Capacity of 6 HS2 platforms at Euston, and the flat crossing at Colwich, (EDIT) and capacity at Crewe

[Nottingham59]

I'm interested in what timetable will be possible after Sunak's HS2 decision.

If it gets built, HS2 Euston will have 6 platforms and no grade separation in the throat. How many trains per hour will that enable?
How many tph could reverse in the centre platforms at Old Oak Common?

Given that we will have six tracks converging on the flat crossing at Colwich, how many tph can that handle? What are the implications for WCML traffic?

My thoughts are:

• Allowing one spare platform, a 30 minute reoccupation time should enable 10tph at Euston.
• Similarly platforms 3 and 4 at OOC should give another 4tph. (And if one platform gets blocked, then the affected trains turn round at Euston.)
• No paths north from Curzon Street. Birmingham traffic north should go through Stafford to avoid Colwich, or change at HS2 Interchange to head North

That gives 14tph from London. 4tph to Curzon Street (BCZ?), would leave 10tph HS2 trains trying to get through Colwich.

Is 10tph feasible? What would it mean for WCML paths? Could faster turnarounds be achieved, like some Shinkansen lines do in Japan? Would sending northbound Manchester trains via Stafford and southbound trains via Stoke increase throughput at Colwich?

Where should these 10tph go? My thoughts are to keep the HS2 network simple: 200m trains only; destinations Liverpool (2tph), Manchester (4), Preston (2) only. Maybe also Lancaster. Cross platform change at Preston onto Man-Glasgow pendolinos for faster journeys to Scotland.

This would leave around 2 spare paths with nowhere to send them, without interventions.

What are your thoughts?

 

[AJDesiro]

Cross platform change at Preston onto Man-Glasgow pendolinos for faster journeys to Scotland.

This would be a nightmare, presumably the pendolinos would be coming from the Castlefield corridor, which in itself is pretty much at capacity, not to mention the limited size of platforms 13/14 at Manchester meaning that overcrowding would be rife, especially for a well loaded 11 car 390.

 

[The Planner]

I'm interested in what timetable will be possible after Sunak's HS2 decision.

If it gets built, HS2 Euston will have 6 platforms and no grade separation in the throat. How many trains per hour will that enable?
How many tph could reverse in the centre platforms at Old Oak Common?

Given that we will have six tracks converging on the flat crossing at Colwich, how many tph can that handle? What are the implications for WCML traffic?

My thoughts are:

• Allowing one spare platform, a 30 minute reoccupation time should enable 10tph at Euston.
• Similarly platforms 3 and 4 at OOC should give another 4tph. (And if one platform gets blocked, then the affected trains turn round at Euston.)
• No paths north from Curzon Street. Birmingham traffic north should go through Stafford to avoid Colwich, or change at HS2 Interchange to head North

That gives 14tph from London. 4tph to Curzon Street (BCZ?), would leave 10tph HS2 trains trying to get through Colwich.

Is 10tph feasible? What would it mean for WCML paths? Could faster turnarounds be achieved, like some Shinkansen lines do in Japan? Would sending northbound Manchester trains via Stafford and southbound trains via Stoke increase throughput at Colwich?

Where should these 10tph go? My thoughts are to keep the HS2 network simple: 200m trains only; destinations Liverpool (2tph), Manchester (4), Preston (2) only. Maybe also Lancaster. Cross platform change at Preston onto Man-Glasgow pendolinos for faster journeys to Scotland.

This would leave around 2 spare paths with nowhere to send them, without interventions.

What are your thoughts?

You arent getting 10tph through Colwich with residual services and freight. Why arent any HS2 trains going north of Preston? As noted above, 390s in 13 and 14 is nuts. If northbound services are going via Stafford and southbound via Stoke the northbound services are massively penalised. You have to consider when HS2 trains are presenting at Handsacre to enable Euston to work.

 

[Austriantrain]

I'm interested in what timetable will be possible after Sunak's HS2 decision.

If it gets built, HS2 Euston will have 6 platforms and no grade separation in the throat. How many trains per hour will that enable?
How many tph could reverse in the centre platforms at Old Oak Common?

Given that we will have six tracks converging on the flat crossing at Colwich, how many tph can that handle? What are the implications for WCML traffic?

My thoughts are:

• Allowing one spare platform, a 30 minute reoccupation time should enable 10tph at Euston.
• Similarly platforms 3 and 4 at OOC should give another 4tph. (And if one platform gets blocked, then the affected trains turn round at Euston.)
• No paths north from Curzon Street. Birmingham traffic north should go through Stafford to avoid Colwich, or change at HS2 Interchange to head North

That gives 14tph from London. 4tph to Curzon Street (BCZ?), would leave 10tph HS2 trains trying to get through Colwich.

Is 10tph feasible? What would it mean for WCML paths? Could faster turnarounds be achieved, like some Shinkansen lines do in Japan? Would sending northbound Manchester trains via Stafford and southbound trains via Stoke increase throughput at Colwich?

Where should these 10tph go? My thoughts are to keep the HS2 network simple: 200m trains only; destinations Liverpool (2tph), Manchester (4), Preston (2) only. Maybe also Lancaster. Cross platform change at Preston onto Man-Glasgow pendolinos for faster journeys to Scotland.

This would leave around 2 spare paths with nowhere to send them, without interventions.

What are your thoughts?

Cutting Euston back seems like a terrible decision. I highly doubt that it can turn 14 tph around; more like 10 tph, leaving a substantial number of paths on HS2 free. While these are not needed for West Coast services, this decision will - forever - make it impossible to build something like the Eastern HS2 leg or other extensions of HS2 (well, not actually building them, but using them for London services).

 

[London Trains]

Cutting Euston back seems like a terrible decision. I highly doubt that it can turn 14 tph around; more like 10 tph, leaving a substantial number of paths on HS2 free.

As much as I totally disagree with the decision to reduce Euston to 6 platforms, why couldn't 14tph turn around in the 6 platforms?

A 4tph service to Birmingham could use one platform with a 10ish minute turn around (and a longer turn around time at Curzon Street), which would leave 5 platforms for 10tph which will fit perfectly.

 

[jonnyfan]

In my opinion I would stick with:

10tph out of Euston HS2 seems a sensible maximum with just the 6 platforms. All trains would be 200-250m. With the following destinations served:

3tph to Manchester
3tph to Birmingham Curzon
2tph to Glasgow
1tph to Liverpool
1tph to Chester/Holyhead (if electrified)
Otherwise a 2nd Liverpool per hour.

So that's 7tph coming off HS2 at Handsacre into Colwich junction. Currently there are 6 Avanti, with 7 planned when the 2nd Liverpool starts. Is Colwich already at capacity? If it is, there's no scope for an improved service to connect, say Manchester with Milton Keynes. Or improved freight. Or anything.

 

[The Planner]

As much as I totally disagree with the decision to reduce Euston to 6 platforms, why couldn't 14tph turn around in the 6 platforms?

A 4tph service to Birmingham could use one platform with a 10ish minute turn around (and a longer turn around time at Curzon Street), which would leave 5 platforms for 10tph which will fit perfectly.

Its not just the platforms, its the throat.

 

[Nottingham59]

You arent getting 10tph through Colwich with residual services and freight.

I didn't expect you would. What would the total capacity of Colwich be for WCML and HS2 traffic combined?

Why arent any HS2 trains going north of Preston?

10 - 15 mins faster with tilt

As noted above, 390s in 13 and 14 is nuts.

I sort of imagined you'd run the Glasgow pendos out of Victoria. Leeds Vic Preston Glasgow would be a useful route. Where else are all the 390s going to redeployed when HS2 phase 1 starts?

Or will they be so rusty by that stage that they get sent to the MML?

 

[AJDesiro]

10 - 15 mins faster with tilt

The plan with HS2 was that new non-tilt MU speeds would be introduced, just as they are being introduced between Euston-Weaver Jn currently to allow the 80X to reach 125mph. Tilt wouldn't be much faster, and you also have to factor in interchange times etc, meaning the benefit is likely null.

 

[The Planner]

I didn't expect you would. What would the total capacity of Colwich be for WCML and HS2 traffic combined?

You cannot fully answer that without knowing where trains are going to present at Handsacre and the amount of residual traffic on the WCML. You need a 5 minute margin for a crossing move towards Stoke, so you lose 10 minutes per hour for up trains from Stafford for the current service. As soon as you start adding pathing time into trains on the slows your capacity reduces as well as you'll either be at a stand or not at line speed. It takes freight 3 minutes to get from Colwich to Milford, a 390 1½ on a three minute headway with clean runs.

10 - 15 mins faster with tilt

HS2 trains will go to Scotland via the WCML, that is indisputable. Where has the 10-15 minute come from? Depending on the stopping pattern there can be as little as 1 or 2 minutes between Preston and Carlisle.

I sort of imagined you'd run the Glasgow pendos out of Victoria. Leeds Vic Preston Glasgow would be a useful route. Where else are all the 390s going to redeployed when HS2 phase 1 starts?

Or will they be so rusty by that stage that they get sent to the MML?

Doesn't matter where they go. Could well be scrap, they will be nigh on 30 years old by the time HS2 opens and will have been beaten to an inch of their lives running up and down the WCML by then.

 

[Manutd1999]

I doubt all of the existing WCML services will transfer onto HS2. There will still be demand northwards from Milton Keynes and Rugby.

A sensible solution for Colwich would be to build the 400m platforms at Crewe. That would allow some trains to be 2x200m, splitting at Crewe.

I would propose something like this:

HS2:
3ph Curzon Street (400m)
2ph Manchester via Stoke (200m)
1ph Liverpool/Glasgow (2x200m, splitting at Crewe)
1ph Liverpool/Lancaster (2x200m, splitting at Crewe)

Classic
1ph Manchester via Crewe
1ph Chester/Holyhead

That gives a comfortable 7ph out of Euston HS2 and only 6ph through Colwich, which still leaves a few paths free for freight and other services (Euston-Crewe stoppers etc.)

 

[Starmill]

Its not just the platforms, its the throat.

And the concourse. And the London Underground (goodbye the connection with Euston Square Underground). Of course that could be rectified through design... but given there's apparently not going to be public money for Euston HS2 now it's difficult to guess how the ancillaries will be specced. Then of course, no guarantee it will go to Euston at all.

 

[stuu]

Its not just the platforms, its the throat.

If the Tokaido Shinkansen can run 17tph (410m long) from 6 platforms, with no grade separation or anything, what is there at Euston which stops 14tph happening? (From a timetabling point of view, I realise we don't have the same culture to actually run that intensive a service)

 

[MTR380A]

Cutting Euston back seems like a terrible decision. I highly doubt that it can turn 14 tph around; more like 10 tph, leaving a substantial number of paths on HS2 free. While these are not needed for West Coast services, this decision will - forever - make it impossible to build something like the Eastern HS2 leg or other extensions of HS2 (well, not actually building them, but using them for London services).

In the distant future either HS1-HS2 link or HS4Air will be built, so there might not be substantial number of free paths after all, though it might only occur decades from now.

 

[The Planner]

If the Tokaido Shinkansen can run 17tph (410m long) from 6 platforms, with no grade separation or anything, what is there at Euston which stops 14tph happening? (From a timetabling point of view, I realise we don't have the same culture to actually run that intensive a service)

How long are their turnrounds and platform reoccupation?

 

[Nottingham59]

How long are their turnrounds and platform reoccupation?

The 7 Minute Cleaning Miracle

The Shinkansen cleaning service, TESSEI, is taking the world by surprise

medium.com

I doubt all of the existing WCML services will transfer onto HS2. There will still be demand northwards from Milton Keynes and Rugby.

A sensible solution for Colwich would be to build the 400m platforms at Crewe. That would allow some trains to be 2x200m, splitting at Crewe.

I would propose something like this:

HS2:
3ph Curzon Street (400m)
2ph Manchester via Stoke (200m)
1ph Liverpool/Glasgow (2x200m, splitting at Crewe)
1ph Liverpool/Lancaster (2x200m, splitting at Crewe)

Classic
1ph Manchester via Crewe
1ph Chester/Holyhead

That gives a comfortable 7ph out of Euston HS2 and only 6ph through Colwich, which still leaves a few paths free for freight and other services (Euston-Crewe stoppers etc.)

I fear that's all that HS2 are going to get. The current off-peak pattern at Colwich seems to be 6x390/Voyager, 1x350; 2 freights. Two of the 390s cross over to go via Stoke.

Looking at the detailed timings, it's limited because the fasts don't cross over onto the Stafford line any time before Colwich itself, because there's a freight on the slows or a 350 stopped at Rugely. Which means there's nowhere to regulate the Stone/Stoke 390s if their crossing slot is not going to be there at the right time.

I don't think there's any more capacity a Colwich. Maybe one more fast if they can squeeze in a second Liverpool next year?

Basically, HS2 doesn't allow for any more capacity North of Rugely. I wonder how many MPs in Merseyside, Lancashire and Manchester realise how much they're going to suffer because phase 2a got binned?

 

[Bald Rick]

Given that we will have six tracks converging on the flat crossing at Colwich, how many tph can that handle? What are the implications for WCML traffic?

That gives 14tph from London. 4tph to Curzon Street (BCZ?), would leave 10tph HS2 trains trying to get through Colwich.

Is 10tph feasible?

AIUI, 5-6tph off HS2 via Colwich (assuming the Chester / N Wales service remains via the classic WCML)

10 - 15 mins faster with tilt

more like 2 minutes north of Preston if the MU speed limit is implemented.

 

[JKF]

Daft question: is there any reason why they couldn’t run 390s on HS2 then on to Scotland? Would their lower speed create capacity issues (holding up following trains), could they run a bit faster (with reasonable modification) to mitigate this? Would there be any point?

 

[FlyingPotato]

Daft question: is there any reason why they couldn’t run 390s on HS2 then on to Scotland? Would their lower speed create capacity issues (holding up following trains), could they run a bit faster (with reasonable modification) to mitigate this? Would there be any point?

I think they would be too old at that point

But I don't know why a modern version couldn't happen, I'll let someone else answer that one as there's probably reasons why tilting wasn't required

 

[zwk500]

Daft question: is there any reason why they couldn’t run 390s on HS2 then on to Scotland?

They don't have the required signalling

Would their lower speed create capacity issues (holding up following trains),

Depends on the timetable but 225kph vs 360kph is likely to cause issues

could they run a bit faster (with reasonable modification) to mitigate this?

140mph was the design speed, and even that requires modifications like fitting ETCS in-cab signalling.

Would there be any point?

Depends what happens with later stages of HS2, but not a lot if any. Pendos are getting old, don't meet latest regulations and you'll get better bang for the buck with a newer fleet of non-tilt trains.

 

[Chester1]

I think they would be too old at that point

But I don't know why a modern version couldn't happen, I'll let someone else answer that one as there's probably reasons why tilting wasn't required

The goal of Network Rail is to modify the line so that tilt isn't required. It is another point of failure for reliability and means more crampt rolling stock. Between some infrastructure changes and faster acceleration of modern units the HS2 trains should get close to Pendolino timings on the conventional network.

AIUI, 5-6tph off HS2 via Colwich (assuming the Chester / N Wales service remains via the classic WCML)

Would grade seperation of Colwich junction make a meaningful difference?

 

[Bald Rick]

Would grade seperation of Colwich junction make a meaningful difference?

Maybe - tbc. as you can imagine, its all rather new news for the teams involved!

 

[350401]

I doubt all of the existing WCML services will transfer onto HS2. There will still be demand northwards from Milton Keynes and Rugby.

A sensible solution for Colwich would be to build the 400m platforms at Crewe. That would allow some trains to be 2x200m, splitting at Crewe.

I would propose something like this:

HS2:
3ph Curzon Street (400m)
2ph Manchester via Stoke (200m)
1ph Liverpool/Glasgow (2x200m, splitting at Crewe)
1ph Liverpool/Lancaster (2x200m, splitting at Crewe)

Classic
1ph Manchester via Crewe
1ph Chester/Holyhead

That gives a comfortable 7ph out of Euston HS2 and only 6ph through Colwich, which still leaves a few paths free for freight and other services (Euston-Crewe stoppers etc.)

This represents a severe downgrade in capacity, especially for Manchester. It replaces upto 3x265m 607 seat trains with 2x200m 528 seat trains. This wouldn’t fly. The proposed trains are going to get rescoped; I know that for sure. Quite what we end up with depends on the Treasury, DFT and the HS2 rolling stock and railway systems team manage to negotiate. I expect Manchester will end up with 3 x 275m trains per hour plus 1 existing Pendolino via the WCML.

Bear in mind, Euston is getting 6 additional platforms, on top of the current 16 platforms. WCML services can stay using the existing station. Only the services to Birmingham and via Handsacre need to use the high speed platforms. The capacity limit is Handsacre and lines to Crewe; this will depend on what, if any, works are done here and around Stafford in place of 2a. If you assume 7tph, then you can have 7tph plus the 3x Birmingham Curzon St services into Euston - ie the 10tph mooted.

 

[gabrielhj07]

Forgive a possibly slightly silly question, but if present intercity services from euston are to be replaced by HS2, can't HS2 services use some of the present Euston platforms?

 

[The Planner]

Forgive a possibly slightly silly question, but if present intercity services from euston are to be replaced by HS2, can't HS2 services use some of the present Euston platforms?

No.

The capacity limit is Handsacre and lines to Crewe; this will depend on what, if any, works are done here and around Stafford in place of 2a. If you assume 7tph, then you can have 7tph plus the 3x Birmingham Curzon St services into Euston - ie the 10tph mooted.

As it stands, none.

 

[stuu]

How long are their turnrounds and platform reoccupation?

~15 minutes. But I was wondering about your comment re the throat - as in it wouldn't be physically possible to run the service

 

[The Planner]

~15 minutes. But I was wondering about your comment re the throat - as in it wouldn't be physically possible to run the service

You are going to need plenty of s&c in the throat to enable parallel moves. That wouldnt have been needed as much with the crossover tunnel.

 

[Falcon1200]

Forgive a possibly slightly silly question, but if present intercity services from euston are to be replaced by HS2, can't HS2 services use some of the present Euston platforms?

That thought had occurred to me too; Repurpose 2 or maybe even 4 of the westernmost platforms for HS2 trains, or, if feasible, dual service use.

 

[Austriantrain]

~15 minutes. But I was wondering about your comment re the throat - as in it wouldn't be physically possible to run the service

Do trains get cleaned in that time as well or is it not needed because the Japanese are famously well-behaved?

 

[JaJaWa]

Jeremy Hunt has posted on X that Euston HS2 will be under Peter Hendy's "stewardship" so hopefully sensible decisions will be made:

@Jeremy_Hunt
It was great to sit down with Peter Hendy and the Euston Partnership to discuss how we’re going to build the HS2 station here. There’s now an opportunity to do this in a new way, and do it faster.

https://twitter.com/Jeremy_Hunt/status/1712141959018557677

@Jeremy_Hunt
If you look at Battersea Power Station, Kings Cross - that’s what we want Euston to be. A modern terminal, delivered entirely with private funding, that combines top class rail with new housing and retail. Under Peter’s stewardship, I’m excited to see it come to fruition.

https://twitter.com/Jeremy_Hunt/status/1712141973186916501

Hong Kong's only high speed rail station at West Kowloon was built with 14 platforms although space was left for 21 platforms to be fitted out.
They also sold the rights to build on top of it for HK$90 billion (£9.35 billion).

Building less platforms (but reserving space for future platforms in the station box) and selling development rights could allow Euston HS2 to be cost-neutral and should have been seriously considered in the first place.

Hong Kong government to sell off site on top of West Kowloon station expected to fetch record US$11.5 billion
The six-hectare commercial site on top of West Kowloon high-speed rail terminus is expected to fetch a record price of about HK$90 billion (US$11.5 billion)
Sep 14, 2019
South China Morning Post Excerpt

The Hong Kong government is putting up for tender the biggest and most expensive plot of land it has ever sold, shrugging off concerns about the effects of unprecedented civil unrest on market sentiment.

The six-hectare commercial site directly on top of the West Kowloon high-speed rail terminus is expected to fetch a record price of about HK$90 billion (US$11.5 billion).

It is seen attracting a winning bid of between HK$20,000 and HK$28,000 per square foot. That estimate, by Knight Frank, has dropped considerably since January – long before the start of anti-government protests – when it was seen fetching between HK$27,000 and HK$35,000, or HK$79 billion to HK$110 billion.

Despite the downward revision, the estimated bid price would still be the record-high in a city already known as the least affordable in the world.

“The political crisis in the city, and external factors and uncertainties such as the US-China trade war and Brexit in the UK have led us to revise downward our estimate for the tender price of the plot,” said Thomas Lam, executive director at property consultancy Knight Frank.

The tender will launch on September 20 and will close at noon of November 22.

The plot, equivalent to 643,100 square feet, is suitable for a mixed-use development with components like office buildings, a five-star hotel, and retail and other commercial spaces. It is likely to generate a total gross floor area of 3 million square feet.

Any project built on the site would probably incur investment costs of more than HK$100 billion, and could yield between 3 per cent and 3.5 per cent, with a payback period of 20 years, according to Lam.

Hong Kong to sell its biggest, priciest plot of land ever

The six-hectare commercial site on top of West Kowloon high-speed rail terminus is expected to fetch a record price of about HK$90 billion (US$11.5 billion)

www.scmp.com