Why is HS2 treated so differently by some Enthusiasts?

[Bletchleyite]

Nail. On. Head.

People will use HS2 on the grounds that it is where the Euston to Manchester (or wherever) fast trains will be in future, considerably accelerated from today and diverted off the current WCML (they are not in themselves 'additional' services, merely transplants of existing services).

The 'traditional' WCML Long Distance service will be much reduced (some maintained to provide the intermediate links).

More regional and commuter services introduced on the WCML using the capacity now available.

Precisely. And possibly the biggest beneficiary - despite not being served by HS2 in any form - will be Milton Keynes as it continues to grow. I'd expect more capacity on commuter services and all classic InterCity services stopping there, seriously improving connectivity.

After all, once MK's population exceeds Liverpool's (say), which would only require slightly less than the doubling in size which will happen over the coming 50 years, why should it not be as well-connected as Liverpool is (now the minor matter of a collapsed wall is sorted)?

 

[Gareth]

Liverpool's way more than twice the size of Milton Keynes, if we're being serious for a minute. That said, I do expect Liverpool's population to actually finally decline at speed over those next 50 years as the HS2 bypass and other not-so-Liverpool-friendly infrastructural decisions taken by Central Government take hold.

At the moment, the population's roughly stable, although not growing much. Whilst many people did leave for the South East in the late 20th century, this 'decline' is exaggerated as many more people simply moved from the inner city to the outer suburbs that are not part of the severely underbounded 'corpy' area. This is why we get people sincerely believing it's smaller than Leeds and not even twice the size of MK.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Liverpool's way more than twice the size of Milton Keynes, if we're being serious for a minute.

MK was 255,700 in 2013. The City of Liverpool itself is quoted as around 500K, though it does have Sefton, Knowsley, the Wirral and hinterland which would not be included. But then if you look at the area where MKC is the nearest useful mainline station that is much, much larger and would include the Vale of Aylesbury, Northampton, Bedford (if going to/from the North West) etc - you'd soon get there.

(There's no bias in my comments by the way - I'm a Scouser by birth but live in MK - I have associations to both!)

 

[Gareth]

But none of that's Milton Keynes in the same way Bootle or Huyton is Liverpool.

Regardless, my point is that MK merely doubling its population will not be enough to become larger than Liverpool. It will need to either grow several times larger or, more likely, Liverpool will shrink to meet it on the way down. Sadly, for reasons I touch upon above, and particularly over the 50 year period you gave, this is probably plausible.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But none of that's Milton Keynes in the same way Bootle or Huyton is Liverpool.

That doesn't matter in the context of station usage, of course. And MK is getting its Sefton etc in the form of developments joined to MK but in South Northants, Aylesbury Vale and Beds - controversial though they are!

FWIW, I used 50 years because MK is 50 years old this year. That's 0 (well, about 10,000 in the constituent towns and villages, maybe) to 250K in 50 years.

 

[Camden]

HS2 is damaging but I don't believe Liverpool's population will shrink. I think it is more likely that time will tell in showing HS2 up for what they've done, or not done in this case. People will be angry as and when they are stuck on crowded trains.

If the blitz only dented the overall population, 1.8 million down to today's 1.6 million, a bunch of ill informed civil servants aren't likely to have much impact.

If the population did start shrinking again it would likely set off a chain reaction of investment fleeing the north as a whole, with investors taking it as a sign of having reached "peak powerhouse". If Liverpool sinks Manchester drowns, and there are too many vested interests out there to allow that to happen.

 

[Jordeh]

I don't believe that HS2 isn't about dealing with minor capacity problems in specific parts of one sub-region of England.

Minor capacity problems? So there's plenty of capacity on the WCML?

Let's not forget that trains all the way up to Scotland use the WCML, it's so much more than serving just a 'sub-region of England'.

I just cannot subscribe to a project sold as the greatest railway investment since the Victorians when it benefits only Londoners, it's selling points have been refuted, and the cost is eye-watering at a time of austerity and budget cuts.

...all for the businessman, the Establishment, the London types: all directed to a scheme for "them", not "us", for the "London elite", the "London commuter", not the family in Wigan, not the estate agent in Newcastle, not the football fan in Wrexham, and indeed, not the RailUKForums poster in Torquay. This is a scheme for "London", for aliens, for an Establishment.

Do you realise that not every journey on HS2 has to begin or end in London? You keep saying it's for London but why? What about all the non-London journeys? And what about the people of Birmingham whom will have fantastic connectivity to jobs in London, Manchester and Leeds? Surely they benefit too? In fact everywhere on route directly benefits.

And what's your obsession with bashing business travellers? Do you not realise they make up a lot of users of the rail network?

More connectivity and infrastructure promotes more mobility and is therefore a good thing. Please show me when building a railway, motorway or airport has ruined people's job prospects and the local economy?

The additional capacity on WCML, MML, and ECML from express services transferring to HS2 will allow for extra local services, better connectivity and more freight services. Cross country services will also benefit, utilising the Birmingham-Leeds section for instance.

It's also fascinating you talk about austerity etc yet having looked at your previous posts, you've advocated some pretty trivial reopenings that would have minimal benefit for significant costs. This thread is about you.

 

[Gareth]

That doesn't matter in the context of station usage, of course. And MK is getting its Sefton etc in the form of developments joined to MK but in South Northants, Aylesbury Vale and Beds - controversial though they are!

FWIW, I used 50 years because MK is 50 years old this year. That's 0 (well, about 10,000 in the constituent towns and villages, maybe) to 250K in 50 years.

But you were talking of the size of cities not stations.

MK's growth rate over the next 50 years won't necessarily be the same as in the preceding 50 years. It could be more or less. The way the country's going with its overtly centralized focus of the South East being as strong as ever, then it makes sense for MK to grow, along with other South East towns within commuting distance of London, as more and more people from both abroad and other parts of the UK move there. Of course, the Government has no proper plan how to either manage the decline of the north or the growth of the south effectively and so they're as likely as not to prioritise building on greenbelt and throwing up tiny Hong Kong-style apartments in London to fit everyone in rather than growing MK or Cambridge.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The funny thing is that there's no reason Liverpool should decline - a lot of London jobs can now much more feasibly be done anywhere in the country - or (as is more a threat to British jobs) anywhere in the world.

 

[Voglitz]

If the difference in cross-sectional area between domestic and continental train standards is not much, there can't be much difference in capacity.

Fundamentally, unequivocally incorrect. We're measuring capacity in terms of number of seats. If we were measuring capacity in terms of litres of interior volume, then sure, but we're not. The graph of capacity versus train width and train height is not a continuous smooth curve because there's a minimum height and width required for seating. The 10cm difference in width between a 23-26m and a 20m length carriage is enough to make 2+3 seating impossible. Leaving all other factors the same, the 3% increase in width between a 2.7m and a 2.8m wide carriage results in a 25% increase in capacity.

The 'Continental' size train is supposed to have a capacity up to 550 seats.
But the classic compatible train is supposed to have a capacity up to 550 seats.

So where's the extra capacity?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The 'Continental' size train is supposed to have a capacity up to 550 seats.
But the classic compatible train is supposed to have a capacity up to 550 seats.

So where's the extra capacity?

There is none on a single-decker unless they go 3+2 which seems a bad idea.

UIC gauge could allow double deckers to be used, though, which give about a 1.2 to 1.3 times gain. This has little to do with overall width, though. It's more to do with width below platform level and extra height. The width below platform level allows two differences - enough width to do 2+2 downstairs, but also wider bogie centres meaning a longer centre double deck section.

 

[Voglitz]

Minor capacity problems? So there's plenty of capacity on the WCML?

Most of the time, on most of the line, there's plenty of capacity on the WCML.

Let's not forget that trains all the way up to Scotland use the WCML, it's so much more than serving just a 'sub-region of England'.

The Scottish WCML is lightly used.

Do you realise that not every journey on HS2 has to begin or end in London? You keep saying it's for London but why? What about all the non-London journeys?

The forecasts are for at least 80% of HS2 journeys to start or finish in London, but for most roundtrip journeys not to start in London.

So, it's primarily for London.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The forecasts are for at least 80% of HS2 journeys to start or finish in London, but for most roundtrip journeys not to start in London.

So, it's primarily for London.

And for those wanting to go there from elsewhere. It is our capital. People do like to visit it even if they have no other business there.

It's only "for London" in the sense that the Borders reopening was "for Edinburgh".

 

[Bald Rick]

Most of the time, on most of the line, there's plenty of capacity on the WCML.



The Scottish WCML is lightly used.



The forecasts are for at least 80% of HS2 journeys to start or finish in London, but for most roundtrip journeys not to start in London.

So, it's primarily for London.

I can assure you that the WCML is effectively full on the fast lines south of Crewe, and nearly full on the slow lines south of Northampton.

The WCML from Coventry to Wolverhampton is full.

The two track WCML from Warrington to the North doesn't have many trains on it, but for most of the day it is at or near capacity due to the mix of traffic. The Pendolinos catch up the freights rather quickly, and there are limited places to overtake.

Now, whilst it is true that a majority of traffic will be to and from London, that does not mean it will only benefit London. That would be like saying that the Liverpool to Manchester Railway only benefited Manchester when it opened in 1830. Or the Severn Bridge only benefits England. Clearly, it works both ways.

 

[muddythefish]

The WCML from Coventry to Wolverhampton is full.

How do you classify "full" ?

 

[Voglitz]

I can assure you that the WCML is effectively full on the fast lines south of Crewe, and nearly full on the slow lines south of Northampton.

The busiest section of the line is between Milton Keynes and Euston. For most of the day, there are only ~12 trains in an hour on the fast lines. On the slow lines, the situation is even worse, because capacity is wasted for goods trains which often don't run.

The WCML from Coventry to Wolverhampton is full.

I wouldn't say it's anything like full. A lot of the trains are just 4 carriages.

The two track WCML from Warrington to the North doesn't have many trains on it, but for most of the day it is at or near capacity due to the mix of traffic. The Pendolinos catch up the freights rather quickly, and there are limited places to overtake.

See above.

Now, whilst it is true that a majority of traffic will be to and from London, that does not mean it will only benefit London. That would be like saying that the Liverpool to Manchester Railway only benefited Manchester when it opened in 1830. Or the Severn Bridge only benefits England. Clearly, it works both ways.

It would not only benefit London, but it would primarily benefit London.

 

[Bald Rick]

How do you classify "full" ?

No spare paths.

 

[Bald Rick]

The busiest section of the line is between Milton Keynes and Euston. For most of the day, there are only ~12 trains in an hour on the fast lines. On the slow lines, the situation is even worse, because capacity is wasted for goods trains which often don't run.

But those 12 trains an hour fill the timetable. There is no space for more. Unless they all run non-stop between Euston and Rugby, when in theory you could get another 3 paths. But that wouldn't be popular in MK.

Sometimes those fright trains do run - that is the nature of the freight industry.

Fair point about train length.

 

[Voglitz]

But those 12 trains an hour fill the timetable. There is no space for more. Unless they all run non-stop between Euston and Rugby, when in theory you could get another 3 paths. But that wouldn't be popular in MK.

12 fill the offpeak timetable, and more than 12 fill (parts of) the peak timetable, suggesting there is space for more.

Sometimes those fright trains do run

Always run, at Halloween.

- that is the nature of the freight industry.

From an efficiency perspective, it would be better if they "didn't run", somewhere else.

 

[Ianno87]

12 fill the offpeak timetable, and more than 12 fill (parts of) the peak timetable, suggesting there is space for more.


Always run, at Halloween.


From an efficiency perspective, it would be better if they "didn't run", somewhere else.

The peak extras out of Euston are as follows to make 12tph up to 15tph.:

xx16 LM, which crosses to Slow Line somewhere (Ledburn or Bourne End), so can only effectively be run in the peak direction as it knocks out a potential path the other way on the Up Fast. Continuing this path along the Down Fast likely to require the xx10 Chester to omit calling Milton Keynes (and could not call MK itself due to xx20 being right behind)

xx33 VT - could conceivably run all day

xx57 VT - Requires the precedimg xx49 to omit calling at Watford and hits the journey time of the preceding xx46 which needs an elongated stop at Rugby to allow it to pass (as it is right behind when it gets there)

So that's only one path per hour all day only that can be obtained in *both* directions without trade-off to anybody else.

 

[muddythefish]

No spare paths.

No modern rail line to me seems "full".

"Full" to me means a constant procession of trains, nose to tail with one train following another, like at Hest Bank on the WCML in my trainspotting days in the late 1960s.

I stood on Huntingdon station recently and there were huge gaps between trains; often of 10 minutes or more on the fast lines and 30 minutes on the slow lines. Is the ECML regarded as "full" because the line doesn't seem busy to me at all.

I visited Welingborough station about 5 years ago and for some reason there was a holdup on the line with no trains moving for over 2 hours. When trains started moving for a glorious 30 minutes it was like a throwback to the 1960s with trains coming and going every 2 minutes or so.

That's what I call "full".

 

[Bletchleyite]

And even so, operating at full capacity is ill-advised as it allows no scope for recovery. OK, cancellations out of Euston in the evening peak are very rare, but that's because there appears to be a policy of "run everything even if it's late" because capacity is the overriding requirement. It's usual for evening peak services out of Euston to end up 5-10 minutes late simply because someone breathed on the WCML.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No modern rail line to me seems "full".

"Full" to me means a constant procession of trains, nose to tail with one train following another, like at Hest Bank on the WCML in my trainspotting days in the late 1960s.

That's fine, if you'd like all slow line trains out of Euston to be all-stations stoppers, or all VTs to serve Watford and MKC.

 

[najaB]

No modern rail line to me seems "full".

"Full" to me means a constant procession of trains, nose to tail with one train following another, like at Hest Bank on the WCML in my trainspotting days in the late 1960s.

Then we'll have to slow everything down to 60mph so we can bunch them up without having to worry about headways.

 

[Voglitz]

The peak extras out of Euston are as follows to make 12tph up to 15tph.:

xx16 LM, which crosses to Slow Line somewhere (Ledburn or Bourne End), so can only effectively be run in the peak direction as it knocks out a potential path the other way on the Up Fast. Continuing this path along the Down Fast likely to require the xx10 Chester to omit calling Milton Keynes (and could not call MK itself due to xx20 being right behind)

xx33 VT - could conceivably run all day

xx57 VT - Requires the precedimg xx49 to omit calling at Watford and hits the journey time of the preceding xx46 which needs an elongated stop at Rugby to allow it to pass (as it is right behind when it gets there)

So that's only one path per hour all day only that can be obtained in *both* directions without trade-off to anybody else.

The line is signalled for 20 trains in a hour. How many of those are usable, is dependent on various factors and is something of a judgement call. Even with the current incredibly inefficient set-up, with crossings on the flat, more than 13 ought to be attainable with the right timetable.

No modern rail line to me seems "full".

"Full" to me means a constant procession of trains, nose to tail with one train following another, like at Hest Bank on the WCML in my trainspotting days in the late 1960s.

I stood on Huntingdon station recently and there were huge gaps between trains; often of 10 minutes or more on the fast lines and 30 minutes on the slow lines. Is the ECML regarded as "full" because the line doesn't seem busy to me at all.

If truth be told, far more capacity is unused, than used.

 

[D365]

Did we not just have a discussion about train safety upthread? I'd like to see you develop a signalling system that could flight 75mph stoppers, 100/110mph semi-fasts and 125mph fasts with 2-4 mins headways.

 

[najaB]

The line is signalled for 20 trains in a hour. How many of those are usable, is dependent on various factors and is something of a judgement call. Even with the current incredibly inefficient set-up, with crossings on the flat, more than 13 ought to be attainable with the right timetable.

Since you are such an expert, perhaps you should lend your skills to Network Rail and show them how it is done. I'm sure the nation will thank you for making the investment in HS2 redundant in an afternoon.

 

[Ianno87]

Since you are such an expert, perhaps you should lend your skills to Network Rail and show them how it is done. I'm sure the nation will thank you for making the investment in HS2 redundant in an afternoon.

If they could describe what this timetable would look like, how it fits within the available infrastructure capacity and what frequencies and journey times it acheives across *all* WCML journey flows, I would personally be most interested too.

 

[The Ham]

If they could describe what this timetable would look like, how it fits within the available infrastructure capacity and what frequencies and journey times it acheives across *all* WCML journey flows, I would personally be most interested too.

The problem is, even if they manage to find extra paths, it is likely that there are unlikely to be many more.

Based on what has been said the are already 12tph (out of a theoretical maximum of 20), let's say that to allow the railway some capacity for trouble that there needs to be 4tph of the maximum (20%) so that the timetable can recover. That leaves a maximum of 16 paths, 12 of those are already being used, leaving 4.

Of those 4 a couple are (IIRC) in discussion about being used in the next few years. Leaving at most a couple of extra paths to allow for all future growth between now and 2033.

Even based on 2.5% growth per year for 15 years that's 45% more passengers than now when 4 extra paths over the existing 12 paths only gains is 33% extra capacity in path numbers. There could be some additional capacity by running longer (11 vs 9 coach trains on all services) trains.

The problem is for the last 7 years the average (incurring one year where the was a small drop) has been 4.5% per year. If that continue for another 7 years you hit 35% and your extra paths are all used up.

As such it could be that we need to use such paths AND build HS2 to core with passenger growth that could happen between now and the mid 2020's.

One other thing to bear in mind is that the has been limited investment in terms of improved capacity over most of the national network in recent years (I.e. since the ICWC franchise problems), however between now and 2020 there is known to be significant numbers of extra rolling stock being delivered. As such there is likely to be more space for more people to travel potentially increasing growth beyond the current levels. If that does happen then rail growth could be higher than at present and therefore the car for HS2 guess up.

Yes there is scope to increase some train lengths, such as running some 12*23m trains (even if some services have to run as 2*6*23m trains so that they can spilt on route so as to not cause problems at certain stations), but even that is only at most going to gain you 35% more capacity over trains which are 9 coaches. On 11 coach trains it'll be closer to 10%. As such the overall increase is likely to be limited, but again it could put off HS2 due a few years but it would still be needed and now when you try to build it the network is much busier and so it will be more disruptive and therefore cost more to do.

 

[quantinghome]

Let's not forget maintenance and renewal. Despite the modernisation last decade, the WCML is at heart Victorian (and in some places, pre-Victorian) infrastructure. As it ages, the maintenance and renewal requirement increases. The increases in traffic and speed following the modernisation have increased this further. Frankly it's amazing that NR manage to keep the show on the road. Further increases in traffic will mean assets need to be renewed more frequently. So even if clever timetabling could produce more paths (which has somehow eluded the people employed to do this as a profession rather than opine about it on the internet), chances are we would be looking at more frequent possessions and blockades to maintain and renew physical assets, many of which are approaching 200 years old.