Potential HS2 services

[Bletchleyite]

Stockport will keep a classic-line London service anyway, 1tph will remain primarily to connect Watford, MK and Rugby to the North West.

 

[Purple Orange]

The size of the town is often irrelevant to catchment and usage. Wilmslow, like Macclesfield and so many others, serves a lot more than itself.

And what will you do at 6am when leaving your house? As most high-value London trips will be made crack of dawn.

Either walk to Wilmslow and get a train to the airport, get a taxi or drive directly to the airport station. Why would I plan my journey around an hourly train taking 2 hours, rather than the 3 trains per hour that takes 1 hour?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Mar 2021 ==

I know people against HS2 keep using places like Stockport and Wilmslow losing London services as a reason to not build HS2. The fact is though, as others have mentioned, these places are only served because they act as hubs for a range of places. Stockport for example provides rail connections to Altrincham, Hazel Grove, Buxton and the Hope Valley and bus connections to the wider Stockport Borough.

When HS2 is built, its only only 10 minutes extra to travel to Piccadilly and connect there rather than getting off in Stockport. The Marple line already runs to Piccadilly in the east of Stockport Borough and the west of the Borough tends to have bus services to the airport. A tram train service from Stockport to the Airport is also being considered. When you take all that into account, there's little point in stopping London trains in Stockport. Its more sensible running more local services to places like Hazel Grove and Poynton.

Hear hear. HS2 will completely change the landscape of train services on the WCML.

 

[HST43257]

Stockport will keep a classic-line London service anyway, 1tph will remain primarily to connect Watford, MK and Rugby to the North West.

Not quite high speed, though.

I don’t see much reason not to upgrade Stockport to Stalybridge and have a London to Huddersfield service, connecting new places and hubs to London, rather than a London to Macclesfield that serves some cities with no added benefits that the wider network brings.

 

[cle]

Either walk to Wilmslow and get a train to the airport, get a taxi or drive directly to the airport station. Why would I plan my journey around an hourly train taking 2 hours, rather than the 3 trains per hour that takes 1 hour?

So you’d choose to change trains at silly o’clock? Nobody is really going to do that.

You’ll get a lift/taxi/park as preferred to whichever station you want and take that single train. People don’t tend to change at that kind of time.

Whether they do 2 hours from Wilmslow or 1 from the airport will depend on many things. But tram between them, especially at 6am, I doubt very much.

 

[daodao]

One of the disadvantages of an Airport station for HS2 as an alternative to existing calling points south of Manchester for London services such as Wilmslow is the prohibitive arrangements for motor vehicle access, not just parking charges/facilities but even charges for dropping off/picking up passengers. Public transport to the current Airport station is also poor, particularly from the more affluent suburban areas that are likely to supply a higher proportion of travellers to/from London.

IMO, the idea/likelihood of a 5 tph Metrolink service from Wilmslow to the Airport via Styal is pie in the sky, despite it appearing in TfGM's plans, especially as it serves CEC, an authority not known for its support of public transport. If it is such an essential route, why is the current 1 tph service completely suspended during the Covid crisis?

 

[Ianno87]

One of the disadvantages of an Airport station for HS2 as an alternative to existing calling points south of Manchester for London services such as Wilmslow is the prohibitive arrangements for motor vehicle access, not just parking charges/facilities but even charges for dropping off/picking up passengers.

I don't think there has been any statement around drop off charges at the Airport HS2 station, that's just speculation. It'll be directly off the M56. Accessing it won't require using Airport property.

 

[daodao]

I don't think there has been any statement around drop off charges at the Airport HS2 station, that's just speculation. It'll be directly off the M56. Accessing it won't require using Airport property.

The proposed access to the new station off the M56 is unclear. On the initial HS2 plan, it states "Extensive road remodelling required on motorway and junctions" but no indication is given of what these might be. If the access is off the existing junction 5 (Airport stub road), it is likely to have to be via Airport property. Alternatively, access could be via the existing junction 6, but that road system is already complex and congested at peak times. Building any extra motorway exit off the M56 at this location would be extremely difficult.

C320-AEC-RT-DPP-240-068280_Platform.pdf (publishing.service.gov.uk)

 

[Ianno87]

The access to the new station off the M56 is likely to have to be via Airport property. Building any extra motorway exit off the M56 at this location would be extremely difficult.

Page 33 of last year's Design Refinements consultation (https://assets.publishing.service.g...rop_2_10959-DfT-HS2_DRC2_Map_Book-V9_web_.pdf)

Suggests access from M56 Junction 6 / Hale Road

 

[edwin_m]

The size of the town is often irrelevant to catchment and usage. Wilmslow, like Macclesfield and so many others, serves a lot more than itself.

And what will you do at 6am when leaving your house? As most high-value London trips will be made crack of dawn.

You agree that almost all of them drive to the station, so they will just drive to another one instead. Crewe, Macclesfield and the Airport station will all have HS2 services.

That's like saying that nobody would use London-Edinburgh via Brum as a through journey when in fact many do. You can price people onto slower services if there is a good reason to do so, though to be fair with 3 x 400m trains per hour to Manchester that's probably not going to be of that much benefit.

That's fine if it doesn't use additional resources. Avanti would have to run a London-Birmingham and a Birmingham-Edinburgh anyway, but on their own they woudn't fill a Pendolino, so they've spotted an opportunity to get some more revenue without increasing operating costs by offering bargain fares. That's very different from creating a new service, with extra operating and possibly infrastructure cost and taking capacity needed by more necessary services, just to provide cheap fares for people from a very affluent area.

 

[BayPaul]

So you’d choose to change trains at silly o’clock? Nobody is really going to do that.

You’ll get a lift/taxi/park as preferred to whichever station you want and take that single train. People don’t tend to change at that kind of time.

Whether they do 2 hours from Wilmslow or 1 from the airport will depend on many things. But tram between them, especially at 6am, I doubt very much.

But if you have the choice of a direct train which means you have to leave at silly o clock, or a single change when you can leave an hour later (so perhaps no longer such a silly time) I know which I'd pick - that extra hour in bed is valuable!

 

[Purple Orange]

So you’d choose to change trains at silly o’clock? Nobody is really going to do that.

You’ll get a lift/taxi/park as preferred to whichever station you want and take that single train. People don’t tend to change at that kind of time.

Whether they do 2 hours from Wilmslow or 1 from the airport will depend on many things. But tram between them, especially at 6am, I doubt very much.

There won’t be a need to leave at 6am, unless you want to be at your location in London before 8am, or you’re opting to take the slow train. Plenty of people get the tram early in the morning for a long distance train from Manchester. Just as they do on the London Underground, Tyne & Wear Metro, Mersey Rail, the Glasgow network. Plenty of people get a National Rail train from their local station to their main line station all the time. Why should Wilmslow be any different? It’s a station many people who use it would need to drive to or get a connecting train from Alderley Edge or Handforth anyway, given how spread out Wilmslow is.

Let’s say you want to be in Central London for 9am. Therefore you will want to arrive at Euston at some point around about 8:30am. The train from Manchester Airport is timed to take 63 minutes, meaning you need to be on at roughly train before 7:30am ideally - let’s say a train leaves at XX:10, XX:30 & XX:50 each hour. You need to at least be arriving at Manchester Airport by 7:20am. If you’re arriving by tram-train, you’d have 5 tph to catch and it would take no more than 10-12 mins to do the journey, calling at Styal, Manchester Airport NR and then Manchester Airport HS2.

That means arriving at Wilmslow station by 7am to make it a comfortable connection. Or you could arrive at Wilmslow by 6am for the slow train. Your call.

 

[GoneSouth]

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!

Speaking as someone who has done Bristol to Manchester many times pre COVID, I’d be pretty hacked off if I had to trudge across Birmingham between stations to make the journey in the future.

Cue the “you’re the only person who makes that sort of journey” comments!

 

[The Planner]

Not quite high speed, though.

I don’t see much reason not to upgrade Stockport to Stalybridge and have a London to Huddersfield service, connecting new places and hubs to London, rather than a London to Macclesfield that serves some cities with no added benefits that the wider network brings.

I will trot out the reasoning behind the Macclesfield train again. The original idea was to terminate at Stoke but there was enough dead time to go to Macc but no further. If they can re-jig the diagrams, which they probably will in time, then it may end up somewhere else. If they cannot then a HS2 train will be in the back platform at Macc.

 

[Purple Orange]

I will trot out the reasoning behind the Macclesfield train again. The original idea was to terminate at Stoke but there was enough dead time to go to Macc but no further. If they can re-jig the diagrams, which they probably will in time, then it may end up somewhere else. If they cannot then a HS2 train will be in the back platform at Macc.

It wouldn’t surprise me if it get’s paired up with a path through Stockport to current Piccadilly platforms. I can’t see the likelihood of an hourly Huddersfield-London service, when there will be 6 fast trains each hour to both Leeds & Manchester, with a 20 min journey (in to the HS2 platforms at Picc) and then 3 trains per hour to catch on HS2. That’s essentially turn-up-and-go on the NPR stretch.

 

[zwk500]

Speaking as someone who has done Bristol to Manchester many times pre COVID, I’d be pretty hacked off if I had to trudge across Birmingham between stations to make the journey in the future.

Cue the “you’re the only person who makes that sort of journey” comments!

FWIW, you can see Moor street from the bus station outside New Street, and Curzon street is going to be right next door. It's hardly a trudge.

But the main point is that passengers originating in Birmingham will go direct to Curzon St, instead of piling on an already-busy service at New Street. Meaning those who want the classic line aren't rammed in like sardines.

 

[Ianno87]

Speaking as someone who has done Bristol to Manchester many times pre COVID, I’d be pretty hacked off if I had to trudge across Birmingham between stations to make the journey in the future.

Cue the “you’re the only person who makes that sort of journey” comments!

I'll instead cue the "you'll save around half an hour by doing so" comment.

"People prefer direct trains" is only true when there isn't a significant time penalty as a result.

 

[GoneSouth]

FWIW, you can see Moor street from the bus station outside New Street, and Curzon street is going to be right next door. It's hardly a trudge.

But the main point is that passengers originating in Birmingham will go direct to Curzon St, instead of piling on an already-busy service at New Street. Meaning those who want the classic line aren't rammed in like sardines.

I have to disagree about the trudge. If you have any sort of disability there is assistance to change trains in the same station, if you change station that assistance does not exist. YOU maybe able to see the station from the front of New Street, some people will not.

Fair point about having less crowded services though, assuming they continue to operate to the same route as today.

 

[Ianno87]

I have to disagree about the trudge. If you have any sort of disability there is assistance to change trains in the same station, if you change station that assistance does not exist. YOU maybe able to see the station from the front of New Street, some people will not.

I understand that station staff in Birmingham do routinely assist passengers between New Street and Moor Street today. And if not, that's an easy this to solve with the right will.

Plus the fact that Curzon Street will be inherently designed to be accessible from the off, rather than (in effect) a retro-fit like at New Street.

 

[Envy123]

Still will seem like there’s going to be 1tph from Stafford to London. Can there be a higher frequency or at the very least give opportunities to change same or cross platform somewhere?

I know I could do that now but it’s a massive time penalty of 35 minutes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'll instead cue the "you'll save around half an hour by doing so" comment.

"People prefer direct trains" is only true when there isn't a significant time penalty as a result.

Not always true. I have used the LNR service from Crewe to Bletchley direct (one of the evening ones used to have the call, most don't) and indeed all the way through from Liverpool to Bletchley when I wanted to get my head down and get some work done rather than have a shorter but broken-up journey. Same for taking the xx13 MKC to Scotland rather than the following xx40 to connect with it.

Of course, there will still be 1tph of classic-line service (primarily to serve intermediates, Stockport included, but through journeys will be allowed) for anyone wanting that option.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Mar 2021 ==

I understand that station staff in Birmingham do routinely assist passengers between New Street and Moor Street today. And if not, that's an easy this to solve with the right will.

Plus the fact that Curzon Street will be inherently designed to be accessible from the off, rather than (in effect) a retro-fit like at New Street.

They do need to do something about the scummy road underpass which is the shortest and least hilly route between the two, i.e. box it in, tidy it up and have security staff there 24/7 to kick out undesirables, but I'd be surprised if something *wasn't* done about that. But distance wise it's not all that much further than going from the main concourse to Manchester Picc P14, or the very similar trek to the Hammersmith and City at Paddington.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Mar 2021 ==

Still will seem like there’s going to be 1tph from Stafford to London. Can there be a higher frequency or at the very least give opportunities to change same or cross platform somewhere?

I know I could do that now but it’s a massive time penalty of 35 minutes.

You'll still have the Trent Valley local service to Euston, and I would be unsurprised if that was increased to 2tph, so that's a potential gain, particularly if the hourly classic-line Manchester also stops instead of going via Colwich, which I reckon it may well do.

 

[Ianno87]

Still will seem like there’s going to be 1tph from Stafford to London. Can there be a higher frequency or at the very least give opportunities to change same or cross platform somewhere?

I know I could do that now but it’s a massive time penalty of 35 minutes.

Not on HS2 without losing a train to somewhere else as a consequence. Capacity-wise, 1tph ought to be sufficient to meet Stafford/Stoke/Macclesfield-Euston demand most of the day.

I'd imagine there'd be some form of WCML service retained, albeit slower.

Not always true. I have used the LNR service from Crewe to Bletchley direct (one of the evening ones used to have the call, most don't) and indeed all the way through from Liverpool to Bletchley when I wanted to get my head down and get some work done rather than have a shorter but broken-up journey. Same for taking the xx13 MKC to Scotland rather than the following xx40 to connect with it.

True. Although some people like changing trains on a long-ish journey, for a leg stretch and a coffee.

 

[BayPaul]

Still will seem like there’s going to be 1tph from Stafford to London. Can there be a higher frequency or at the very least give opportunities to change same or cross platform somewhere?

I know I could do that now but it’s a massive time penalty of 35 minutes.

Stafford in my mind is one of the bigger winners, at least for London services - yes it gets the same frequency, but massively faster, non-stop to OOC, so compared to today the speed effectively gives you the same effect as more TPH, as you can leave much later for the same arrival time. Couple that to the train probably being much quieter, as it will only have boarded at Macclesfield and Stoke, so lots of low-cost advances likely to be available, it looks to me like a pretty good deal for the city

 

[Purple Orange]

Speaking as someone who has done Bristol to Manchester many times pre COVID, I’d be pretty hacked off if I had to trudge across Birmingham between stations to make the journey in the future.

Cue the “you’re the only person who makes that sort of journey” comments!

Bristol is the only reason for the continuation of a classic XC service to the north west. Out of Manchester I’d cap it at:

WCML Via Stoke:

• 1 tph Manchester to Bristol via New Street, calling at Stockport, Macclesfield, Stoke, Stafford, Wolverhampton, Birmingham New Street, Cheltenham, Bristol Parkway, Bristol Temple Meads then onwards to Plymouth.
• 1 tph Manchester to Birmingham New Street (semi-fast) calling at Stockport, Cheadle Hulme, Macclesfield, Congleton, Stoke, Stafford, Wolverhampton, Sandwell & Dudley, Smethwick Galton Bridge
• 1 tph Manchester to London (sem-fast) calling at Stockport, Cheadle Hulme, Bramhall, Poynton, Macclesfield, Congleton, Stoke, Stafford, Rugby, MK & Watford (as per plans for LNW Preston phase 2b)
• 2 tph Manchester to Stoke (stopper), calling at all stations.

WCML Via Crewe:

• 1 tph Manchester to South Wales, calling at Stockport, Cheadle Hulme, Wilmslow, Crewe, onwards to Cardiff & South Wales.
• 3 tph Manchester to Crewe (all stations)

WCML Via Styal

• 3 tph Bradford to Manchester Airport to Manchester Victoria (all stops from Victoria onwards)
• 3 tph Burnley to Manchester Airport to Manchester Victoria (all stops from Victoria onwards)
• 5 tph Wilmslow to Manchester Airport HS2 and Altrincham (Metro-link tram-train)

This maintains connections to stations currently served and increases the frequency to a minimum of 3 tph on key commuter stations. It also provides a 10 min interval from all Manchester stations to the airport, providing an easy connection from wherever your train touches the city centre network. It also ends the everywhere to the airport situation, which NPR will provide a significant network in itself.

 

[Bletchleyite]

True. Although some people like changing trains on a long-ish journey, for a leg stretch and a coffee.

I've done that too. If I *don't* want to get work done, I often go via Birmingham even when not strictly necessary and stop off to get food and a cup of tea. In that context a stroll from New St to Moor St or vice versa might be pleasant enough.

It really depends on the specific journey requirement as to what aspects have value.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Mar 2021 ==

• 1 tph Manchester to London (sem-fast) calling at Stockport, Cheadle Hulme, Bramhall, Poynton, Macclesfield, Congleton, Stoke, Stafford, Rugby, MK & Watford (as per plans for LNW Preston phase 2b)

Not the ones in bold in my view. Removing a load of trains from the route (2 Avantis and possibly one or more of the XCs) has the advantage of allowing a proper local service to serve those. The classic line service should indeed be slower (I'd have it stop at all three of Watford, MK and Rugby, though I believe the current plan isn't for that) but I wouldn't make it take on a Manchester area commuter role.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

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.

This is why I always thought the Euston Cross station would be useful, allowing the Javelin to be extended to OOC, Heathrow and down to Woking towards the Coast. You'd only need a Crossrail style station at Euston, not a massive cavern for terminating HS2 trains.

 

[Purple Orange]

Not the ones in bold in my view. Removing a load of trains from the route (2 Avantis and possibly one or more of the XCs) has the advantage of allowing a proper local service to serve those. The classic line service should indeed be slower (I'd have it stop at all three of Watford, MK and Rugby, though I believe the current plan isn't for that) but I wouldn't make it take on a Manchester area commuter role.

Oh I agree with that completely. If it was completely down to me, I’d build a timetable around there being 4 tph Stoke to Manchester and 4 tph Crewe to Manchester via Stockport, calling all stations, with fitting long distance around that. However there are plans for the London Midland service calling at Cheadle Hulme & Bramhall etc, therefore I’d like to see such a situation evelove where commuter services increase in frequency. In the scenario I outlined, the main commuter stops get a minimum of 3 tph, but places like Cheadle Hulme can get 8 tph as they should. Further north, Heaton Chapel & Levenshulme could still see 8 tph too, 3 from Crewe, 2 from Stoke plus any stoppers from Buxton, Hazel Grove and/or Chester.

 

[PTR 444]

Bristol is the only reason for the continuation of a classic XC service to the north west. Out of Manchester I’d cap it at:

WCML Via Stoke:

• 1 tph Manchester to Bristol via New Street, calling at Stockport, Macclesfield, Stoke, Stafford, Wolverhampton, Birmingham New Street, Cheltenham, Bristol Parkway, Bristol Temple Meads then onwards to Plymouth.
• 1 tph Manchester to Birmingham New Street (semi-fast) calling at Stockport, Cheadle Hulme, Macclesfield, Congleton, Stoke, Stafford, Wolverhampton, Sandwell & Dudley, Smethwick Galton Bridge
• 1 tph Manchester to London (sem-fast) calling at Stockport, Cheadle Hulme, Bramhall, Poynton, Macclesfield, Congleton, Stoke, Stafford, Rugby, MK & Watford (as per plans for LNW Preston phase 2b)
• 2 tph Manchester to Stoke (stopper), calling at all stations.

WCML Via Crewe:

• 1 tph Manchester to South Wales, calling at Stockport, Cheadle Hulme, Wilmslow, Crewe, onwards to Cardiff & South Wales.
• 3 tph Manchester to Crewe (all stations)

WCML Via Styal

• 3 tph Bradford to Manchester Airport to Manchester Victoria (all stops from Victoria onwards)
• 3 tph Burnley to Manchester Airport to Manchester Victoria (all stops from Victoria onwards)
• 5 tph Wilmslow to Manchester Airport HS2 and Altrincham (Metro-link tram-train)

This maintains connections to stations currently served and increases the frequency to a minimum of 3 tph on key commuter stations. It also provides a 10 min interval from all Manchester stations to the airport, providing an easy connection from wherever your train touches the city centre network. It also ends the everywhere to the airport situation, which NPR will provide a significant network in itself.

Agree with the above, except I would have 2 Manchester - Crewe stoppers per hour, and 2 semi-fasts between the same stations calling at Stockport, Wilmslow, Alderley Edge, Holmes Chapel and Sandbach. I would have one of these 2tph continue to Birmingham New Street, and the other to London as an extension of a Trent Valley stopper.

 

[Purple Orange]

Agree with the above, except I would have 2 Manchester - Crewe stoppers per hour, and 2 semi-fasts between the same stations calling at Stockport, Wilmslow, Alderley Edge, Holmes Chapel and Sandbach. I would have one of these 2tph continue to Birmingham New Street, and the other to London as an extension of a Trent Valley stopper.

Why would we need more trains to Watford, MK, Stafford, London & Birmingham? The issue is the volume of people who turn to driving rather than the train from commuter stations.

 

[Envy123]

You'll still have the Trent Valley local service to Euston, and I would be unsurprised if that was increased to 2tph, so that's a potential gain, particularly if the hourly classic-line Manchester also stops instead of going via Colwich, which I reckon it may well do.

Not on HS2 without losing a train to somewhere else as a consequence. Capacity-wise, 1tph ought to be sufficient to meet Stafford/Stoke/Macclesfield-Euston demand most of the day.

I'd imagine there'd be some form of WCML service retained, albeit slower.

I wouldn’t mind taking a classic service, assuming the journey time will not be like the current timings from LNWR.

Stafford in my mind is one of the bigger winners, at least for London services - yes it gets the same frequency, but massively faster, non-stop to OOC, so compared to today the speed effectively gives you the same effect as more TPH, as you can leave much later for the same arrival time. Couple that to the train probably being much quieter, as it will only have boarded at Macclesfield and Stoke, so lots of low-cost advances likely to be available, it looks to me like a pretty good deal for the city

It already is commutable to London pretty much. Could only get better from there.

A bummer about the frequency but it does have a brighter future for rail services compared to, say, Newark.

 

[HST43257]

Bristol is the only reason for the continuation of a classic XC service to the north west. Out of Manchester I’d cap it at:

WCML Via Stoke:

• 1 tph Manchester to Bristol via New Street, calling at Stockport, Macclesfield, Stoke, Stafford, Wolverhampton, Birmingham New Street, Cheltenham, Bristol Parkway, Bristol Temple Meads then onwards to Plymouth.
• 1 tph Manchester to Birmingham New Street (semi-fast) calling at Stockport, Cheadle Hulme, Macclesfield, Congleton, Stoke, Stafford, Wolverhampton, Sandwell & Dudley, Smethwick Galton Bridge

Bring 1 of these in from a diverted TPE service

• 1 tph Manchester to London (sem-fast) calling at Stockport, Cheadle Hulme, Bramhall, Poynton, Macclesfield, Congleton, Stoke, Stafford, Rugby, MK & Watford (as per plans for LNW Preston phase 2b)

Don’t need calls at so many places between Stockport and Macclesfield

WCML Via Crewe:

• 1 tph Manchester to South Wales, calling at Stockport, Cheadle Hulme, Wilmslow, Crewe, onwards to Cardiff & South Wales.
• 3 tph Manchester to Crewe (all stations)

You need 2 fasts from Stockport to Wilmslow to Crewe in my view. If you really don’t want a Manchester to London via Wilmslow, add a limited stop service with another operator. XC divert? LNWR extension? TPE extension? Northern extra?