West Coast Franchise speculation

[B&I]

There are no plans to have any normal rail services into Curzon Street and it would require extra spending. It will be next to Moor Street so that would be the obvious choice if the Camp Hill Chords are ever built.



Its better to have no extra capacity until 2026 and then a huge increase than some increase before 2026 and nothing possible afterwards. HS2 has killed the business case for new tilting trains. Attempting to get some of the XC Voyagers to tilt again is probably the least bad solution *if* it is absolutely necessary to have extra WCP stock prior to 2026.

Oh well, it'll cost more money, so we can't possibly have that when we're spending however many billions on HS2. I mean, it's not as if we want to improve connectivity across the national network or anything.

How are XC services going to fit into Moor Street btw ?

 

[B&I]

There isn't room to put platforms there on the gradient and with the tunnel and Proof House junction nearby, there also is no connection between HS2 and the existing network either.

Shame. Is there no way it could be facilitated, even at the expense of rejigging the viaduct and / or junction, particularly once HS2 has lessened the load a bit of trains approaching New Street from the east ?

But as HS2 is designed solely to connect London to limited areas within a select number of cities, I suppose it is naive to hope that it could be used to improve connections across the national network as a whole.

 

[Chester1]

Oh well, it'll cost more money, so we can't possibly have that when we're spending however many billions on HS2. I mean, it's not as if we want to improve connectivity across the national network or anything.

How are XC services going to fit into Moor Street btw ?

HS2 is an investment that should last until railways as a major form of travel are redundant. Spending maybe something like £300m+ on a new mini fleet that can't arrive before 2022 and will not be needed after 2026 is just wasting money.

If the Camp Hill Chords are ever built then there would need to be significant investment in Moor Street. Curzon Street won't have conventional rail services and will be litterally next to Moor Street anyway. If the chords are not built then it will be a matter of squeezing as much capacity out of New Street.

 

[mmh]

If the Pretendolino could make section times then what's to stop one of the Birmingham's being planned in at 110mph?
I am guessing that the Pretendolino was quick enough to not hold any following trains up, but ended up failing it's performance at its destination due to being tined at 125mph?

Answer: time it at 110mph to it's destination and if the stock can still make section times it's a solution isn't it?


Acquire some of the class 360s which are coming off lease soon and ask siemens to do the mods required for 110 as on the 350s.

Or what about the 350/2s which are going off lease with LNR? Many are being converted to 110 at the moment so all that'd be needed would be refitted 444 style long distance interiors.

Or use 225 sets if they could make section times?

If the WCML fast lines had all this slack to allow "slow" trains it'd seem it was stupid to spend all that money to upgrade 350s to take advantage of the timetable. They have to run when they do to fit in. The WCML is not about to revert to a slower railway, and I really don't understand why so many people on here think it will.

 

[The Ham]

HS2 is an investment that should last until railways as a major form of travel are redundant. Spending maybe something like £300m+ on a new mini fleet that can't arrive before 2022 and will not be needed after 2026 is just wasting money.

If the Camp Hill Chords are ever built then there would need to be significant investment in Moor Street. Curzon Street won't have conventional rail services and will be litterally next to Moor Street anyway. If the chords are not built then it will be a matter of squeezing as much capacity out of New Street.

I think that you're missing the point, if you built 6 coach units then they would probably be of more use after phase 1 of HS2 opening than the 9 or 11 coach units, as they would be able to serve two places with one path. As an example there wouldn't be the demand for an 11 coach train to Manchester or Liverpool asking the WCML, so if you could run a 6 coach train from London to Crewe and then split it then you could run another service on the southern WCML which you can't currently do because you need two paths to serve those two cities.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it resulted in some of the existing 9 coach units being shorterned to be 6 coaches to maximise these kinds of services, which would mean scraping 3 coaches but would be a lot less wasteful than scraping whole units.

I've also pointed out that in 2026 there could be a use for some of the 390's on XC on Manchester to Southampton services (with Bournemouth being served by the Newcastle services).

As such the new tilting trains would still have a use after 2026 and even the longer 390's could still have a use and if not then by shortening them (and scraping some 25 year old coaches) they could still be useful. Even if you converted ask the 9 coach units to six that would only be 66 coaches (or about 15% of the number of coaches which Virgin first ordered) that would be gotten rid of, on trains which will be over half way through their life.

That's all assuming that an open access operator (I'm looking at you Alliance) doesn't then take on some of the 390's for their services. For instance to replace whatever 110 mph stock (which could be relatively old Mark 4 coaches and locos) they use on the Alliance's Blackpool services. As they would certainly benefit from 125mph rolling stock as well as stick which may last a bit longer (as even if the coaches could be good for longer the Locos may need sorting sooner and so the 390's could be a good option.

Whatever the future, I'm sure that there's a future for the new units as well as for (at least most of) the existing 390's. As even if not sure are added to the existing services there's not going to be so many added that being able to run at 125mph wouldn't be useful.

Also as one final point, if you look at the rolling stock that SWR are getting to replace their 75mph units, it's 100mph. Why? For the simple reason that even if it rarely runs at 100mph there's some services which do and so it's easier to be able to use any unit rather than having a micro fleet that is locked to certain services. Likewise at WCP what would be better if a 390 fails and the only spare units are new units? Would you rather:
A) the train runs but with slower units so that you are late and it may have an impact on other services as well
B) the service is cancelled
C) the service can run, just formed of a pair of units but with no time penalty

Most customers would be happiest with C. Likewise most TOC's especially if there's already a small delay due to having to get units from a depot to run the service, something that tilting trains could recover from a bit with their higher top running speeds whilst slower trains wouldn't and may loose more time (having a bigger impact on the services following).

 

[pt_mad]

You misunderstand what I meant, the Prentendolino didn't register delays in TRUST sections where delays would be recorded, I can't remember if it is 2 or 3 minutes in a section to do that on the WCML. It cannot meet 125mph sectional running times, that is a given. If you time it at 110mph there is no guarantee the path works.

Ahhh ok. Yes TRUST says 2 minutes is unaccountable. Third minute means an accountable delay for that section. Although sometimes it strangely seems to accumulate delays over several sections and someone in power somewhere inserts a manual accountable delay as 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 have made the train 10 late and they want an answer.


So when the Pretendolino ran, was it almost certainly holding up a following working? And how come it was allowed in the first place if it may disrupt the timetable?


The more I think about it the more a handful of 8 car 350/2s would make sense for WCP until 2026 if they can make something work path wise at 110mph. They could fit them out as good as a Chiltern clubman inside.
And it'd presumably be a cost effective boost to capacity even if it were 6 double sets as many are now approved for 110 as I understand it.

I spose if they can get one of the three Brums as far as Rugby on the fast line without holding anything up, you're sorted.
And acceleration would be far superior to any class 90 or 91 loco hauled which would help.

 

[pt_mad]

If the WCML fast lines had all this slack to allow "slow" trains it'd seem it was stupid to spend all that money to upgrade 350s to take advantage of the timetable. They have to run when they do to fit in. The WCML is not about to revert to a slower railway, and I really don't understand why so many people on here think it will.

But the fact the 350/2s are being upgraded as we speak to 110 capability suggests they are running on the fast lines at times. Granted probably when they allocate them to the Trent Valley service which is booked fast to Rugby or Brinklow but yes they still do allocate them on Trent Valley duties sometimes.

And the fact that the xx46 path is a fast path but the train runs at max 110mph every hour says 110 can work. That was what Project 110 at LM was all about. How many people would have said it cant work when it was first suggested?
If there are two spare paths an hour off Euston, and one must be left vacant for performance purposes, what's to stop the xx33 being at least considered for a 110mph working as far as Rugby? With the following train overtaking at Milton Keynes Central if required, as Alliance proposed. And the 350s would make better times than the 225s that they proposed due to superior acceleration.

And it's not just the xx33 path that could be looked at. They could instead consider a suitable one of the three Birmingham's that run now that may be able to run at 110mph to Rugby and still be workable path wise. This would free up the Pendolinos which currently work that diagram, and they could be used to boost capacity elsewhere. Such as using them on Scotland bound services instead of Voyagers. And using the then freed up Voyager sets to lengthen all Chester services to 10 cars.
You could then look at removing the Stafford call on the Liverpool and insert it into the Chester instead if all were double Voyagers. Which is going to free up at least another 10 Percent or more of the Liverpool train's seats for customers travelling all the way Euston to Liverpool. And Stafford customers could use the Chester instead.


For those that say only 125mph works. The xx46 works currently at 110 as far as nearly Nuneaton. And if it has been deemed new tilting trains are not worth it for 4 or 5 years only, then 110 is the only option for increased capacity. And the best accelerating and one of the most reliable EMUs the country in terms of miles per incident is the 350/2. But they would need fully refitted higher spec 2 + 2 interiors with new seats and new facilities and shop etc.

 

[The Ham]

But the fact the 350/2s are being upgraded as we speak to 110 capability suggests they are running on the fast lines at times. Granted probably when they allocate them to the Trent Valley service which is booked fast to Rugby or Brinklow but yes they still do allocate them on Trent Valley duties sometimes.

And the fact that the xx46 path is a fast path but the train runs at max 110mph every hour says 110 can work. That was what Project 110 at LM was all about. How many people would have said it cant work when it was first suggested?
If there are two spare paths an hour off Euston, and one must be left vacant for performance purposes, what's to stop the xx33 being at least considered for a 110mph working as far as Rugby? With the following train overtaking at Milton Keynes Central if required, as Alliance proposed. And the 350s would make better times than the 225s that they proposed due to superior acceleration.

And it's not just the xx33 path that could be looked at. They could instead consider a suitable one of the three Birmingham's that run now that may be able to run at 110mph to Rugby and still be workable path wise. This would free up the Pendolinos which currently work that diagram, and they could be used to boost capacity elsewhere. Such as using them on Scotland bound services instead of Voyagers. And using the then freed up Voyager sets to lengthen all Chester services to 10 cars.
You could then look at removing the Stafford call on the Liverpool and insert it into the Chester instead if all were double Voyagers. Which is going to free up at least another 10 Percent or more of the Liverpool train's seats for customers travelling all the way Euston to Liverpool. And Stafford customers could use the Chester instead.


For those that say only 125mph works. The xx46 works currently at 110 as far as nearly Nuneaton. And if it has been deemed new tilting trains are not worth it for 4 or 5 years only, then 110 is the only option for increased capacity. And the best accelerating and one of the most reliable EMUs the country in terms of miles per incident is the 350/2. Buy they would need fully refitted higher spec 2 + 2 interiors with new seats and new facilities and shop etc.

I'm not saying that 125mph units would be the only way that it would work, but then there's some who are saying that new 125 mph units would only be able to find work for 4/5 years and after that they would be scrapped with no scope of use for them or for the existing 390's as chances are someone else would find a user for them.

The problem is, one or two 110mph paths would work, but there comes a point when another 110mph path could start to cause problems to the existing 125mph paths.

I think that it's also worth remembering that upon the opening of HS2 phase 1 it's likely most of the existing services will still need to exist to serve the stations that HS2 doesn't serve. However will places like Coventry wouldn't justify 3*11 tph to London when there's a significant number of Birmingham to London passengers then using HS2.

However it could still justify 2*6 and 1*11 tph (with the latter still going onto Scotland). Which could release 11 coach units for use elsewhere (even if that with another TOC).

 

[pt_mad]

I'm not saying that 125mph units would be the only way that it would work, but then there's some who are saying that new 125 mph units would only be able to find work for 4/5 years and after that they would be scrapped with no scope of use for them or for the existing 390's as chances are someone else would find a user for them.

The problem is, one or two 110mph paths would work, but there comes a point when another 110mph path could start to cause problems to the existing 125mph paths.

I think that it's also worth remembering that upon the opening of HS2 phase 1 it's likely most of the existing services will still need to exist to serve the stations that HS2 doesn't serve. However will places like Coventry wouldn't justify 3*11 tph to London when there's a significant number of Birmingham to London passengers then using HS2.

However it could still justify 2*6 and 1*11 tph (with the latter still going onto Scotland). Which could release 11 coach units for use elsewhere (even if that with another TOC).

I am guessing that Coventry at least will still demand 3 WCP services an hour to London after 2026. As it's in the WCP initial stopping pattern as mini service to and from Coventry is 3 per hour. And I can't see this being reduced when HS2 opens as Coventry obviously isn't served by HS2? And Cove Coventry will be even busier than it is today. And growth there has been huge just lately.


I suppose what I was getting at is if you want to increase capacity straight away and can't find any new paths what do you do?
Well the obvious answer is to increase the lengths of the single Voyagers to all double sets. If the Liverpool's are becoming busy at certain times and need morqe space for Euston to Liverpool passengers between now and 2026, taking the Stafford call out and putting it on longer Chester trains makes total sense .Easy win. But you need to find the extra voyager sets needed.

So the only easy fix i can think of is pit a 110mph EMU in the slowest timed of the three hourly Birmingham's which has the most give and space behind it between Euston and Rugby. Like when the Pretendolino ran.

Use the then spared Pendos to replace Voyagers on Scottish services and you have your spare voyagers to lengthen the Chester's and put a Stafford stop in. No new paths needed but you've boosted capacity.

 

[B&I]

HS2 is an investment that should last until railways as a major form of travel are redundant. Spending maybe something like £300m+ on a new mini fleet that can't arrive before 2022 and will not be needed after 2026 is just wasting money.

If the Camp Hill Chords are ever built then there would need to be significant investment in Moor Street. Curzon Street won't have conventional rail services and will be litterally next to Moor Street anyway. If the chords are not built then it will be a matter of squeezing as much capacity out of New Street.

I was thinking of spending on non-high speed rail infrastructure, rather than trains (frustrating as it is that it doesn't seem possible to squeeze any more services out of the WCML fleet). In general, it awems to me that very little thought haa been given to how the existing network can be enhanced to get more people to and from HS2.

 

[JonathanH]

And the fact that the xx46 path is a fast path but the train runs at max 110mph every hour says 110 can work.

xx46 is followed by xx49 which stops at Watford Junction and then xx00 (xx57 in the peak with no Watford stop in the xx49). So, that is a long gap before the next 125mph service and by the time the xx46 with one stop at Milton Keynes gets to Rugby the xx00 is pretty close behind. xx49 to xx00 is by far the biggest gap in the WCML fast line service.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I thought the 350/2s were "not wanted on voyage" by WMT, and therefore the 110mph upgrade was stalled?
Why would the Rosco spend the money without a customer?

The 110mph Pretendolino was only ever a one-off late peak service, ThFO, or standing in for an unavailable 390.
It also consumed 2x125mph paths, like all 110mph services.
The simple fact is, if you let 110mph paths multiply, you lose fast line capacity.
Maybe their access charges should be doubled to show the real cost of allowing them to run.

And where is this idea that Basingstoke-Southampton will be 25kV by 2026, allowing EMUs to run Manchester-Southampton?
The Electric Spine project has been cancelled, and the DC conversion never had credibility south of the Thames.

And the WCML will be slower from 2026 north of Lichfield/Crewe/Golborne, without a change either of HS2 rolling stock plans or WCML operating policy.

 

[pt_mad]

I thought the 350/2s were "not wanted on voyage" by WMT, and therefore the 110mph upgrade was stalled?
Why would the Rosco spend the money without a customer?

The 110mph Pretendolino was only ever a one-off late peak service, ThFO, or standing in for an unavailable 390.
It also consumed 2x125mph paths, like all 110mph services.
The simple fact is, if you let 110mph paths multiply, you lose fast line capacity.
Maybe their access charges should be doubled to show the real cost of allowing them to run.

And where is this idea that Basingstoke-Southampton will be 25kV by 2026, allowing EMUs to run Manchester-Southampton?
The Electric Spine project has been cancelled, and the DC conversion never had credibility south of the Thames.

And the WCML will be slower from 2026 north of Lichfield/Crewe/Golborne, without a change either of HS2 rolling stock plans or WCML operating policy.

The 110mph upgrade for 350/2 is still being carried out as I presume it must already have started.

And I suppose it may prove useful when they're trying to find a new home. Corby maybe after electrification?
Or are brand new trains specified for Pancras to Corby?

 

[Chester1]

I was thinking of spending on non-high speed rail infrastructure, rather than trains (frustrating as it is that it doesn't seem possible to squeeze any more services out of the WCML fleet). In general, it awems to me that very little thought haa been given to how the existing network can be enhanced to get more people to and from HS2.

A lot of thought has been made but no concrete plans. There are too many unknowns in the CP6 programs. Last year the government provided £300m of funding to plan links between HS2 and NPR. The assumption for Birmingham seems to be that people will take services to New Street and Moor Street and then walk. The Camp Hill Chords are back on the agenda but are a long term goal, which I find surprising because of the usefulness of Moor Street once Curzon Street opens, which might as well be called Moor Street platforms x to y.

The 110mph upgrade for 350/2 is still being carried out as I presume it must already have started.

And I suppose it may prove useful when they're trying to find a new home. Corby maybe after electrification?
Or are brand new trains specified for Pancras to Corby?

New trains are not specified but could be part of the winning bid. 350/2s upgraded to 110mph would be ideal for the service though.

 

[pt_mad]

A lot of thought has been made but no concrete plans. There are too many unknowns in the CP6 programs. Last year the government provided £300m of funding to plan links between HS2 and NPR. The assumption for Birmingham seems to be that people will take services to New Street and Moor Street and then walk. The Camp Hill Chords are back on the agenda but are a long term goal, which I find surprising because of the usefulness of Moor Street once Curzon Street opens, which might as well be called Moor Street platforms x to y.



New trains are not specified but could be part of the winning bid. 350/2s upgraded to 110mph would be ideal for the service though.

Definitely yes 350/2s at max 110mph perfect for Corby.

Presumably though that would only use up about a third of the fleet?

So keeping some around the West Coast in some way IF 110mph operation can be agreed in some capacity on any other working than the Trent Valley Crewe service would be a good idea.


Here's another idea. What about running a 110mph EMU service on the fast line between (select appropriate Northern destination here, Liverpool?) and Rugby. Terminating at Rugby.

And then passengers for further south than Rugby change there for trains further south .Those for say Crewe Stafford and one other (or two other?) TV stops could board or align there on the way as required.

In other words, if fast line capacity is mainly a problem between Euston and Rugby, run a 110mph service between x north and Rugby, and terminate/start at Rugby. Nothing to stop a 125mph tilting EMU or Voyager doing this as well of course.

Or, dare I say it, to and from Northampton. It would give Northampton a direct fast service to the north and there must be opportunity to increase revenue.

 

[The Ham]

I thought the 350/2s were "not wanted on voyage" by WMT, and therefore the 110mph upgrade was stalled?
Why would the Rosco spend the money without a customer?

The 110mph Pretendolino was only ever a one-off late peak service, ThFO, or standing in for an unavailable 390.
It also consumed 2x125mph paths, like all 110mph services.
The simple fact is, if you let 110mph paths multiply, you lose fast line capacity.
Maybe their access charges should be doubled to show the real cost of allowing them to run.

And where is this idea that Basingstoke-Southampton will be 25kV by 2026, allowing EMUs to run Manchester-Southampton?
The Electric Spine project has been cancelled, and the DC conversion never had credibility south of the Thames.

And the WCML will be slower from 2026 north of Lichfield/Crewe/Golborne, without a change either of HS2 rolling stock plans or WCML operating policy.

Taken from the March 2018 EDP:

Except for the work to deliver specific infrastructure required to facilitate a new hourly service to Kenilworth station this programme in its entirety is now planned for CP6. It is proposed that the following schemes, originally considered for development as part of the Electric Spine Development Programme, will not be developed in CP5 but will be considered as part of the enhancement programme in CP6:
• DC to AC conversion Southampton to Basingstoke
• Electrification (25kv AC overhead) of the route between Bletchley and Bedford

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Taken from the March 2018 EDP:

The recent NAO report on cancellation of electrification projects says (in two places) that the Electric Spine project has been cancelled.
Unfortunately the EDP is not a reliable guide to project intentions any more beyond the end of CP5, as there is no funding commitment.

 

[pt_mad]

Wasn't East West Rail part of the electric spine? And now it's been confirmed that it will no longer be electrified in the short term.

 

[edwin_m]

Wasn't East West Rail part of the electric spine? And now it's been confirmed that it will no longer be electrified in the short term.

The electric spine was intended to create a route up the MML for electric freight trains. But since the MML is pretty much full south of Bedford and makes few useful connections in London, those trains would have run via Bedford-Bletchley and onwards either on the WCML or via Oxford. To be honest it never made a great deal of sense as several more electrification schemes would have been needed to connect to anywhere useful (from the freight point of view) at the north end. Electrifying East West would also have allowed some of the passenger service to be electric, but there were and still are other schemes elsewhere which would eliminate "under the wires" diesel running and therefore convert many more train-miles to electric relative to the miles to be electrified.

 

[The Ham]

The recent NAO report on cancellation of electrification projects says (in two places) that the Electric Spine project has been cancelled.
Unfortunately the EDP is not a reliable guide to project intentions any more beyond the end of CP5, as there is no funding commitment.

Two points, firstly much of the funding would be just from the need to replace the life expired third rail equipment, with (hopefully) much of the bridge works was done as part of the works to clear the route for larger freight trains. As such the amount of extra funding shouldn't be that much.

Even if it doesn't go ahead 390's could run to Reading with a cross platform change from platform 7 (?) for services to/from the bay platforms for services to/from the south coast, were shorter trains are generally of a suitable length for passenger numbers. With a zero turn around that would require 7 units, so with turn around time and a spare or two that's 9 or 10 units. Maybe 11 if it is known that Basingstoke to Southampton is known to be happening soon.

 

[edwin_m]

Two points, firstly much of the funding would be just from the need to replace the life expired third rail equipment, with (hopefully) much of the bridge works was done as part of the works to clear the route for larger freight trains. As such the amount of extra funding shouldn't be that much.

A RSSB research project, must be five or six years ago now, did conclude that replacing the third rail might be cost-effective if done at a time when the equipment was due for renewal anyway. However this was from a time when everybody thought electrification would be much cheaper than it turned out to be. Until costs are got back under control it's unlikely we'll see any electrification approved, let alone a third rail conversion which is likely to be more risky than OLE installation on an unelectrified line. The "Electric Spine" would also need Reading-Basingstoke, which is a new electrification with no third rail to replace.

Even if it doesn't go ahead 390's could run to Reading with a cross platform change from platform 7 (?) for services to/from the bay platforms for services to/from the south coast, were shorter trains are generally of a suitable length for passenger numbers. With a zero turn around that would require 7 units, so with turn around time and a spare or two that's 9 or 10 units. Maybe 11 if it is known that Basingstoke to Southampton is known to be happening soon.

This largely duplicates what other schemes could provide, notably EWR MK to Reading, HS2 to GWML connections at Old Oak and the potential for Heathrow Southern Access to link Old Oak to the South Western network.

 

[The Ham]

A RSSB research project, must be five or six years ago now, did conclude that replacing the third rail might be cost-effective if done at a time when the equipment was due for renewal anyway. However this was from a time when everybody thought electrification would be much cheaper than it turned out to be. Until costs are got back under control it's unlikely we'll see any electrification approved, let alone a third rail conversion which is likely to be more risky than OLE installation on an unelectrified line. The "Electric Spine" would also need Reading-Basingstoke, which is a new electrification with no third rail to replace.

This largely duplicates what other schemes could provide, notably EWR MK to Reading, HS2 to GWML connections at Old Oak and the potential for Heathrow Southern Access to link Old Oak to the South Western network.

I'm not disputing that it may not go ahead within the timeframe, however given the costs involved in replacing the third rail that it could be something that does go ahead.

A LOT of the cost over runs on the GWML were due to problems with bit having up to date signal records and needing more time to put the wires up than planned. As such, it's likely the former would be resolved on the SWML. Although the latter could still mean that the cost was higher, along with other issues, for tying into other future electrification projects (better power supply to Weymouth, Salisbury electrification, etc.) as well as knowing the issues involved in conversion it could be worth the extra cost. Especially if that extra cost wouldn't really get you much electrification elsewhere.

With regards to Manchester to Reading the XC services are often used for short distances, Reading/Oxford to Banbury being a classic one. As such although Reading to Birmingham flows would probably go via HS2 (although not all the flow, as it could be quite a bit more expensive due to overlapping with into/or of London flows especially in the peaks) there's still likely to be done quite significant flows. Especially if it is easier/faster to change to HS2 at Birmingham International than OOC.

 

[swt_passenger]

... Especially if it is easier/faster to change to HS2 at Birmingham International than OOC.

Birmingham International and Birmingham Interchange are on completely separate sites, separated by the NEC and M42 etc. They’ll have some sort of people mover connection, but it couldn’t possibly be as easy a connection as Old Oak Common.

 

[swt_passenger]

The electric spine was intended to create a route up the MML for electric freight trains. But since the MML is pretty much full south of Bedford and makes few useful connections in London, those trains would have run via Bedford-Bletchley and onwards either on the WCML or via Oxford. To be honest it never made a great deal of sense as several more electrification schemes would have been needed to connect to anywhere useful (from the freight point of view) at the north end. Electrifying East West would also have allowed some of the passenger service to be electric, but there were and still are other schemes elsewhere which would eliminate "under the wires" diesel running and therefore convert many more train-miles to electric relative to the miles to be electrified.

Freight up the MML wasn’t ever really described as the primary purpose of electric spine. The majority of freight flows from Southampton would still have either headed in the Birmingham direction or joined the WCML to the north west. A key benefit was also that freights via the Trent Valley could remain on the WCML and get to Oxford via Bletchley, avoiding Nuneaton. Likewise electrification of Felixstowe - Nuneaton, crossing the MML, would cover a lot of other flows. ISTM that if they did all the non-MML sections first, such as Southampton to Nuneaton, and Felixstowe to Nuneaton, and Oxford to Bletchley, then you’d have most of the benefits anyway.

 

[pt_mad]

Excuse my ignorance but will old oak common be serving Heathrow? I'm guessing that's why there will be a HS2 station there?

 

[swt_passenger]

Excuse my ignorance but will old oak common be serving Heathrow? I'm guessing that's why there will be a HS2 station there?

Yes. OOC gets 8 platforms on the GWML. The assumption made is that there’ll be a pair of platforms on each line allowing all services to call. The interchange for Heathrow at OOC allowed for the Heathrow branch of HS2 to b3 cancelled.

 

[edwin_m]

I'm not disputing that it may not go ahead within the timeframe, however given the costs involved in replacing the third rail that it could be something that does go ahead.

A LOT of the cost over runs on the GWML were due to problems with bit having up to date signal records and needing more time to put the wires up than planned. As such, it's likely the former would be resolved on the SWML. Although the latter could still mean that the cost was higher, along with other issues, for tying into other future electrification projects (better power supply to Weymouth, Salisbury electrification, etc.) as well as knowing the issues involved in conversion it could be worth the extra cost. Especially if that extra cost wouldn't really get you much electrification elsewhere.

You may be right, but at this point we're talking politics rather than engineering. What we really need is an authoritative indpendent review of what went wrong on GWML to identify the one-off factors and/or the lessons for other schemes.

With regard to SWML system conversion, as an engineer I see a lot of benefit in getting rid of the overstretched third rail technology but I can also see why people would want to spend the money delivering electrification to lines that don't have anything now. I also have a nagging doubt that if the third rail equipment was life-expired at the time of the study 5+ years ago, it may now have been replaced and that opportunity may have gone for another 30 years or so.

 

[JamesT]

Birmingham International and Birmingham Interchange are on completely separate sites, separated by the NEC and M42 etc. They’ll have some sort of people mover connection, but it couldn’t possibly be as easy a connection as Old Oak Common.

Presumably depends where you’re starting from. If you have to change at Reading to get onto a train into OOC from one that’s going to International anyway, overall Birmingham might be better.
I’d also wonder if the ticketing/routing would get in the way. I believe there’s a presumption that you’d take the most direct route from start to finish? Starting at Reading and intending to go to Birmingham, OOC seems very much the Wrong Direction.

 

[swt_passenger]

Presumably depends where you’re starting from. If you have to change at Reading to get onto a train into OOC from one that’s going to International anyway, overall Birmingham might be better.
I’d also wonder if the ticketing/routing would get in the way. I believe there’s a presumption that you’d take the most direct route from start to finish? Starting at Reading and intending to go to Birmingham, OOC seems very much the Wrong Direction.

I was only thinking about the timescales of passing through the actual interchange, but I think you are right to ask about routeing questions. There were debates about use of HS1 in the early days, weren’t there, where people were hoping to travel away from London to get to an interchange?

 

[The Ham]

Presumably depends where you’re starting from. If you have to change at Reading to get onto a train into OOC from one that’s going to International anyway, overall Birmingham might be better.
I’d also wonder if the ticketing/routing would get in the way. I believe there’s a presumption that you’d take the most direct route from start to finish? Starting at Reading and intending to go to Birmingham, OOC seems very much the Wrong Direction.

It also depends on where on where you are going. If you are going to somewhere close to New Street then even if it's quicker on the train via HS2 then it may not be quicker (or only a few minutes quicker but with more walking) to use XC. Likewise if you need a train from New Street or are going somewhere between Birmingham and Manchester then again there may not be much advantage but with a lot more walking and so people may opt to use XC services.

Of course it could be a useful way to get from Coventry to Birmingham (as it would be a 4th service an hour, in addition to the 3 by WCP). In my experience, is not uncommon for the XC services to be very full from Coventry and I'm sure others have said that they would wait for the following service as it would be more comfortable than standing in a 220.

As I've suggested before, by using some 390's, it also means that XC then have more 22x's which they can use on the remainder of there services. Which could allow then to provide extra capacity on their existing services and/or provide more services and/or more frequent services to parts of their (outer) existing network. However in reality these units will be being planned to release units in the 2030's to allow the HST's to move on once XC sees a drop in passengers over its core due to the loss of long distance passengers to HS2, which could see some doubled up 22x's being shorterned back to single units North of Birmingham.

With fewer and fewer young people owning a car (even if they of their test) and those who are currently 5 will be about 20 in 2033 (whilst those who are 18 will be 33) that could be quite a lot of people for whom car ownership isn't the norm and so I wouldn't be surprised if there was still more rail travel growth (even if at times it looks like numbers are falling due to a drop in South East commuting dragging things down) to happen.

Especially if you add to the mix people using self drive cars as taxis and electric cars without the ability to do short turn arounds (for instance travel 150 miles have an hour long meeting and travel 150 miles back) and so people maybe more inclined to use (at least in part) trains for long distance travel.