Whenceforth for the WCML?

[The Planner]

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.

Crewe is going to get literally nothing now that HS2 phase 2 is dead. You are going to have to explain what you are suggesting at Stoke, are you saying send a 400m train there, split it and send two separate trains to Piccadilly? How long is the rear portion going to sit there for?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Crewe is going to get literally nothing now that HS2 phase 2 is dead. You are going to have to explain what you are suggesting at Stoke, are you saying send a 400m train there, split it and send two separate trains to Piccadilly? How long is the rear portion going to sit there for?

The one place I could see sense in doing that (which would free up a path) would be to have the Glasgow run to Crewe as 2x200m, dividing there, and then the front unit goes fast to Glasgow calling at Preston and Carlisle only, and the back unit goes to Lancaster (or ideally Carlisle) calling at all stations except Euxton Balshaw and Leyland? That would at least be a capacity upgrade from the present situation where it's one 265m train for the lot.

 

[cle]

I could see there still being demand for 2tph Manchester via Stoke. Which could maybe then mean 2tph HS2 via Crewe. 2+2 to Manchester should be sufficient. The two classics could alternate between MKC and Watford/Rugby also, and some TV calls. It might even enable 1tph @ 400m which skips Wilmslow and Stockport too. Stockport would have the 200m and the 2 classics. Wilmslow the 200m.

With this mythical 7tph Handsacre, are we factoring in any ex-Curzon St services (if the triangle is preserved?) into those frequencies?

As I know splitting for Edinburgh has been dropped - arguably it won't be as competitive time-wise vs ECML now - but Birmingham-Glasgow/Edinburgh with a Carlisle split might still be worthwhile. And do something else with the Euston-Wolves-Scotland path

 

[Greybeard33]

Once you add the second timetabled Liverpool and a single open access path (if they ever happen), then you are done, there is no more room at the inn.

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.

AIUI, Avanti currently has six hourly paths through the Trent Valley (3 Manchester, 1 Glasgow, 1 Liverpool and 1 Chester/North Wales) and rights to a seventh (2nd Liverpool). Plus there is capacity for an eighth fast service, reserved for any potential open access operator.

If HS2 has 7tph through Handsacre, and the hourly TV stopper is retained, together with equivalent freight capacity to today, it seems to me unlikely that there will be paths through Colwich for more than 1tph from Euston via the WCML (absent major expenditure on infrastructure interventions).

The 1tph would most likely be to Chester/N Wales, probably calling at some or all of Watford, Milton Keynes, Rugby and Nuneaton, in order to provide northward connectivity from those stations to Crewe and points north.

Journeys from Macclesfield and Stoke to the southern WCML would probably involve a change at New Street.

Or am I missing something?

 

[AlastairFraser]

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.




Not by a long way.

I'll bow to your expertise - I've already found an alternative regardless.

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.

1) I've already accepted the WCML upgrade isn't viable. I will discuss the rest below.

2) The reopening as I propose it wouldn't affect the South MML at all, services would split and join at Derby to services using existing paths.
While there would be a reasonable amount of work to be done, the other benefits of the reopening are considerable.

3) Serving Birmingham is all well and good, but Chiltern has the advantage of connection to the Snow Hill tunnels to serve the Black Country and further afield, while the HS2 Brum services will be stuck at Curzon St. This could be used to reduce pressure on the services that will continue to suffer from insufficient capacity, due to the issues with the relative lack of service improvements from Phase 1 HS2 that you have mentioned.

4) I agree HS2 Phase 2A + Golborne spur would be the best option, but this thread is specifically for alternative options as a result of Phase 2 HS2 being dead and buried. There are some alternatives that are more cost effective to reach some HS2 objectives, so we shouldn't completely give up hope.

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

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.

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

An extra 12 car WMT service in that Avanti path would add a somewhat decent amount of capacity in hindsight.

As for the Derbyshire plan, the Restoring your Railway bids aren't a good indication of true viability.
Plenty of reasonable bids e.g. the Ivanhoe line passenger reopening and a new station for Wantage and Grove have been rejected.

 

[The Planner]

AIUI, Avanti currently has six hourly paths through the Trent Valley (3 Manchester, 1 Glasgow, 1 Liverpool and 1 Chester/North Wales) and rights to a seventh (2nd Liverpool). Plus there is capacity for an eighth fast service, reserved for any potential open access operator.

If HS2 has 7tph through Handsacre, and the hourly TV stopper is retained, together with equivalent freight capacity to today, it seems to me unlikely that there will be paths through Colwich for more than 1tph from Euston via the WCML (absent major expenditure on infrastructure interventions).

The 1tph would most likely be to Chester/N Wales, probably calling at some or all of Watford, Milton Keynes, Rugby and Nuneaton, in order to provide northward connectivity from those stations to Crewe and points north.

Journeys from Macclesfield and Stoke to the southern WCML would probably involve a change at New Street.

Or am I missing something?

You aren't missing anything, hence many people hitting heads on desks when announced.

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

As for the Derbyshire plan, the Restoring your Railway bids aren't a good indication of true viability.
Plenty of reasonable bids e.g. the Ivanhoe line passenger reopening and a new station for Wantage and Grove have been rejected.

What are they then? RYR had to have decent business cases otherwise they got nowhere.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

In short, no. Platform lengthening to allow more than 11 cars might be though. Some services may already be feasible at near to 400m, e.g. a Euston-Crewe-Glasgow with no other stops, though only two platforms at Euston are long enough for that.

And Preston and Carlisle, where the plans were to knock through bay platforms at both ends to create 16 carriage long platforms for HS2 services running Euston Birmingham Crewe Preston Carlisle (split) Edinburgh/Glasgow.

 

[AlastairFraser]

What are they then? RYR had to have decent business cases otherwise they got nowhere.

In my opinion, a way for the Government to try and appease/porkbarrel voters in marginal constituencies by promising them a small amount of funding for a railway plan that may get completed next century.
Some people may call me a cynic

 

[CharlieSpotted]

Surely, it's not THAT had to work out if you're qualified enough to actually be the Prime Minister.

I think it's been made perfectly clear in recent years that you require absolutely no qualifications, experience, intelligence, decency or even common sense to be the Prime Minister. Neither do you have to be democratically elected.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And Preston and Carlisle, where the plans were to knock through bay platforms at both ends to create 16 carriage long platforms for HS2 services running Euston Birmingham Crewe Preston Carlisle (split) Edinburgh/Glasgow.

That wasn't the plan. At neither station are there any bay platforms you could knock through without rebuilding the entire thing.

They were just short extensions on already long platforms (the ones the Caledonian Sleepers fit in) i.e. in Preston's case P3/4. In Preston's case this would involve blocking off 3C/4C (for which reopening of the Res platforms or building a new "P0 and P-1" island was suggested as a replacement, to accommodate Colne/Ormskirk services) but the bays wouldn't be used as such.

 

[Bald Rick]

As for the Derbyshire plan, the Restoring your Railway bids aren't a good indication of true viability.
Plenty of reasonable bids e.g. the Ivanhoe line passenger reopening and a new station for Wantage and Grove have been rejected.

Correct. Very few of the RYR proposals were close to being viable.

(Although Ivanhoe did get tsken forward to the next stage)

In my opinion, a way for the Government to try and appease/porkbarrel voters in marginal constituencies by promising them a small amount of funding for a railway plan that may get completed next century.
Some people may call me a cynic

You might say that. I couldn‘t possibly comment.

 

[eldomtom2]

Re: double-deck trains, how practical would it be to only increase vertical clearances, not horizontal ones? Would there be stability issues?

 

[Bald Rick]

Re: double-deck trains, how practical would it be to only increase vertical clearances, not horizontal ones? Would there be stability issues?

More practical than doing both. But not great. Obviously bridges, tunnles, and OLE still an issue.

The big problem, though, is below the solebar, where there is not much space in our loading gauge for passenger accommodation.

 

[cle]

That wasn't the plan. At neither station are there any bay platforms you could knock through without rebuilding the entire thing.

They were just short extensions on already long platforms (the ones the Caledonian Sleepers fit in) i.e. in Preston's case P3/4. In Preston's case this would involve blocking off 3C/4C (for which reopening of the Res platforms or building a new "P0 and P-1" island was suggested as a replacement, to accommodate Colne/Ormskirk services) but the bays wouldn't be used as such.

I'm sure this is what the OP meant, but in short-hand. I hope this happens. I think Crewe is already ok - although hopefully not much splitting there - and Carlisle isn't far off (which is where it should happen).

 

[Bletchleyite]

The big problem, though, is below the solebar, where there is not much space in our loading gauge for passenger accommodation.

And secondarily that any platform moved back to enable this would be incompatible with existing stock.

 

[Nottingham59]

OOC terminus till mid 2030s; it can cope with 6 2x200m (400m) trains off peak but with a peak flexing up to 8tph.

Given the acceleration of HS2 trains, I'd expect the throat of OOC to be able to accommodate more than 6tph. Platforms 3 and 4 can access the diamond crossover within the station box, so just these two should be able to handle 8 tph between them, with a platform cycle time of 15 minutes.

So I'd expect OOC to handle at least 10tph in the peaks. That's 2tph on each platform with one spare.

If passenger flow is the limiting factor, that can be managed with a consistent platform allocation, such as:

1. Front Liverpool; rear Warrington, Wigan, Preston(2tph splitting at Crewe)
2. Interchange and Curzon St (2tph)
3. Interchange and Curzon St (2tph)
4. Front Manchester only; rear Crewe, Wilmslow Manchester. (1tph)
5. Front Manchester only; rear Stoke-on-Trent, Macclesfield, Stockport, Manchester (1tph)
6. Front Glasgow; rear Edinburgh (1tph, splitting at Preston or Carlise)

Handsacre built via the fast lines - so capacity for around 6/7 HS2 trains

Is that 6/7 HS2 peak or off peak?

My guess for capacity at Colwich was 6-7 HS2, 1-2 WCML plus 2-3 freight per hour off-peak. And around 8 HS2, 2 WCML and no freight in the peak.

You are going to have to explain what you are suggesting at Stoke, are you saying send a 400m train there, split it and send two separate trains to Piccadilly? How long is the rear portion going to sit there for?

Three minutes, or whatever the signalling headway is north of Stoke.

There are several ways you could split at Stoke. With no additional infrastructure, the easiest way is:

• 400m train calls at Stoke, with coaches 8-16 alongside the platform.
• Rear portion doors open, whilst front portion detaches and continues fast to Manchester.
• Rear portion continues as 200m train calling at Macclesfield and Stockport, arriving Manchester 10 minutes after the front portion.

In London, the front portion is advertised as "Manchester only", (though staff would be able to let passengers alight at Stoke via the rearmost door in coach 8).

With 400m platforms at Stoke, other calling patterns could be used, which would eat up slightly less capacity at Slade Lane.

(And if there really isn't capacity at Piccadilly to handle the second portion, that could be spun at Macclesfield or Stockport instead.)

 

[Peter Sarf]

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

This is thought provoking and a good start. It is cheaper than grander schemes which means DfT will like it. I wonder how many Pendolinos(390s) would be spare and usable for non-Birmingham routes.

I would be tempted to build new trains specifically for Birmingham only. Then look at what is needed to fill any shortfall in Pendolino(390) fleet size for non-Birmingham services.

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 England outside London itself (and possibly Cornwall), the Lake District.

Any spare Pendolinos would be for the further North WCML services.

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

It looks like a race to the bottom for OOC capacity vs the missing Phase2a.

AIUI, Avanti currently has six hourly paths through the Trent Valley (3 Manchester, 1 Glasgow, 1 Liverpool and 1 Chester/North Wales) and rights to a seventh (2nd Liverpool). Plus there is capacity for an eighth fast service, reserved for any potential open access operator.

If HS2 has 7tph through Handsacre, and the hourly TV stopper is retained, together with equivalent freight capacity to today, it seems to me unlikely that there will be paths through Colwich for more than 1tph from Euston via the WCML (absent major expenditure on infrastructure interventions).

The 1tph would most likely be to Chester/N Wales, probably calling at some or all of Watford, Milton Keynes, Rugby and Nuneaton, in order to provide northward connectivity from those stations to Crewe and points north.

Journeys from Macclesfield and Stoke to the southern WCML would probably involve a change at New Street.

Or am I missing something?

So ideally either HS2 directly makes use of the 8th open access path OR an open access operator is used to run a service down via HS2.

I'll bow to your expertise - I've already found an alternative regardless.

1) I've already accepted the WCML upgrade isn't viable. I will discuss the rest below.

2) The reopening as I propose it wouldn't affect the South MML at all, services would split and join at Derby to services using existing paths.
While there would be a reasonable amount of work to be done, the other benefits of the reopening are considerable.

3) Serving Birmingham is all well and good, but Chiltern has the advantage of connection to the Snow Hill tunnels to serve the Black Country and further afield, while the HS2 Brum services will be stuck at Curzon St. This could be used to reduce pressure on the services that will continue to suffer from insufficient capacity, due to the issues with the relative lack of service improvements from Phase 1 HS2 that you have mentioned.

4) I agree HS2 Phase 2A + Golborne spur would be the best option, but this thread is specifically for alternative options as a result of Phase 2 HS2 being dead and buried. There are some alternatives that are more cost effective to reach some HS2 objectives, so we shouldn't completely give up hope.

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


An extra 12 car WMT service in that Avanti path would add a somewhat decent amount of capacity in hindsight.

As for the Derbyshire plan, the Restoring your Railway bids aren't a good indication of true viability.
Plenty of reasonable bids e.g. the Ivanhoe line passenger reopening and a new station for Wantage and Grove have been rejected.

My bold - but Birmingham is the only place that stands to gain unhindered from HS2 Phase1 so no need to address that.

Given the acceleration of HS2 trains, I'd expect the throat of OOC to be able to accommodate more than 6tph. Platforms 3 and 4 can access the diamond crossover within the station box, so just these two should be able to handle 8 tph between them, with a platform cycle time of 15 minutes.

So I'd expect OOC to handle at least 10tph in the peaks. That's 2tph on each platform with one spare.

If passenger flow is the limiting factor, that can be managed with a consistent platform allocation, such as:

1. Front Liverpool; rear Warrington, Wigan, Preston(2tph splitting at Crewe)
2. Interchange and Curzon St (2tph)
3. Interchange and Curzon St (2tph)
4. Front Manchester only; rear Crewe, Wilmslow Manchester. (1tph)
5. Front Manchester only; rear Stoke-on-Trent, Macclesfield, Stockport, Manchester (1tph)
6. Front Glasgow; rear Edinburgh (1tph, splitting at Preston or Carlise)

Is that 6/7 HS2 peak or off peak?

My guess for capacity at Colwich was 6-7 HS2, 1-2 WCML plus 2-3 freight per hour off-peak. And around 8 HS2, 2 WCML and no freight in the peak.


Three minutes, or whatever the signalling headway is north of Stoke.

There are several ways you could split at Stoke. With no additional infrastructure, the easiest way is:

• 400m train calls at Stoke, with coaches 8-16 alongside the platform.
• Rear portion doors open, whilst front portion detaches and continues fast to Manchester.
• Rear portion continues as 200m train calling at Macclesfield and Stockport, arriving Manchester 10 minutes after the front portion.

In London, the front portion is advertised as "Manchester only", (though staff would be able to let passengers alight at Stoke via the rearmost door in coach 8).

With 400m platforms at Stoke, other calling patterns could be used, which would eat up slightly less capacity at Slade Lane.

(And if there really isn't capacity at Piccadilly to handle the second portion, that could be spun at Macclesfield or Stockport instead.)

My bold - But that means you would loose half the HS2 trains that were going to Manchester. I can see the front 8 coaches being rammed and the rear 8 being lightly loaded. Or is there significant enough demand at Macclesfield and Stockport ?.

 

[AlastairFraser]

My bold - but Birmingham is the only place that stands to gain unhindered from HS2 Phase1 so no need to address that.

The more passengers from the WM you get off the classic WCML, the more capacity you release.

 

[Peter Sarf]

The more passengers from the WM you get off the classic WCML, the more capacity you release.

So. You can get plenty of WM passengers onto HS2. London to Birmingham on HS2 will not use ANY parts of the WCML. No need to spend money on improving Chiltern as HS2 can do it all for Birmingham. What is left will be people who want stations along the WCML and those who want the cheaper LNR service. You might get some passengers onto Chiltern at the right price but then it is possible to have some targeting of prices for HS2.

The problem to solve is to build on what we have in HS2 Phase 1 without spending the amount of money that would allow HS2 Phase 2a to be done.

 

[Nottingham59]

My bold - But that means you would loose half the HS2 trains that were going to Manchester. I can see the front 8 coaches being rammed and the rear 8 being lightly loaded. Or is there significant enough demand at Macclesfield and Stockport ?.

Agree: they have to go to Manchester. The industry has to decide if it wants to use the limited capacity south of Manchester to carry 8-car trains to London, or 2/3-car trains from Manchester Airport to places like Chester.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agree. The industry has to decide if it wants to use the limited capacity south of Manchester to carry 8-car trains to London, or 2/3-car trains from Manchester Airport to places like Chester.

I think the balance as it is is just fine. We just need to do the work to allow the current 3tph to be 400m long.

 

[Nottingham59]

I think the balance as it is is just fine. We just need to do the work to allow the current 3tph to be 400m long.

That's the obvious thing to do next. Probably more important than phase 2a.

 

[The Planner]

Three minutes, or whatever the signalling headway is north of Stoke.

There are several ways you could split at Stoke. With no additional infrastructure, the easiest way is:

• 400m train calls at Stoke, with coaches 8-16 alongside the platform.
• Rear portion doors open, whilst front portion detaches and continues fast to Manchester.
• Rear portion continues as 200m train calling at Macclesfield and Stockport, arriving Manchester 10 minutes after the front portion.

In London, the front portion is advertised as "Manchester only", (though staff would be able to let passengers alight at Stoke via the rearmost door in coach 8).

With 400m platforms at Stoke, other calling patterns could be used, which would eat up slightly less capacity at Slade Lane.

(And if there really isn't capacity at Piccadilly to handle the second portion, that could be spun at Macclesfield or Stockport instead.)

Or you do none of that and keep the planned 1tph to Macclesfield. If anything you would want a second all shacks along there, not another fast.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Agree: they have to go to Manchester. The industry has to decide if it wants to use the limited capacity south of Manchester to carry 8-car trains to London, or 2/3-car trains from Manchester Airport to places like Chester.

+

I think the balance as it is is just fine. We just need to do the work to allow the current 3tph to be 400m long.

If there is no money for that then make ticketing more flexible (fair) and allow people to change at - er Crewe for journeys like Manchester to Chester.

 

[jfollows]

+

If there is no money for that then make ticketing more flexible (fair) and allow people to change at - er Crewe for journeys like Manchester to Chester.

“Any permitted” tickets already do (routing map MJ), so can you elaborate on your point a bit more?
(EDIT For completeness, maps JG & JO at https://data.atoc.org/routeing-maps give other valid routes.)

 

[Peter Sarf]

“Any permitted” tickets already do (routing map MJ), so can you elaborate on your point a bit more?

I mean losing the through Chester to Manchester trains so the path used by them from into Manchester is available for HS2 trains. Thus people have to change onto an HS2 train for the Crewe to Manchester leg. Not just Chester but anywhere that could be served via a change at Crewe instead of a through train.

Not sure it would be palatable !.

 

[Nottingham59]

Or you do none of that and keep the planned 1tph to Macclesfield.

You could, but this way you can provide more HS2 services to more places than the HS2 full business case, which envisages fewer 400m trains through the bottleneck at Colwich.

If anything you would want a second all shacks along there, not another fast.

Perhaps. The tragedy of HS2 is that the city-centre stations were not done first. Longer platforms at Piccadilly, with connecting chords, would have added capacity to long-distance services and also released paths for local trains. Same for Leeds.

 

[Energy]

Perhaps. The tragedy of HS2 is that the city-centre stations were not done first. Longer platforms at Piccadilly, with connecting chords, would have added capacity to long-distance services and also released paths for local trains. Same for Leeds.

Weren't the HS2 platforms at Picadilly going to be underground in a box? They'd be useless without the track connecting to them.

 

[HSTEd]

Weren't the HS2 platforms at Picadilly going to be underground in a box? They'd be useless without the track connecting to them.

That's what Andy Burnham wanted, the actual solution proposed was surface platforms to the east of the current station

 

[eldomtom2]

And secondarily that any platform moved back to enable this would be incompatible with existing stock.

Which was why I suggested using double-deck coaches that were no wider than existing stock.