Restarting HS2a

[absolutelymilk]

I believe there is some issue with the shrinkwrapped design of the emergency evacuation passages on the tunnel sections that may prevent assymetric train formations. Something about conditions in the tunnel becoming dangerously hot after an emergency stop, unless the doors stop near an evacuation passage, but I may be wrong.

I don't understand why this would be an issue with overall train lengths? Surely there are doors on each carriage so it doesn't matter how long the overall train is

 

[cle]

I think 11 and 12 (plus its other through face) - could also be useful for splitting. Assuming splitting would never be done for Manchester - which I think is fair.

 

[joieman]

What do you mean? A line from HS2 to join up near Hinckley, or a line from the WCML to the Hinckley line, which would be pointless as HS2 trains couldn't use it? You would be better off leaving the plans as they are and running a fast St Pancras Leicester.

From HS2

 

[HSTEd]

I don't understand why this would be an issue with overall train lengths? Surely there are doors on each carriage so it doesn't matter how long the overall train is

Evacuation doors are positioned at preestablished spacings in the tunnel. Assymetric unit lengths will make it difficult to ensure that designated doors in the train always line up with the evacuation doors in the tunnel. Those doors have been positioned for 200m units operating in multiple. If units are operating in multiple and aren't 200m long you may have a problem.

 

[Nottingham59]

I don't understand why this would be an issue with overall train lengths? Surely there are doors on each carriage so it doesn't matter how long the overall train is

The emergency exit tunnels are at 375m 350m spacings, so if you have a double unit, then the exit doors need to be exactly 375m 350m apart. Acheiving this with unequal units would be an operational nightmare.

I believe there is some issue with the shrinkwrapped design of the emergency evacuation passages on the tunnel sections that may prevent assymetric train formations. Something about conditions in the tunnel becoming dangerously hot after an emergency stop, unless the doors stop near an evacuation passage, but I may be wrong.

Yep. The tunnel can reach 50C for five minutes after an incident:

From the HS2 Train Technical Specification:

TTS-192 - Tunnel Congestion Conditions - Maximum (PQTS-137) The Unit shall be capable of Normal Operation when the tunnel temperature is an average of 50°C, with variations around the Vehicle, and a humidity ratio of 0.012 kgwater/kgdry_air for up to five minutes. Rationale: HS2 interface - This temperature is predicted during the initial stages of operational congestion in tunnels. In these circumstances, the tunnel ventilation system may be required to reverse the prevailing airflow direction and the average temperature in the tunnel is predicted to rise to 50°C.

However you are removing uniformity from the fleet. If phase 1 is a long term solution, it might be necessary to set up a pair of 400m platforms at Manchester, even though that would be very expensive.

Not all that expensive: You could extend P1 at Piccadilly to 400m and with another P0 on the same island, though you would need to convert Glossop and Marple lines to Metrolink to avoid conflicts. HS2 stations are surprisingly cheap compared to open line. Interchange is being built for just £370M, and Curzon St for £570M. (That's cost to build, not including fit out or railway installation)

Unfortunately there doesn't appear to be many good options for splitting trains on the existing infrastructure - unless you do it at Birmingham Interchange which seems rather pointless.

They can extend platforms at Crewe and Preston and Warrington BQ to 400m fairly easily. The pressure to do this will be enormous after HS2 opens: it would be far better to get on with it now.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 May 2025 ==

Evacuation doors are positioned at preestablished spacings in the tunnel. Assymetric unit lengths will make it difficult to ensure that designated doors in the train always line up with the evacuation doors in the tunnel. Those doors have been positioned for 200m units operating in multiple. If units are operating in multiple and aren't 200m long you may have a problem.

https://assets.hs2.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/27130700/HS2-HS2-RR-SPE-000-000007_P11_TTS_Main_Body__External_.pdf

Certain doors on the Unit will be classified as Evacuation Doors for use during controlled
evacuation in a tunnel. (This does not affect compliance with LOC&PAS TSI[4] Clause
4.2.5.5.9 (1)). These will be the primary route for a controlled evacuation of the Unit in the
event of an incident in a tunnel.

7.15.7.2 TTS-165 - Evacuation Door Position (PQTS-239) - Mandatory
The Unit shall have exactly two Evacuation Doors per side, which shall be positioned along
the length of the Unit such that when two Units are coupled, in any possible orientation,
the centrelines of two Evacuation Doors (one per Unit) are 350±10m apart.

 

[HSTEd]

The emergency exit tunnels are at 375m spacings, so if you have a double unit, then the exit doors need to be exactly 375m apart. Acheiving this with unequal units would be an operational nightmare.


Yep. The tunnel can reach 50C for five minutes after an incident:

Yet another problem created by HS2's decision to break with all international practice and specify the smallest possible tunnel diameter.
(Other examples include an overengineered tunnel and train ventilation system and the enormous 100m concrete hoods on the tunnel entrances).

Not all that expensive: You could extend P1 at Piccadilly to 400m and with another P0 on the same island, though you would need to convert Glossop and Marple lines to Metrolink to avoid conflicts. HS2 stations are surprisingly cheap compared to open line. Interchange is being built for just £370M, and Curzon St for £570M. (That's cost to build, not including fit out or railway installation)

Meanwhile EUston, the only station being built on an operational railway site, is costed at several billion.

Plus metrolink conversion of Glossop and Marple is unlikely to proceed in the near future, if at all.
I think trying to get 400m platforms at Manchester that are easily accessible form the route via Stockport would cost quite a lot of money and be very disruptive.

They can extend platforms at Crewe and Preston and Warrington BQ to 400m fairly easily. The pressure to do this will be enormous after HS2 opens: it would be far better to get on with it now.

I'm quite skeptical that it would be easy.
If providing 400m platforms was so cheap it probably would have happened anyway.

 

[Nottingham59]

On the other hand, would providing 300m trains instead of 200m trains to Liverpool or Edinburgh really be a significant cost increment?

I understand an 11-car Pendolino at 265m can fit in Liverpool with only inches to spare.

Edinburgh can already take 400m trains. I'm sure that HS2 could easily fill 1tp2h London-Edinburgh non-stop. When/if 2a gets built that would be the fastest route to Edinburgh from London, and 1tph non-stop would be easy to fill. Plus stopping services, of course.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 May 2025 ==

I think trying to get 400m platforms at Manchester that are easily accessible form the route via Stockport would cost quite a lot of money and be very disruptive.

Well, this is how I would do it:

Suggestions for new short-ish lines

Crossgates - Whinmoor. Halt near Stanks. Single track would do it. Whinmoor is a deprived area of Leeds. This is an excellent idea as the area available will become East Leeds new town of 10,000 houses to the east of Whinmoor but nobody with clout in West Yorkshire is interested from the County...

www.railforums.co.uk

Estimated cost: £3-400M for the viaduct at current prices; £1-2Bn for the station.

 

[The Planner]

From HS2

Like I said earlier, Leicester would be better served by a non-stop from St Pancras than messing with what was planned for phase 2b.

 

[stevieinselby]

I don't understand why this would be an issue with overall train lengths? Surely there are doors on each carriage so it doesn't matter how long the overall train is

If the evacuation doors are 300m apart but the train is only 200m long then there is the risk that it comes to a stop between evacuation doors, and that passengers needing to escape have to detrain into the tunnel and then walk to the exit, which is bad on many levels. The train needs to be at least slightly longer than the spacing between exits, so that wherever the train stops passengers will be able to walk through the train to reach a door that is adjacent to the exit.

 

[Nottingham59]

If the evacuation doors are 300m apart but the train is only 200m long then there is the risk that it comes to a stop between evacuation doors, and that passengers needing to escape have to detrain into the tunnel and then walk to the exit, which is bad on many levels. The train needs to be at least slightly longer than the spacing between exits, so that wherever the train stops passengers will be able to walk through the train to reach a door that is adjacent to the exit.

The safety case assumes that the driver will be able to stop the train at the precise point where the first evacuation door is adjacent to an exit passage. So all the 550 passengers in a 200m train can evacuate safely through that door.

The 350m distance requirement is only for a 400m double unit, where there is no access between units. So the last door of a double unit has to also line up with an exit passage. Otherwise the 550 passengers in the rear unit would have to evacuate alongside the train in 50C heat and some will die.

 

[Krokodil]

I did not suggest that it would be quicker to travel to Bristol via OOC, just places from Reading to Taunton (via Westbury) and Devon/Cornwall. I assumed that journeys from Scotland and NW England to Birmingham would be routed via Wolverhampton as now and not via HS2 Phase 2, even if it is eventually built.

That was the whole thing behind the discussion of a wired chord between Curzon Street and the classic lines.

if you've got a bottleneck at Colwich/Stafford you want the most possible seats through the bottleneck, which necessitates 400m sets.

So long as you've got the space at Crewe/Manchester/Preston etc. to handle them. That was all part of the Phase 2 plan so doing it will require the government to commit the funding.

Aren't platforms 5 and 6 at Crewe quite long? The Sleepers stop there.

6 yes, 5 no I think. Again this was all part of the work that formed Phase 2 which got cancelled.

 

[Zomboid]

The safety case assumes that the driver will be able to stop the train at the precise point where the first evacuation door is adjacent to an exit passage.

I hope that never gets tested out

 

[absolutelymilk]

The safety case assumes that the driver will be able to stop the train at the precise point where the first evacuation door is adjacent to an exit passage. So all the 550 passengers in a 200m train can evacuate safely through that door.

The 350m distance requirement is only for a 400m double unit, where there is no access between units. So the last door of a double unit has to also line up with an exit passage. Otherwise the 550 passengers in the rear unit would have to evacuate alongside the train in 50C heat and some will die.

So you could have a 250m or 300m single unit as then the front doors will still line up?

 

[Nottingham59]

I hope that never gets tested out

So do I.

So you could have a 250m or 300m single unit as then the front doors will still line up?

I imagine so. All I know is what the TTS says. But single 250m units would kill capacity, compared to 2x200m.

HS2 should have standardised on 520m platforms, which would have been compatible with 11-car Pendolinos (265m) and 10-car Azumas (260m)

 

[poffle]

Wiring Crewe-Chester is a no brainer. Then you can have both Liverpools run as 400m to Crewe, splitting into Lancaster and Chester services. Also run 1tph 400m fast service to Scotland splitting at Carlisle. I know the performance risk of splitting is large but it's the only way to avoid HS2 from being too much of a white elephant if only phase 1 is built.

Secondly has a link from HS2 to the South Staffordshire line been considered? While it would be only a 60-70mph curve at best, (which could become a long term capacity constraint) it would enable HS2 services to run to Derby and Sheffield, while not being much slower to those places than via East Midlands Parkway. It would require an electrification that should be done anyway, and a wholesale modernisation of the line through Alrewas, it would still be much, much cheaper than building a new line to East Midlands Parkway, though the Birmingham to Derby line is getting very busy already, at least this bypasses Kingsbury, and the 4 track section around Burton could be better utilised. This would also free up capacity on the south MML to some extent, as the fastest trains are removed from the southern end of the route.

I actually think Crewe - Chester would be ideal for battery operation. There isn't that much traffic on this section and I believe it's awkward to electrify. Chester - Llandudno Junction was built as four track so probably most straightforward to electrify. Then battery to Angelsey and a bit of electrification around Holyhead for charging.

My understanding is that the Chester trains are planned to run on the WCML after HS2 serving at least Stafford and Milton Keynes. Chester passengers for London would change to HS2 at Crewe. I believe this was at least part of the logic of buying the Everos.

 

[Brubulus]

Aren't platforms 5 and 6 at Crewe quite long? The Sleepers stop there.
So, for trains directly off HS2 (or from/via Brum) it's good for splitting [and joining] N Wales/Liverpool, Liverpool/Manchester/Blackpool.
Carlisle sounds good for splitting paired trains off HS2/WCML (and Crewe) to Scottish destinations.

Exactly what I was thinking of. Have the 2 Liverpools join/split with the Chester and Lancaster services at Crewe, it would not be particularly expensive to have 2 400m platforms each at Crewe, Preston and Carlisle, it's not a substantial amount of work.

I understand an 11-car Pendolino at 265m can fit in Liverpool with only inches to spare.

Edinburgh can already take 400m trains. I'm sure that HS2 could easily fill 1tp2h London-Edinburgh non-stop. When/if 2a gets built that would be the fastest route to Edinburgh from London, and 1tph non-stop would be easy to fill. Plus stopping services, of course.

With a more aggressive non tilt speed profile, Edinburgh will be 5-10 mins faster than via ECML, even after December on a limited stop service, likely to get under 4h, even with only phase 1, with phase 2a saving 13 mins (from 3h56 to 3h43)

The safety case assumes that the driver will be able to stop the train at the precise point where the first evacuation door is adjacent to an exit passage. So all the 550 passengers in a 200m train can evacuate safely through that door.

The 350m distance requirement is only for a 400m double unit, where there is no access between units. So the last door of a double unit has to also line up with an exit passage. Otherwise the 550 passengers in the rear unit would have to evacuate alongside the train in 50C heat and some will die.

Piccadilly already has 2 340m platforms, so either order some 13car 325m sets, which will not be that large of a capacity downgrade compared to 2x200m (I'd guess only around 15%) and a just under 50% capacity increase over an 11 car Pendolino. or extend the platforms for fleet uniformity, (not essential) which is possible. It would be expensive, but doable, as I'd guess it would cost a similar amount to the Kings Cross realignment.

I actually think Crewe - Chester would be ideal for battery operation. There isn't that much traffic on this section and I believe it's awkward to electrify. Chester - Llandudno Junction was built as four track so probably most straightforward to electrify. Then battery to Angelsey and a bit of electrification around Holyhead for charging.

The issue is HS2 trains will not come with large batteries, and it's unlikely they will have the space for them. The bigger concern is that direct North Wales services will either have to be dragged to Holyhead (as was done in the early days of the Pendolinos) or there will be no direct HS2 services to Wales, an important political route more than anything.

My understanding is that the Chester trains are planned to run on the WCML after HS2 serving at least Stafford and Milton Keynes. Chester passengers for London would change to HS2 at Crewe. I believe this was at least part of the logic of buying the Everos.

Yep they are currently, but having anything fast on the Trent Valley not running on HS2 if everything goes through Colwich is not the best use of capacity. Keep the stopper and nothing else.

 

[The Ham]

Yep they are currently, but having anything fast on the Trent Valley not running on HS2 if everything goes through Colwich is not the best use of capacity. Keep the stopper and nothing else.

Surely it depends on the total number of services. As long as the royal number of services doesn't increase beyond Handsacre, then it's not an issue.

It's why there's so much talk of HS2 services running in pairs and splitting at Crewe.

Also I'm not overly convinced that the reduced capacity from the HS2 (200m) stock is as big an issue as some are making out (yes it's not ideal and yes it's a great way of pointing out just how short sighted cancelling all of phase 2 is).

For example, until the recent refurb the /1's would have seen a 39 seat reduction in capacity whilst the /0's would have seen an increase in capacity of 81 seats. Given that 1/3 of the fleet is /0's on average (assuming every diagram has an even mix of train lengths) there would be 549 seats.

Yes the referb does increase that average seat count to 574 and yes at peak times and potentially on certain routes the seat count would be higher. However, where is most likely to be an issue is at Euston, where the use of pairs of units could help with load management.

Therefore it's then a question of which other stations could it cause an issue at and on how many services.

Then it's a case looking to see if there's some easy wins.

For example, lengthening platforms at Crewe and Carlisle (maybe Preston and Warrington BQ too) to allow longer trains to get through more of the constraints so there could be 1 unit per hour to each of Glasgow and Edinburgh (by splitting a diagram at Carlisle) rather than the current 1tph to Scotland with Glasgow missing out when the service goes to Edinburgh.

Likewise if Manchester could have a 400m platform there could be a pair of units with (say) the rear unit having the announcement that it's calling at Old Oak Common and Manchester Piccadilly, whilst the front unit calls at stations such as Stoke on Trent. Both units would run as a pair all the way through, it's just that the rest unit wouldn't be advertised as stopping at other stations (although there could be a local door exit for any passengers in the wrong portion).

The bottom line is, that ultimately we want the cancellation of phase 2 to cause issues and it be seen as a very bad decision so the rest of HS2 gets built.

Yes it may delay the opening of the full route, but if was shown that it was the right thing to have built, then the next big rail project could be easier to deliver.

Images of people sat in the floor of HS2 services due to a lack of seats within (say) 10 years of phase 1 opening (as demand for rail travel sees significant growth - just like the Elizabeth Line) even with some stocking plaster fixes, then this could be good for more rail investment. As it will show that if you provide more capacity (Elizabeth Line) or faster trains (HS2) then add long as that's on routes where there's potential for significant demand it's more than worth the investment.

Whilst that may not get a new Cornwall mainline built, it could get more cross city routes built for Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, etc. Likewise it could see HS2 (full Y) completed and other HS lines built.

 

[AndrewE]

I actually think Crewe - Chester would be ideal for battery operation. There isn't that much traffic on this section and I believe it's awkward to electrify. Chester - Llandudno Junction was built as four track so probably most straightforward to electrify. Then battery to Angelsey and a bit of electrification around Holyhead for charging.

Actually there is... I can tell you that the hourly 2-car TfW trains are regularly packed and it is a relief when there is a 3-car on it, and the Everos are also quite well-filled. On the up (London) trains lots of people go through beyond Crewe but loads still get off to go elsewhere (Stoke and Derby?)

 

[HSTEd]

Images of people sat in the floor of HS2 services due to a lack of seats within (say) 10 years of phase 1 opening (as demand for rail travel sees significant growth - just like the Elizabeth Line) even with some stocking plaster fixes, then this could be good for more rail investment. As it will show that if you provide more capacity (Elizabeth Line) or faster trains (HS2) then add long as that's on routes where there's potential for significant demand it's more than worth the investment

I think it will quite likely backfire if HS2 deliberately orders short 200m trains, then claims that they need more money to be spent on infrastructure to allow 400m ones.

"HS2 manufactures overcrowding to get the taxpayer to give them £10 billion for an extension to crewe"

I am skeptical that Colwich is really a hard bottleneck to HS2 utilisation if we terminate virtually everything on the trent valley at Lichfield or Rugeley.

How many paths are currently available through Colwich for all passenger trains?

EDIT:
Using a randomly selected hour from realtimetrains, it appears to be a lot more than seven, I make it 13?

 

[Krokodil]

I think it will quite likely backfire if HS2 deliberately orders short 200m trains, then claims that they need more money to be spent on infrastructure to allow 400m ones.

I thought that the whole idea was that 200m trains would be ordered, to be paired up as necessary. Fixed-formation 400m trains are unusual, Eurostar are the exception.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 May 2025 ==

I am skeptical that Colwich is really a hard bottleneck to HS2 utilisation if we terminate virtually everything on the trent valley at Lichfield or Rugeley.

You really want to cut Crewe off from the Trent Valley?

 

[HSTEd]

I thought that the whole idea was that 200m trains would be ordered, to be paired up as necessary. Fixed-formation 400m trains are unusual, Eurostar are the exception.

That was the plan before HS2 Phase 2 died, but it is now being proposed here that 200m single trains would be a good idea, apparently because overcrowding will get Phase 2A reactivated.

Fixed formation 400m trains are not that uncommon on a global scale however, although somewhat unusual in Europe.

You really want to cut Crewe off from the Trent Valley?

The Trent valley stations don't appear to be particularly large flows from Crewe according to the ODM, in any case (depending on the timetable) it would probably be possible to retain a connection at Rugeley.
It would appear to be an acceptable price to pay for numerous additional paths out of Euston on HS2

EDIT:
Edited as it appears I misinterpreted other people in the thread.

 

[Tobberz]

With Moor st and Curzon Street literally next to each other, would it have been wise to connect their approaches, so HS2 trains could have both continued through Moor St low level to New Street and beyond, as well as connect eastwards onto the conventional lines?

 

[FMerrymon]

That was the plan before HS2 Phase 2 died, but it is now being proposed here that 200m single trains would be a good idea, apparently because overcrowding will get Phase 2A reactivated.

No one is saying use 200m trains to get phase2a reactivated, it's that 200m trains was always the plan, the depots are designed for that, the infrastructure designed for 2x200m, the contract for the trains is 200m. The plan was never for fixed length 400m trains. Changing any of this would be expensive.

One minute hs2 is being criticised for apparently not following standards on tunnel diameter, next people want it to not follow standards on rolling stock length. It can't win.

 

[HSTEd]

No one is saying use 200m trains to get phase2a reactivated

Perhaps that was a slight exaggeration, I apologise.

, it's that 200m trains was always the plan, the depots are designed for that, the infrastructure designed for 2x200m, the contract for the trains is 200m. The plan was never for fixed length 400m trains. Changing any of this would be expensive.

The cost of modifying the rolling stock programme and the depot design will be a tiny fraction of the cost of the infrastructure changes required to make 400m formations work north of Birmingham International.

That's the situation we are in.
Modifying the depot and the order for rolling stock will cost a few tens of millions of pounds, trying to provide 400m platforms at enough locations to matter will cost hundreds of millions or billions.

One minute hs2 is being criticised for apparently not following standards on tunnel diameter

I diidn't criticise them for not folowing 'standards', I criticised them for not following international best practice.
They've taken an approach taken by noone else in the world.

next people want it to not follow standards on rolling stock length. It can't win.

There is considerably more variation in rolling stock length abroad than in the practical design of tunnels.
The trend everywhere has been for tunnel diameters for a given speed to increase with time, as larger tunnel diameters do not substantailly increase cost and make everything else easier.

Meanwhile railways abroad operate single high speed rail sets at lengths ranging from 100m to above 400m.

 

[Zomboid]

diidn't criticise them for not folowing standards, I criticised them for not following international best practice.
They've taken an approach taken by noone else in the world

AIUI Shinkansen tunnels are a bit on the small side, and a consequence of that is that the trains have small windows and relatively short working lives.
They do go in and out of tunnels a lot more than HS2 will require though, so a lot more pressure changes on the train bodies.

 

[Krokodil]

That was the plan before HS2 Phase 2 died, but it is now being proposed here that 200m single trains would be a good idea, apparently because overcrowding will get Phase 2A reactivated.

The issue is more that 200m trainsets are going to happen but north of Birmingham there will be virtually no stations that can accommodate a double set because the work to do so was tied up in Phase 2. Manchester Piccadilly is the main concern, if nothing gets done train lengths will be reduced from 250m to 200m when they should have been increasing to 400m.

The Trent valley stations don't appear to be particularly large flows from Crewe according to the ODM, in any case (depending on the timetable) it would probably be possible to retain a connection at Rugeley.
It would appear to be an acceptable price to pay for numerous additional paths out of Euston on HS2

I wasn't so much thinking abiut passengers travelling from Crewe to Rugeley etc. More about those travelling from Cheshire and North Wales to the East Midlands who go via Nuneaton. One of the hopes with HS2 was that a lot of the WCML connectivity that was lost with the VHF timetable would be restored - Nuneaton, Tamworth, Watford Junction etc.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 May 2025 ==

The cost of modifying the rolling stock programme and the depot design will be a tiny fraction of the cost of the infrastructure changes required to make 400m formations work north of Birmingham International.

The manufacturers did ask the DfT whether it wanted to change the order (perhaps as a temporary thing before reforming them to 200m if Phase 2 happens). The DfT said no.

Platforms 5 & 6 at Crewe need another 50m for Manchester trains, though 6 can already take 400m trains as long as the front set is heading somewhere other than Manchester - so you could run 400m to Crewe, front set to Liverpool/Preston (or even Chester if you ignore the lack of wires) and rear set to Manchester, you can also run a 400m train towards Preston from P6. Platform 12 is also long enough but has no access to Manchester.

Preston and Carlisle are going to be easier to solve, the biggest issue is Manchester Piccadilly. That's going to be a major project.

 

[Brubulus]

That was the plan before HS2 Phase 2 died, but it is now being proposed here that 200m single trains would be a good idea, apparently because overcrowding will get Phase 2A reactivated.

Fixed formation 400m trains are not that uncommon on a global scale however, although somewhat unusual in Europe.

The Trent valley stations don't appear to be particularly large flows from Crewe according to the ODM, in any case (depending on the timetable) it would probably be possible to retain a connection at Rugeley.
It would appear to be an acceptable price to pay for numerous additional paths out of Euston on HS2

Phase 2a would not have changed the Manchester platform issue, that was Phase 2b with the new Piccadilly station. There are 8 paths an hour through Colwich for passenger trains. Currently 3 for Manchester, 2 for Liverpool, 1 for Glasgow, 1 for Chester and 1 for the Crewe stopper. There are plans to extend the Crewe stopper to Manchester. Keep the Crewe stopper after HS2, everything else can go via HS2. If you use split/join with the 2 Liverpool services, that can then enable a Lancaster service along with the Chester path removed as service will join with a Liverpool at Crewe. That then enables an extra path for freight or for a Birmingham-Manchester service on HS2 or even 2 fast tph to Glasgow/Edinburgh (dependent on capacity further north). There are 2 usable 340m platforms at Piccadilly. Therefore 13 car trains (325M) are the best solution, as these would provide around a 45% capacity boost compared to an 11 car Pendolino. Otherwise you would have to redesign Piccadilly for 400m trains, which will cost hundreds of millions.

 

[Nottingham59]

Using a randomly selected hour from realtimetrains, it appears to be a lot more than seven, I make it 13?

Is that counting both ways?

 

[HSTEd]

Is that counting both ways?

No, that was solely trains from London Euston proceeding to a destination north of Rugeley Trent Valley, at Rugeley Trent Valley.

EDIT:

Ooops, realtime trains asks you to select an hour but then gives you two!
I make it eight paths.

 

[Krokodil]

Three Manchesters, two Liverpools, one Glasgow, one Chester, one Crewe stopper. Eight passenger paths. The Chester doesn't run hourly at the moment but still needs a path, not half of one.

Isn't the proposed junction a flat one though? That will reduce throughput compared with the plain line that exists at the moment.