Restarting HS2a

[The Planner]

Claydon to EWR. Then onwards to Bristol via Oxford and Swindon.

Actually Berkswell would probably be better.

You would do it at Curzon St and on to the Camp Hills as its slow speed and allows you more wiggle room in terms of curvature etc. Berkswell would be a nightmare as it would need a massive chord to keep the capacity and junction margins on the HS2 trace.

 

[Zomboid]

You would do it at Curzon St and on to the Camp Hills as its slow speed and allows you more wiggle room in terms of curvature etc. Berkswell would be a nightmare as it would need a massive chord to keep the capacity and junction margins on the HS2 trace.

You wouldn't do it at all in reality, but if you did it'd probably warrant a new pair of tracks from Birmingham Interchange to Berkswell.

 

[SynthD]

Yes, this is all on the assumption that a future government recognises that not all intercity passengers want to go to London and funds the infrastructure to connect Bristol and Oxford (and beyond to Curzon Street and integrate XC into HS2.

With the work to move XC to Moor St, they will consider that integrated. A rail link would just negatively affect both parts, as they are vastly different types of inter city services.

Surely the easier thing to do would be to run new XC services using WCML capacity freed up by HS2?

If the industry/government are allowed to carry out their plans, there won’t be much unused capacity. All classic WCML services will stop at Milton Keynes, and some will still go beyond Warrington. Requiring changes at Birmingham is what comes from demands to make the country less dependent on London as a hub. It would be abnormal for XC to use the WCML, rather than focus on the lines that cross the London main lines?

 

[The Planner]

With the work to move XC to Moor St, they will consider that integrated. A rail link would just negatively affect both parts, as they are vastly different types of inter city services.

Only the 170 routes will end up at Moor St.

If the industry/government are allowed to carry out their plans, there won’t be much unused capacity. All classic WCML services will stop at Milton Keynes, and some will still go beyond Warrington. Requiring changes at Birmingham is what comes from demands to make the country less dependent on London as a hub. It would be abnormal for XC to use the WCML, rather than focus on the lines that cross the London main lines?

There still aren't any confirmed train service specs for post HS2 on the WCML.

 

[The Ham]

There will be a lot of suppressed demand on XC thanks to years of hiking prices to keep Voyager loadings under control. Speed up the service by an hour (as HS2 Leeds would have done, slightly less for Manchester and Scotland), provide proper length trains and cut fares and there would be a spectacular sparks effect.

Journey times to Reading (or South) could have been an hour quicker via HS2 with a change at Old Oak Common to places like Leeds and Newcastle.

Allowing 40 minutes to get from Reading to Old Oak Common (journey time to Paddington), 20 minutes to change and 68 minutes for Euston to Manchester gives you a reasonably likely journey time for Reading to Manchester if 2:08, the vast majority of options currently are 3:08 or slower, there are a few at 3:03 and 3:00. As such whilst you can't be certain that all options via HS2 would be quicker by an hour, it's likely that most will be and there's a chance that all would be about 55 minutes quicker (which many people would class as close enough to an hour not to quibble over).

Once there's timetables, it could be clearer if Reading/Manchester would be a minimum of an hour faster or not.

 

[FMerrymon]

Allowing 40 minutes to get from Reading to Old Oak Common (journey time to Paddington)

Reading to OOC will be 20mins on the fast services that are also more frequent. It would be around 1hr30 saving if hs2 was built in full and around an hour saving with the current Sunak'd plan.

 

[Fazaar1889]

Interactive route map

Use HS2’s interactive map to explore the entire route of Britain’s new high-speed railway. Find present and upcoming works, tunnels, station locations and community updates — all in one easy-to-navigate map.

www.hs2.org.uk

Just checked the HS2 map and perhaps my memory has failed me, but wasn't HS2 meant to stop near Kingsbury? Were they always going to build to Handsacre (After phase 2 was cancelled, of course)

 

[Krokodil]

Journey times to Reading (or South) could have been an hour quicker via HS2 with a change at Old Oak Common to places like Leeds and Newcastle.

Reading, yes. But Bristol and points South West?

 

[The Planner]

Interactive route map

Use HS2’s interactive map to explore the entire route of Britain’s new high-speed railway. Find present and upcoming works, tunnels, station locations and community updates — all in one easy-to-navigate map.

www.hs2.org.uk

Just checked the HS2 map and perhaps my memory has failed me, but wasn't HS2 meant to stop near Kingsbury? Were they always going to build to Handsacre (After phase 2 was cancelled, of course)

No. It was always going to Handsacre for phase 1, no way of getting on to the WCML otherwise.

 

[Fazaar1889]

No. It was always going to Handsacre for phase 1, no way of getting on to the WCML otherwise.

Oh OK thanks

 

[daodao]

Reading, yes. But Bristol and points South West?

Once HS2 phase 1 is completed, journeys from NW England and Western Scotland to places between (and including) Reading and Taunton, and Devon and Cornwall, will generally be quicker via Old Oak Common (and even quicker if HS2 extensions north of Handsacre are ever built).

 

[Krokodil]

Once HS2 phase 1 is completed, journeys from NW England and Western Scotland to places between (and including) Reading and Taunton, and Devon and Cornwall, will generally be quicker via Old Oak Common (and even quicker if HS2 extensions north of Handsacre are ever built).

Bristol to Paddington currently takes 1hr 35m. Euston to Curzon Street will take 45m (we'll count the OOC-Euston timings as our interchange penalty). So Bristol to Birmingham via OOC will take around 2hr 20m. If anyone can recall the Bristol Superfast timings I would appreciate it but I doubt that it will close the gap on this.

Bristol to Birmingham currently takes 1hr 20m. So you could use XC from Bristol to New Street, transfer to Curzon Street, catch a HS2 Phase 2 train to Manchester and still be past Manchester Airport at the time that you'd be passing the Delta junction if you'd gone via OOC.

Obviously the transfer penalty between New Street and Curzon Street is quite steep which is why I suggest a chord from Curzon Street onto the Camp Hill Lines so that the HS2 Phase 2 services from Manchester/Leeds/Scotland can continue onto classic lines towards the South West as a significant upgrade to the existing XC network.

So Bristol - Curzon Street would take 1h20m as now, 10 minutes for reversal, 40m Curzon Street - Manchester. Total 2h10m. Current route for comparison is 3h. Via OOC would be 2h42m.

Similar for Leeds if the Eastern leg ever happens. For Taunton add 42m to the XC times, 10m to the OOC times (not the Bristol Superfast ones, the 1h35m to PAD ones). That makes them equal on the Manchester route. That's all - OOC would be equal to XC, with the upheaval and risk that changing trains brings (compared to a one-seat ride on XC). I have also not accounted for any gains made on XC's classic network by electrification.

Do you really want to be sticking even more people onto GWR's busy services - where there is limited scope to improve capacity - rather than XC where capacity can be sorted as fast as a proper rolling stock order can be fulfilled?

 

[Brubulus]

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.

 

[SynthD]

Secondly has a link from HS2 to the South Staffordshire line been considered?

The East Midlands spur ends a mile away from the crosscountry line, south of Tamworth. This joins the South Staffs line, and could serve your purpose.

 

[The Ham]

Reading, yes. But Bristol and points South West?

You'd struggle to run direct services (due to lack of electrification), as such the 1 hour in reduced (on train) travel time would be eaten into by the time you've accounted for changing trains - especially as you're changing from 2tph (XC) to 2tph (Leeds) or 2tph to 1tph (Newcastle) and not within a single station.

Whilst it's reasonable to be critical of HS2 for not maximising the benefits, there was always a need to draw the line somewhere.

The thing which HS2 should have done was start building significant stations early on (not just Euston, Birmingham and Old Oak Common, but also Leeds and Manchester), as it would have been much harder for someone to stand up in Manchester within walking distance of a the HS2 platforms (or at least a construction site for them) and say that they were going to cancel HS2 linking to those platforms.

In due course direct "XC" services from the SW could happen, it'll just take a bit of time.

 

[weeklycommuter]

No. It was always going to Handsacre for phase 1, no way of getting on to the WCML otherwise.

That was always the plan. It does enable HS2 trains to continue both to Crewe and to Stoke-on-Trent. However I think it was a mistake because it forces all trains to Crewe through the two track Shugborough Tunnel bottleneck and is hopeless for providing more capacity for freight trains. This is also the problem with not building HS2 phase 2a.

The HS2 business case for the full service included only one train an hour using Handsacre Junction, London Euston to Macclesfield via Stafford and Stoke-on-Trent. May as well just continue to provide the train service London to Stafford, Stoke-on-Trent and Macclesfield on the West Coast Mainline. I agreed with the Oakervee Review's call for Handsacre Junction to be dropped and HS2 phase 2a to Crewe to be built together with HS2 phase 1. It would have been better if HS2 phase 1 had included phase 2a so it is built to Crewe without Handsacre Junction.

I just hope HS2 phase 2a is built, with or without Handsacre Junction. However surely some money could be saved by not building Handsacre Junction to offset the cost of building HS2 phase 2a.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5e5f6d6d86650c5143547885/oakervee-review.pdf

Conclusion 13: The Review recommends removing the Handsacre connecton from HS2. At the same time, Network Rail and the DfT should
maintain or improve services on the WCML to Stoke-on-Trent, Stafford and Macclesfeld. The Review considers that the Handsacre connecton
would only be needed if it was decided not to proceed with Phase 2a to Crewe.

 

[The Planner]

That was always the plan. It does enable HS2 trains to continue both to Crewe and to Stoke-on-Trent. However I think it was a mistake because it forces all trains to Crewe through the two track Shugborough Tunnel bottleneck and is hopeless for providing more capacity for freight trains. This is also the problem with not building HS2 phase 2a.

The HS2 business case for the full service included only one train an hour using Handsacre Junction, London Euston to Macclesfield via Stafford and Stoke-on-Trent. May as well just continue to provide the train service London to Stafford, Stoke-on-Trent and Macclesfield on the West Coast Mainline. I agreed with the Oakervee Review's call for Handsacre Junction to be dropped and HS2 phase 2a to Crewe to be built together with HS2 phase 1. It would have been better if HS2 phase 1 had included phase 2a so it is built to Crewe without Handsacre Junction.

I just hope HS2 phase 2a is built, with or without Handsacre Junction. However surely some money could be saved by not building Handsacre Junction to offset the cost of building HS2 phase 2a.

It was always an interim solution as it was expected 2a to follow very closely to phase 1, and the Macclesfield train was a bit of a political play thing to keep Stoke etc sweet. Handsacre will be built as I cannot see any resolution to 2a any time soon.

 

[Brubulus]

The East Midlands spur ends a mile away from the crosscountry line, south of Tamworth. This joins the South Staffs line, and could serve your purpose.

If you run it to Tamworth, there's then the capacity constraints at Kingsbury and Tamworth station. If they come on to the line at Burton, there may just about be capacity. The best solution would obviously be to build an eastern leg but given that's highly unlikely to ever happen, the cheapest possible solution to link HS2 to the east midlands is needed.

 

[Krokodil]

You'd struggle to run direct services (due to lack of electrification)

I think that I was clear that I was assuming that electrification to Bristol would be part of the scheme. Though bi-mode units might be considered instead.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What has been the last-made official statement made concerning HS2(a)?

 

[daodao]

Bristol to Paddington currently takes 1hr 35m. Euston to Curzon Street will take 45m (we'll count the OOC-Euston timings as our interchange penalty). So Bristol to Birmingham via OOC will take around 2hr 20m. If anyone can recall the Bristol Superfast timings I would appreciate it but I doubt that it will close the gap on this.

Bristol to Birmingham currently takes 1hr 20m. So you could use XC from Bristol to New Street, transfer to Curzon Street, catch a HS2 Phase 2 train to Manchester and still be past Manchester Airport at the time that you'd be passing the Delta junction if you'd gone via OOC.

Obviously the transfer penalty between New Street and Curzon Street is quite steep which is why I suggest a chord from Curzon Street onto the Camp Hill Lines so that the HS2 Phase 2 services from Manchester/Leeds/Scotland can continue onto classic lines towards the South West as a significant upgrade to the existing XC network.

So Bristol - Curzon Street would take 1h20m as now, 10 minutes for reversal, 40m Curzon Street - Manchester. Total 2h10m. Current route for comparison is 3h. Via OOC would be 2h42m.

Similar for Leeds if the Eastern leg ever happens. For Taunton add 42m to the XC times, 10m to the OOC times (not the Bristol Superfast ones, the 1h35m to PAD ones). That makes them equal on the Manchester route. That's all - OOC would be equal to XC, with the upheaval and risk that changing trains brings (compared to a one-seat ride on XC). I have also not accounted for any gains made on XC's classic network by electrification.

Do you really want to be sticking even more people onto GWR's busy services - where there is limited scope to improve capacity - rather than XC where capacity can be sorted as fast as a proper rolling stock order can be fulfilled?

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.

 

[HSTEd]

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.

If only Phase 1 is built then the sensible plan is to ditch the existing rolling stock plan and order a uniform fleet of 250-300m class units, with a handful of 400m crowdbusters for Birmingham turn-up-and-go servics.

Splitting was required for HS2 because it was trying to take over all intercity operations on the north south axis and needed more service paths.
Now that the ECML and MML displacement traffic is largely off the table, this rationale disintegrates.

 

[cle]

What would a non-stop HS2 Derby journey take, if it joined the XC line NE of Tamworth?

Tamworth itself is around a flat hour on the WCML on the rare non-stops to Euston, I'm not sure this would be much less from Euston (after the OOC stop and passing Interchange) - but possibly useful for capacity, i.e. more MML service or just more calls on existing services, especially at Bedford.

2 x Sheffield services would enable the two today to become more semi-fast. You'd have to maintain Leicester-Derby service. And maybe a Nottingham could be fully sped up (Leicester only) - to balance journey times and maintain fasts for Leicester.

 

[Brubulus]

If only Phase 1 is built then the sensible plan is to ditch the existing rolling stock plan and order a uniform fleet of 250-300m class units, with a handful of 400m crowdbusters for Birmingham turn-up-and-go servics.

Splitting was required for HS2 because it was trying to take over all intercity operations on the north south axis and needed more service paths.
Now that the ECML and MML displacement traffic is largely off the table, this rationale disintegrates.

if you've got a bottleneck at Colwich/Stafford you want the most possible seats through the bottleneck, which necessitates 400m sets. 250/300 sounds good, but the only services that need it are the Manchester trains. 250/150 or 275/125 would solve all of these issues. 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.

What would a non-stop HS2 Derby journey take, if it joined the XC line NE of Tamworth?

Tamworth itself is around a flat hour on the WCML on the rare non-stops to Euston, I'm not sure this would be much less from Euston (after the OOC stop and passing Interchange) - but possibly useful for capacity, i.e. more MML service or just more calls on existing services, especially at Bedford.

2 x Sheffield services would enable the two today to become more semi-fast. You'd have to maintain Leicester-Derby service. And maybe a Nottingham could be fully sped up (Leicester only) - to balance journey times and maintain fasts for Leicester.

Around an hour (from OOC). It would save 25 mins or so compared to via the MML and be 10 mins faster than ECML for Sheffield.

 

[HSTEd]

if you've got a bottleneck at Colwich/Stafford you want the most possible seats through the bottleneck, which necessitates 400m sets. 250/300 sounds good, but the only services that need it are the Manchester trains. 250/150 or 275/125 would solve all of these issues.

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.

On the other hand, would providing 300m trains instead of 200m trains to Liverpool or Edinburgh really be a significant cost increment?
I have no doubt we could fill the seats with cheap advances if it was necessary, and I don't think the marginal cost of making a train longer within the constraints of existing platforms is very large at all

 

[Brubulus]

On the other hand, would providing 300m trains instead of 200m trains to Liverpool or Edinburgh really be a significant cost increment?
I have no doubt we could fill the seats with cheap advances if it was necessary, and I don't think the marginal cost of making a train longer within the constraints of existing platforms is very large at all

Given that you can only fit 7 long distance paths an hour through Colwich, if you want any sort of service improvement in terms of destinations or frequency you're going to need to split and join trains.

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've heard something along these lines too, not sure if it's true or if it's a forum myth, though that might be why the order hasn't been amended to include asymmetric lengths.

 

[joieman]

Has the idea of building a new line bypassing Nuneaton to join up with the line to Leicester been discussed? This would mean that HS2 trains could reach the Midland Main Line and serve Leicester, Loughborough and Nottingham or Derby. But I'd imagine there are potential capacity constraints on the Nuneaton to Leicester line (barring electrification which has yet to happen).

 

[The Planner]

Has the idea of building a new line bypassing Nuneaton to join up with the line to Leicester been discussed? This would mean that HS2 trains could reach the Midland Main Line and serve Leicester, Loughborough and Nottingham or Derby. But I'd imagine there are potential capacity constraints on the Nuneaton to Leicester line (barring electrification which has yet to happen).

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.

 

[HSTEd]

Given that you can only fit 7 long distance paths an hour through Colwich, if you want any sort of service improvement in terms of destinations or frequency you're going to need to split and join trains.

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.

Unless the planning office is able to squeeze more paths through Colwich, I think we are probably stuck with what we've got now.
I suppose, in theory, you could cut the classic trains on the Trent Valley at Rugeley or Lichfield and run everything passenger north of that off of HS2.

It's not like we are going to be hurting for paths on the core!

I've heard something along these lines too, not sure if it's true or if it's a forum myth, though that might be why the order hasn't been amended to include asymmetric lengths.

I don't have direct information but given the corners that HS2 has worked itself into before, I would not be surprised.

 

[AndrewE]

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.

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.