How would you improve local rail after the introduction of HS2 (&NPR)?

[Chester1]

Stopping the high speed line at South Parkway (itself not the easiest location to reach) would probably just move the logjam to the Edge Hill end of the WCML. I'd suggest a high speed tunnel to there, then take the local services underground via the old freight tunnels, clearing Lime Street high level for high speed and other long distance trains.

Leaving the transpennine lines as they are would be idiotic, though that's no gurantee it wouldn't happen. The Standedge route is full already, and Hope Valley is close to it

I disagree because there is only sufficient demand for one new tunnel and that should be to divert city line services into Liverpool Central as part of Merseyrail. The tunnel required would be much shorter and not need to be built to support high speed running. The 4 tracks from Liverpool South Parkway can handle more traffic and Lime Street could handle HS2 and NPR services if local services went to Liverpool Central e.g. 2tph Wigan, 1tph Warrington BQ, 2tph Crewe (replacing Birmingham services).

 

[DavidGrain]

I disagree because there is only sufficient demand for one new tunnel and that should be to divert city line services into Liverpool Central as part of Merseyrail. The tunnel required would be much shorter and not need to be built to support high speed running. The 4 tracks from Liverpool South Parkway can handle more traffic and Lime Street could handle HS2 and NPR services if local services went to Liverpool Central e.g. 2tph Wigan, 1tph Warrington BQ, 2tph Crewe (replacing Birmingham services).

I know Liverpool Lime Street has been rebuilt but is it capable of taking 400 metre platforms? I suspect not and that is why you will not get HS2 trains into Lime Street

 

[Chester1]

I know Liverpool Lime Street has been rebuilt but is it capable of taking 400 metre platforms? I suspect not and that is why you will not get HS2 trains into Lime Street

The jump from 1tph to London to 2tph and replacing the 4 coach (80m) Birmingham LNWR services with 8 coach (200m) HS2 services will provide a huge increase in capacity therefore 400m platforms will not be necessary in 2033. NPR units are unlikely to be more than ~200m either. In the long term 400m and HS2 extension into Liverpool city centre might be necessary but it would be at the expense of expanding Merseyrail, if two tunnels are built both would opperate at a fraction of their capacity. A HS2 tunnel and station would cost much more than just a Liverpool spur (off the Wigan spur). I am not sure the Wirral line station could handle the extra traffic. Edge Hill - Central would be better and much cheaper.

 

[DavidGrain]

It is not a case of 400 metres not being necessary, it is a case of 400 metre platforms being required at high speed stations under EU regulations (and don't talk about Brexit because these regulations will be written into British law). Apart from capacity this is the reason why HS2 trains will not run into Birmingham New Street and a new station has to be built.

 

[B&I]

I disagree because there is only sufficient demand for one new tunnel and that should be to divert city line services into Liverpool Central as part of Merseyrail. The tunnel required would be much shorter and not need to be built to support high speed running. The 4 tracks from Liverpool South Parkway can handle more traffic and Lime Street could handle HS2 and NPR services if local services went to Liverpool Central e.g. 2tph Wigan, 1tph Warrington BQ, 2tph Crewe (replacing Birmingham services).

Not very 'high speed', though, is it, to spend the last 6 miles trundling along a mixed traffic railway with a 2 track section at one end and some complex, low speed junctions. It isn't really likely to be any faster for eastbound trains than they can currently manage via Chat Moss. And if there's demand for a high speed linw to the outskirts of Liverpool, why does that evaporate 6 miles from its main city centre station ? Does everyone get out and walk ?

 

[B&I]

The jump from 1tph to London to 2tph and replacing the 4 coach (80m) Birmingham LNWR services with 8 coach (200m) HS2 services will provide a huge increase in capacity therefore 400m platforms will not be necessary in 2033. NPR units are unlikely to be more than ~200m either. In the long term 400m and HS2 extension into Liverpool city centre might be necessary but it would be at the expense of expanding Merseyrail, if two tunnels are built both would opperate at a fraction of their capacity. A HS2 tunnel and station would cost much more than just a Liverpool spur (off the Wigan spur). I am not sure the Wirral line station could handle the extra traffic. Edge Hill - Central would be better and much cheaper.

Are 400 m trains, doubling capacity, currently necessary to Manchester and Birmingham ? If not, why are we spending colossal amounts on captive 400m-capable lines and stations for each ?

 

[MarkyT]

It is not a case of 400 metres not being necessary, it is a case of 400 metre platforms being required at high speed stations under EU regulations (and don't talk about Brexit because these regulations will be written into British law). Apart from capacity this is the reason why HS2 trains will not run into Birmingham New Street and a new station has to be built.

400m is not REQUIRED at existing classic stations to which trains from a high speed line can run. 400m is for entirely new platforms on a new line which IDEALLY should be dead straight but don't actually have to be under TSIs. Birmingham New Street is already very busy and putting any additional trains in there, particularly with its limited four track approach would not be practical. A new terminal and approach is neccessary to cater for growth whatever length the new trains were. That is not the case to the same extent, at least in the medium term, it Liverpool and diverting some local traffic from Lime Street to new MerseyRail tunnels to make way for 200m half HS trains at Lime Street is a sensible idea Perhaps if two per hour start to get crowded, a third or fourth might be added. Either way that still only 4 per hour, difficult to justify an entirely new line so that's where NPR strat to come into play to justify further expenditure. The Lime Street area is also much more difficult topograpically than either Manchester or Birmingham so constructing a totally new 400m terminal in the vicinity with its dense surrounding development would be a very difficult task.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I know Liverpool Lime Street has been rebuilt but is it capable of taking 400 metre platforms? I suspect not and that is why you will not get HS2 trains into Lime Street

Half an HS2 train will be going into Lime St, i.e. 200m. That could still be the case.

As for Liverpool Central, any project to bring in more services there will, for reasons of overcrowding[1], require a rebuild to two island platforms. Though I'm increasingly tempted to suggest that that is needed regardless of whether you add services or not!

[1] The actual service would fit as you could bring in as many as 8 additional TPH from the south by running through from Ormskirk or Kirkby rather than terminating - doing that would actually *increase* the capacity at Central for train movements, not reduce it - but it would make the number of people on the platforms approach the kind of dangerous situation you get at Bank LU.

 

[Bevan Price]

I don't think the number of free WCML paths will increase as much as some people expect. There may be 2 or 3 per hour additional freight paths, but there will still be a need for "Pendolino" paths serving places not on HS2. Rugby, Nuneaton & Tamworth (see ** below) may get some extra stops by Pendolinos, but I still think there could be something like:
2 tph to MK, Rugby, Coventry & Birmingham
2 tph to Stoke on Trent, Macclesfield, Stockport & Manchester.**
1 tph to Stafford, Crewe, Runcorn & Liverpool. **
1 tph to MK, Crewe, Wigan, Warrington & Preston **.
1 tph Birmingham - Wolverhampton - Crewe - Preston & Scotland.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think the number of free WCML paths will increase as much as some people expect. There may be 2 or 3 per hour additional freight paths, but there will still be a need for "Pendolino" paths serving places not on HS2. Rugby, Nuneaton & Tamworth (see ** below) may get some extra stops by Pendolinos, but I still think there could be something like:
2 tph to MK, Rugby, Coventry & Birmingham
2 tph to Stoke on Trent, Macclesfield, Stockport & Manchester.**
1 tph to Stafford, Crewe, Runcorn & Liverpool. **
1 tph to MK, Crewe, Wigan, Warrington & Preston **.
1 tph Birmingham - Wolverhampton - Crewe - Preston & Scotland.

I would expect to see all of the residual IC services calling at Milton Keynes Central and substantially more than at present at Watford Jn.

 

[The Ham]

I don't think the number of free WCML paths will increase as much as some people expect. There may be 2 or 3 per hour additional freight paths, but there will still be a need for "Pendolino" paths serving places not on HS2. Rugby, Nuneaton & Tamworth (see ** below) may get some extra stops by Pendolinos, but I still think there could be something like:
2 tph to MK, Rugby, Coventry & Birmingham
2 tph to Stoke on Trent, Macclesfield, Stockport & Manchester.**
1 tph to Stafford, Crewe, Runcorn & Liverpool. **
1 tph to MK, Crewe, Wigan, Warrington & Preston **.
1 tph Birmingham - Wolverhampton - Crewe - Preston & Scotland.

3 freight paths an hour would be 45 trains over a 15 hour day, that's quite a lot, especially when you consider that there's probably lots of other capacity constraints across the rest of the rail network. For instance you are unlikely to see many more freight trains from Southampton due to constraints around Reading and Basingstoke.

Likewise it could be that some of the paths are paired up. Such as the London to Birmingham service being paired with the Birmingham to Scotland service (to give the option of a direct MK to Scotland journey) This could include a service like:

London, MK, Stafford, Crewe (split)
- Runcorn and Liverpool
- Wigan, Warrington and Preston

There may not be many services saved by HS2, however each long distance service could be replaced by a few local services.

I would also suggest that the extra station calling points would be seen as a benefit by those for whom it improves their journeys.

 

[LOL The Irony]

I would set up an open access operator taking 2 of Virgin's paths to Manchester with one going via Crewe and the other Stoke.

 

[bussnapperwm]

Birmingham New Streat - Smethwick - Stoubridge - Worcester - Hereford

Have it start at International and all stations it to New Street and it'd be brill.

Just need to reopen the Smethwick West platforms then.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Quiet Interesting:

https://assets.publishing.service.g...s2-released-capacity-study-summary-report.pdf

Page 17

 

[krus_aragon]

I don't think the number of free WCML paths will increase as much as some people expect. There may be 2 or 3 per hour additional freight paths, but there will still be a need for "Pendolino" paths serving places not on HS2. Rugby, Nuneaton & Tamworth (see ** below) may get some extra stops by Pendolinos, but I still think there could be something like:
2 tph to MK, Rugby, Coventry & Birmingham
2 tph to Stoke on Trent, Macclesfield, Stockport & Manchester.**
1 tph to Stafford, Crewe, Runcorn & Liverpool. **
1 tph to MK, Crewe, Wigan, Warrington & Preston **.
1 tph Birmingham - Wolverhampton - Crewe - Preston & Scotland.

*waves*
We'd like something reasonably fast still coming to Chester and the North Wales Coast too, please. (Unless somebody surprises us by actually electrifying the line and sending HS Classic Compatibles our way.)

 

[B&I]

*waves*
We'd like something reasonably fast still coming to Chester and the North Wales Coast too, please. (Unless somebody surprises us by actually electrifying the line and sending HS Classic Compatibles our way.)

I don't think the number of free WCML paths will increase as much as some people expect. There may be 2 or 3 per hour additional freight paths, but there will still be a need for "Pendolino" paths serving places not on HS2. Rugby, Nuneaton & Tamworth (see ** below) may get some extra stops by Pendolinos, but I still think there could be something like:
2 tph to MK, Rugby, Coventry & Birmingham
2 tph to Stoke on Trent, Macclesfield, Stockport & Manchester.**
1 tph to Stafford, Crewe, Runcorn & Liverpool. **
1 tph to MK, Crewe, Wigan, Warrington & Preston **.
1 tph Birmingham - Wolverhampton - Crewe - Preston & Scotland.

Not a lot of point in building HS2 to free capacity on the WCML, then filling it up again with what are effectively slower parallel London services calling at many of the same places.

I'd suggest giving priority first to places without direct HS2 services (on present plans, Chester / North Wales, Coventry, and Shrewsbury leap out), then extending the faster LNR Trent Valley services to Liverpool, Manchester and Blackpool to provide better imtermediate connections. Perhaps the former could take some of the current 125 mph paths, and the latter an expanded set of 110 mph ones

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not a lot of point in building HS2 to free capacity on the WCML, then fill it up again with.effextively slower paralell London services calling at many of the same places.

There is a point, and that point is Milton Keynes Central (and to a lesser extent Rugby, Watford etc). It will before too long have a larger population and hinterland than Liverpool, and is already much bigger than most other WCML towns.

 

[MarkyT]

Many of those intermediate WCML stations en route between the major cities have only a sporadic service today with skip stop patterns predominating on the fasts so trains have similar journey times and train capacity is optimised.

In the future, with all trains on the fasts making all the stops, the jouney times would also be equalised, to maximise train capacity, but all stops could get a significant frequency and passenger capacity upgrade. The withdrawal of skip-stop would make travel BETWEEN these fast growing towns much more convenient. These (inter) regional expresses could continue to serve the premier north western and midlands cities at their extremes and could offer a good basic alternative to HS2 and ongoing price competition for it's operator.

 

[B&I]

There is a point, and that point is Milton Keynes Central (and to a lesser extent Rugby, Watford etc). It will before too long have a larger population and hinterland than Liverpool, and is already much bigger than most other WCML towns.

But seriously.... the MK borough population in 2011 was less than half that of the city of Liverpool, between a third and a quarter of the Liverpool urban area's, and less than a seventh of the Liverpool metropolitan area's (UK government destination).

Also MK, while a big destination itself, is of less use than several other WCML stops in terms of railway connections, mostly because some prannet didn't put the centre of the new town (and main station) at Bletchley (which I suspect you would have preferred too).

 

[Bletchleyite]

But seriously.... the MK borough population in 2011 was less than half that of the city of Liverpool, between a third and a quarter of the Liverpool urban area's, and less than a seventh of the Liverpool metropolitan area's (UK government destination)

Yes, but:

https://www.miltonkeynes.co.uk/news...elling-population-to-half-a-million-1-8344426

Whereas Liverpool's population is in decline. In the kind of timescales for HS2 we are likely to see them coming much closer together - and MK is a very middle class place with a lot of travel demand.

Also MK, while a big destination itself, is of less use than several other WCML stops in terms of railway connections, mostly because some prannet didn't put the centre of the new town (and main station) at Bletchley (which I suspect you would have preferred too).

That is true, though I actually like the civility of Bletchley station and can put up with the inconvenience of a taxi ride (which is pretty quick on MK's excellent road system) or a one stop connection to benefit from it. MKC in the mornings is a nasty rat race, Bletchley is quite civilised.

 

[B&I]

Yes, but:

https://www.miltonkeynes.co.uk/news...elling-population-to-half-a-million-1-8344426

Whereas Liverpool's population is in decline. In the kind of timescales for HS2 we are likely to see them coming much closer together - and MK is a very middle class place with a lot of travel demand.

No, Liverpool's population is not in decline:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_Liverpool

Nor is that of its urban area (I can't find stats for the City Region, or the metropolitan area):
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool_Urban_Area.

Perhaps the diktats of something like the NIC in our oddly Stalinist 'free market' economy will come to pass, and a town can double in size on the orders of a quango, but I'm happy to wait and see, however 'middle class' the place is, and however much that apparently justifies preferential treatment.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps the diktats of aomething like the NIC in our oddly Stalinist 'free market' economy will come to pass, and a town can double in size on the orders of a quango, but I'm happy to wait and see, howevee 'middle class' the place is, and however much that apparently justifies preferential treatment.

You really have got a bee in your bonnet, haven't you? In what way is MK getting "preferential treatment"? Growing in size, it simply justifies a commensurate increase in service - and don't forget Liverpool is also getting a doubling of its London service.

 

[tbtc]

But seriously.... the MK borough population in 2011 was less than half that of the city of Liverpool, between a third and a quarter of the Liverpool urban area's, and less than a seventh of the Liverpool metropolitan area's (UK government destination)

Ah, the metropolitan area... the one that includes Wigan and Chester as being part of "Liverpool", despite being about thirty miles apart.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_in_the_United_Kingdom

By the same definition, if we are drawing similarly generous radiuses around places, presumably "Milton Keynes" should include Northampton, Bedford, Luton, Aylesbury etc etc?

 

[edwin_m]

I would say there's a strong argument for quite a few new stations between Warrington and Oxenholme, which would be served by new commuter trains running along that route. (There's certainly little case for slowing down the existing and already very busy services by adding more stops). The WCML along that stretch passes through loads of populated areas without stopping. The trouble is, you'd probably need to 4-track the route to be able to fit the new services in, even around the existing fast trains. And I would imagine that HS2 is likely to feed more fast trains on to the WCML there, so building more stations without 4-tracking would become even less viable. But if money could be found to do it, I could see 4-tracking and building a slew of new stations along that line being very useful not just for local commuters but also to provide connections to the HS2 classic-compatibles at Preston and Wigan.

There are liklely to be big problems accommodating all the trains everyone wants on the northern WCML after HS2 phase 2. I'd say you're unlikely to see much four-tracking, except perhaps for some of the few bits that were four-tracked prevously, but in the very long term some "high speed bypasses" might do something similar, giving a long enough and fast enough section for a high-speed non-stop train to overtake a slower one making intermediate stops.

 

[B&I]

Ah, the metropolitan area... the one that includes Wigan and Chester as being part of "Liverpool", despite being about thirty miles apart.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_in_the_United_Kingdom

By the same definition, if we are drawing similarly generous radiuses around places, presumably "Milton Keynes" should include Northampton, Bedford, Luton, Aylesbury etc etc?

Ah, Roger Irrelevant ! Nice to see you again.

If you actually bother reading the thread, you'll note that the City Of Liverpool (which doesn't even stretch as far as its outer ring road) is still almost twice the size of the Borough of Milton Keynes (which contains several surrounding towns). That's before we get to built-up or metropolitan areas.

I think you'll find that nowhere in the Liverpool.metropolitan area is 30 miles from the centre of Liverpool. But your geography can be rather elastic when it suits you, as recently demonstrated by your argument that Wigan should be considered to Liverpool what Meadowhall is to Sheffield in railway terms, despite being 5 times further away.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There are liklely to be big problems accommodating all the trains everyone wants on the northern WCML after HS2 phase 2

Is there? It seems apparent that there won't be any classic trains originating from Euston running north of Preston, which will free paths up for HS trains?

 

[B&I]

You really have got a bee in your bonnet, haven't you? In what way is MK getting "preferential treatment"? Growing in size, it simply justifies a commensurate increase in service - and don't forget Liverpool is also getting a doubling of its London service.

Your view appears to be that MK should receive preferential treatment over other intermediate WCML destinations in terms of service levels. One of your reasons for this is that is is more middle class and will therefore generate more demand.

If by having a bee in my bonnet you mean that I have difficulty keeping quiet when you post things which are demonstrably incorrect, then yes, guilty as charged.

 

[tbtc]

Ah, Roger Irrelevant ! Nice to see you again.

If you actually bother reading the thread, you'll note that the City Of Liverpool (which doesn't even stretch as far as its outer ring road) is still almost twice the size of the Borough of Milton Keynes (which contains several surrounding towns). That's before we get to built-up or metropolitan areas.

I think you'll find that nowhere in the Liverpool.metropolitan area is 30 miles from the centre of Liverpool. But your geography can be rather elastic when it suits you, as recently demonstrated by your argument that Wigan should be considered to Liverpool what Meadowhall is to Sheffield in railway terms, despite being 5 times further away.

You are the one who mentioned "Liverpool metropolitan area's (UK government destination)".

That area includes Wigan and Chester, which seems to be stretching the definition a bit thinly - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_in_the_United_Kingdom - I doubt many in Wigan would consider themselves part of Liverpool? Would the people of Liverpool be happy with an HS2 station in Wigan (and nothing on actual Merseyside)? I doubt it.

I referred to that fact that this definition includes "Wigan and Chester as being part of "Liverpool", despite being about thirty miles apart". Wigan and Chester are about thirty miles apart (depending on whether you are doing the journey as a crow, motorist or train passenger).

Essentially, you want your city to be as big and important sounding as you can make it. Fair enough, I suppose, if that's your thing. But to use the Government's metropolitan definition of Liverpool, and to say that this makes the place seven times the size of Milton Keynes seems to be clutching at straws.

 

[Ianno87]

One of your reasons for this is that is is more middle class and will therefore generate more demand.

Without wanting to turn this into yet another "Liverpool" discussion...

It is a true statement that the demand for rail travel to/from a town/city is often in no way proportional to its population size. Demographics play a part indeed (don't read that as claiming MK is middle class whilst Liverpool is not.... MK has its rundown parts whilst greater Liverpool has some very affluent areas, for example, but probably much more spread away from the city in general), as to where the city naturally looks to for business links.

So MK is linked to London, Birmingham and Manchester for it's 'graduate' type employment (handily being on line between these points), whereas Liverpool traditionally looks towards Manchester for its Business/Employment/trade* links, probably moreso than London.

*Probably tracing its roots to the Manchester Ship Canal and Liverpool & Manchester. But London<>Manchester linksprobably stem from the Cotton trade.

 

[B&I]

You are the one who mentioned "Liverpool metropolitan area's (UK government destination)".

That area includes Wigan and Chester, which seems to be stretching the definition a bit thinly - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_in_the_United_Kingdom - I doubt many in Wigan would consider themselves part of Liverpool? Would the people of Liverpool be happy with an HS2 station in Wigan (and nothing on actual Merseyside)? I doubt it.

I referred to that fact that this definition includes "Wigan and Chester as being part of "Liverpool", despite being about thirty miles apart". Wigan and Chester are about thirty miles apart (depending on whether you are doing the journey as a crow, motorist or train passenger).

Essentially, you want your city to be as big and important sounding as you can make it. Fair enough, I suppose, if that's your thing. But to use the Government's metropolitan definition of Liverpool, and to say that this makes the place seven times the size of Milton Keynes seems to be clutching at straws.

For the slow of reading, I'll repeat myself. The City of Liverpool (local government district) has almost twice the population of the Borough of Milton Keynes. (The Borough figure, at c 246,000 rather flatters to deceive, as the city itself has a population of only 171,750, and the urban area, containing several surrounding towns, comes to only 229,941, though I suspect that the sign on the road in reads "popn 229,941, plus Bletchleyite":
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Keynes_urban_area)


The Liverpool urban area (the wonky defintion which excludes the Wirral but includes the contiguous built-up area east of the Mersey) has a population 3-4 times MK's:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool_Urban_Area

The city region (UK government's definition of metropolitan area, ie the City Region, does not include Wigan or Chester) has a population approximately 7 times MK Borough's:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool_City_Region

The EU ESPON definition of the metropolitan area (which is, I accept, a very broad concept) has a population over 8.times that of MK's ESPON (MK is 30th in the British ESPON table):
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_in_the_United_Kingdom

Odd that someone who was arguing last week that Wigan should be treated as an equivalent in Liverpool terms to Meadowhall for Sheffield is now arguing that Wigan should not be seen as having any connection to Liverpool whatsoever. But not surprising, as the only time you ever address me on this forum.is to argue that Liverpool is a 'second tier' city that should be low on the priority list for railway improvements. It's a strange attitude, but one which seems to underlie many of your contributions