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

[Nottingham59]

The Phase One Full Business Case included TSS's for Phase 2a,

Thank you. That's very helpful. Though that TSS for phase 2a is, I understand, not changed from the planning assumptions for Phase 1. Which is pretty unambitious.

it gives an indication of the capacity of the remodelled Crewe Hub layout.

Yes. Maybe a bit more is possible.

There has never been an official proposal for 4tph London - Birmingham or London - Manchester over HS2. In the full Y TSS, there was provision of a spare Euston path that could have been used for an additional Manchester service in future.

3tph x 200m units gives no more capacity than 3xPendolino today. Sunak's announcement killing the Eastern Arm allows capacity to be released for destinations in the North West.

Without the Golborne link, the Phase 2b indicative TSS suggests that there is only capacity for 2tph HS2 on the WCML north of Weaver Jn (1tph Glasgow, 1tph Lancaster).

If that's all that can fit, so be it. So 2tph to Glasgow and/or Edinburgh, calling at CRE, WBQ, WNW, PRE etc.

 

[Krokodil]

3tph x 200m units gives no more capacity than 3xPendolino today. Sunak's announcement killing the Eastern Arm allows capacity to be released for destinations in the North West.

Capacity released for what destinations? You're not having any extra trains to Manchester without Phase 2B. The only way to boost capacity into Manchester is to build the new line, complete with 400m platforms.

Neither will you find any extra paths into Liverpool beyond the already planned second London. North of Weaver Junction there won't be any more paths beyond the existing plans unless we get Golborne or reinstatement of the missing sections of quadruple track. Chester? There's barely the demand for more than an hourly London plus hourly shuttle. Sure, converting the shuttle into a second London will help to generate demand through quicker/more convenient connections, but this just smacks of desperately finding somewhere (anywhere) to send the trains that you can't accommodate because of the cutbacks.

 

[nw1]

The Phase One Full Business Case included TSS's for Phase 2a, both before and after Euston opened. 10tph from Euston, all calling OOC, comprising:
3tph Curzon Street calling Interchange;
3tph Manchester calling Stockport, of which 1tph also calling Wilmslow;
2tph Liverpool calling Crewe and Runcorn, of which 1tph detaches a Lancaster portion at Crewe, calling Warrington, Wigan and Preston;
1tph Glasgow calling Preston and Carlisle;
1tph Macclesfield via Handsacre, calling Stafford and Stoke.
Birmingham services 400m, others 200m.
Nothing north from Curzon Street, so 6tph on the Phase 2a line to Crewe, of which one 400m splitting at Crewe. Only 1tph using the Handsacre branch.
View attachment 144837
Of course this is not necessarily the service pattern that would be proposed if Phase 2a were reinstated in the future, but it gives an indication of the capacity of the remodelled Crewe Hub layout.

There has never been an official proposal for 4tph London - Birmingham or London - Manchester over HS2. In the full Y TSS, there was provision of a spare Euston path that could have been used for an additional Manchester service in future.

Without the Golborne link, the Phase 2b indicative TSS suggests that there is only capacity for 2tph HS2 on the WCML north of Weaver Jn (1tph Glasgow, 1tph Lancaster).

Terminating at Macclesfield seems a curious decision. Or would it have continued to Manchester, but isn't shown in the diagram as it woudn't be the fastest service?

What's the role of Birmingham Interchange incidentally? I thought it was intended that services further north would call there, but evidently not.

 

[The Planner]

Terminating at Macclesfield seems a curious decision. Or would it have continued to Manchester, but isn't shown in the diagram as it woudn't be the fastest service?

It was originally a Stoke service, until it was noticed that Stoke isn't great to turn back at and you could get a trip to Macclesfield and back with little effort. It wasn't going to work over Cheadle Hulme either.

What's the role of Birmingham Interchange incidentally? I thought it was intended that services further north would call there, but evidently not.

Birmingham International says hello. It has 2100 car parking spaces as it is which were full pre COVID. Interchange is intended to do the same thing and take that catchment area. I would expect more trains to stop there now its only phase 1.

 

[Greybeard33]

Yes. Maybe a bit more is possible

Do you have any evidence that it would be possible to squeeze "a bit more" through Crewe? I believe Network Rail did detailed modelling of the proposed Phase 2a timetable to validate the Crewe design and found it quite challenging.

3tph x 200m units gives no more capacity than 3xPendolino today. Sunak's announcement killing the Eastern Arm allows capacity to be released for destinations in the North West.

The current 3tph x Cl390 Manchester service has to accommodate passengers between Euston and Milton Keynes/Rugby/Nuneaton/Stoke/Macclesfield. The 3tph x 200m HS2 service would provide more seats for Manchester and Stockport passengers.

If that's all that can fit, so be it. So 2tph to Glasgow and/or Edinburgh, calling at CRE, WBQ, WNW, PRE etc.

More stops on a Scotland service would increase journey time, which would reduce the economic benefit and so worsen the business case for building the Phase 2a line.

 

[Nottingham59]

Do you have any evidence that it would be possible to squeeze "a bit more" through Crewe?

Splitting and joining eats platform capacity. If you don't split at Crewe, you will be able to get at least 1tph more through the station itself. At 3 minute headways, you could probably get two extra.

(Though the capacity of the routes north of Crewe may then become the limiting factor.)

I believe Network Rail did detailed modelling of the proposed Phase 2a timetable to validate the Crewe design and found it quite challenging.

Is this published anywhere, please?

The current 3tph x Cl390 Manchester service has to accommodate passengers between Euston and Milton Keynes/Rugby/Nuneaton/Stoke/Macclesfield. The 3tph x 200m HS2 service would provide more seats for Manchester and Stockport passengers.

Agreed. You may only fill 2tph at the start, but I'd expect Manchester - London journeys to double with HS2, if the paths could be found.

Manchester is by far the biggest generator of WCML ticket revenue. First rule of business is to invest in your profitable lines.

More stops on a Scotland service would increase journey time, which would reduce the economic benefit and so worsen the business case for building the Phase 2a line.

Maybe. But that seems to be the only way to fit them in under current constraints.

Any rational business case would first look at stopping freight on the WCML between Crewe and Preston in the hours corresponding to the evening peak out of London.

 

[The Planner]

Splitting and joining eats platform capacity. If you don't split at Crewe, you will be able to get at least 1tph more through the station itself. At 3 minute headways, you could probably get two extra.

(Though the capacity of the routes north of Crewe may then become the limiting factor.)

Is this published anywhere, please?

Agreed. You may only fill 2tph at the start, but I'd expect Manchester - London journeys to double with HS2, if the paths could be found.

Manchester is by far the biggest generator of WCML ticket revenue. First rule of business is to invest in your profitable lines.

Maybe. But that seems to be the only way to fit them in under current constraints.

Any rational business case would first look at stopping freight on the WCML between Crewe and Preston in the hours corresponding to the evening peak out of London.

Its 4 minutes north of Crewe. You need to show your working as to how you lose two paths, especially if you can be overtaken. The capacity work is not published. The Network Code doesnt allow you to "ban" freight in that manner. Winsford to Weaver is the capacity issue, its reduced after that, especially with the ability to use the Helsby lines at Warrington, use of Earlestown, Lowton and Golborne approaching Wigan and the slows north of Balshaw Lane.

 

[Greybeard33]

Is this published anywhere, please?

The detail of the Crewe capacity work is not published, but this PWI lecture gave an overview of the Crewe Hub project, including, at about 26 minutes, a dynamic visualisation of the timetable modelling.

 

[Nottingham59]

Its 4 minutes north of Crewe.

But 3 mins on HS2 south of Crewe.

You need to show your working as to how you lose two paths, especially if you can be overtaken.

Consider trains from Liverpool and Lancaster joining at Crewe. Without joining the Liverpool could arrive at the platform at 1200h. One minute dwell: doors close and depart at 1201h.

With joining, Liverpool train arrives at 1200h and waits. Lancaster train in path behind (if you're lucky) should arrive at 1204h. But has to approach platform more slowly with Liverpool train occupying the platform, so wheelstop at 1204.5; 60s to join; 30s for pull test. Doors open 1206h. One minute dwell: doors close and depart at 1207h: 2 paths behind where it would have been at 1201h.

In reality you'd want at least 3 minutes pathing time added to allow for things going wrong, or one joining train being a bit late. So depart at 1210h, 3 paths behind.

Note that if Crewe layout allows other trains to overtake and occupy the 1201h and 1204h paths from other platforms, whilst the Liverpool train is blocking its platform, then the station itself has sufficient capacity not to be the bottleneck on the whole system.

The capacity work is not published.

OK

The Network Code doesnt allow you to "ban" freight in that manner. Winsford to Weaver is the capacity issue, its reduced after that, especially with the ability to use the Helsby lines at Warrington, use of Earlestown, Lowton and Golborne approaching Wigan and the slows north of Balshaw Lane.

The network code allows NR to declare congested infrastructure, and then to impose a Congestion Charge for every timetabled path over that infrastructure during congested hours.

This is the mechanism intended to address congestion in the most economically efficient manner. But NR has chosen never to apply it.

 

[Krokodil]

Manchester is by far the biggest generator of WCML ticket revenue. First rule of business is to invest in your profitable lines.

God knows why the government decided instead to reopen a couple of branch lines. Oh hang on, marginal seats!

 

[The Planner]

But 3 mins on HS2 south of Crewe.


Consider trains from Liverpool and Lancaster joining at Crewe. Without joining the Liverpool could arrive at the platform at 1200h. One minute dwell: doors close and depart at 1201h.

With joining, Liverpool train arrives at 1200h and waits. Lancaster train in path behind (if you're lucky) should arrive at 1204h. But has to approach platform more slowly with Liverpool train occupying the platform, so wheelstop at 1204.5; 60s to join; 30s for pull test. Doors open 1206h. One minute dwell: doors close and depart at 1207h: 2 paths behind where it would have been at 1201h.

In reality you'd want at least 3 minutes pathing time added to allow for things going wrong, or one joining train being a bit late. So depart at 1210h, 3 paths behind.

Note that if Crewe layout allows other trains to overtake and occupy the 1201h and 1204h paths from other platforms, whilst the Liverpool train is blocking its platform, then the station itself has sufficient capacity not to be the bottleneck on the whole system.


OK

The network code allows NR to declare congested infrastructure, and then to impose a Congestion Charge for every timetabled path over that infrastructure during congested hours.

This is the mechanism intended to address congestion in the most economically efficient manner. But NR has chosen never to apply it.

Doesnt matter if its 3 minutes on HS2, if the 4 applies at Crewe, you apply 4 there.
You have to have 2 minutes dwell at Crewe, you cannot go lower for a Pendo etc..
You don't add pathing time if you don't need it.
Congested infrastructure has/had been declared for Castlefield, West Coast south between Ledburn and Camden, Reading to Gatwick, Wrexham Bidston and the MML. Its likely to be declared for Winsford Weaver as well. NR don't use it willy nilly as it forces an intervention that may not be affordable.