Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Given the miniscule savings of 125mph vs 110mph, which is about 4 seconds per mile, I doubt that the half hour or so that is gained by the rapid trip to Handsacre would be entirely lost by the time it reaches Glasgow.
HS2 services from London
London to/from Fastest journey time before HS2 (hrs:min) Estimated time after HS2 (hrs:min) Estimated time reduction
Birmingham 1:16 0:52 0:24
Liverpool 2:03 1:50 0:13
Glasgow 4:30 4:00 0:30
Manchester 1:54 1:40 0:14
Which implies it's saving more than half an hour to Handsacre if it's still half an hour up at Glasgow. Presumably some of that will include the work to allow 125mph non-tilt on sections of the existing WCML?
Which implies it's saving more than half an hour to Handsacre if it's still half an hour up at Glasgow. Presumably some of that will include the work to allow 125mph non-tilt on sections of the existing WCML?
I believe there are restrictions on having more than three posted speed limits, and I think even that is frowned upon. So there is no room for things like MU-differential speed limits and little point given that most passenger trains on the line can tilt or are otherwise incapable of reaching these sorts of speeds.
Some sections that are, for example, 110/EPS125 will likely be converted to something like 110/MU115.
Looking at the other end of the equation 186mph (300kph) equates to 19.35 seconds per mile, 200mph equates to 18 secs per mile, and 250mph = 14.4 secs per mile, so over how much of the route will trains be going faster than 186mph, and how much at top speed? To save 5 minutes you need 60 miles at 250mph over a more modest 186mph.
Looking at the other end of the equation 186mph (300kph) equates to 19.35 seconds per mile, 200mph equates to 18 secs per mile, and 250mph = 14.4 secs per mile, so over how much of the route will trains be going faster than 186mph, and how much at top speed? To save 5 minutes you need 60 miles at 250mph over a more modest 186mph.
Well modern high performance multiple units will be up to these sorts of speeds within three or four minutes of departing the station. So a substantial portion of the route will be traversed at line speed.
And building for 320kph doesn't really cost very much over 300kph outside a few unusual situations.
Given the miniscule savings of 125mph vs 110mph, which is about 4 seconds per mile, I doubt that the half hour or so that is gained by the rapid trip to Handsacre would be entirely lost by the time it reaches Glasgow.
How much of the northern WCML even has EPS speeds?
maybe not but my point was ALl the savings to Handsacre could not be taken off the existing times as SOME would be lost.
Despite the DFT claiming 30 mins is saved to manchester over exisitng times Roger Ford in this months Modern Railways reckons it is more like 10 minutes saved. if uit`s only 10 minutes to manchester that will almost certainly be a slower time by Glasgow
maybe not but my point was ALl the savings to Handsacre could not be taken off the existing times as SOME would be lost.
Despite the DFT claiming 30 mins is saved to manchester over exisitng times Roger Ford in this months Modern Railways reckons it is more like 10 minutes saved. if uit`s only 10 minutes to manchester that will almost certainly be a slower time by Glasgow
It is difficult to express a strong opinion on such things without seeing the article, but I am extremely skeptical of such a claim without seeing supporting evidence.
maybe not but my point was ALl the savings to Handsacre could not be taken off the existing times as SOME would be lost.
Despite the DFT claiming 30 mins is saved to manchester over exisitng times Roger Ford in this months Modern Railways reckons it is more like 10 minutes saved. if uit`s only 10 minutes to manchester that will almost certainly be a slower time by Glasgow
I'll point you at my post in #31. The current claimed savings to Manchester is 14 minutes, 30 minutes was probably the full Phase 2 route. But you need to remember that Glasgow and Manchester trains will diverge at Crewe. The differences in route will have a significant bearing on how much time can be saved.
I'll point you at my post in #31. The current claimed savings to Manchester is 14 minutes, 30 minutes was probably the full Phase 2 route. But you need to remember that Glasgow and Manchester trains will diverge at Crewe. The differences in route will have a significant bearing on how much time can be saved.
The claimed saving for Phase 2 is roughly an hour. From ~2hr7/8 to ~1hr10. As far as I know Phase One expects to deliver journey times of around ~1hr40.
And the bulk of Glasgow and Manchester trains will diverge not far from Handsacre at Colton Colwich Junction. Currently only one of three trains goes via Crewe, and I see little reason for that to change given the far larger population centres on the via Stoke route.
Actually that`s not true as trains to Brum will travel on high speed lines throughout. Trains beyond Handsacre will not tilt so will be restricted to 110 mph therefore actually travel SLOWER than now so time saved will not be the same as for Brum trains. The further travelled at 110 mph means progressively less time will be saved when compared to brum. Scottish trains could even be slower than now , the government (i don`t think) have actually given time savings for Glasgow which makes me suspicious that there aren`t any.
And the bulk of Glasgow and Manchester trains will diverge not far from Handsacre at Colton Junction. Currently only one of three trains goes via Crewe, and I see little reason for that to change given the far larger population centres on the via Stoke route.
Has any of the cost increase since the start of HS2 been to items that are solely required for a HS railway? Given the way the budget exploded on GWML Electrification, I have no reason not to believe that a 125mph version of HS2 would still be priced at 9% less than the current estimate. Which seems unlikely to be enough of a saving to have saved it from Rishi's axe.
The choice of alignment also pretty much fixes things in stone forever more. You can build a 400kph railway and run slower trains on it, (which is the plan, initial rolling stock is 360kph,) but you can't build a 125mph railway and then decide you fancy some of those 320kph TGVs.
But the proginal costings were done on the same basis for the alternatives. It is therefore reasonable to assume they would both be worng to a similar extent.
Unless you think that perhaps the ’400kph’ estimate was underestimated, but the ‘200kph’ estimate was over estimated?
Comparisons aren't meaningless, because a 125mph railway and a 225mph railway are not 2 completely different things, they are very very very similar. They are going to both have earth works, land purchases, material purchases. There's nothing special about a 225 mph railway.
How much tilt is required to safely do 125mph on the Trent Valley or between Stafford and Crewe? They're much straighter than the WCML south of Weedon, for instance. That should definitely be a 'sop' project to do to compensate somewhat - also for future non-tilt stock out of Euston. Better than settling for a 110 future.
1.5 mins 15 times an hour (7-8 each way on the TV WCML?) - for many hundred people per train - adds up.
How much tilt is required to safely do 125mph on the Trent Valley or between Stafford and Crewe? They're much straighter than the WCML south of Weedon, for instance. That should definitely be a 'sop' project to do to compensate somewhat - also for future non-tilt stock out of Euston. Better than settling for a 110 future.
1.5 mins 15 times an hour (7-8 each way on the TV WCML?) - for many hundred people per train - adds up.
I think your question is actually “what is the best linespeed profile that could be acheived for non-tilt stock on the Trent Valley with no infrastructure chages”?
The answer to which is - all will be revealed when the bin bags come off the new linespeed signs in the coming weeks!
Even if Manchester to London is slightly faster via handsacre, there's issues with:
A 200m HS2 train carries less people than a pendalino (HS2 trains "up to" 528, not clear on how that splits by class v 589 on a Class 390 with first class).
Is there capacity on the WCML for HS2 trains to run classic compatible to Manchester from Euston, or will this come at the expense of existing services. Previous plans were for HS2 trains to Manchester prior to 2a to run London to Manchester without a stop at Birmingham; unless existing West Coast and other local services on the WCML remain untouched by the extra HS2 trains then it will ironically worsen local and intra-regional connectivity.
From memory the last capacity assessment on the WCML found there wasn't huge amounts if any capacity north of Brum either, although happy to be corrected.
HS2 trains on classic infrastructure smacks of face saving.
Back to the OP's original question, it's generally believed that savings would be minimal, as other routes would have been challenging anyway.
Tbh the only thing to guarantee the whole of HS2 to be built would have been to start from the other end (Leeds & Manchester), preferably on the inverted A plans (i.e. what we have plus NPR). The London centric nature of planning and investment would have forced the Birmingham to Euston section to built regardless.
Even if Manchester to London is slightly faster via handsacre, there's issues with:
A 200m HS2 train carries less people than a pendalino (HS2 trains "up to" 528, not clear on how that splits by class v 589 on a Class 390 with first class).
Even if Manchester to London is slightly faster via handsacre, there's issues with:
A 200m HS2 train carries less people than a pendalino (HS2 trains "up to" 528, not clear on how that splits by class v 589 on a Class 390 with first class).
Is there capacity on the WCML for HS2 trains to run classic compatible to Manchester from Euston, or will this come at the expense of existing services. Previous plans were for HS2 trains to Manchester prior to 2a to run London to Manchester without a stop at Birmingham; unless existing West Coast and other local services on the WCML remain untouched by the extra HS2 trains then it will ironically worsen local and intra-regional connectivity.
That was always going to be the case anyway. Avanti trains will drop out of the timetable to be replaced by HS2 services apart from a few residual services, there was never going to be both. Anything for Manchester etc doesnt need to stop at Birmingham Curzon St.
From memory the last capacity assessment on the WCML found there wasn't huge amounts if any capacity north of Brum either, although happy to be corrected.
HS2 trains on classic infrastructure smacks of face saving.
Tbh the only thing to guarantee the whole of HS2 to be built would have been to start from the other end (Leeds & Manchester), preferably on the inverted A plans (i.e. what we have plus NPR). The London centric nature of planning and investment would have forced the Birmingham to Euston section to built regardless.
Difficulty is that a Birmingham to Manchester / Leeds line by itself cannot justify the price for the traffic, they need the connection to London for it to make financial sense.
IMO HS2s issue was that it tried to do too much under the same HS2 umbrella, HS2 would have been better as London - Birmingham - Crewe with NPR as HS3 and Birmingham to Leeds as HS4.
Under this it would be built along the whole length to Crewe at the same time rather than split up into phases.
That was always going to be the case anyway. Avanti trains will drop out of the timetable to be replaced by HS2 services apart from a few residual services, there was never going to be both. Anything for Manchester etc doesnt need to stop at Birmingham Curzon St.
That was always going to happen with the Scotland trains regardless and in between phases.
WCML services were as far as I'm aware never sorted post-HS2; that was part of the problem as it never provided any potential for a benefits analysis for the capacity release. It also raises the spectre of vastly reduced connectivity for major swathes of the population in some of our most deprived communities where productivity is lowest.
The failure of any planning of what we want the railways to look like post HS2, along with taking it into account for the BCR (because frankly HMT are blinkered on this sort of thing), is one of the biggest scandals of HS2's implementation.
Reducing Brum-Man connectivity is a huge mistake and ignores the potential benefits that improved intra-regional transport can bring; HS2 should have been a catalyst for improving agglomeration between major economic centres outside of London.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Difficulty is that a Birmingham to Manchester / Leeds line by itself cannot justify the price for the traffic, they need the connection to London for it to make financial sense.
IMO HS2s issue was that it tried to do too much under the same HS2 umbrella, HS2 would have been better as London - Birmingham - Crewe with NPR as HS3 and Birmingham to Leeds as HS4.
Under this it would be built along the whole length to Crewe at the same time rather than split up into phases.
The problem is it would have never been built - we'd be in the same position as now except HS2 would go up to Crewe and the rest would have been cancelled.
Was there ever a BCR for the option of building North downwards? A scheme not just to on the basis of a railway for capacity but a scheme to "level up" (as much as I hate the phrase it needs doing). Of the individual legs of the entire project the Eastern leg had the highest BCR, albeit that was including the entire HS2 scheme.
Of the three legs, the eastern leg is the one that provided the potential for improving intra-regional connectivity far more (Leeds for example has a perfectly serviceable service to London, however it's connectivity with Birmingham, South Yorkshire and the rest of the Midlands is absolutely appalling).
The issue of justifying the price for the schemes goes back to the old problem of the green book and TAG not measuring potential agglomeration and wider societal and national benefits (i.e. the UK's scandalous London-centric wealth, investment and productivity imbalance that marks us out from every advanced economy). They don't look at the benefits of modal shift for passengers and freight, supressed demand etc either.
All it takes is political will (and of course getting past HMT). Unfortunately there is no desire to look at the country as a whole and identify any form of strategy for growth (the lack of an industrial policy is yet another symptom of this).
WCML services were as far as I'm aware never sorted post-HS2; that was part of the problem as it never provided any potential for a benefits analysis for the capacity release. It also raises the spectre of vastly reduced connectivity for major swathes of the population in some of our most deprived communities where productivity is lowest.
The failure of any planning of what we want the railways to look like post HS2, along with taking it into account for the BCR (because frankly HMT are blinkered on this sort of thing), is one of the biggest scandals of HS2's implementation.
Reducing Brum-Man connectivity is a huge mistake and ignores the potential benefits that improved intra-regional transport can bring; HS2 should have been a catalyst for improving agglomeration between major economic centres outside of London.
Plenty of work was done about the service provision post opening, why is Brum to Manchester connectivity being reduced? no trains are being removed on that axis.
Extract from Hansard of today's Parliamentary Questions on Transport about speed on WCML
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) Share this specific contribution
The Transport Committee, with which the Minister is fairly familiar, heard evidence last week that, thanks to the cancellation of HS2 phase 2 to Manchester and the inability of high-speed rolling stock to tilt on the remaining west coast main line track, journey times to and from Glasgow could actually increase by up to 24 minutes, even with the £50 billion Birmingham to London branch line complete. Does the Minister think that passengers in Scotland will see that as yet another Union connectivity dividend? Huw Merriman Share this specific contribution
No, I do not agree. In fact, when that matter came up at the Public Accounts Committee, the official who works on HS2 was able to explain that, where trains tilt, they can do so at certain speeds on the west coast main line. However, that does not actually require a tilting train: any train can go at that speed, provided the speed is on the train. HS2 trains will also have faster acceleration, so I dispute the hon. Member’s point.
Are they saying the non tilting trains can run at same speed on WCML, it is (unbelievable) news to me, but if DfT say it, must be true, and all they need to do it move some other fast trains eg those 140mph design IETs and they can keep to tilt speeds.
So there you are, the official DfT view of a solution.
Are they saying the non tilting trains can run at same speed on WCML, it is (unbelievable) news to me, but if DfT say it, must be true, and all they need to do it move some other fast trains eg those 140mph design IETs and they can keep to tilt speeds.
So there you are, the official DfT view of a solution.
Huw Merriman is an MP, while he is the minister of state for transport what he says is based on his understanding of what he is briefed on. I think what he's intending to say is that there are some areas of the WCML where a MU profile could achieve higher speeds than currently. It won't compete with the EPS profile though.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
