Potential HS2 services

[Purple Orange]

However, it is questionable whether traffic to Manchester alone, if intermediate stops are bypassed, can justify a 20 minute interval service.

Does Birmingham justify 3 HS2 trains per hour in your opinion?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Feb 2021 ==

The local service question probably depends on detailed timetabling issues - probably the terminating HS2 train will only occupy the platform for a shortish time each hour so a local could use it at other times.

I guess the Macclesfield could run through to Manchester once Phase 2b bypasses the Stockport bottleneck, although I'm not sure if it's the best use for a high speed set. There will presumably still be 2TPH Manchester-Birmingham on the classic line then, so Stafford, Stoke and Macclesfield should still get a reasonable fast service to Manchester.

There shouldn’t be 2 tph between Birmingham & Manchester on the classic line post HS2. There will still be a London-Manchester service on the WCML, calling at Stafford, Stoke, Macclesfield, (possibly Cheadle Hulme) and Stockport. An additional train from Birmingham would give Stafford, Stoke and Macclesfield 2 fast tph, which will compliment the local services to either Brum or Manc.

 

[Starmill]

The fact that the full business case says that a London to Macclesfield via Stafford HS2 service is planned doesn't actually mean that's what will be delivered, in a decade's time, when it begins.

 

[Purple Orange]

The fact that the full business case says that a London to Macclesfield via Stafford HS2 service is planned doesn't actually mean that's what will be delivered, in a decade's time, when it begins.

I suspect there will be a service to Macc, calling at Stoke but it will continue on to Manchester. The idea being that the classic WCML service that also visit Stoke & Macclesfield will be much slower due to the increase in stops both south & north. It’ll be like a LNW service to Birmingham with the equivalent of an an 8-car 350 (I think actual 350s will be approaching their retirement by the time HS2 is running on phase 2b.

 

[The Planner]

The fact that the full business case says that a London to Macclesfield via Stafford HS2 service is planned doesn't actually mean that's what will be delivered, in a decade's time, when it begins.

Depends what happens politically in that time, Stoke will kick off monumentally if it is binned. It was originally a Liverpool via Stafford until it was realised the second train via 2A would catch it up. Kills two birds with one stone by routing it to Macc.

 

[HST43257]

I disagree a lot with the Manchester plan, and a fair few HS2 services really.

Some Avanti services can be, more or less, copied in HS2, to operate in the way they are set out below. Theyre done like they are pre covid because there are key flows that are addressed (as well as politics which we can ignore). Wilmslow and Stockport shouldn’t lose services, we should be increasing services instead, hence the service to Huddersfield (electrification within 15 years should be possible).

— London to Man Pic calling at Crewe, Wilmslow and Stockport.
— London to Huddersfield (prev Man Pic) calling at Stoke, Macclesfield, Stockport and Stalybridge.
— London to Aberdeen (prev Glasgow) calling at Warrington, Wigan, Preston, Oxenholme, Carlisle, Motherwell, Stirling, Perth, Dundee, Arbroath, Montrose and Stonehaven.

A Liverpool service can cover Stafford, and a link can go in straight from HS2 to the Stoke route, avoiding Stafford.

 

[cle]

I suspect there will be a service to Macc, calling at Stoke but it will continue on to Manchester. The idea being that the classic WCML service that also visit Stoke & Macclesfield will be much slower due to the increase in stops both south & north. It’ll be like a LNW service to Birmingham with the equivalent of an an 8-car 350 (I think actual 350s will be approaching their retirement by the time HS2 is running on phase 2b.

I expect so. Where would it terminate at Macclesfield?

Also, you can't fill a train with Stafford, Stoke and Macclesfield traffic. It's waste of a path. It's implictly obvious it will continue to Stockport and Manchester Piccadilly. What will be a shame is if local traffic is not allowed on this service, given that it will be a good piece of capacity between these five stations.

As to Birmingham to Manchester on the WCML routes. I see these in future as being like today's Birmingham-Liverpool routes. Run by something like 350s, semi-fast - not about end to end but the many journeys in between. Having 4tph (2tph via Wilmslow, 2tph via Stoke) would give a lot of places a good 2tph service to both cities.

 

[Greybeard33]

Also, you can't fill a train with Stafford, Stoke and Macclesfield traffic. It's waste of a path. It's implictly obvious it will continue to Stockport and Manchester Piccadilly. What will be a shame is if local traffic is not allowed on this service, given that it will be a good piece of capacity between these five stations.

According to the DfT Train Service Specification I described in Post #12, under Phase 2a there will be four London trains per hour through Stockport - three fast HS2 services plus a WCML service via Stoke. That is one more than pre-Covid. I do not know how the fourth train can be fitted in without cutting local services. There is certainly no capacity to extend the HS2 Macclesfield train to Manchester as well, making a fifth London service through Stockport.

 

[JonathanH]

According to the DfT Train Service Specification I described in Post #12, under Phase 2a there will be four London trains per hour through Stockport - three fast HS2 services plus a WCML service via Stoke. That is one more than pre-Covid. I do not know how the fourth train can be fitted in without cutting local services. There is certainly no capacity to extend the HS2 Macclesfield train to Manchester as well, making a fifth London service through Stockport.

This really is the problem isn't it - loads of extra capacity at one end of the route and none at the other which means the loss of existing links or taking over more of the local paths whose release are meant to be the whole reason for building the new line.

It is the same with Anglo-Scottish services and other trains to Lancashire - essentially the quantum of services north of Wigan has to stay the same as it is now.

 

[Ianno87]

This really is the problem isn't it - loads of extra capacity at one end of the route and none at the other which means the loss of existing links or taking over more of the local paths whose release are meant to be the whole reason for building the new line.

Though it's only a problem until 2b into Manchester is completed; it's a necessary evil in by necessity having to deliver the scheme in phases. In the meantime, the objective is to avoid having any individual thing get significantly worse.

 

[Greybeard33]

Though it's only a problem until 2b into Manchester is completed; it's a necessary evil in by necessity having to deliver the scheme in phases. In the meantime, the objective is to avoid having any individual thing get significantly worse.

There is no certainty any part of Phase 2b will ever get built. The hybrid bill has not even been drafted yet. The Manchester tunnel and Piccadilly station will be eye wateringly costly and might well fall victim to future austerity - postponed if not cancelled.

Phase 2a is supposedly a standalone project and the associated timetable should make best use of the available infrastructure, not be a "necessary evil".

 

[Ianno87]

There is no certainty any part of Phase 2b will ever get built. The hybrid bill has not even been drafted yet. The Manchester tunnel and Piccadilly station will be eye wateringly costly and might well fall victim to future austerity - postponed if not cancelled.

Phase 2a is supposedly a standalone project and the associated timetable should make best use of the available infrastructure, not be a "necessary evil".

And as discussed upthread, Phase 2a alone does not preclude sensible choices being made about how capacity on the Manchester approaches is allocated in the meantime.

 

[PTR 444]

As to Birmingham to Manchester on the WCML routes. I see these in future as being like today's Birmingham-Liverpool routes. Run by something like 350s, semi-fast - not about end to end but the many journeys in between. Having 4tph (2tph via Wilmslow, 2tph via Stoke) would give a lot of places a good 2tph service to both cities.

Surely 2tph of these would be better off as XC Voyager services. I know having fast services on classic lines between Manchester and Birmingham won’t be priority post-HS2 2b, but I think there will still be merit in having direct trains between Manchester and Bristol/Bournemouth to retain connectivity.

 

[Purple Orange]

Surely 2tph of these would be better off as XC Voyager services. I know having fast services on classic lines between Manchester and Birmingham won’t be priority post-HS2 2b, but I think there will still be merit in having direct trains between Manchester and Bristol/Bournemouth to retain connectivity.

Why2 tph? Today there is 1 tph to Bristol, which has merit in continuing, but it will take a hit in passenger volumes. Not only will the Manchester to Birmingham passengers move across to HS2, but so will all those who would join at Stockport (and perhaps a big chunk of those who board at Macclesfield, if they live Alderley Edge way). This will be the same in reverse for those who currently board at Wolverhampton. Plus the people who are travelling to Bristol, most of those will likely change at Birmingham due to the superior journey time. If there is a XC Manc-Bristol service after HS2, I doubt it will fill 4-cars with th3 passengers who are willing to still use it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Feb 2021 ==

There is no certainty any part of Phase 2b will ever get built. The hybrid bill has not even been drafted yet. The Manchester tunnel and Piccadilly station will be eye wateringly costly and might well fall victim to future austerity - postponed if not cancelled.

Phase 2a is supposedly a standalone project and the associated timetable should make best use of the available infrastructure, not be a "necessary evil".

I’d say it’s highly unlikely that phase 2b west will be cancelled.

Piccadilly HS2 (6-platform terminus station on the surface) should be no more expensive than Curzon Street (7-platform terminus station on the surface). Added to the fact that that stretch will free up capacity through Stockport and reduce phase 2a London-Manchester journey times by a further 20% and Birmingham-Manchester by 53%.

In fact while phase 2a is open, Manchester-Birmingham trains will take 88 mins, but London will be 90. It will be the worst possible signal to the rest of the country about levelling-up.

 

[PTR 444]

Why2 tph? Today there is 1 tph to Bristol, which has merit in continuing, but it will take a hit in passenger volumes.

There are 2tph today (pre-covid). 1tph to Bristol and 1tph to Bournemouth. Or are you saying that Manchester - Bournemouth doesn’t have merit in continuing post-HS2 but Manchester - Bristol does?

 

[Bletchleyite]

There are 2tph today (pre-covid). 1tph to Bristol and 1tph to Bournemouth. Or are you saying that Manchester - Bournemouth doesn’t have merit in continuing post-HS2 but Manchester - Bristol does?

I would say Bristol probably has more merit than Bournemouth, yes.

 

[HST43257]

There are 2tph today (pre-covid). 1tph to Bristol and 1tph to Bournemouth. Or are you saying that Manchester - Bournemouth doesn’t have merit in continuing post-HS2 but Manchester - Bristol does?

This will sound strange to some but is there any chance of the Manchester to Bristol being kept and the Manchester to Bournemouth coming from Nuneaton? Coventry seems like the one of the biggest losers out of HS2 and taking away their South West service, and Nuneaton seems like a sensible interchange providing extra connectivity to a new part of the country.

 

[edwin_m]

There shouldn’t be 2 tph between Birmingham & Manchester on the classic line post HS2. There will still be a London-Manchester service on the WCML, calling at Stafford, Stoke, Macclesfield, (possibly Cheadle Hulme) and Stockport. An additional train from Birmingham would give Stafford, Stoke and Macclesfield 2 fast tph, which will compliment the local services to either Brum or Manc.

Why? I would have thought the places in between still deserve a half-hourly service to both major cities.

Just to be clear, I'm not assuming this service would terminate in Birmingham.

This will sound strange to some but is there any chance of the Manchester to Bristol being kept and the Manchester to Bournemouth coming from Nuneaton? Coventry seems like the one of the biggest losers out of HS2 and taking away their South West service, and Nuneaton seems like a sensible interchange providing extra connectivity to a new part of the country.

I expect there would still be Cross Country type trains using the existing route via Coventry and Oxford.

 

[PTR 444]

I expect there would still be Cross Country type trains using the existing route via Coventry and Oxford.

I agree. There will still be demand for Birmingham - Reading journeys and they will most likely be more convenient on direct trains via Oxford rather than using HS2 and changing at OOC.

 

[HST43257]

I expect there would still be Cross Country type trains using the existing route via Coventry and Oxford.

Do many people use these services, despite the longer route?

 

[Purple Orange]

There are 2tph today (pre-covid). 1tph to Bristol and 1tph to Bournemouth. Or are you saying that Manchester - Bournemouth doesn’t have merit in continuing post-HS2 but Manchester - Bristol does?

The south coast services will be a casualty of HS2. Why take 3 hours to get as far as Reading when you can get as far in 90 mins via OOC?

Why? I would have thought the places in between still deserve a half-hourly service to both major cities.

Just to be clear, I'm not assuming this service would terminate in Birmingham.

I expect there would still be Cross Country type trains using the existing route via Coventry and Oxford.

But there will be more than 2 tph, just not in the fashion of XC today. Imagine XC with more stops. Every journey pair will be faster by starting your journey at or changing at Curzon Street, Piccadilly, Manc Airport, Crewe or B’ham Int. If it’s an intermediate journey, like Stoke to Stafford, there will still be 2 fast tph, or perhaps there should be more local trains in it’s place servicing far more people.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But there will be more than 2 tph, just not in the fashion of XC today. Imagine XC with more stops. Every journey pair will be faster by starting your journey at or changing at Curzon Street, Piccadilly, Manc Airport, Crewe or B’ham Int. If it’s an intermediate journey, like Stoke to Stafford, there will still be 2 fast tph, or perhaps there should be more local trains in it’s place servicing far more people.

Faster isn't the only game in town - a through train with a decent level of comfort and working facilities can have its benefits.

Yes, that'll mean out with the Voyagers

 

[The Planner]

A Liverpool service can cover Stafford, and a link can go in straight from HS2 to the Stoke route, avoiding Stafford.

I expect so. Where would it terminate at Macclesfield?

Also, you can't fill a train with Stafford, Stoke and Macclesfield traffic. It's waste of a path. It's implictly obvious it will continue to Stockport and Manchester Piccadilly.

Clearly posters have missed what I have said here. The Liverpool will not go via Handsacre and Stafford, the second service which uses 2A catches it up so it doesnt get utilised by passengers as its slower. A link from 2A to the classic line around Meaford was looked at and binned.

Macclesfield services terminate in the back platform, its long enough. It is planned to go there based on its diagram as it cannot get to Manchester and back.

 

[PTR 444]

The south coast services will be a casualty of HS2. Why take 3 hours to get as far as Reading when you can get as far in 90 mins via OOC?

Manchester - Reading will certainly be quicker via HS2, but to go beyond to Bournemouth will need good connections to work as unless the XC service is diverted to OOC, people making the journey from Manchester to the south coast will need to change twice.

 

[Purple Orange]

Manchester - Reading will certainly be quicker via HS2, but to go beyond to Bournemouth will need good connections to work as unless the XC service is diverted to OOC, people making the journey from Manchester to the south coast will need to change twice.

It might well do, but then It could become the same as many destinations on the south coast - go through London. When you look at the journey times of existing services out of London Waterloo and from Paddington (let us take Paddington as a proxy for OOC, even though OOC will knock 5 mins off the Paddington time), the journey time to the south coast & Reading from and city served by HS2 is much faster than XC today. If you’re going to Oxford, change at Curzon Street, B’ham Int (if there is a link) or OOC.

Even if there are a proportion of people who would sit on the train longer and not change, most will still take the faster journey by changing either at Birmingham, OOC or through London. There was a direct Manchester-Brighton train, but it is faster going through London. Nobody here expects Manchester-Brighton to come back as a regular service. That thinking needs to be applied to all services between the HS2 termini.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Even if there are a proportion of people who would sit on the train longer and not change, most will still take the faster journey by changing either at Birmingham, OOC or through London. There was a direct Manchester-Brighton train, but it is faster going through London. Nobody here expects Manchester-Brighton to come back as a regular service. That thinking needs to be applied to all services between the HS2 termini.

Why? Why can the railway not provide slower, direct trains for those who want them (which are still useful for intermediate journeys, albeit fewer of them) as well as super-fast ones requiring a change? They start to look more like regional expresses than ICs (Liverpool-Norwich is a classic) but they do have value.

And avoiding London and all the faff it entails has massive value. That's one reason the Southern "round the side" service does so well.

 

[adamedwards]

British Rail taught us years ago that people want through trains. If you have bags and family, the least changes the better. Fit young rail enthusiasts are welcome to do the Curzon to New st sprint!

 

[Starmill]

Depends what happens politically in that time, Stoke will kick off monumentally if it is binned. It was originally a Liverpool via Stafford until it was realised the second train via 2A would catch it up. Kills two birds with one stone by routing it to Macc.

What I was getting at was that there's every chance that it will actually end up running through to Manchester if that's a more efficient use of rolling stock. It just doesn't necessarily have to and wouldn't be used by end to end passengers.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Feb 2021 ==

Also, you can't fill a train with Stafford, Stoke and Macclesfield traffic. It's waste of a path.

You almost certainly can. And it could serve Rugeley or even Congleton too if that were wanted.

The reality is that we need to come back and have this discussion 10 years from now when we know what might be opening in December 2031. Between now and then... anything could happen.

 

[Purple Orange]

Why? Why can the railway not provide slower, direct trains for those who want them (which are still useful for intermediate journeys, albeit fewer of them) as well as super-fast ones requiring a change? They start to look more like regional expresses than ICs (Liverpool-Norwich is a classic) but they do have value.

And avoiding London and all the faff it entails has massive value. That's one reason the Southern "round the side" service does so well.

I think it will provide slower direct trains from Euston & New Street to Piccadilly (WCML) & Leeds (ECML & XC/MML) with more stops than the current services do. In fact Liverpool-Norwich is an example of the pace. It won’t be Avanti or XC speeds.

For example:

• As is: Manchester, Stockport, Macclesfield, Stoke, Stafford, Wolverhampton, Birmingham.

• To be: Manchester, Stockport, Cheadle Hulme, Macclesfield, Congleton, Stoke, Stone, Stafford, Wolverhampton, Sandwell & Dudley, Birmingham.

There could be other stops in there too. The same should/will be applied to ‘fast’ services via Crewe to Manchester.

My evidence for that theory is the proposed WCML Euston-Manchester service, which will still call at Stoke, Macclesfield & Stockport, but also Poynton, Bramhall & Cheadle Hulme.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Feb 2021 ==

British Rail taught us years ago that people want through trains. If you have bags and family, the least changes the better. Fit young rail enthusiasts are welcome to do the Curzon to New st sprint!

If that is true, why doesn’t Liverpool still have XC services, or why was Manc-Brighton curtailed? Why won’t there be a HS2-HS1 link? Why is Liverpool-Norwich being split to Liverpool-Nottingham?

 

[class26]

I think it will provide slower direct trains from Euston & New Street to Piccadilly (WCML) & Leeds (ECML & XC/MML) with more stops than the current services do. In fact Liverpool-Norwich is an example of the pace. It won’t be Avanti or XC speeds.

For example:

• As is: Manchester, Stockport, Macclesfield, Stoke, Stafford, Wolverhampton, Birmingham.

• To be: Manchester, Stockport, Cheadle Hulme, Macclesfield, Congleton, Stoke, Stone, Stafford, Wolverhampton, Sandwell & Dudley, Birmingham.

There could be other stops in there too. The same should/will be applied to ‘fast’ services via Crewe to Manchester.

My evidence for that theory is the proposed WCML Euston-Manchester service, which will still call at Stoke, Macclesfield & Stockport, but also Poynton, Bramhall & Cheadle Hulme.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Feb 2021 ==



If that is true, why doesn’t Liverpool still have XC services, or why was Manc-Brighton curtailed? Why won’t there be a HS2-HS1 link? Why is Liverpool-Norwich being split to Liverpool-Nottingham?

I seem to remember Liverpool lost Cross Country after Operation Princess, not enough trains so network slimmed down.
i suspect Liverpool - Norwich is being split for operating convenience, there are pax who travel through Nottingham, apparently 1000 a day but that`s obviously not enough for dft to be concerned.

 

[daodao]

According to the DfT Train Service Specification I described in Post #12, under Phase 2a there will be four London trains per hour through Stockport - three fast HS2 services plus a WCML service via Stoke. That is one more than pre-Covid. I do not know how the fourth train can be fitted in without cutting local services. There is certainly no capacity to extend the HS2 Macclesfield train to Manchester as well, making a fifth London service through Stockport.

When HS2a opens but before HS2c gets built, are there any plans for some of the M/c services to run via the Styal loop? If so, the pressure on the line from Cheadle Hulme to Piccadilly via Stockport would be reduced.