Should the Birmingham - Stansted service continue in its current form post-HS2?

[PTR 444]

On another thread recently, I highlighted how a journey from Birmingham to Cambridge will become quicker going via London once HS2 phase 1. The same could also be said for Birmingham to Peterborough which currently takes 1hr 50m on the direct train, but post-HS2 it could potentially only take 1hr 40m if the connection times match up (45 mins Curzon St - Euston, 10 mins walk to Kings Cross, 45 mins KGX to Peterborough on LNER). With this in mind, I think it would be worth discussing whether there is still a need for the Birmingham - Stansted service to continue in its current form in the long term.

One option could be to split the service at Leicester, since from there it will still be quicker to use the direct service to Cambridge at least, but with this you lose the direct connectivity between Birmingham and Melton/Oakham/Stamford. Splitting at Peterborough is another option, which could allow for 2tph between Leicester and Peterborough, but at the expense of direct Leicester - Cambridge connectivity. Alternatively, you could divert it to elsewhere in East Anglia (Norwich, Ipswich, Colchester) and have the orphaned portion to Stansted form part of another service. I’ll leave it up to you to discuss which option would be best.

 

[Purple Orange]

If the connection time is small, i suspect both routes would be advertised and the passenger will decide which route is best based on the time they want to leave/arrive. 1 tph direct means that a 3 tph HS2 service plus a high frequency Circle/Metropolitan/H&C plus a high frequency shuttle from Liverpool Street could mean that the change of trains is best for at least 2 tph on HS2, depending on flight times.

 

[The Planner]

I think there needs to be a quite noticeable change in journey time to expect people to start changing trains. I don't think 10 minutes cuts it. For example, is your normal punter going to be able to arrive at Euston, get off train, navigate station, get to Kings Cross, navigate station and get on train in 10 minutes?

 

[Purple Orange]

What frequency is Midlands Engine Rail proposing? I believe the answer will be there.

 

[swt_passenger]

Why would Birmingham to Peterborough via London even be a valid route?

 

[adamedwards]

Holiday makers with bags don't like changing trains let alone walking down a street too. Back in the 1980s BR learnt this and get very good at organising the cross country trains to maximise plave to place through trains. So the emphasis should be on more through trains, not HS2 and walk, imho.

 

[Wolfie]

I think there needs to be a quite noticeable change in journey time to expect people to start changing trains. I don't think 10 minutes cuts it. For example, is your normal punter going to be able to arrive at Euston, get off train, navigate station, get to Kings Cross, navigate station and get on train in 10 minutes?

Absolutely. Particularly as if they are going to Stansted they may well have luggage.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 May 2021 ==

Holiday makers with bags don't like changing trains let alone walking down a street too. Back in the 1980s BR learnt this and get very good at organising the cross country trains to maximise plave to place through trains. So the emphasis should be on more through trains, not HS2 and walk, imho.

Yup.

 

[Purple Orange]

I think the service could stay but it won’t be primarily for Birmingham passengers if it does. Looking at what Midlands Engine Rail propose, Standted is not on their network so it could be dropped post HS2. They appear to be taking on legacy XC routes, so this could be a route that is not deemed worthy of carrying on.

Stansted is a bucket & spade airport and if you’re going on holiday and travelling by train to get to your airport, you’ll have Birmingham, East Midlands, Manchester (as well as Heathrow) at a far shorter journey time. Even Luton via Leicester (or perhaps East-West Rail) could be a better option.

 

[PTR 444]

Holiday makers with bags don't like changing trains let alone walking down a street too. Back in the 1980s BR learnt this and get very good at organising the cross country trains to maximise plave to place through trains. So the emphasis should be on more through trains, not HS2 and walk, imho.

If this is true, why are we even considering things like carving up Cross Country, removing through Plymouth - North East trains and making EWR a regional rather than intercity railway?

If people want through trains from everywhere to everywhere, keep them but accept that they may have to have more calls than they do at present. Yes it’ll mean the direct journey will be slower but people who want to get from A to B quick can use faster alternatives that require changes, like HS2.

 

[Purple Orange]

If this is true, why are we even considering things like carving up Cross Country, removing through Plymouth - North East trains and making EWR a regional rather than intercity railway?

If people want through trains from everywhere to everywhere, keep them but accept that they may have to have more calls than they do at present. Yes it’ll mean the direct journey will be slower but people who want to get from A to B quick can use faster alternatives that require changes, like HS2.

Exactly this. If the eastern HS2 branch is built like Burton, Tamworth, Chesterfield and Wakefield should be regular stops on the route. On the western branch, Sandwell & Dudley, Congleton, Macclesfield should be regular stops on the XC route. Likewise if a route like Birmingham to Stansted remains, I suspect that if the route survives it is principally because it is to serve Birmingham to Leicester and Leicester to Stansted, with the two services joined up - much like XC is a series of regional journeys joined together.

 

[PTR 444]

Exactly this. If the eastern HS2 branch is built like Burton, Tamworth, Chesterfield and Wakefield should be regular stops on the route. On the western branch, Sandwell & Dudley, Congleton, Macclesfield should be regular stops on the XC route. Likewise if a route like Birmingham to Stansted remains, I suspect that if the route survives it is principally because it is to serve Birmingham to Leicester and Leicester to Stansted, with the two services joined up - much like XC is a series of regional journeys joined together.

Agreed. In regards to the Stansted service, you could add Water Orton, Hinkley, Narborough and South Wigston so these stations have 2tph to both Leicester and Birmingham.

 

[cle]

It should be 2tph between Birmingham and Peterborough, due to all the intermediate stations and it being their only service.

2tph from Cambridge would be ideal, but Ely is difficult. So perhaps a more express, longer 1tph version from Cambridge, and then another 2tph from Peterborough to Birmingham which makes more calls. Leicester to Birmingham at least could handle 3tph, I think 4tph is planned.

 

[Purple Orange]

It should be 2tph between Birmingham and Peterborough, due to all the intermediate stations and it being their only service.

2tph from Cambridge would be ideal, but Ely is difficult. So perhaps a more express, longer 1tph version from Cambridge, and then another 2tph from Peterborough to Birmingham which makes more calls. Leicester to Birmingham at least could handle 3tph, I think 4tph is planned.

Could an express from Cambridge not be best serviced through a service to Liverpool Street rather than from New Street? Or does HS2 even open up a possibility of an ECML service going to Stansted?

 

[PTR 444]

Could an express from Cambridge not be best serviced through a service to Liverpool Street rather than from New Street? Or does HS2 even open up a possibility of an ECML service going to Stansted?

I think there should be a service from East Anglia to Leeds via the ECML post HS2 2b, but I am not sure whether it should originate from Stansted, Colchester/Ipswich or Norwich. Also I’m not sure if there is room for more than 2tph between Stansted and Ely.

 

[Purple Orange]

I think there should be a service from East Anglia to Leeds via the ECML post HS2 2b, but I am not sure whether it should originate from Stansted, Colchester/Ipswich or Norwich. Also I’m not sure if there is room for more than 2tph between Stansted and Ely.

Actually Cambridge should see far greater connectivity to the midlands & north generally post HS2. A bit different, but could there be a Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Doncaster-Cambridge-Stansted service via NPR?!

 

[Ianno87]

Travelling on this route regularly, it's only a hardy few who do Cambridge-Birmingham throughout. The rail journey time (and mileage) is a very poor relation to the A14 road.

I'd say the "beefy" part of Birmingham demand starts at Peterborough, picking up through Stamford/Oakham/Melton, so cross-Leicester demand is far from trivial.

Cambridge most needs a 2tph connection to Peterborough for ECML services, and possibly a direct link to the likes of Nottingham more than Leicester/Birmingham.

If the service had to be split anywhere, it would be Peterborough. Or swap patterns with Norwich with:

-Norwich-Birmingham hourly
-Cambridge-Nottingham hourly.

And possibly bin Stansted, replaced by a GA electric service instead.

 

[Purple Orange]

What is the journey time of the direct Birmingham-Stansted route today?

With HS2 we could see 115 mins end to end.

• 45 mins Birmingham Curzon Street to London Euston
• 20 mins Euston to Liverpool Street (including idle time)
• 50 mins London Liverpool Street to Stansted

If Birmingham to Peterborough is 110 mins, surely it is actually going to be far faster travelling via London to Stansted?

 

[Ianno87]

What is the journey time of the direct Birmingham-Stansted route today?

With HS2 we could see 115 mins end to end.

• 45 mins Birmingham Curzon Street to London Euston
• 20 mins Euston to Liverpool Street (including idle time)
• 50 mins London Liverpool Street to Stansted

If Birmingham to Peterborough is 110 mins, surely it is actually going to be far faster travelling via London to Stansted?

Stansted-Birmingham is faster today via Euston.

Current direct service is ~3hr 15mins.

Compared to 30 minutes to Tottenham Hale, 15 minutes to Euston plus 85 minutes to New Street (plus connection times).


However, Stansted-Birmingham demand is pretty minimal, the service is more about shorter overlapping flows.

 

[Purple Orange]

Stansted-Birmingham is faster today via Euston.

Current direct service is ~3hr 15mins.

Compared to 30 minutes to Tottenham Hale, 15 minutes to Euston plus 85 minutes to New Street (plus connection times).


However, Stansted-Birmingham demand is pretty minimal, the service is more about shorter overlapping flows.

Oh that makes it no contest then. Travel via London every time - it’s hardly like it is any more hassle than getting to Heathrow or Gatwick given the number of changes. That puts in to context why Midlands Engine Rail is not planning a route from Birmingham to Stansted.

 

[Ianno87]

Oh that makes it no contest then. Travel via London every time - it’s hardly like it is any more hassle than getting to Heathrow or Gatwick given the number of changes. That puts in to context why Midlands Engine Rail is not planning a route from Birmingham to Stansted.

The only thing going for it for the passengers making the journey is a cheaper walk-up fare, plus the benefit of "get a seat on an empty train at Stansted then don't have to move again"

 

[Purple Orange]

The only thing going for it for the passengers making the journey is a cheaper walk-up fare, plus the benefit of "get a seat on an empty train at Stansted then don't have to move again"

But you’d be getting a seat on an empty train at Curzon Street and Liverpool Street (sameness return journey) given the services terminate. Plus those services will be at a much higher frequency and have far more seats.

 

[Ianno87]

But you’d be getting a seat on an empty train at Curzon Street and Liverpool Street (sameness return journey) given the services terminate. Plus those services will be at a much higher frequency and have far more seats.

I know, I agree. But this is one example where a direct train is genuinely attractive if you have suitcases etc. Not that there are many such passengers travelling end to end.

 

[Purple Orange]

I know, I agree. But this is one example where a direct train is genuinely attractive if you have suitcases etc. Not that there are many such passengers travelling end to end.

This falls in to the same category as all other existing services post HS2. It changes the flows for so many routes that post HS2 it might not be best to allocate a path between Peterborough and Stansted to a service from Birmingham, but rather a service from another town/city that might cater for more people.

 

[Ianno87]

This falls in to the same category as all other existing services post HS2. It changes the flows for so many routes that post HS2 it might not be best to allocate a path between Peterborough and Stansted to a service from Birmingham, but rather a service from another town/city that might cater for more people.

Yes, I agree. Hence why I said upthread making Norwich-Birmingham and Cambridge-Nottingham services in place of the present set-up.

To be honest, Stansted is on my list of "is it so bad if it never came back post-Covid?:

 

[30907]

I'd say the "beefy" part of Birmingham demand starts at Peterborough, picking up through Stamford/Oakham/Melton, so cross-Leicester demand is far from trivial.....
If the service had to be split anywhere, it would be Peterborough.

Splitting at Peterborough doesn't make desperately good operational sense either. Swapping the two routes over is fine but marginal.

As for Cambridge-Stansted, assuming there is still demand for air travel a rail link will be needed; where it goes beyond Cambridge is less critical and will depend more IMO on EWR than HS2.

 

[cle]

As Ely is so constrained, the current path should be used for something long or which can split. If further north is more desirable than Birmingham, then a 5 car 80x to Leeds or York would make more sense. I would say similar for Norwich-Nottingham, if there is future demand for that beyond Peterborough.

Both Leeds and Cambridge are larger markets than Nottingham or Norwich - so perhaps both of those services/paths should be considered together for their future.

And then Peterborough-Birmingham becomes its own service category, which fits better.

 

[PTR 444]

Another observation that may be worth considering is how much time the services between Peterborough and Ely spend under wires. If you swapped the ends of each route to form Birmingham - Norwich and Derby - Stansted services, you could transfer the latter to Greater Anglia and run it using Stadler FLIRTS, eliminating diesel running underneath wires on the ECML and south of Ely.

 

[Ianno87]

Another observation that may be worth considering is how much time the services between Peterborough and Ely spend under wires. If you swapped the ends of each route to form Birmingham - Norwich and Derby - Stansted services, you could transfer the latter to Greater Anglia and run it using Stadler FLIRTS, eliminating diesel running underneath wires on the ECML and south of Ely.

That's a good point - a Stansted-Nottingham service would get a decent amount of its route under the wires.

 

[tbtc]

I think that the priority for the Birmingham - Stansted service should be additional capacity on the Birmingham - Leicester section (two large places separated by only thirty five miles - yet only a couple of Turbostars per hour between them - one of the worst linked pairs of city within a reasonable daily commute of each other IMHO).

Hard to know whether to split it if anywhere - there doesn't seem to be much long distance demand but then what benefits are there in splitting it? (e.g. sometimes you can argue that the electrification/ 125mph running/ significant passenger disparities on one side of a route means that splitting it would be a more efficient use of stock but that's not the case here - unless you split it at Ely - and then it seems pointless to terminate it so short of Cambridge. If anywhere then Peterborough would get my vote, but I don't think that this service has ever been about long distance demand - it's a combination of operational convenience and the same kind of stock probably being appropriate.

Actually Cambridge should see far greater connectivity to the midlands & north generally post HS2. A bit different, but could there be a Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Doncaster-Cambridge-Stansted service via NPR?!

I don't know about all the way from Liverpool, but I've suggested that (since HS2 means existing lines aren't dominated by giving everywhere as many fast Londons services as possible) we could have a future where a Leeds - Peterborough service could divert to East Anglia instead (since Leeds - London would be via HS2, and the Doncaster - Peterborough - London paths could be used for services from Humberside etc - thus retaining a link from Peterborough/ Grantham/ Newark etc to Leeds without needing to be part of a London service.

Especially as Cambridge has terrible links to places outside the NSE map - I think it deserves better - hopefully HS2 will allow "places in southern England that aren't London" to get better services from the north.

 

[cle]

I would propose:

2tph Birmingham - Leicester (all stops)
2tph Birmingham - Peterborough (fast, then main stops east of Leicester)
1tph Norwich - Derby as planned
1tph Cambridge - Leeds >>> This could connect nicely with a B'ham service. Could call at Grantham for Notts. And potential act as the ECML Leeds local if London services need to be speeded up, all main stations to Leeds. As the ECML stoppers have typically been to York/Newark/Lincoln. Only under wires P'boro to Ely.