.

Won't booking systems will be sufficiently advanced that you can book a seat almost up to the moment of departure.

That doesn't change the fact that the number of seats to Liverpool will drastically reduce carrying capacity, with no plan in place to raise the ceiling.

Seats will be booked far in advance, until such time that cost and lack of availability eventually starts to dampen demand itself. Is HS2 meant to be a brake on regional economies?

 

[Camden]

It can never be 'spot on' - it's a prediction about rail services 20 years into the future, made in the absence of any overarching national plan for the railways. That's a quite ridiculous demand to make.

It would be good if they could get the rail services that run today right, though. That might make their future assumptions seem somewhat more credible.

 

[CW2]

Lime Steet cannot handle a 400m HS2 train, only a 200m one, so either trains have to be split en route (as HS2 propose to do with a Liverpool / Lancaster service) or you end up wasting capacity on the core HS2 route by only running a single unit.
The fundamental problem is that Manchester is part of the core HS2 network and Liverpool is not. If somebody were to come up with a (say) Northern Powerhouse Rail scheme that provided a high speed link into Liverpool, with a suitably sized terminal station, then HS2 could link in to that. Then you could have more-frequent fully-sized train from London and Birmingham to Liverpool. Without that, you have to rely on the existing infrastructure, so by definition you will get less.

 

[Camden]

Sorry, I thought I was making it clear that it was that fact (the continued stubborn refusal to admit a rightful entrant to the core network, wrongly excluded in the first place on the basis of defective assumptions and frozen out politically from day one) that I was criticising and pointing out the consequences of. These reports all build on one another, and they should be correct.

 

[irish_rail]

As you keep saying... ad infinitum.

It's very likely that booking systems will be sufficiently advanced that you can book a seat almost up to the moment of departure.

Back to school for you sir, better brush up on your Latin.
I have mentioned it twice, not exactly ad infinitum...

 

[si404]

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.

If this diversion of XC from somewhere with HS2 service to Birmingham was at the other end of the M62, there would be much rejoicing. XC to Hull wouldn't be questioned if it was an Operation Princess removal.

It's quite a sensible move to not duplicate what HS2 will do faster, and Hull is somewhere that could be less on a limb from the long-distance network.

However avoiding Sheffield though is very strange - presumably capacity issues, given the increase of London service by one, and the replacement Sheffield-Doncaster-York service, but not wanting to have to add a Sheffield station upgrade to the HS2 costs total*. Avoiding Leeds is what the service already does. And I agree that Doncaster-Hull being 3tph fast (albeit on different routes) seems overkill. But this is only a model, and the real-world proposals 10 years from now (as this is phase 2b) will have to look at that.

*cf the Reading resignalling/rebuild and the Crossrail project officially terminating at Maidenhead to keep that billion pound scheme from adding to the already large price tag.

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

But anything updated to account for COVID fearfulness could be wrong - there's arguably too much uncertainty right now to predict the long-term effects of COVID.

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?

The (new, rather than extension) via Stoke one is adding frequency to the local Manchester-Stoke service (which would otherwise drop frequency due to this change: "the hourly Stoke-Manchester Piccadilly and
Macclesfield-Blackpool North services are combined") as well as continuing to provide 2tph London-Stoke, and the hourly Milton Keynes-Manchester direct service. It replaces 2tph Avanti between Stockport and Euston with just 1tph.

The (extended Crewe services) via Warrington one is a bit odd - presumably its about Trent Valley - Manchester services and improving Crewe-Warrington service.

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.

Indeed, which is why a spur of the 21st century network into Liverpool is really important and should be prioritised to open as soon as practical - it's almost certainly going to be considered part of NPR rather than HS2, but that's due to the 'Crossrail terminate at Maidenhead' issue more than anything.

But the shape of HS2, such the lack of a captive Liverpool branch, is off-topic and for another thread.

 

[30907]

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.

It's the route Doncaster one that goes to Hull - the route Leeds is retained as I read it. Running via the Old Road to save 5min seems odd though, when you then add the Sheffield-Doncaster-York 170.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Liverpool is looking at trains being solidly booked at weekends all year round. Events will simply be a no go.

Rubbish. They aren't now, and they won't be then either.

It's very likely that booking systems will be sufficiently advanced that you can book a seat almost up to the moment of departure.

This is possible on pretty much every compulsory reservations based system in the developed world now, so I don't see why it wouldn't be with another 20 years of technical advance!

"Compulsory reservations" simply means that when you buy a ticket you are allocated (or choose) a seat and that once there are no more seats there are no more tickets. It doesn't mean you have to write in in triplicate 8 weeks in advance with your request.

 

[quantinghome]

Another thing to bear in mind is that HS Phase 2b is being reviewed to better fit with NPR and Midlands Engine upgrades. I really wouldn't pay the assumed services in this much attention. Like they say in Monty Python, it's only a model!

BUT it does show that we really need some proper planning for future rail services rather than the make it up as you go approach over the last 20 years.

 

[swt_passenger]

If this diversion of XC from somewhere with HS2 service to Birmingham was at the other end of the M62, there would be much rejoicing. XC to Hull wouldn't be questioned if it was an Operation Princess removal.

It's quite a sensible move to not duplicate what HS2 will do faster, and Hull is somewhere that could be less on a limb from the long-distance network.

I believe it isn’t “new” news either, it’s been mentioned in mainstream route studies for a few years.

 

[Halish Railway]

With the released capacity created, the ECML IMO could be used for services from the North to Cambridge, Stansted Airport and the rest of Anglia - Currently that part of the world isn’t to easy to get to from Yorkshire and the Northeast and it doesn’t help that connecting services from Peterborough are short and very busy.

One off topic point is that I find it disappointing that there are no plans to create Cross-Birmingham HS2 services, perhaps by boring a tunnel to connect Curzon Street to the Kings Norton to Water Orton route, therefore releasing capacity on the Cross-City route (see I almost linked my monologue to the thread’s title ). Obviously electrification and some line speed improvements will be required on the route to Bristol.

 

[si404]

One thing I don't get is that, the residual Leeds and the truncated-to-York Newcastle will run limited stop while the ECML service to places not served by HS2 will gain stops. The Leeds one was modelled as running Peterborough-Doncaster-Wakefield, and the York just stopping at Peterborough, while the new hourly Hull and Middlesbrough will stop at various places that the 2-hourly ones before do not call at.

You'd have thought that Leeds is somewhere Grantham might want better links to (IIRC, it's getting a direct service with the diversion of the stopper away from York in the big upcoming recast), and doesn't need fast trains to London on the classic route. And the York/Middlesbrough thing is weird - the service to Middlesbrough will only call at Peterborough south of York before HS2 to Church Fenton, but afterwards, it's the service that terminates at York that is the fast one, with the trains heading north calling at several other places.

I know it's only a model, but its just odd.

I believe it isn’t “new” news either, it’s been mentioned in mainstream route studies for a few years.

Indeed! There's an offhand mention of "Hull to the South Coast" in the 2016 East Midlands route study, which I think is the earliest mention.

XC to Hull is about as close as we can get to something that can be inked in as a post-phase 2b change on the classic network.

 

[CW2]

One off topic point is that I find it disappointing that there are no plans to create Cross-Birmingham HS2 services, perhaps by boring a tunnel to connect Curzon Street to the Kings Norton to Water Orton route, therefore releasing capacity on the Cross-City route (see I almost linked my monologue to the thread’s title ). Obviously electrification and some line speed improvements will be required on the route to Bristol.

Boring a tunnel under Birmingham city centre is tremendously difficult, because of the foundations of the various tower blocks. A better option would be to link the HS2 lines to the NR lines in the vicinity of Slatley, which would enable trains to run on HS2 to that point then diverge onto NR lines to proceed on the existing network towards the South West.

 

[swt_passenger]

[...]
Indeed! There's an offhand mention of "Hull to the South Coast" in the 2016 East Midlands route study, which I think is the earliest mention.

XC to Hull is about as close as we can get to something that can be inked in as a post-phase 2b change on the classic network.

Thanks for locating it. It’s one I knew we’d discussed before, within the last few years.

 

[si404]

Thanks for locating it. It’s one I knew we’d discussed before, within the last few years.

It appears more explicitly in the West Midlands and Chiltern route study, which is probably what sparked the discussion.

 

[quantinghome]

One thing I don't get is that, the residual Leeds and the truncated-to-York Newcastle will run limited stop while the ECML service to places not served by HS2 will gain stops. The Leeds one was modelled as running Peterborough-Doncaster-Wakefield, and the York just stopping at Peterborough, while the new hourly Hull and Middlesbrough will stop at various places that the 2-hourly ones before do not call at.

You'd have thought that Leeds is somewhere Grantham might want better links to (IIRC, it's getting a direct service with the diversion of the stopper away from York in the big upcoming recast), and doesn't need fast trains to London on the classic route. And the York/Middlesbrough thing is weird - the service to Middlesbrough will only call at Peterborough south of York before HS2 to Church Fenton, but afterwards, it's the service that terminates at York that is the fast one, with the trains heading north calling at several other places.

I know it's only a model, but its just odd.
Indeed! There's an offhand mention of "Hull to the South Coast" in the 2016 East Midlands route study, which I think is the earliest mention.

XC to Hull is about as close as we can get to something that can be inked in as a post-phase 2b change on the classic network.

It's an obvious win once HS2 takes over Birmingham to Newcastle. I reckon any post HS2 XC Leeds service should take over the semi fast service via Barnsley for similar reasons.

 

[Class 170101]

East Midlands Alterations
Matlock to Nottingham to call at Toton and extend to Newark Castle

This is stupid why not run onto Lincoln as there are fewer East Coast services now over Newark Flat Crossing north to south so there must be more space east to west?

 

[The Ham]

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.

Whilst up to 40% growth sounds a lot, the average overall is 33%, you have to bear in mind that that this is 1.9% per year from a base in 2014/15. It should also be noted that for the phase 1 regions they've already seen 17% growth between 2014/15 to 2018/19 on their to/from London flows, which compares to the predicted 9.9% growth which should have been seen if 1.9% growth per year was achieved.

It should also be viewed in the light of 5% population growth, which would naturally (assuming nothing else changes) cater for 1/7 of the required rail growth.

Given that the past predictions were way off, but much much higher than expected, then there's the potential for these to follow suit.

This year is likely to show a big drop, however I suspect that next year that would most be reversed. However even a 3% fall from 2018/19 to 2020/21 would still leave us on target for meeting the predicted growth figures.

However, if the economy is hit hard then I suspect that the number of 2+ car households would fall and switch some of their travel to rail (the majority would likely be walking/cycling and using any remaining cars).

Given the way we travel a 2.5% shift from road to rail (by miles) would wipe out a 20% fall in rail use, so the amount of shift doesn't need to be that big.

 

[The Ham]

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.

5 minutes more when you've been on a train from Plymouth for about 3 hours it's hardly going to be a big change in journey times.

Whilst SW to Birmingham and Manchester is likely to be unattractive via Old Oak Common, travel to places like Newcastle is likely to be quite a bit quicker (circa 5:30 vs circa 7 hours - Plymouth to Newcastle), also for travel from Swindon, Reading, Basingstoke, etc there's the potential for a lot of travel heading northwards which would be much faster than the existing services.

For instance Basingstoke Birmingham is boarder line as to speed, however Reading Birmingham is faster, with Manchester, Leeds, York, etc being faster via Old Oak Common.

There's also a reasonable flow to/from Heathrow, so it wouldn't be surprising to see a good number of people changing there as it provides better connectivity for them than other routes.

 

[The Ham]

Sorry, I thought I was making it clear that it was that fact (the continued stubborn refusal to admit a rightful entrant to the core network, wrongly excluded in the first place on the basis of defective assumptions and frozen out politically from day one) that I was criticising and pointing out the consequences of. These reports all build on one another, and they should be correct.

HS2 was tasked with a given task. The fact that excludes new infrastructure for Liverpool isn't a reason that the whole thing should be cancelled.

It would be like saying that we shouldn't have rebuilt Reading station as it does nothing for Wales. As both schemes bring the ability for future improvements a step closer for those other places.

Anyway, one of the big changes which is overlooked in the report is that HS2 phase 2 and NPR/HS3 are being much more closely aligned in terms of delivery and project scope, this could allow the development of 400m long services to Liverpool sooner.

Anyway I suspect that few on here would disagree with the fact that Liverpool should have more services than it has, however arguing that because Manchester got something same number of passengers when the railways weren't as busy as they are now (so there's not the ability to just find extra train paths) is simplistic at best.

Also, I'd like to see the passenger numbers you're comparing as if it's total station numbers how does that compare by route of passenger? For instance does the metro services in Liverpool make up a large percentage of passengers, whilst Manchester much long distance passengers.

 

[deltic]

Agree broadly with that, although have also used off peaks that have been very busy. It's worth noting that Manchester got VHF at similar passenger numbers as Liverpool had two years ago.

One aspect also much overlooked is how often Liverpool stages events that result in large influxes. Especially as HS2 states it intends to move to seat booking only, that means people intending on visiting will be told they can't!

One thing HS2 can't explain away at all is also the lack of Birmingham services. Leeds to Birmingham is a fraction of Liverpool to Birmingham. Even when Sheffield was included, the predicted levels of usership in HS2 own docs was dire.

Unlike the CAA which requires airlines to provide passenger numbers by route the rail regulator has failed to require the same for the rail industry despite the huge level of subsidies provided. The only data I can find in the public domain is a press story (see http://www.mynewsdesk.com/uk/virgin...ains-on-the-london-to-liverpool-route-2130336) which reports 1.8m London to Liverpool passengers in 2016/7 and a Better Transport report (see https://bettertransport.org.uk/site...Transformation-of-the-West-Coast-Mainline.pdf) which has a chart which shows London-Manchester passenger numbers of over 2m in 2009 before VHF and nearly 4m in 2017. Cant find any data on Birmingham to Liverpool or Leeds.

A HS2 report referred to here https://www.parliament.uk/documents...ic-case-for-HS2/McLoughlin-hollick-141208.pdf shows weekday passenger numbers in 2010 of 7,000 between Manchester and London and 2,900 between Liverpool and London.