Proposal to split cross-Manchester services and re-route trains heading west to run from Victoria

[Purple Orange]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/petition-for-manchester-piccadilly-platforms-15-16.181831


I struggle to understand how some of the P13/14 services can't be mapped in to the main train shed with the counterpart route west of Manchester going to Victoria. Someone with far better working knowledge of the railways than me could probably disprove this theory but here goes:

According to real time trains, between 5pm and 6pm there will be 45 departures from Piccadilly, of which 22 are through P13/14 and 11 are from P1-3. P8-12 each have one service departing in that hour and I undestand that also means the same train needs to arrive.

So, if the northern services were split with the west approach going to Victoria and the Southern approach remaining at Piccadilly, I don't quite see how a few of those services could not go to P8-12.

 

[HSTEd]

So, if the northern services were split with the west approach going to Victoria and the Southern approach remaining at Piccadilly, I don't quite see how a few of those services could not go to P8-12.

Amongst other things, moving a train from the westbound line through the corridor to the shed requires it to foul the eastbound line.

 

[Killingworth]

I struggle to understand how some of the P13/14 services can't be mapped in to the main train shed with the counterpart route west of Manchester going to Victoria. Someone with far better working knowledge of the railways than me could probably disprove this theory but here goes:

According to real time trains, between 5pm and 6pm there will be 45 departures from Piccadilly, of which 22 are through P13/14 and 11 are from P1-3. P8-12 each have one service departing in that hour and I undestand that also means the same train needs to arrive.

So, if the northern services were split with the west approach going to Victoria and the Southern approach remaining at Piccadilly, I don't quite see how a few of those services could not go to P8-12.

Each route is different and each traveller has there own needs. I shall be travelling from Sheffield to a station near Liverpool on Friday. I don't live in the centre of Sheffield. There's a good connection at Liverpool South Parkway and on other days I may change at Lime Street. Adding a cross city transfer in Manchester would kill the journeys altogether for me, certainly by train.

I suspect any service cut will prove unpopular.

Regarding the main shed at Piccadilly, stacking of two or even three trains is common. Thanks to trains arriving late they may have to go into different platforms from those intended. My Hope Valley stopper usually goes into 2, 3, or 4 but recently we were ready to depart when a late TPE service from the airport was put in front of us and we had to wait almost 10 minutes to be released! By the time we got to Dore the Cleethorpes TPE service was hard on our heels, probably blaming the stopper for being late!

Manchester capacity is more than Castlefield and 13/14, more than the Piccadilly train shed and includes restrictions through Stockport. 15/16 is not thinking big enough.

 

[a_c_skinner]

15/16 is not thinking big enough

Absolutely. I know comparisons are odious and (worse) off topic but in London we've Thameslink 2000 (plus the Prince Charles delay), Crossrail, Crossrail 2 and the Northern line extension. We've had Jubilee line extension recently (by my chronology) too. We need to think bigger or stop wasting our mental efforts.

 

[Altfish]

So, if the northern services were split with the west approach going to Victoria and the Southern approach remaining at Piccadilly, I don't quite see how a few of those services could not go to P8-12.

Platform 12 is a bit of a waste of time. It is a short platform that can probably hold a 4-car unit, to leave the platform the train has to join the line from 11 whilst still in the platform.
The Mid-Cheshire line used to use it on Saturdays.

 

[_toommm_]

Platform 12 is a bit of a waste of time. It is a short platform that can probably hold a 4-car unit, to leave the platform the train has to join the line from 11 whilst still in the platform.
The Mid-Cheshire line used to use it on Saturdays.

And it's a really awkward platform to access. IIRC, you can't access it from the footbridge so if you're going from 13/14, you have to leave at Platform 10, encounter the ticket bods, then walk around.

Similarly, if you're coming from 1 to 7 and you don't want to have to go have your ticket checked twice, you can't use the overbridge so have to encounter both TPE or Avanti, and Northern revenue staff.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Platform 12 is a bit of a waste of time. It is a short platform that can probably hold a 4-car unit, to leave the platform the train has to join the line from 11 whilst still in the platform.
The Mid-Cheshire line used to use it on Saturdays.

Strangely, it was added in the late 1990s or early 2000s (having been taken OOU years ago). I wonder if it was regretted?

It seems rather similar to what Liverpool Lime St platform 0 would be like if they hadn't decided not to bother with it.

 

[Greybeard33]

I struggle to understand how some of the P13/14 services can't be mapped in to the main train shed with the counterpart route west of Manchester going to Victoria. Someone with far better working knowledge of the railways than me could probably disprove this theory but here goes:

According to real time trains, between 5pm and 6pm there will be 45 departures from Piccadilly, of which 22 are through P13/14 and 11 are from P1-3. P8-12 each have one service departing in that hour and I undestand that also means the same train needs to arrive.

So, if the northern services were split with the west approach going to Victoria and the Southern approach remaining at Piccadilly, I don't quite see how a few of those services could not go to P8-12.

It probably would be possible to find capacity in P8-12 to reverse a couple of the Northern services from Hazel Grove/Alderley Edge/Crewe/Manchester Airport, which currently go through P13/14. Although these platforms provide less capacity than might be thought. P9-12 are all accessed through the same single lead junction, so no parallel movements are possible. A movement in or out of any of these four platforms blocks access to all the other three. P9 and P10 are used by the 6-car TPE Cleethorpes services, which drop off one 3-car 185 for an hour while the other unit goes to the Airport and back. And P11 and P12 are only 4-car length. P8 certainly has some spare capacity - in most hours it has only the TfW S Wales service booked.

The problem is rather how to accommodate the western half of the split services at Victoria, where the through platforms 3-6 have little spare capacity and there are no west facing bays. This would be particularly problematic if any of the electric services, from Blackpool or Liverpool, were split. There are no wires for EMUs to continue east of Victoria, so they would have to reverse in one of the through platforms (as the Preston - Vic stopper already does), clogging up the station and making Victoria the bottleneck instead of Piccadilly.

See Castlefield corridor potential solutions? post #206, in which I quoted a post from user @scrapy that detailed a rumoured timetable change to divert two diesel services to/through Victoria:

The solution I've heard mentioned is to divert the TFW to Stalybridge via Victoria replacing the Northern shuttle. There would also be major changes to Southport/Kirkby timings to accommodate this with the Southport to Stalybridge taking the path of the current Southport to Alderley through Bolton and the other Southport taking the path of the current Kirkby train via Atherton to Vic. There would then be a Kirkby to Bolton (or possibly Vic via Bolton)service. Alderley to Piccadilly would be stand alone and Lime St to Crewe would remain.

 

[The Ham]

Without diving in to this airport dog fight too deeply may I suggest we look at trends and see where travel patterns are finding their own levels?

Using the statistics and tools in the ORR's release we can see that almost every station in the north saw minimal or negative growth from 2017-18 to 2018-19. Manchester Airport bucks the trend by a big margin at approaching 20%. Looking quickly I may have missed one (probably a very small station) but I couldn't find one bigger. Very few others even get to 5% growth and a mere handful over 10%.

Any normal business would prioritise the growth areas.

Instead of continually patching up the Victorian past we need to think big, like they did, and look into the future. That might include looking at some of the ideas they had that have been left to one side.

But it's true. In 50 years time we may not be flying anything like as much and cruises may be outlawed. Cars may be rationed and we'll all be walking a great deal more, moderating our activities accordingly.

Whilst Manchester Airport had seen significant growth, it's starting from a fairly low baseline.

It has seen an extra 1 million passengers, whilst Piccadilly saw an extra 2 million. As couch it is entirely possible that all that growth was between Manchester and the airport with very little going further afield.

As such it's important to know where that growth is to/from before being able to understand what impact changing train patterns do have.

 

[Killingworth]

Whilst Manchester Airport had seen significant growth, it's starting from a fairly low baseline.

It has seen an extra 1 million passengers, whilst Piccadilly saw an extra 2 million. As couch it is entirely possible that all that growth was between Manchester and the airport with very little going further afield.

As such it's important to know where that growth is to/from before being able to understand what impact changing train patterns do have.

Somebody will know, but that's not information that's made generally available. It will be very interesting for TfGM, TfN, the TOCs and Network Rail.

 

[Purple Orange]

Thanks to everyone for the very informative replies.

Reading through the comments, it’s fair to say that a couple of the dozen or so services that go through P14 could go in to the main shed, as long as a suitable alternative end point for the western half of the service is found.

So potentially, if the TfW services were re-routed via Victoria and a couple of the Northern services were split (Picc main shed and Vic - again assuming capacity availability), would taking 4 trains per hour away from the Castlefield corridor result in enough of an improvement? Or will it still not quite paper over the cracks and we’re back in the territory of waiting patiently for NPR to turn up?

Then there is the freight train of course!

 

[hwl]

Thanks to everyone for the very informative replies.

Reading through the comments, it’s fair to say that a couple of the dozen or so services that go through P14 could go in to the main shed, as long as a suitable alternative end point for the western half of the service is found.

So potentially, if the TfW services were re-routed via Victoria and a couple of the Northern services were split (Picc main shed and Vic - again assuming capacity availability), would taking 4 trains per hour away from the Castlefield corridor result in enough of an improvement? Or will it still not quite paper over the cracks and we’re back in the territory of waiting patiently for NPR to turn up?

Then there is the freight train of course!

Decent length trains and minimising end door rolling stock combined with 2tph less should do the trick short term till work start on some of the infrastructure issues.

 

[The Ham]

Thanks to everyone for the very informative replies.

Reading through the comments, it’s fair to say that a couple of the dozen or so services that go through P14 could go in to the main shed, as long as a suitable alternative end point for the western half of the service is found.

So potentially, if the TfW services were re-routed via Victoria and a couple of the Northern services were split (Picc main shed and Vic - again assuming capacity availability), would taking 4 trains per hour away from the Castlefield corridor result in enough of an improvement? Or will it still not quite paper over the cracks and we’re back in the territory of waiting patiently for NPR to turn up?

Then there is the freight train of course!

Whilst NPR will improve things further HS2 would be when things start to improve.

Although there will be a need for some existing services to remain (or replacement more local services to occupy the paths) there's still going to be a reduction in the overall number of paths, there's also going to be the creation of at least 1 whole platform's worth of capacity by removing the long distance services from Piccadilly.

It could well be that XC no longer serve Manchester (with passengers changing at Birmingham with XC no longer serving New Street to aid with the transfer of passengers) or at the very least only having the SW services continuing.

As I've cited before, any passengers from Reading or South would find a quicker journey via Old Oak Common (assuming current services), whilst anyone from Banbury upwards wouldn't be too inconvenienced by using other services to get to Manchester. The likes of Coventry could even gain a new direct, via Nuneaton, service to Manchester. Therefore why continue a through service for those from Oxford? It's hardly a large market.

Therefore those XC paths from the South Coast could be removed and replaced by HS2 services which run between Birmingham and Manchester.

That'll be enough to allow 2tph back into the corridor (even if nothing else happens between now and then) as well as allowing services to end at Piccadilly by freeing up capacity there.

With the potential for 3,300 seats an hour on the London/Manchester services plus the Birmingham services and any other services which might use the new HS2 lines (is unlikely that they would get much more congested of there were 4 x HS2 services an hour plus a further 4 x existing (due to be NPR services) an hour.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

As I've cited before, any passengers from Reading or South would find a quicker journey via Old Oak Common (assuming current services), whilst anyone from Banbury upwards wouldn't be too inconvenienced by using other services to get to Manchester. The likes of Coventry could even gain a new direct, via Nuneaton, service to Manchester. Therefore why continue a through service for those from Oxford? It's hardly a large market. Therefore those XC paths from the South Coast could be removed and replaced by HS2 services which run between Birmingham and Manchester.

Based upon HS2 information currently available, what would be the earliest year that any HS2 services would run between Birmingham and Manchester?

 

[Greybeard33]

Whilst NPR will improve things further HS2 would be when things start to improve.

Although there will be a need for some existing services to remain (or replacement more local services to occupy the paths) there's still going to be a reduction in the overall number of paths, there's also going to be the creation of at least 1 whole platform's worth of capacity by removing the long distance services from Piccadilly.

It could well be that XC no longer serve Manchester (with passengers changing at Birmingham with XC no longer serving New Street to aid with the transfer of passengers) or at the very least only having the SW services continuing.

As I've cited before, any passengers from Reading or South would find a quicker journey via Old Oak Common (assuming current services), whilst anyone from Banbury upwards wouldn't be too inconvenienced by using other services to get to Manchester. The likes of Coventry could even gain a new direct, via Nuneaton, service to Manchester. Therefore why continue a through service for those from Oxford? It's hardly a large market.

Therefore those XC paths from the South Coast could be removed and replaced by HS2 services which run between Birmingham and Manchester.

That'll be enough to allow 2tph back into the corridor (even if nothing else happens between now and then) as well as allowing services to end at Piccadilly by freeing up capacity there.

With the potential for 3,300 seats an hour on the London/Manchester services plus the Birmingham services and any other services which might use the new HS2 lines (is unlikely that they would get much more congested of there were 4 x HS2 services an hour plus a further 4 x existing (due to be NPR services) an hour.

How will HS2 replace West Coast and XC services from Manchester to Wilmslow, Macclesfield, Stoke, Stafford and Wolverhampton?

And none of those services run through P13/14, so how would any reductions eliminate the need for P15/16?

 

[Purple Orange]

How will HS2 replace West Coast and XC services from Manchester to Wilmslow, Macclesfield, Stoke, Stafford and Wolverhampton?

And none of those services run through P13/14, so how would any reductions eliminate the need for P15/16?

Well as a resident of Wilmslow, I would expect that my long distance custom would move to the airport. Or, I’d start from Wilmslow to Piccadilly then south to Birmingham/London. In both cases, that would be faster than the current service provision.

I travel from Wilmslow to Euston fairly regularly and 1 hr 47 appears to be the fastest route heading north and 1 hr 54 heading south. It takes 27 mins from Wilmslow to Piccadilly calling at all stops, add in 20 mins padding for delay or buying something at Piccadilly, plus 1 hour to Euston via HS2 and the time is easily comparable, if not faster without the 20 min padding.

 

[Greybeard33]

My post concerned services from those towns to Manchester, not to London. For instance, Stoke-on-Trent has four fast trains per hour to Piccadilly, two West Coast and two XC. If they were all removed, because HS2 has "replaced" them for journeys from London and Birmingham to Manchester, Stoke would be left with only the hourly Northern stopper to Piccadilly. If replacement local services were then provided, they would use up the classic paths to Piccadilly that supposedly will be "freed" by HS2!

 

[B&I]

Whilst NPR will improve things further HS2 would be when things start to improve.

Although there will be a need for some existing services to remain (or replacement more local services to occupy the paths) there's still going to be a reduction in the overall number of paths, there's also going to be the creation of at least 1 whole platform's worth of capacity by removing the long distance services from Piccadilly.

It could well be that XC no longer serve Manchester (with passengers changing at Birmingham with XC no longer serving New Street to aid with the transfer of passengers) or at the very least only having the SW services continuing.

As I've cited before, any passengers from Reading or South would find a quicker journey via Old Oak Common (assuming current services), whilst anyone from Banbury upwards wouldn't be too inconvenienced by using other services to get to Manchester. The likes of Coventry could even gain a new direct, via Nuneaton, service to Manchester. Therefore why continue a through service for those from Oxford? It's hardly a large market.

Therefore those XC paths from the South Coast could be removed and replaced by HS2 services which run between Birmingham and Manchester.

That'll be enough to allow 2tph back into the corridor (even if nothing else happens between now and then) as well as allowing services to end at Piccadilly by freeing up capacity there.

With the potential for 3,300 seats an hour on the London/Manchester services plus the Birmingham services and any other services which might use the new HS2 lines (is unlikely that they would get much more congested of there were 4 x HS2 services an hour plus a further 4 x existing (due to be NPR services) an hour.

Or you could build the new infrastructure desperately needed for long-distance services across Manchester, rather than hoping that HS2 will be the indirect solution to every railway capacity problem in the country

 

[HSTEd]

My post concerned services from those towns to Manchester, not to London. For instance, Stoke-on-Trent has four fast trains per hour to Piccadilly, two West Coast and two XC. If they were all removed, because HS2 has "replaced" them for journeys from London and Birmingham to Manchester, Stoke would be left with only the hourly Northern stopper to Piccadilly. If replacement local services were then provided, they would use up the classic paths to Piccadilly that supposedly will be "freed" by HS2!

Homogenisation of the traffic on the route once the fastest services are eliminated would permit a net increase in service potential.
The fastest trains might get a bit slower but we would expect similar or better service patterns to secondary stations.

Also the likes of Wilmslow people would just use the STyal Line or drive to the Airport instead.

 

[The Ham]

My post concerned services from those towns to Manchester, not to London. For instance, Stoke-on-Trent has four fast trains per hour to Piccadilly, two West Coast and two XC. If they were all removed, because HS2 has "replaced" them for journeys from London and Birmingham to Manchester, Stoke would be left with only the hourly Northern stopper to Piccadilly. If replacement local services were then provided, they would use up the classic paths to Piccadilly that supposedly will be "freed" by HS2!

IIRC the proposal is that the Intercity services wouldn't all go, rather some would change to bring semi fast services adding the WCML.

However one thing which could happen is that by the removal of some of the long distance services between London and Manchester it could allow the extension of TPE services South of the airport providing a semi fast service from the South to Manchester.

This would provide significant capacity for those local passengers who would otherwise be missing out from the loss of London services.

There would still be at least one London semi fast service along the WCML.

This would remove 2tph (London) from Manchester whilst not really changing capacity South of the airport.

Whilst there would be more demand between Manchester and the airport with a HS2 station at the airport this would allow the potential for a lot of those passengers to be carried without adding to the semi fast services on the existing line.

However that still leaves the path of XC services from the South coast, which could then be used for other other semi fast services.

 

[Purple Orange]

My post concerned services from those towns to Manchester, not to London. For instance, Stoke-on-Trent has four fast trains per hour to Piccadilly, two West Coast and two XC. If they were all removed, because HS2 has "replaced" them for journeys from London and Birmingham to Manchester, Stoke would be left with only the hourly Northern stopper to Piccadilly. If replacement local services were then provided, they would use up the classic paths to Piccadilly that supposedly will be "freed" by HS2!

Your last sentence is exactly the point. I hope to see more frequent, all stop services in to Manchester from Crewe and Stoke. Thinking a bit more out of the box, we could see the local commuter services in to Manchester and Birmingham joined up so Stafford, Stoke, Marc and Wolverhampton don’t lose their direct links. For example:

• Piccadilly-all stops-Crewe-Stafford-Wolverhampton-all stops-New Street.
• Piccadilly-all stops-Stoke-Stafford-Wolverhampton-all stops-New Street.

London Midland or whatever it’s called these days appears to achieve something similar from Euston to Brum.

 

[dewsnapsliding]

Could not the Liverpool - Sheffield (and further) service be routed by Victoria and then via Philips Park/Ashburys? Granted it might incur a time penalty as it is longer via that route, but capacity between Ashburys to Hope Valley via either Guide Bridge or Bredbury is certainly not full?

That way you maintain service without forcing changes and remove the services from the P13/14 and Slade Lane - Stockport choke points?

Additionally anyone requiring Picc could probably as easily change at Ashburys for a frequent(ish) dash round through Ardwick to Piccadilly.

I may have asked this before, does anyone know why the Sheffield stoppers were diverted away from the Guide Bridge route around 1990 as I used to be able to visit a friend in Dore easily before having to get to Bredbury latterly?

 

[B&I]

Your last sentence is exactly the point. I hope to see more frequent, all stop services in to Manchester from Crewe and Stoke. Thinking a bit more out of the box, we could see the local commuter services in to Manchester and Birmingham joined up so Stafford, Stoke, Marc and Wolverhampton don’t lose their direct links. For example:

• Piccadilly-all stops-Crewe-Stafford-Wolverhampton-all stops-New Street.
• Piccadilly-all stops-Stoke-Stafford-Wolverhampton-all stops-New Street.

London Midland or whatever it’s called these days appears to achieve something similar from Euston to Brum.

Extending the current Euston-Crewe with increased frequencies to Lime Street and Piccadilly for increased connections along the current WCML would seem.an obvious step

 

[plugwash]

And it's a really awkward platform to access. IIRC, you can't access it from the footbridge so if you're going from 13/14, you have to leave at Platform 10, encounter the ticket bods, then walk around.

There is a lift connecting platform 12 to the link bridge lounge and to fairfield street, it's not very obvious though if you don't know it's there.

 

[_toommm_]

There is a lift connecting platform 12 to the link bridge lounge and to fairfield street, it's not very obvious though if you don't know it's there.

It mustn't be very obvious - I commuted through there for a year and never knew that!

 

[Killingworth]

Could not the Liverpool - Sheffield (and further) service be routed by Victoria and then via Philips Park/Ashburys? Granted it might incur a time penalty as it is longer via that route, but capacity between Ashburys to Hope Valley via either Guide Bridge or Bredbury is certainly not full?

Sorry, firstly the Liverpool - Sheffield - Nottingham - Norwich forms part of the half hourly fast service between Piccadilly and Sheffield, which isn't very fast at the best of times. Having different stations for each half is not on. It's bad enough having to cover different platforms as it is.

Secondly, the time between Sheffield and Liverpool is supposed to be just under 2 hours for about 78 miles, an average speed of about 40mph for an intercity train. If the best we can think of is shunting it round the north side of Manchester city cente adding more slow miles we replace one problem with another.

We certainly have a major problem now! All the solutions being offered are inadequate. We need road traffic out of city centres. We need fast rail routes from the centre to far away places using existing routes largely for tram and local rail.

Think big for the next 50+ years. Manchester Crossrail/Irwell-Link box offering swift journey times for through routes below the suburbs to Manchester Central somewhere between Victoria and Piccadilly linked by travellators or a mini-subway train.

We aren't thinking big enough when Crossrail 2 is already approaching for London promising 60,000 jobs to construct. Why can't we in the north have something of the same order? (Because it's in the north and Crossrail 1 has gone so over budget and out of time!) Where's our ambition? We're proposing sticking plasters but the patient is beyond that.

Anyone travelling around the globe will be aware of developments decades if not centuries ahead of ours, excepting possibly HS1.

 

[Purple Orange]

Extending the current Euston-Crewe with increased frequencies to Lime Street and Piccadilly for increased connections along the current WCML would seem.an obvious step

If we assume that high speed rail will be built around the country over the next 50-60 years in a manner that we have seen with the motorways, we should therefore see the opportunity for at least one existing line in to every city becoming a high frequency commuter line. Our current main lines and branch lines are the A-roads and B-roads, of which they are far reaching. With that in mind, I worry that the creation of new or extended ‘semi-fast’ services is the result we will get, but not the goal we want to achieve.

I’ll use Manchester as the example because that is the city I know the most, but this should apply in a similar manner to every city. Piccadilly to Victoria should form the equivalent of Merseyrail, with every line coming away from that being part of a metro frequency system. The current lines to Liverpool should become metro frequency all stop lines, same with the lines to Southport, Preston/Blackpool, Blackburn, Leeds via Bradford, Stoke, Crewe and the Styal line. All express services to other big cities need to be on NPR or HS2. This should be the ambition.

‘Semi-fast’ services (a term nobody outside the rail industry uses and is irrelevant jargon to passengers) will not address the issue of getting people out of their cars and using an electrified frequent train service to get to work in the peak hours, and it will not encourage people to get of their cars for a recreational trip on a weekend. If we have a local train station in a big urban conurbation on the WCML still being served by two trains per hour to the centre of that city after HS2 has been built, while a couple of ‘sem-fast’ services float past from Milton Keynes, then we have failed.

 

[Purple Orange]

Yes Killingworth! Exactly!

 

[B&I]

If we assume that high speed rail will be built around the country over the next 50-60 years in a manner that we have seen with the motorways, we should therefore see the opportunity for at least one existing line in to every city becoming a high frequency commuter line. Our current main lines and branch lines are the A-roads and B-roads, of which they are far reaching. With that in mind, I worry that the creation of new or extended ‘semi-fast’ services is the result we will get, but not the goal we want to achieve.

I’ll use Manchester as the example because that is the city I know the most, but this should apply in a similar manner to every city. Piccadilly to Victoria should form the equivalent of Merseyrail, with every line coming away from that being part of a metro frequency system. The current lines to Liverpool should become metro frequency all stop lines, same with the lines to Southport, Preston/Blackpool, Blackburn, Leeds via Bradford, Stoke, Crewe and the Styal line. All express services to other big cities need to be on NPR or HS2. This should be the ambition.

‘Semi-fast’ services (a term nobody outside the rail industry uses and is irrelevant jargon to passengers) will not address the issue of getting people out of their cars and using an electrified frequent train service to get to work in the peak hours, and it will not encourage people to get of their cars for a recreational trip on a weekend. If we have a local train station in a big urban conurbation on the WCML still being served by two trains per hour to the centre of that city after HS2 has been built, while a couple of ‘sem-fast’ services float past from Milton Keynes, then we have failed.

I agree with your general idea of metrofying existing lines once long distance trains have moved to high speed lines. However, it would take a lot of metro trains at 15 minute frequencies to fill up (for example) the WCML between Stafford and Manchester. So I think there's still scope for running longer distance trains in addition to high speed services, serving smaller places which are unlikely themselves to have high speed stations, but ensuring maximum connectivity. There is a market for medium-distance travel in between the two.poles of high speed city to city, and local stopping services.

Perhaps the most balanced solution is to build more flexibility into the high speed network, so that it can accommodate these medium distance services which appropriate as well. Taking the Manchester example, a limited-stop train bound for Brum or the Trent Valley via Stafford could leave central Manchester using the same line as high speed trains (bearing in mind these won't be travelling too fast to begin with), then connect to the old WCML at some convenient terminating point for inner suburban services, taking over the fast(er) lines outbound from there, while outer suburban services use the slow(er) ones

 

[Purple Orange]

I agree with your general idea of metrofying existing lines once long distance trains have moved to high speed lines. However, it would take a lot of metro trains at 15 minute frequencies to fill up (for example) the WCML between Stafford and Manchester. So I think there's still scope for running longer distance trains in addition to high speed services, serving smaller places which are unlikely themselves to have high speed stations, but ensuring maximum connectivity. There is a market for medium-distance travel in between the two.poles of high speed city to city, and local stopping services.

Perhaps the most balanced solution is to build more flexibility into the high speed network, so that it can accommodate these medium distance services which appropriate as well. Taking the Manchester example, a limited-stop train bound for Brum or the Trent Valley via Stafford could leave central Manchester using the same line as high speed trains (bearing in mind these won't be travelling too fast to begin with), then connect to the old WCML at some convenient terminating point for inner suburban services, taking over the fast(er) lines outbound from there, while outer suburban services use the slow(er) ones

Im not sure a 15 min frequency would be needed to run the length from Brum to Manc. Could be half hourly with a further two services statting from Crewe north and Stafford going south. I suppose a London Northwestern model could work too. But if we think about people living on the main stops on the XC network between Brum and Manc, for most stops it will be quicker changing at an HS2 service than staying on the direct train. Stafford and Stoke being the exception.