• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Released Capacity

Status
Not open for further replies.

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
My guess is that some kind of link will happen, but HS2 is being carefully budgeted to ensure that it doesn't become liable for all of the "ancillary" benefits around the project.
...
So I'd wager that by the 2030s there'll be some link to New Street, or platforms on the existing lines to permit the kind of journey that you describe - but HS2 is being managed so that they don't foot the bill for these kind of improvements (and money will be found from the Network Rail budget or the West Midlands will fund it separately).

I'm not saying I agree with this approach, but it seems to be the way that projects happen nowadays - e.g. Crossrail wasn't going to go west of Maidenhead until the cost of electrifying to Reading was paid for by the GWML budget, then Crossrail could piggy-back on it...

...the problem is that it makes HS2 look half-finished and gives people some easy complaints to make about it - but I can see why HS2 want to ensure that they don't have to pay for all of the remodelling/ electrification/ extensions etc on the conventional network.

I just hope that the HS2 design includes passive provision, such as a straight section in a suitable place between Water Orton and the Washwood Heath tunnel where a connection can be made to the Derby line towards New Street. It always seems to be incredibly difficult to add these things later if they weren't allowed for in the original design.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

LesF

Member
Joined
25 Mar 2014
Messages
113
Location
Coventry
"The nearest part of the Midland line to Victoria is about 400m away" - MML passes close to the ends of the Victoria platforms.
"a connection can be made to the Derby line towards New Street" - yes, and HS2 should connect into New St.
Curzon St station is planned to bridge over Moor St Queensway so passengers will descend from the station onto the north side of the dual carriageway and won't have to cross any roads to reach New St. The walking time between the station entrances is 5 minutes. Travelators can be added to the existing route. The problem is in the 420m platforms - too long for some passengers to walk. More travelators?
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
"The nearest part of the Midland line to Victoria is about 400m away" - MML passes close to the ends of the Victoria platforms.

I was measuring to the entrance. The nearest part of the former platforms at Sheffield Victoria looks to be about 200m away. They would have to extend to 400m to accommodate a double HS2 set, but the extension couldn't be at this end because the former Great Central is on a curve between the former station and crossing the MML.

My point stands regarding this part of the MML being totally unsuitable to build a station. As well as the narrow cutting, any station here would either impinge on a junction to the south, or extend across a canal to the north. It's also on a gradient of 1 in 144.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
"The nearest part of the Midland line to Victoria is about 400m away" - MML passes close to the ends of the Victoria platforms

I was measuring to the entrance. The nearest part of the former platforms at Sheffield Victoria looks to be about 200m away. They would have to extend to 400m to accommodate a double HS2 set, but the extension couldn't be at this end because the former Great Central is on a curve between the former station and crossing the MML.

My point stands regarding this part of the MML being totally unsuitable to build a station. As well as the narrow cutting, any station here would either impinge on a junction to the south, or extend across a canal to the north. It's also on a gradient of 1 in 144.

I don't know if LesF has been round these parts recently, but the idea of putting a station on the Midland - Meadowhall line where the Woodburn - Victoria line crosses is a complete non-starter.

You've got the issues that edwin_m refers to above (narrow cutting, impacting upon the junction to the Midland - Woodburn line, the tough gradient that means most freight heading north from Sheffield does it at snails pace, the canal)...

...there's the ring road above the railway, there's no realistic hope of public access to platforms on the Meadowhall line (unless you expect passengers to come from Wicker into Victoria and then go down in a lift to the Meadowhall line underneath?), there's no integration with the tram, an interchange station would be so close to the existing one at Midland that the rear power car of an HST would still be in Midland whilst the front power car was at this new station...

...and then how many services per hour do you stop on the existing line (on that narrow strip of land between the Midland - Woodburn chord and the canal, with little scope for four tracking, to be blunt)...

...it's a complete non-starter - however it may look on a 2D map!

A station at Victoria would be worse than one at Meadowhall, as far as most of Sheffield goes (at least at Meadowhall there's parking, good road access, a bus station, a tram terminus, an existing station with several trains stopping per hour).
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,838
I just hope that the HS2 design includes passive provision, such as a straight section in a suitable place between Water Orton and the Washwood Heath tunnel where a connection can be made to the Derby line towards New Street. It always seems to be incredibly difficult to add these things later if they weren't allowed for in the original design.

There is meant to be on that stretch but Im not sure how you could do it before the NR lines are fitted with ETCS due to the proximity of the two railways and presumably needing some sort of interchange between in cab and conventional signalling.
 

boxy321

Member
Joined
20 Jun 2016
Messages
449
"Curzon St station is planned to bridge over Moor St Queensway so passengers will descend from the station onto the north side of the dual carriageway and won't have to cross any roads to reach New St. The walking time between the station entrances is 5 minutes. Travelators can be added to the existing route. The problem is in the 420m platforms - too long for some passengers to walk. More travelators?

Moor St Queensway to the left (looking east) of the current Moor St station entrance is one of the highest spots in Birmingham. What level will the platforms be at relative to the existing ones and the road?
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
There is meant to be on that stretch but Im not sure how you could do it before the NR lines are fitted with ETCS due to the proximity of the two railways and presumably needing some sort of interchange between in cab and conventional signalling.

Good point. Putting the HS2 end of the connection somewhere around Water Orton where HS2 starts to curve away south might be easier. Otherwise you're trying to feed a couple of flyovers through the plethora of columns supporting the M6.
 

LesF

Member
Joined
25 Mar 2014
Messages
113
Location
Coventry
Moor St Queensway to the left (looking east) of the current Moor St station entrance is one of the highest spots in Birmingham. What level will the platforms be at relative to the existing ones and the road?
The platforms won't cross the road, but the passenger bridge will. That allows passengers to walk off the end of the plats, across Moor St on a bridge and down via stairs, escalators and lifts to the north side of Moor St without walking through road traffic. Curzon St station will remain at high level while WCML dives into New St at 1 in 40. See HS2's aerial view of the terminus station.
 

boxy321

Member
Joined
20 Jun 2016
Messages
449
The platforms won't cross the road, but the passenger bridge will. That allows passengers to walk off the end of the plats, across Moor St on a bridge and down via stairs, escalators and lifts to the north side of Moor St without walking through road traffic. Curzon St station will remain at high level while WCML dives into New St at 1 in 40. See HS2's aerial view of the terminus station.

Cheers. I've read the pdf of the 'masterplan' from BCC now. Easy to find on Google.

So there will be 4 entrances, the Eagle & Tun will survive(!) with it's roof chopped off and there will be an almighty viaduct and lots of stairs and lifts. The foggy bit for me is where all the buses and cars will go from Moor St. and beggars alley.
 

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
7,674
Location
Leeds
There is meant to be on that stretch but Im not sure how you could do it before the NR lines are fitted with ETCS due to the proximity of the two railways and presumably needing some sort of interchange between in cab and conventional signalling.
Wouldn't the NR lines only need to be fitted from the junction as far as New Street which would be the changeover point? There's a fair number of years to do the installation before Phase 1 opens, and the link would gain its main importance only with Phase 2b.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,838
It isnt going to be done for phase 1, it might not get done at all, its only passive provision. Water Orton was only resignalled recently and no one has any plans to go in again, especially as you would have to sort New St again as soon as its been resignalled.
 
Last edited:

LesF

Member
Joined
25 Mar 2014
Messages
113
Location
Coventry
I'm surprised anyone from Sheffield of all places should be worried about changes of level. What's wrong with stairs, escalators and lifts? Even more surprised that a Sheffielder should object to a high speed station after they lost Meadowhall.
MML cutting is 20m wide - adequate for 2 tracks and two plats.
MML plats can run from the A57 road bridge (clear of the rail junction) and over the canal bridge - it's 18m wide. While 2 MML stations so close together are not ideal, trains don't get up much speed from Midland station to crossing under GC so it's not much of a time penalty for the extra stop.
Victoria 420m straight plats (if really necessary to be that long) can end 100m from MML plats - not too far to walk. The Victoria line obviously needs realignment within the railway boundary.
Victoria only needs 2 plats as all trains will be through services e.g. up to 4 HS and 2 locals/hr and a bit of freight.
There's lots of wasteland and low-grade storage in the area and it would benefit from redevelopment.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?
view=detailV2&ccid=niR5FqTL&id=10D10DD7DD078678CDEBEE3387831B59F7219396&thid=OIP.niR5FqTL08qWwjrI3fPhdgEsC6&q=sheffield+victoria+station+track+plan&simid=608029519327331869&selectedindex=31&ajaxhist=0&first=1
shows what could be done.
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,909
It isnt going to be done for phase 1, it might not get done at all, its only passive provision. Water Orton was only resignalled recently and no one has any plans to go in again, especially as you would have to sort New St again as soon as its been resignalled.

Why would you need to re-signal New Street surely passive provision should be provided there as well?
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
I'm surprised anyone from Sheffield of all places should be worried about changes of level. What's wrong with stairs, escalators and lifts? Even more surprised that a Sheffielder should object to a high speed station after they lost Meadowhall.
MML cutting is 20m wide - adequate for 2 tracks and two plats.
MML plats can run from the A57 road bridge (clear of the rail junction) and over the canal bridge - it's 18m wide. While 2 MML stations so close together are not ideal, trains don't get up much speed from Midland station to crossing under GC so it's not much of a time penalty for the extra stop.
Victoria 420m straight plats (if really necessary to be that long) can end 100m from MML plats - not too far to walk. The Victoria line obviously needs realignment within the railway boundary.
Victoria only needs 2 plats as all trains will be through services e.g. up to 4 HS and 2 locals/hr and a bit of freight.
There's lots of wasteland and low-grade storage in the area and it would benefit from redevelopment.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?
view=detailV2&ccid=niR5FqTL&id=10D10DD7DD078678CDEBEE3387831B59F7219396&thid=OIP.niR5FqTL08qWwjrI3fPhdgEsC6&q=sheffield+victoria+station+track+plan&simid=608029519327331869&selectedindex=31&ajaxhist=0&first=1
shows what could be done.

Two tracks on two platforms will not be adequate for MML traffic at that location, given the density of services on this section (and thinking about future growth)

And the station environment (in a deep cutting) would be horrible.

And if you get off at the wrong end of an HS2 train, you've got half a kilometre to walk, and then some vertical circulation.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,838
Why would you need to re-signal New Street surely passive provision should be provided there as well?

Core of New St is planned for 2021 and there is no plan for ETCS, the rest of New St is done this Christmas and next May, no chance of redesigning that now as they are out on the ground.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,284
Would it be possible for the London/Leeds services act as a local service between Leeds and Doncaster (probably skipping some stations in one half hour and others in the other half), whilst it would show journey times by about 10 minutes from Wakefield Westgate to London it would provide a better service for local travel.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,284
Leeds to Doncaster is fast and frequent as it is.

True, however if by doing so it could allow the Northern service which runs Doncaster to Leeds to be removed and the platform capacity within Leeds station used for other service improvements. Without Wakefield loosing the frequency of its direct service to London.
 

Purple Orange

On Moderation
Joined
26 Dec 2019
Messages
3,438
Location
The North
Leeds to Doncaster is fast and frequent as it is.

Do stations between Doncaster & Leeds have an equally frequent service? I see an opportunity to establish metro-style services on routes. If anything has proven to succeed, it is a high frequency service that attracts people out of their cars.
 

Purple Orange

On Moderation
Joined
26 Dec 2019
Messages
3,438
Location
The North
It'll be less fast if it's stopping everywhere!

The LNER trains are poopular Donny-Leeds on account of being a half hourly fast service.

Could they be more popular if they were all stop and 4 tph or even 6 tph for instance? Not withstanding other factors at play here, but if we look at some of the heavy rail routes that have been converted to Metro frequency:
  • Altrincham-Manchester
  • Bury-Manchester
  • Sunderland-Newcastle
All enjoy greater patronage now than they did when they were heavy rail (or mostly heavy rail in the case of Sunderland-Newcastle), despite being a bit slower end-to-end.

So could HS2 and NPR enable a similar change in patronage on some heavy rail lines? And should the DfT focus on this rather than connecting distant towns with distant cities?
 

clagmonster

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2005
Messages
2,442
Leeds to Doncaster is fast and frequent as it is.
But with the December 2021 timetable change, the current half hourly Leeds - Doncaster LNER service is likely to have a skewed frequency when Leeds - Kings X goes up to 3 trains per hour, with one stopping at both Wakefield and Doncaster and the other two stopping each stopping at one of Wakefield and Doncaster.

When HS2 starts, I can only see there being a case for an hourly Leeds - London train via the ECML, calling at most principle stations. This will likely be favoured by some of the Donny - Leeds market.

Do stations between Doncaster & Leeds have an equally frequent service? I see an opportunity to establish metro-style services on routes. If anything has proven to succeed, it is a high frequency service that attracts people out of their cars.
At present, there is are hourly Doncaster - Leeds, Sheffield - Leeds and Sheffield - Doncaster - Adwick stoppers, providing a roughly half hourly service Fitzwilliam - Leeds and two trains per hour Doncaster - Adwick. Passengers do travel the full distance on the Donny - Leeds stoppers, these are rarely overtaken.
 

Roast Veg

Established Member
Joined
28 Oct 2016
Messages
2,200
Indeed, I have traveled the length of it myself during storm Ciara. Remember as well that although South Elmsall does not get as frequent a service, Moorthorpe is hardly far away, and locals have the freedom to travel to either station with ease. That seems to cover everybody pretty well as far as I can make out.
 

si404

Established Member
Joined
28 Dec 2012
Messages
1,267
When HS2 starts, I can only see there being a case for an hourly Leeds - London train via the ECML, calling at most principle stations. This will likely be favoured by some of the Donny - Leeds market.
Post HS2, the reason for dropping the Doncaster call (speeding up London-Leeds) is removed, and the third train is making use of bimodes and allowing the stopping service to divert from York to the place with a bigger draw without affecting capacity through Wakefield.

A half-hourly all LNER stops Kings Cross-Leeds replacing two fasts and a stopper seems quite a sensible post-HS2 service.
 

Purple Orange

On Moderation
Joined
26 Dec 2019
Messages
3,438
Location
The North
Post HS2, the reason for dropping the Doncaster call (speeding up London-Leeds) is removed, and the third train is making use of bimodes and allowing the stopping service to divert from York to the place with a bigger draw without affecting capacity through Wakefield.

A half-hourly all LNER stops Kings Cross-Leeds replacing two fasts and a stopper seems quite a sensible post-HS2 service.

What so 5 tph Leeds to London post HS2?
 

si404

Established Member
Joined
28 Dec 2012
Messages
1,267
What so 5 tph Leeds to London post HS2?
Yes, but 2tph aren't about Leeds to London journeys, but journeys to those cities from the places in between.

We don't consider the London Northwestern or Chiltern trains from London to Birmingham to be superfluous because Aventi runs 3 fast trains per hour, and so why do we have the other 5 less fast trains each hour?

Leeds makes a good northern anchor for the stoppers on the southern ECML, Doncaster deserves to keep its 2tph fast to Leeds. The changes to the timetable coming up that you mention agree with me here by having the stopper go to Leeds via Garforth (though not stopping there) instead of York.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,284
Yes, but 2tph aren't about Leeds to London journeys, but journeys to those cities from the places in between.

We don't consider the London Northwestern or Chiltern trains from London to Birmingham to be superfluous because Aventi runs 3 fast trains per hour, and so why do we have the other 5 less fast trains each hour?

Leeds makes a good northern anchor for the stoppers on the southern ECML, Doncaster deserves to keep its 2tph fast to Leeds. The changes to the timetable coming up that you mention agree with me here by having the stopper go to Leeds via Garforth (though not stopping there) instead of York.

It's like many of the XC services, few travel Plymouth to Leeds or further. However there's lots who make shorter trips along the length of the route making the overall service worth running.
 

Purple Orange

On Moderation
Joined
26 Dec 2019
Messages
3,438
Location
The North
Yes, but 2tph aren't about Leeds to London journeys, but journeys to those cities from the places in between.

We don't consider the London Northwestern or Chiltern trains from London to Birmingham to be superfluous because Aventi runs 3 fast trains per hour, and so why do we have the other 5 less fast trains each hour?

Leeds makes a good northern anchor for the stoppers on the southern ECML, Doncaster deserves to keep its 2tph fast to Leeds. The changes to the timetable coming up that you mention agree with me here by having the stopper go to Leeds via Garforth (though not stopping there) instead of York.
It's like many of the XC services, few travel Plymouth to Leeds or further. However there's lots who make shorter trips along the length of the route making the overall service worth running.

I appreciate that the 2 London-Leeds services, like Penzance-Aberdeen, may not be for passengers doing the end-to-end journeys, but I am concerned about the loss of an opportunity for better, more frequent services in to nearby cities and between London and cities with a poor connection to London.

It raises several questions:
  • What makes a town “deserve” to keep 2 fast tph plus a likely 2 slow tph, while intermediate stations have to make do with 1 or 2 slow tph?
  • HS2 is all about increasing capacity on the existing lines, therefore why would we stick with the same service pattern post HS2?
  • Why use the London path to go end up in a city that is already well served, instead of going to a town that has a poor service to London?
I will use my local station as an example as I know it’s services and feel it is typical of the opportunity many commuter towns have in to nearby cities. So, at my local station (Wilmslow) we have 5 tph to Manchester:
  • 1 x 20 minute (Avanti) calling at Stockport & Piccadilly.
  • 1 x 25 minute (TfW) calling at Stockport & Piccadilly.
  • 2 x 27 minute (Northern) calling at all stops via Stockport
  • 1 x over 30 minutes (Northern) calling at all stops via Manchester Airport and on to Liverpool.
Post HS2, the Avanti service will disappear and we have an opportunity to replace it with something else.

So what are the options?
  • Replace like-for-like, with another fast service, but no benefit to the majority of commuters in the Manchester area?
  • Replace with a slow all stop service, benefitting far more commuters?
  • If all trains are running at broadly the same speed and take 27 minutes, could 2 additional tph be added in place of the 1 Avanti service?
Given the timings are not vastly different between the fast and slow services, I’d be more inclined to allocate the free paths to all stop commuter services.

Then in the case of the London-Doncaster-Leeds services (and similar around the country), route it to a town that sees few London services if any at all. For example rather than London-Doncaster-Leeds or London-Crewe-Manchester (plus all the various stops such as Newark or Litchfield TV), could it instead be:
  • London-various stops-Doncaster-Hull?
  • London-Various stops-Doncaster-Grimsby?
  • London-various stops-Crewe-Chester-Holyhead?
 

si404

Established Member
Joined
28 Dec 2012
Messages
1,267
I am concerned about the loss of an opportunity for better, more frequent services in to nearby cities
Do the local stops into Doncaster need a super-high frequency?
2tph Sheffield-Leeds all stops and 2tph Doncaster-Leeds all stops (perhaps some extras between Doncaster and Adwick) would be enough, surely. Rerouting Sheffield-Leeds onto HS2 would do that.
HS2 is all about increasing capacity on the existing lines, therefore why would we stick with the same service pattern post HS2?
This isn't the same service pattern.
Why use the London path to go end up in a city that is already well served, instead of going to a town that has a poor service to London?
It's not as if replacing 2.5tph (2 fast, 0.5 stopping) to Leeds with 2tph stopping doesn't free up paths - Lincoln (because it shares the 2-hourly Leeds path) going hourly is the obvious move here. It's really Newcastle dropping from 3tph to 1tph due to diverting fast trains onto HS2 would be the big release of capacity south of York on the ECML that would allow Grimsby and Scunthorpe to get a London service if that's what one wants.

Long distance stopping services, like the one I'm proposing, works better if they link to a major destination at both ends and so encourage non-local flow in both directions - Leeds is that destination for the northern end of the southern ECML. Services to places not served by HS2, like Hull, ought to be sped up rather than keeping the status quo of having to fill in the gaps created by Leeds/Newcastle services running fast.

So on the WCML, what the HS2 business case suggests might be the case (in figure 1.8) would be that the WCML would keep three of the ICWC services (1 Manchester, 1 Scotland via Birmingham and 1 Birmingham that gets extended to Wolverhampton) that have their end-to-end journeys moved to HS2, albeit stopping more. However there's still 5 ICWC trains diverted off the southern WCML - which the suggestion is that that is used for freight and enhanced LNR services south of Bletchley.
 
Last edited:

Purple Orange

On Moderation
Joined
26 Dec 2019
Messages
3,438
Location
The North
Do the local stops into Doncaster need a super-high frequency?
2tph Sheffield-Leeds all stops and 2tph Doncaster-Leeds all stops (perhaps some extras between Doncaster and Adwick) would be enough, surely. Rerouting Sheffield-Leeds onto HS2 would do that.
This isn't the same service pattern.
It's not as if replacing 2.5tph (2 fast, 0.5 stopping) to Leeds with 2tph stopping doesn't free up paths - Lincoln (because it shares the 2-hourly Leeds path) going hourly is the obvious move here. It's really Newcastle dropping from 3tph to 1tph due to diverting fast trains onto HS2 would be the big release of capacity south of York on the ECML that would allow Grimsby and Scunthorpe to get a London service if that's what one wants.

Long distance stopping services, like the one I'm proposing, works better if they link to a major destination at both ends and so encourage non-local flow in both directions - Leeds is that destination for the northern end of the southern ECML. Services to places not served by HS2, like Hull, ought to be sped up rather than keeping the status quo of having to fill in the gaps created by Leeds/Newcastle services running fast.

So on the WCML, what the HS2 business case suggests might be the case (in figure 1.8) would be that the WCML would keep three of the ICWC services (1 Manchester, 1 Scotland via Birmingham and 1 Birmingham that gets extended to Wolverhampton) that have their end-to-end journeys moved to HS2, albeit stopping more. However there's still 5 ICWC trains diverted off the southern WCML - which the suggestion is that that is used for freight and enhanced LNR services south of Bletchley.

Thanks for sharing the link. I guess what I am concerned with is that on the south WCML, additional paths will be given over to commuter services in to London (which is the right thing to do), but that will not happen on the north WCML & ECML in to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds. Whereby those free paths will be consumed by long distance services that operate more akin to TfW or XC.

For instance I will highlight Manchester as an example again, but it is true for Leeds & Birmingham too. Figure 1.8 highlights that 2 ICWC paths to Manchester will be freed up (one via Stoke and one via Crewe). Then there is the possibility of freeing up 2 XC paths from Birmingham (all via Stoke). Upon reaching the Manchester urban area, those trains go Wilmslow-Stockport-Piccadilly or Macclesfield-Stockport-Piccadilly.

Therefore what comes in its place post HS2? Will it still all be Macclesfield/Wilmslow-Stockport-Piccadilly or will intermediate stations get a look-in, therefore providing a more frequent service pattern and seeking to attract people out of their cars?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top