Whenceforth for the WCML?

[The Planner]

It could provide significantly increased capacity to the West Midlands, in conjunction with phase 1 HS2.
You could then use as many WCML paths as possible for services down the Trent Valley north of Rugby (recognising the constraints that exists on that line too).

Edit: Forgot to mention - hand over Aylesbury stoppers to LUL and run 1tph through Princes Risborough to Aylesbury Vale Parkway to release capacity at Marylebone.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Jan 2024 ==

You wouldnt need to do it in conjunction with HS2 though. There would be no point. With the current status of phase 1 there are no extra paths down the Trent Valley as HS2 at Handsacre takes them all.

I'd also extend the 1tph of the Buxton stopper to Derby, joining with the Matlock stopper, and route the Liverpool to Norwich this way.
Then you can extend the New Mills stopper to Sheffield.
The freight can be worked around as there are multiple routes to be taken after Chee Dale.

There lines down to the quarries are full with freight now and use large amounts of capacity once you get to Chinley. Your reopening has now spread to upgrading all those lines as well, let alone ignoring the Monsall trail issues that have been well debated on here in recent times.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Jan 2024 ==

Lengthen platforms and ASDO. With few stops and lots of advance booking being in the wrong part of the train shouldn’t be an issue as long as the same end can be off at ASDO stations. If it is then compulsory reservations.
At Piccadilly could you widen the throat (on viaduct with temp buildings on currently) to extend the fast platforms without building more platforms nor a flyover?

Adds massively to dwell times if you do that and subsequently into journey time and capacity. You would be ripping up the throat at Picc entirely to do that and likely removing any capability of crossing it from Ardwick.

 

[AlastairFraser]

You wouldnt need to do it in conjunction with HS2 though. There would be no point. With the current status of phase 1 there are no extra paths down the Trent Valley as HS2 at Handsacre takes them all.

Well it would mean you would have significant extra capacity on Avanti services via the Stour Valley, at the very least.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Jan 2024 ==

There lines down to the quarries are full with freight now and use large amounts of capacity once you get to Chinley. Your reopening has now spread to upgrading all those lines as well, let alone ignoring the Monsall trail issues that have been well debated on here in recent times.

Upgrades would be necessary, but the reopening and upgrades would come with the substantial ancillary benefits of sizeable potential for removing traffic from a national park, and another badly needed east west route in the northern Midlands.

The Monsall Trail issues are mostly due to outside pressure groups - there is a large volume of residents and businesses who are in support of a reopening.

 

[Bald Rick]

What about 12 car double deckers replacing the 350s?
Some structural modification would have to be done

It would be a complete rebuild. Specifically:

almost every bridge would need to be rebuilt (under and over)
every cutting and embankment would need widening
every track (or at least three them) would need replacing, along with its formation and drainage
every set of switches and crossings would need moving and replacing
almost every OLE structure would need replacement
Most signals would need to be replaced
every station platform, and most footbridges (and their lifts) and canopies would need to be rebuilt
at least one, and often both fencelines would need to be moved
It would need a new act of Parliament to do all of this.

Still cheaper than the HS2 cancellation though.

Not by a long way.

 

[HSTEd]

How hard is a reconstruction at Piccadilly to get at least a couple of 400m platforms?

Some of the platforms don't look that far off as it is.

Could you rebuild Platforms 5, 6, 7 and 8 into three ~400m platforms without having to totally rebuild the entire throat?

 

[jfollows]

How hard is a reconstruction at Piccadilly to get at least a couple of 400m platforms?

Some of the platforms don't look that far off as it is.

Could you rebuild Platforms 5, 6, 7 and 8 into three ~400m platforms without having to totally rebuild the entire throat?

Platform 8 at 344m is currently the longest (https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/manchester-piccadilly-platform-12.261069/#post-6590056).

 

[Bald Rick]

How hard is a reconstruction at Piccadilly to get at least a couple of 400m platforms?

Some of the platforms don't look that far off as it is.

Could you rebuild Platforms 5, 6, 7 and 8 into three ~400m platforms without having to totally rebuild the entire throat?

Hard. I dont see how you could build 3 from those 4 without rebuilding the whole throat and losing capacity.

 

[Peter Sarf]

You could close for rebuilding section by section, but I get your point about revenue.
We do need to collectively recognise we are talking about the potential for increasing WCML capacity post-majority of HS2 cancellation, so HS2 is not an option here.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Jan 2024 ==

As I said, you could also relieve the WCML by reopening Buxton to Matlock and running LNWR-style semifast Manchester services 1tph as well.

Have you heard of the West Coast Mainline Upgrade / PUG. It cost a lot of money to add capacity to the West Coast Main Line a while back. It was realised it was better to build a new line giving you a lot of NEW capacity rather than disruption on an existing railway just to add a bit more capacity.

As for Double Deck. the railways in the UK are built to a smaller loading gauge than in Europe. So there are a lot of alterations required to make them bigger - it would cause massive disruption and cost not much less than starting from scratch.

As for doing the upgrade to the WCML in stages that is useless as it effectively means the WCML is closed. People tend to want to travel all the way from A to B and only closing a bit in the middle is nearly as bad as closing the whole lot.

As for reopening the line through the Derbyshire dales, as others have said that would be a big upheaval for the Buxton (roughly) to Manchester part. It would hit capacity on the Southern end of the Midland Main Line. Remember HS2 will get completed most of the way from London. Its the bits of WCML North of Handacre that need dealing with.

As for Chiltern would be nice to improve it but less relevant as HS2 Phase1 will be fine for Birmingham - it is the only WCML destination that is not going to suffer from the cancellation of HS2 Phase2. It has got to be simple so cheap.

I suspect that prices and capacity will limit demand should it ever recover.

All that is needed is a little bit more money to be spent getting from Handsacre to Crewe (HS2 Phase2a). It is probably the simplest part of HS2 and the cheapest. That small extra bit would add a LOT of value to what has been spent on HS2 Phase1. What we need to do its keep reminding our leaders of the folly of spoiling the ship for a halfpenny worth of tar.

It is just a pity that HS2 has got so expensive. I also think most politicians are not interested in the railways as a part of the UKs transport infrastructure and economy. I think the railways are seen as a sick animal that probably ought to be put out of its misery.

So I feel very little money will be available for the WCML to cope. Forget about grand schemes involving re-openings or other lines getting re-built. It has to be very simple and very cheap.

I think we will have to wait until many of us have passed away before a government considers building on HS2 Phase1 (ie Phase2). So all we can do is make the best we can with short term measures.

 

[The Planner]

Well it would mean you would have significant extra capacity on Avanti services via the Stour Valley, at the very least.

Even that isnt the case, depending on how Coventry is dealt with, you may only lose 1 Avanti type service post HS2. Though that does make the timetable easier to deal with if you went to a half hourly pattern.

Upgrades would be necessary, but the reopening and upgrades would come with the substantial ancillary benefits of sizeable potential for removing traffic from a national park, and another badly needed east west route in the northern Midlands.

The Monsall Trail issues are mostly due to outside pressure groups - there is a large volume of residents and businesses who are in support of a reopening.

Why isnt it progressing then? Nowhere to be seen in the restoring your railway bids.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Even that isnt the case, depending on how Coventry is dealt with, you may only lose 1 Avanti type service post HS2. Though that does make the timetable easier to deal with if you went to a half hourly pattern.

In effect it already is but with the added off pattern semifast.

I've used this a couple of times now, including at what you might consider peak times (albeit on a Friday which admittedly is quieter at those times hence it being off peak fares), and it's been at most one coach's worth of people in a 10 car Voyager formation (though may now have been reduced to 5). This does make the whole idea of it rather questionable, and makes one wonder whether it's worth the extra cost over a not-much-slower WMT service. So unless Avanti get good at pricing people onto it via cheap Advances, I wonder if it might get dropped at some point and either the path taken by WMT or just left with only the existing WMT services being provided for local stations on the route with the path used for something else.

 

[Jimini]

In effect it already is but with the added off pattern semifast.

I've used this a couple of times now, including at what you might consider peak times (albeit on a Friday which admittedly is quieter at those times hence it being off peak fares), and it's been at most one coach's worth of people in a 10 car Voyager formation (though may now have been reduced to 5). This does make the whole idea of it rather questionable, and makes one wonder whether it's worth the extra cost over a not-much-slower WMT service. So unless Avanti get good at pricing people onto it via cheap Advances, I wonder if it might get dropped at some point and either the path taken by WMT or just left with only the existing WMT services being provided for local stations on the route with the path used for something else.

When you say semi-fast are you referring to the one that stops at Rugby, MK and Watford? That's the one we rely on to get to and from Coventry on the cheap by splitting at Rugby and / or MK rather than paying full whack and catching the non-stop one. Would be a shame to see that go.

 

[Bletchleyite]

When you say semi-fast are you referring to the one that stops at Rugby, MK and Watford? That's the one we rely on to get to and from Coventry on the cheap by splitting at Rugby and / or MK rather than paying full whack and catching the non-stop one. Would be a shame to see that go.

Yes, that one. Where it runs as a dedicated service (rather than a slowed Scotland via Brum as most are at the moment) they are decidedly quiet, and the plan with the 807s is to make it hourly and speed up the other one. People from London wanting to go fast use the other two, people wanting cheap use LNR or Chiltern. This sits uncomfortably in the middle as only really useful to passengers to/from MK, Rugby and Watford, and many are choosing wildly cheaper LNR.

I think the best thing that could happen to it would be it becoming a faster LNR (same calling points but operated by 8.350), though I doubt that will happen. This might also help with the capacity issues on the present two semifast LNRs which often load very heavily but can't run 12 car north of Northampton.

 

[Jimini]

Yes, that one. Where it runs as a dedicated service (rather than a slowed Scotland via Brum as most are at the moment) they are decidedly quiet. People from London wanting to go fast use the other two, people wanting cheap use LNR or Chiltern. This sits uncomfortably in the middle as only really useful to passengers to/from MK, Rugby and Watford, and many are choosing wildly cheaper LNR.

I think the best thing that could happen to it would be it becoming a faster LNR (same calling points but operated by 8.350), though I doubt that will happen.

It can be a bit of a mixed bag re: loadings aye. The shoulder peak ones can get quite cosy though. That said, I'm a Standard Premium kinda guy, so if forced would opt for the non-stop Avanti I guess, rather than a LNWR ironing board rattler that takes over half an hour longer, including the obligatory 15 minute stopover / detour via. Northampton.

 

[eldomtom2]

All that is needed is a little bit more money to be spent getting from Handsacre to Crewe (HS2 Phase2a). It is probably the simplest part of HS2 and the cheapest. That small extra bit would add a LOT of value to what has been spent on HS2 Phase1. What we need to do its keep reminding our leaders of the folly of spoiling the ship for a halfpenny worth of tar.

That's all well and good, but the industry needs to take seriously the idea that they won't be getting Phase 2a and plan for what to do in those circumstances.

 

[Arkeeos]

Is adjusting it so it can fit double deckers from the continent within realms of feasibility? That or 15 car giga-azumas

A double decker train was designed for UK loading gauge but the main issue with double decker's is that they increase dwell times, so there would need to be massive station expansion.

 

[350401]

That's all well and good, but the industry needs to take seriously the idea that they won't be getting Phase 2a and plan for what to do in those circumstances.

So building on this, given this is speculative discussion, what do we all think could be a sensible WCML/HS2 service pattern, based on the following hypothetical constraints -

OOC terminus till mid 2030s; it can cope with 6 2x200m (400m) trains off peak but with a peak flexing up to 8tph.
Handsacre built via the fast lines - so capacity for around 6/7 HS2 trains.
Crewe has 2 400m platforms where trains can split / join. Carlisle also has platforms lengthened to 400m.
Rolling stock remains at 200m, but units reconfigured to seat 600; matching an 11 car pendolino.

My own view is that perhaps controversially, Birmingham doesn't need 3TPH HS2 trains, but that 2 400m trains an hour via HS2 would suffice and still provide a huge capacity uplift - 2400 seats/hour vs around 1800 seats today (if 3tph, which often isn't the case). Therefore, you could look at for the Off Peak services -

2TPH 400m OOC-Interchange-Curzon St.
3TPH 2x200m OOC to Crewe, with the front 200m unit going to Manchester via Stockport (1tph Wilmslow) - providing a 3tph train to Manchester. The rear 200m units provide a 2tph service to Liverpool and 1tph service to Preston. This gives Liverpool a 20/40 minute service interval; not ideal but still an improvement on 1tph now.
1TPH 2x200m OOC to Carlisle with the front 200m unit carrying on to Glasgow.

On the classic line, 1TPH Pendolino goes Piccadilly to Euston via Stockport, Macclesfield and Stoke.

I'm not a planner, so this is pure speculation - feel free to shoot this down

 

[Bletchleyite]

2TPH 400m OOC-Interchange-Curzon St.
3TPH 2x200m OOC to Crewe, with the front 200m unit going to Manchester via Stockport (1tph Wilmslow) - providing a 3tph train to Manchester. The rear 200m units provide a 2tph service to Liverpool and 1tph service to Preston. This gives Liverpool a 20/40 minute service interval; not ideal but still an improvement on 1tph now.
1TPH 2x200m OOC to Carlisle with the front 200m unit carrying on to Glasgow.

I would propose the Preston service extending to Carlisle all stations (or Lancaster as a minimum), otherwise Lancaster, Oxenholme and Penrith lose their London service (unless it remained on the classic line), which given the tourist demand to the latter two would not be a good thing.

Otherwise that sounds reasonable.

 

[renegademaster]

double decker train was designed for UK loading gauge

Which was compartment stock. Doubt you could fit an open double decker on british lines

 

[Arkeeos]

Which was compartment stock. Doubt you could fit an open double decker on british lines

It was the Aeroliner3000, designed for UK loading gauge, not compartment stock.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It was the Aeroliner3000, designed for UK loading gauge, not compartment stock.

Poor headroom and too narrow for 2+2 seating, as well as a quarter of vehicle length lost to stairs and vestibules and a lack of overhead luggage space. It'd be absolutely awful.

Longer trains are the way to do it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jan 2024 ==

Which was compartment stock. Doubt you could fit an open double decker on british lines

The 4-DD was a bit different, it was all above the solebar, kind of 1.5 decker. You could get the height by going low floor, but you lose the width and so with other pressures on space 3+2 would give you more capacity.

 

[Bald Rick]

It was the Aeroliner3000, designed for UK loading gauge, not compartment stock.

It was conceptual, never a design, and AIUI didn’t fit.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It was conceptual, never a design, and AIUI didn’t fit.

It would be possible to do it, maximising width by going for short vehicles, but you'd struggle to seat it to more than 2+1 (1+1 in 1st), which with all the wasted space and lack of overhead luggage provision would give less capacity than going for long vehicles with tight packed single deck seating. The big constraint is the way the gauge narrows below solebar level.

The ceilings would be horribly low, though - a Mk3 coach (for example) is 3.9m high, but most double decker buses are about 4.5m high. 60cm is a lot!

 

[The Planner]

So building on this, given this is speculative discussion, what do we all think could be a sensible WCML/HS2 service pattern, based on the following hypothetical constraints -

OOC terminus till mid 2030s; it can cope with 6 2x200m (400m) trains off peak but with a peak flexing up to 8tph.
Handsacre built via the fast lines - so capacity for around 6/7 HS2 trains.
Crewe has 2 400m platforms where trains can split / join. Carlisle also has platforms lengthened to 400m.
Rolling stock remains at 200m, but units reconfigured to seat 600; matching an 11 car pendolino.

My own view is that perhaps controversially, Birmingham doesn't need 3TPH HS2 trains, but that 2 400m trains an hour via HS2 would suffice and still provide a huge capacity uplift - 2400 seats/hour vs around 1800 seats today (if 3tph, which often isn't the case). Therefore, you could look at for the Off Peak services -

2TPH 400m OOC-Interchange-Curzon St.
3TPH 2x200m OOC to Crewe, with the front 200m unit going to Manchester via Stockport (1tph Wilmslow) - providing a 3tph train to Manchester. The rear 200m units provide a 2tph service to Liverpool and 1tph service to Preston. This gives Liverpool a 20/40 minute service interval; not ideal but still an improvement on 1tph now.
1TPH 2x200m OOC to Carlisle with the front 200m unit carrying on to Glasgow.

On the classic line, 1TPH Pendolino goes Piccadilly to Euston via Stockport, Macclesfield and Stoke.

I'm not a planner, so this is pure speculation - feel free to shoot this down

Manchester services won't split/join, adds to the journey time and 6 split and joins at Crewe per hour would be as robust as a chocolate fire guard.

 

[FlyingPotato]

Why do people think the Lancaster service will now terminate at Preston instead. Why should Lancaster go from two trains an hour to none?
Lancaster station has more passengers than Warrington BQ, Wigan NW and Carlisle (I know that Warrington and Wigan have another station but the point stands) Source is Wikipedia

I feel like people forget the size of Lancaster and how many people use the station, it's always packed when I'm there with many trains standing or limited seats

If you ask me, either extend the Lancaster HS2 train to Carlisle with stops at Oxenholme/ Penrith)
Or add a stop at Lancaster for the Glasgow fast

 

[Bletchleyite]

Manchester services won't split/join, adds to the journey time and 6 split and joins at Crewe per hour would be as robust as a chocolate fire guard.

If OOC can only do 6tph, then, does that mean we're just talking 3 Birminghams and 3 Manchesters?

I suppose that would solve the Glasgow length issue by leaving it on the classic line at 265m.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jan 2024 ==

Why do people think the Lancaster service will now terminate at Preston instead.

It was originally going to be a Preston service, but some proposals have it extended to Lancaster. I agree removing the London service from Lancaster, Oxenholme and Penrith would be a very negative step. The latter two are small stations in themselves but have a massive hinterland including the biggest tourist honeypot in England outside London itself (and possibly Cornwall), the Lake District.

 

[The Planner]

If OOC can only do 6tph, then, does that mean we're just talking 3 Birminghams and 3 Manchesters?

I suppose that would solve the Glasgow length issue by leaving it on the classic line at 265m.

The expectation is 7tph at Handsacre the last I heard. OOC is going to have to do more than 6tph.

 

[FlyingPotato]

If OOC can only do 6tph, then, does that mean we're just talking 3 Birminghams and 3 Manchesters?

I suppose that would solve the Glasgow length issue by leaving it on the classic line at 265m.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jan 2024 ==



It was originally going to be a Preston service, but some proposals have it extended to Lancaster. I agree removing the London service from Lancaster, Oxenholme and Penrith would be a very negative step. The latter two are small stations in themselves but have a massive hinterland including the biggest tourist honeypot in the country outside London itself (and possibly Cornwall), the Lake District.

From what I read it was going to Lancaster with an upgrade for the station - I remember a video by HS2 on it, baring in mind it was pre COVID

 

[Bletchleyite]

The expectation is 7tph at Handsacre the last I heard. OOC is going to have to do more than 6tph.

OK, so I guess

Birmingham 400m x 3 (not Handsacre)

then all at 200m:

Manchester x 3
Liverpool x 2
Glasgow (possibly 400m calling only at Crewe, Preston and Carlisle)
Preston/Lancaster

would do your 7?

 

[The Planner]

OK, so I guess

Birmingham 400m x 3 (not Handsacre)

then all at 200m:

Manchester x 3
Liverpool x 2
Glasgow (possibly 400m calling only at Crewe, Preston and Carlisle)
Preston/Lancaster

would do your 7?

Looks logical to me.

 

[Nottingham59]

OK, so I guess

Birmingham 400m x 3 (not Handsacre)

then all at 200m:

Manchester x 3
Liverpool x 2
Glasgow (possibly 400m calling only at Crewe, Preston and Carlisle)
Preston/Lancaster

would do your 7?

London-Manchester is the most important long distance flow and should have more than 3x200m per hour. If Crewe can't handle 6 splits per hour, then extend more platforms at Crewe, or extend the platforms at Stoke-on-Trent, split the 400m trainsets there and send both halves to Piccadilly. 2tph would release 1 path through Colwich, and deliver 4x200m at Manchester.

Prune the South Manchester timetable as required to accommodate.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Prune the South Manchester timetable as required to accommodate.

There is absolutely no way whatsoever under which that would be acceptable.

Remember there'll still be a classic line Manchester, so you'll have 600m of HS2 and 265m of classic. That's 865m. At present you have 795m (3x265m) at most, plus some will be 9-cars, and remember HS2 stock is higher density and makes better use of space than Pendolinos.

The only way I can see to substantially up Manchester capacity in a way that won't knacker reliability would be to build some 400m platforms at Piccadilly, which would be highly disruptive but possible. I think overall I'd favour doing that. I'm not sure what would cost more - flyovers to allow the "HS2 station" to be built anyway but at current platform level (on the car park) or rejigging in such a way to allow 3 existing platforms to be extended to 400m?

Or we do what I otherwise proposed - HS2 stock to now be 250, 275 or even 300m single units, or maybe even a mix of the three. 3x300m would be a significant capacity uplift and would fit platforms 5, 8 and 9, and 275m would fit all platforms currently used by Avanti (typically 5, 6 and 7).