The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 15,965
Beg to differ, depends where the XC services are, keep them close to the half hourly Londons and you leave yourself some big gaps.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Why are people opposed to HS2? (And other HS2 discussion)
- Thread starter ABB125
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Yes, flighting the faster departures does leave gaps. The previous poster was talking about roughly 15m gaps between fast WC and XC services and a stopper in each gap which I guess doesn't work with the number of stations.
London Trains
Member
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 912
It does work though, because fast services from New St to Coventry (calling at Intl) take 20 minutes and slow services (calling at most stations, not all) take about 30 minutes from New St to Coventry, so 15m intervals won't cause any issues. Fast and Slow servcies then take roughly the same amount of time to Rugby, and then slow services move to the slow lines towards Northampton and the fasts can speed off towards Euston.
Esker-pades
Established Member
35 minutes is the time it takes for a train calling at all stations to do Coventry - Birmingham New Street. Thus, 15 minute intervals will cause issues.
Different stopping patterns for alternate trains might be tried, all with fewer overall, or new trains with better acceleration.
Esker-pades
Established Member
Ah, yes. After making that comment, I was trying some rough timetable calculations for what a post-HS2 timetable would look like. I got some segretation of stoppers (some fast to Marston Green then Coventry, others all to International).
The newer rolling stock suggestion had passed me by. It'll be very interesting to see.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Realistically we ought to be aiming for a service every 15 mins everywhere between New St and International though, which would imply all slows stopping everywhere. Perhaps you can have some skip stopping East of International? Or have the fasts overtake at International ( which admittedly wouldn't help reliability)?
Maybe there's one that doesn't. However:
- HS2 Released Capacity Study (DfT):
- Scenario 1 (regular interval) has 2tph Wolves-Euston calling all main stops
- Scenario 2 (new London destinations) is the same but with 1tph extending to Wrexham
- West Midlands and Chilterns Route Study (NR): 1tph Aber-Wolves-Euston, 1tph Wolves-Euston (fast services only)
- West Midlands Rail Report (West Midlands Rail Executive): 1tph Shrewsbury - Euston, 1tph Scotland - Wolverhampton - Euston
I would suggest that whether or not people would change trains to get somewhere quicker depends on the risk.
I'll give you a personal example, I had the option of getting a train changing from one platform to another or getting a different train, walking 10 minutes between stations and getting an earlier train. However if I missed that train I was then able to get the train I would have caught by changing platforms.
Where possible I opted for the walk, why? As it would normally allow me to get home sooner but at zero risk of getting home later.
If by catching a fast train or allows you to get the earlier train to get where you're going but if you miss the connection you can still get on the same train that you would have done many would opt for the shorter journey time.
The reason people much prefer direct services is the risk of having to wait 30 minutes/1 hour for the next service and therefore being later than would otherwise be the case. Especially if to get from A to B you have to choose to do direct or via C and if something goes wrong going via C you can't get on the train you would otherwise be using to go direct.
http://wmre.org.uk/media/10731/west-midlands-rail-report_final_11082018.pdf
Has an 2034 aspirational service on the Wolverhampton-Coventry corridor as follows:
2tph Euston-Coventry-International-New Street-Sandwell & Dudley-Wolves-Shrewsbury/Scotland
2tph Reading/Bournemouth-Coventry-International-New Street-Wolves-Manchester
1tph International-New Street-Smethwick GB-Wolves-Aber
2tph Euston-Northampton-Coventry-Tile Hill-International-New Street-Smethwick GB (1tph)-Dudley Port (1tph)-Coseley (1tph)-Wolves-Liverpool
2tph Northampton/Leamington-Coventry-Canley-Berkswell-Hampton-International-Marston Green-New Street-Dudley Port-Wolves-Stoke-Crewe
2tph New Street-Sandwell & Dudley (1tph)-Dudley Port (1tph)-Wolves-Shrewsbury
4tph International-Marston Green-Lea Hall-Stechford-Adderley Park-New Street-Smethwick RS-Smethwick GB-Sandwell & Dudley-Dudley Port-Tipton-Coseley-Wolves
Has an 2034 aspirational service on the Wolverhampton-Coventry corridor as follows:
2tph Euston-Coventry-International-New Street-Sandwell & Dudley-Wolves-Shrewsbury/Scotland
2tph Reading/Bournemouth-Coventry-International-New Street-Wolves-Manchester
1tph International-New Street-Smethwick GB-Wolves-Aber
2tph Euston-Northampton-Coventry-Tile Hill-International-New Street-Smethwick GB (1tph)-Dudley Port (1tph)-Coseley (1tph)-Wolves-Liverpool
2tph Northampton/Leamington-Coventry-Canley-Berkswell-Hampton-International-Marston Green-New Street-Dudley Port-Wolves-Stoke-Crewe
2tph New Street-Sandwell & Dudley (1tph)-Dudley Port (1tph)-Wolves-Shrewsbury
4tph International-Marston Green-Lea Hall-Stechford-Adderley Park-New Street-Smethwick RS-Smethwick GB-Sandwell & Dudley-Dudley Port-Tipton-Coseley-Wolves
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
There is the opportunity to overtake at International which is conveniently pretty much in the middle of the two, and you don't have to do all stations on all services.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I think they will be disappointed; there will be more WFJ, MKC and RUG calls than they seem to want. That (and resilience) are the primary purposes of HS2 phase 1.
Grumpy Git
On Moderation
One change that would improve things for almost everyone living outside the south east combined with HS2, would for Birmingham Airport to become the main UK hub.
Esker-pades
Established Member
Indeed, the Lower Thames Crossing, at only 13 miles, has almost as much of an ancient woodland take as HS2.
The Green Party has, of course, not said a single word about this road project.
Where I put italics was where I didn't go into detail - in part because the proposal didn't. I assumed that it would be clear given that most were obviously not non-stop and so the couple where it might not be totally absurd were clearly not. Perhaps I should have been explicit rather than assume that people wouldn't somehow think that there was a serious proposal for a train service that would run Euston to Scotland via Birmingham, but only stop 4 times - all in the West Midlands!
The only major stop they show skipping between Coventry and Euston is 1tph of the residual ICWC skipping Rugby. Presumably the other will skip Watford Junction, but that's off their diagram (as in Milton Keynes). Both are perfectly reasonable skips with other services calling at those stations and upping frequency.
TrafficEng
Member
https://southeastessex.greenparty.org.uk/news/2018/11/17/green-party-against-lower-thames-crossing/
The difference between this scheme and HS2 is that the objectives have been clearly and consistently stated, and even those who might object in principle can comprehend the argument that additional capacity and resilience is needed to support economic growth.
People can directly see and understand congestion involving cars, vans, and lorries. People don't directly see congestion caused by too many trains - they experience it through unreliability and overcrowded carriages, and blame that on bad management of the railways.
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 15,965
If my adding up is correct, thats 13tph between International and New St. Yeah, good luck with that.....
London Trains
Member
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 912
I did say most stations, not all. Canley, Berkswell, Hampton in Arden and Adderley Park certainly dont need 4tph, and Marston Green / Lea Hall / Stechford / Adderley Park may have a decrease in usage if the Midland Metro is extended to the Airport.
In which case, is there anything that wrong with the service along this corridor now?
London Trains
Member
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 912
Yes, for many reasons. First, the reliability of LNWR services is atrocious after the May 2018 timetable, (albeit HS2 won't help this) which affects the reliability of Avanti services. Also, Avanti services running at 3tph (every 20m) messes with the 2tph/4tph timetable of other lines (this becoming further exaggerated with the stupid LNWR May 2018 timetable which went and linked everywhere from Liverpool to Rugeley with this corridor) and means that all of the local stations get erratically timed services as they cannot be fully clockface, as well as meaning that XC cannot run their other service via Coventry and instead have to run it via Solihull.
matacaster
On Moderation
- Joined
- 19 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 1,603
My main worries for HS2 are
-only Phase 1 to Birmingham gets built as its so over budget and timescale too long
(note that Boris has likely 10 years (2 parliaments to get it in or very close to operation))
-next Phase to Manchester gets built but nothing else 2035-2040
(that's a very long way off)
-final Phase Birmingham to Leeds gets scrapped, leaving Sheffield, Chesterfield and Nottingham no better off
Opportunities
-HS2 makes more sense if it ALL goes ahead with some parallel work from the North NPR /
HS2 southwards (but do we have enough engineers etc)
-I would prefer a light bulb shaped route ie London - Manchester (HS2) - Manchester to
Leeds(HS3), Leeds to Birmingham -via Sheffield (HS2), Birmingham to London(HS2) with through stations in Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds. Of course this would be the strategic masterplan, which would require even more time to come to fruition.
-I could have added a further extension to Scotland, but the justification for English paying for something that largely benefits Scotland when wee Krankie wants a border seems a step too far.
-The new HS rail network makes much more sense if it facilitates using Birmingham,
Manchester and possibly Doncaster airports to provide the additional airport capacity needed at virtually no cost as it largely exists now. There are plenty of flights from Heathrow which have nothing to do with business and holidaymakers could go to airports with spare capacity by train (HS2). The big airlines Virgin / IAG either don't or hardly use Manchester because they make more money flying out of London. Scrapping Heathrow extension is well argued in the Guardian today (although I don't personally like its painfully lefty PC slant on everything). Boris wasn't sold on Heathrow expansion anyway.
-only Phase 1 to Birmingham gets built as its so over budget and timescale too long
(note that Boris has likely 10 years (2 parliaments to get it in or very close to operation))
-next Phase to Manchester gets built but nothing else 2035-2040
(that's a very long way off)
-final Phase Birmingham to Leeds gets scrapped, leaving Sheffield, Chesterfield and Nottingham no better off
Opportunities
-HS2 makes more sense if it ALL goes ahead with some parallel work from the North NPR /
HS2 southwards (but do we have enough engineers etc)
-I would prefer a light bulb shaped route ie London - Manchester (HS2) - Manchester to
Leeds(HS3), Leeds to Birmingham -via Sheffield (HS2), Birmingham to London(HS2) with through stations in Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds. Of course this would be the strategic masterplan, which would require even more time to come to fruition.
-I could have added a further extension to Scotland, but the justification for English paying for something that largely benefits Scotland when wee Krankie wants a border seems a step too far.
-The new HS rail network makes much more sense if it facilitates using Birmingham,
Manchester and possibly Doncaster airports to provide the additional airport capacity needed at virtually no cost as it largely exists now. There are plenty of flights from Heathrow which have nothing to do with business and holidaymakers could go to airports with spare capacity by train (HS2). The big airlines Virgin / IAG either don't or hardly use Manchester because they make more money flying out of London. Scrapping Heathrow extension is well argued in the Guardian today (although I don't personally like its painfully lefty PC slant on everything). Boris wasn't sold on Heathrow expansion anyway.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Why not? They're comparable to Merseyrail stations which do get that.
A big benefit of an even 4tph is simplicity.
A big cost of an even 4tph with lots of station calls is leaving no room for anything quicker on the same route - eg faster services from the major locations on the route.
I think it's coupled with infrastructure works done once it isn't part of the main line between London and Birmingham. But yes, it does seem stretching things a bit.
It's also 13tph between New Street and Wolverhampton - similar issue and only two aren't stopping somewhere in-between and thus able to go via Tame Bridge if necessary.
London Trains
Member
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 912
It's actually only 11tph, and this is probably too much anyway as it requires every service not starting at New St to have a long swell there to fit into a perfectly timed path. These dwells can be up to 15 minutes long sometimes and makes a through service unviable (another reason the May 2019 LNWR timetable is stupid).
London Trains
Member
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 912
Yes, but are Merseyrail stations on a busy mainline with lots of important intercity and regional services serving the second busiest city in England?
Merseyrail is totally self contained which is why all of it stations can get such a good service and it is so reliable.
Actually, having counted (forgot the Shrewsbury services), it's 15tph. We aren't talking about now, we're talking about the West Midlands Rail Executive's aspirational post-HS2 timetable.
However, unlike today's timetable, this proposal - with the exception of the two trains I missed that terminate at New Street, has the trains from Wolverhampton all go to the Airport and vice versa, meaning that the corridor is a much more coherent whole - there's no mucking around with the Chase Line other than in the New Street area (where it would muck around with the SW-NE corridor too. So those New Street dwell times for pathing reasons should be less of a problem.
One problem with last May's LNWR timetable is that south of New Street it's 3tph (Euston) + 1tph (Airport) and north of New Street it's 2tph (Liverpool) + 2tph (Rugeley) + 1tph (Crewe), which means all sorts of weirdness (beyond the need to split one train northbound/join two southbound) to try and get roughly 20 minute frequencies between Birmingham and Milton Keynes, and roughly 30 minute frequencies between Birmingham and Liverpool and between Birmingham and Rugeley. I'd imagine some of the LNWR waits are due to that mis-mash of desired headways.
The been a new stophs2 "fact" sheet created, for those which are interested or can be found here:
http://stophs2.org/news/19037-stop-hs2-briefing-mps-2020
However it says some interesting things, which almost sounds like things those who support HS2 would say.
Such as there'll be 100,000 new passengers a day, that's around the 35 million passengers mark a year. If we assume that they all average 100 miles of travel, then that's 3.5 billion miles of rail travel a year.
Therefore HS2 is going to add about 10% to the existing number of miles traveled by rail per year. That's significant given the existing network is about 10,000 miles and HS2 will be less than 5% of this.
There's also the same old fabrications, like that capacity has only been argued as a reason to build HS2 recently, from the HS2 Objectives and remits from February 2009:
They talk about how HS rail doesn't hit the expected passenger numbers predicted (I could go over this again, but I think I've covered it quite a few times of late).
They talk about the extra services, which shouldn't be able to be fitted in because the WCML it's full. When the quote has always been that the WCML would be full from the mid 2020's and I'd suggest that we're 3 years out from that (maybe 2.5 years, but it's still in the future), so of course there's still capacity.
There's talk about the need for using the existing paths through Central Manchester on the existing lines to serve the likes of Wilmslow. Whilst there'll be some need for this, not all the services which currently exist would be needed. As an example some of this capacity could be provided by extending TPE services from Manchester Airport to Crewe and creating a Thameslink or Crossrail type service.
Anyway, if you look at the evidence submitted the suggestion is that 2 of the 3 trains into Manchester in the morning peak would still be needed. Well that still leaves 1 train which isn't needed. By reducing that you could move 3 services onto that platform space otherwise used by the long distance trains and lengthen then from 2 or 3 coach trains to 4 coach trains.
However that's not all those trains then exist elsewhere in the station, which then allows you to lengthen other services by 2 or 3 coaches. That's 6 services which can by run with longer trains.
However with the faster turn around time of local services compared with long distance there's scope to lengthen further services.
Combined with the extending of TPE services you could potentially see the lengthening of yet more services and/or longer trains (such as to 6 coach trains).
http://stophs2.org/news/19037-stop-hs2-briefing-mps-2020
However it says some interesting things, which almost sounds like things those who support HS2 would say.
Such as there'll be 100,000 new passengers a day, that's around the 35 million passengers mark a year. If we assume that they all average 100 miles of travel, then that's 3.5 billion miles of rail travel a year.
Therefore HS2 is going to add about 10% to the existing number of miles traveled by rail per year. That's significant given the existing network is about 10,000 miles and HS2 will be less than 5% of this.
There's also the same old fabrications, like that capacity has only been argued as a reason to build HS2 recently, from the HS2 Objectives and remits from February 2009:
They talk about how HS rail doesn't hit the expected passenger numbers predicted (I could go over this again, but I think I've covered it quite a few times of late).
They talk about the extra services, which shouldn't be able to be fitted in because the WCML it's full. When the quote has always been that the WCML would be full from the mid 2020's and I'd suggest that we're 3 years out from that (maybe 2.5 years, but it's still in the future), so of course there's still capacity.
There's talk about the need for using the existing paths through Central Manchester on the existing lines to serve the likes of Wilmslow. Whilst there'll be some need for this, not all the services which currently exist would be needed. As an example some of this capacity could be provided by extending TPE services from Manchester Airport to Crewe and creating a Thameslink or Crossrail type service.
Anyway, if you look at the evidence submitted the suggestion is that 2 of the 3 trains into Manchester in the morning peak would still be needed. Well that still leaves 1 train which isn't needed. By reducing that you could move 3 services onto that platform space otherwise used by the long distance trains and lengthen then from 2 or 3 coach trains to 4 coach trains.
However that's not all those trains then exist elsewhere in the station, which then allows you to lengthen other services by 2 or 3 coaches. That's 6 services which can by run with longer trains.
However with the faster turn around time of local services compared with long distance there's scope to lengthen further services.
Combined with the extending of TPE services you could potentially see the lengthening of yet more services and/or longer trains (such as to 6 coach trains).
Grumpy Git
On Moderation
I dont get the big desire for HS2 to call at Manchester airport (apart from not blighting the very wealthy Tatton area on it's way to Manchester).
If Manchester airport was a major hub with many direct (business orientated) flights then yes, but I see no evidence that this will happen. BA expect everyone to go via LHR.
If Manchester airport was a major hub with many direct (business orientated) flights then yes, but I see no evidence that this will happen. BA expect everyone to go via LHR.
- Status