High Speed Two (HS2) discussion

[Philip Elliott]

If you take those non-stop services via another line (called HS2) then you free up a lot of capacity on the ECML for more local trains to stop at places like Grantham.

You still just don't get it do you. THERE ARE NO NON-STOP services, from London to Birmingham/ Manchester/ Leeds so you can't just transfer services from one route to another. There is still a large demand for fast trains from Doncaster, Wakefield, Hull, Stoke, Wolverhampton, Coventry etc. so you either end up with no capacity for train paths released or a much poorer service for these major destinations.

What 'local' trains would stop at Grantham then? The nearest stations are Peterborough and Retford on the ECML - that is middle/long distance, hardly 'local'!!

 

[Jonny]

All this talk about HS2 to Yorkshire is very interesting, but if you look at the draft timetable for HS2 South of Birmingham, there is only paths for 4tph on the Leeds branch.

I'm personaly in favour of HS2, but only as far as Birmngham/Lichfield.

The principle purpose of HS2 should be seen as a relief line for the WCML south of Rugby.

Any high speed line from London to East Midlands/Yorkshire/North East would require a second line running from a second London terminus, possibly at King's Cross.

I'm still sceptical about HS2 to Manchester.

So, you would be talking another line - HS3 - for the ECML then. My thoughts would be to have a junction with HS1 at Stratford (using St. Pancras domestic high speed in the short-term), head for Cambridge and Lincoln then paralell to existing lines to the ECML at Doncaster (or York if easier) and use ERTMS to get 140mph+ running further north in the short run, subject to gauge clearance. Long-term, this could be supplemented by extra tracks northwards either on a new alignment (which would help to get rid of some level crossings north of Newcastle, which are a capacity constraint and surely take up signalers' time) or roughly parallel to existing "fast" alignments as well as a dedicated HS3 terminal at Liverpool Street, which could also accept some domestic HS1 services.

 

[WatcherZero]

You dont transfer the services, you transfer the passengers which means spare capacity on existing services and room for new services.

Theoretical train A, five stops and room for 600 passengers 200 of which are going end to end, 3tph
New service removes those 200 passengers so theres now spare capacity on the train to stop at more stations or alternativley the service frequency could be dropped to 2tph (no change to overall crowding) and the third path is operated by a completley different calling pattern.

 

[DarkestDreams]

Don't know if this has been posted already, but I stumbled across a study into movements and options for transport between Euston and St. Pancras.

 

[LE Greys]

Don't know if this has been posted already, but I stumbled across a study into movements and options for transport between Euston and St. Pancras.

Not a bad idea. I'd prefer one of the underground options, so that they could extend it eastwards a little to King's Cross, but could probably live with the overhead version. It looks hideous, but the new bit of St Pancras is hideous anyway, and victorianising the archetecture would be pointless and expensive. I hope they go with it, that walk down Euston Road is not going to get any easier. I'd quite like to see the Doric Arch back at Euston as well, even if in miniature replica form.

 

[tbtc]

You still just don't get it do you. THERE ARE NO NON-STOP services, from London to Birmingham/ Manchester/ Leeds so you can't just transfer services from one route to another. There is still a large demand for fast trains from Doncaster, Wakefield, Hull, Stoke, Wolverhampton, Coventry etc. so you either end up with no capacity for train paths released or a much poorer service for these major destinations

AIUI there are currently non-stop daytime train services (at least in one direction) between:

• London - Newcastle
• London - Preston
• London - York
• London - Wakefield
• London - Stockport
• London - Warrington
• London - Runcorn

...all of which are of no use to places in between, and all of which eat up paths through intermediate stations (esp due to the speed differential).

What 'local' trains would stop at Grantham then? The nearest stations are Peterborough and Retford on the ECML - that is middle/long distance, hardly 'local'!!

I take it you are forgetting about Newark?

And what about Grantham - Lincoln journeys? There's only one service from Kings Cross to Lincoln a day, partly because paths on the ECML are needed for longer distance services (that run non-stop through Lincolnshire). Divert these away and you have scope for a regular London service that finally provides a daytime link between Grantham and Lincoln. Or using some London - Peterborough paths for services to Boston/ Skegness or stations on the Grantham - Nottingham line? Or what about Stansed/Cambridge to Leeds?

Take away the fast non-stop trains and you are left with spare capacity to meet shorter distance demand (rather than having lots of services running non stop for 100 miles).

 

[HSTEd]

I take it you are forgetting about Newark?

And what about Grantham - Lincoln journeys? There's only one service from Kings Cross to Lincoln a day, partly because paths on the ECML are needed for longer distance services (that run non-stop through Lincolnshire). Divert these away and you have scope for a regular London service that finally provides a daytime link between Grantham and Lincoln. Or using some London - Peterborough paths for services to Boston/ Skegness or stations on the Grantham - Nottingham line? Or what about Stansed/Cambridge to Leeds?

Take away the fast non-stop trains and you are left with spare capacity to meet shorter distance demand (rather than having lots of services running non stop for 100 miles).

Most people would simply drive to Newark (if they live in the intervening villages that make up a large part of teh areas population) or they would take the bus, largely the former.

A stop all stations train would cause the same problem as the fast non stop trains currently do and wouldnt generate that many journeys for this reason.

The Number 1 bus has a hard time filling its vehicles these days (Grantham-Lincoln at a ludicrous frequency) and I dont think theres much opportunity there for a modal shift as most of those seats are used to intervening villages. Grantham is far more in the sphere of Nottingham than Lincoln.
Likewise the 602 to Newark half of which don't even get all the way to Newark as the demand drops off drastically after Long Bennington

The approximately hourly service we get now is good enough (the London-Newark train that would be extended to Lincoln bihourly and could be with no additional paths on the ECML, it only does not due to East Coast not wishing to pursue it at this time, perhaps that says something about the viability of said service?) especially once you add in the Hull Trains service.

EDIT:
How about the moeny and rolling stock meant for this service to Lincoln was used to double up the 158s on the Liverpool Norwich over the entire length of the route and then to double up the NOttingham-Skegness train, possibly extending that back to its full route that it held at privatisation)

 

[Philip Elliott]

AIUI there are currently non-stop daytime train services (at least in one direction) between:

London - Newcastle
London - Preston
London - York
London - Wakefield
London - Stockport
London - Warrington
London - Runcorn

Most of those are one a day which run for political reasons, only London - York & Warrington could transfer to HS2 (assuming it joins the WCML south of Warrington on phase 2). Transferring one-a-day trains will really free up capacity:roll:

In the peaks, many trains on the WCML make additional stops - morning trains from Manchester call at Rugby, Nuneaton & Watford, Glasgow & Liverpool trains have Tamworth & Lichfield calls. Yet these peak trains are rarely crowded.

Divert these away and you have scope for a regular London service that finally provides a daytime link between Grantham and Lincoln. Or using some London - Peterborough paths for services to Boston/ Skegness or stations on the Grantham - Nottingham line? Or what about Stansed/Cambridge to Leeds?

Who is going to pay for all these services? A lot can be run already with available capacity but the DfT just aren't interested. Take away the revenue from the current services and the line will need vastly increased subsidy.

 

[LE Greys]

Who is going to pay for all these services? A lot can be run already with available capacity but the DfT just aren't interested. Take away the revenue from the current services and the line will need vastly increased subsidy.

The theory is that HS2 will cross-subsidise the "classic" lines. I have a feeling that the practice will be somewhat different. The old SNCF main lines appear to be stuck in a 1960s timewarp, although there has been some modernisation in recent years. As usual, Germany manages much better.

 

[WatcherZero]

Its the inner city commuter services which are the main loss leaders, the further the passengers travel the more profitable it becomes.

 

[Martin222002]

Most of those are one a day which run for political reasons, only London - York & Warrington could transfer to HS2 (assuming it joins the WCML south of Warrington on phase 2).

Well instead of having a path for an non-stop service between London-York and London-Warrington, you can use that path to serve intermediate stations, like Lichfield, Tamworth and/or Nuneaton on the WCML, and Newark, Grantham and/or Peterborough on the ECML. This is a better use of the path as it increases the amount of tph to London and to destinations further north.

 

[HSTEd]

Well instead of having a path for an non-stop service between London-York and London-Warrington, you can use that path to serve intermediate stations, like Lichfield, Tamworth and/or Nuneaton on the WCML, and Newark, Grantham and/or Peterborough on the ECML. This is a better use of the path as it increases the amount of tph to London and to destinations further north.

But none of these trains on the ECML will go North of York.
In addition there is no demand for additional trains stopping all stations on the southern main line ECML (Peterborough to Doncaster). The hourly service to Newark is good enough in combination with the Hull Trains and other services, perhaps with extension to Lincoln should that spur be electrified at some point.

You are just trying to force the solution that is considered acceptable on the WCML onto the ECML and then say its for our own good.

 

[Nym]

How many services run non-stop to Doncaster from KX?

 

[YorkshireBear]

There is no demand now, but by 2035 there could well be. In 24 years time we may be a lot more reliant on public transport. It is anyones guess but usage is going to go up and by a lot. So yes lincoln doesnt need servies all day to london, the intermediate stations dont need services between each other now.... but in 24 years time they probably will.

 

[HSTEd]

How many services run non-stop to Doncaster from KX?

The Grand Central ORCATs raiders, the Highland Chieftain (London-York), the Aberdeen Trains and the 1800+1900 London-Edinburghs (London-York).

So 13 trains total over the course of the weekday.

Of those the Grand Central ORCATs raiders are unlikely to be around for much longer due to lack of viability (Bradford would be better served by additional extensions to Leeds trains if it wasnt for the shortage of electric stock) and general lack of a market for such trains.

This reduces the counts to 9 trains per day.
If the SNP gets it way the Highland Chieftain and the Aberdeen trains die as well, and can revert to a more normal Edinburgh stopping pattern, reducing the count to five.

So your plan is to do all this to gain five extra paths per day on the ECML?

Where will the projected explosive growth in demand occur? 1tp2h Lincoln-London all stations and 1tp2h York-London all stations easily fulfills the demands of the local services on the ECML for the forseable future.

Indeed 4.5 Mark IVs per hour to Lincoln would be a better service than we normally get to Nottingham, which far more deserves massive service expansion.
And this is before the ECML gets 11 coach EMUs.

 

[Martin222002]

But none of these trains on the ECML will go North of York.
In addition there is no demand for additional trains stopping all stations on the southern main line ECML (Peterborough to Doncaster). The hourly service to Newark is good enough in combination with the Hull Trains and other services, perhaps with extension to Lincoln should that spur be electrified at some point.

You are just trying to force the solution that is considered acceptable on the WCML onto the ECML and then say its for our own good.

Who says that services from Kings Cross won't go north of York? Also I wasn't suggesting another stopping service. I was just making the point that the part could be better used by serving two or three stations south of York. For example, an ECML Edinburgh-London Kings Cross service could have a calling pattern of:

Edinburgh, Berwick-upon-tweed, Newcastle, Durham, Darlington, York, Doncaster, Peterborough, London Kings Cross.

That would give an additional service per hour to and from Peterborough, Doncaster and Durham vs the current calling pattern. For passengers at York, Darlington, Newcastle, and Edinburgh (via WCML for faster journey time to London), wanting a faster service they can us the HS2 service instead.

 

[Invincibles]

As posted back a few pages, I would strongly expect a train on the ECML to Newcastle and probably Edinburgh (depending on the Scots) which would work exactly like the stopping train from Newcastle does now.

HS is about providing extra capacity and opportunities that are afforded when the fastest trains are moved onto new lines.

So you can retain 2 trains from Leeds to London on the ECML and add stops while serving the Leeds to London full journey route with HS. This really makes a big difference to places south of Doncaster.

Simlarly York terminators, and associated onward connectivity remain and that would mean better opportunities from East Anglia to Scotland.

I find some of these suggestions that HS2 does not help very strange.

Over on the WCML there are hourly fast trains:

London - Warrington (well almost hourly)
London - Stoke
London - Crewe

All of which would run on HS2 eventually, meaning 3 more trains an hour to split across the Trent Valley stations to increase capacity. I would say that is a pretty good thing. tbtc was correct on that (just a shame some examples like London - Preston or Stockport were used which are a little misleading)

 

[Nym]

The WCML is an easyer transiton to manage though, the core LDPE services will move to HS2, 3tph Brum, 3tph Manc etc.

But from what I know the Day1 figures are that everything N of Rugley will run via HS2 (Assuming CC Stock can be hauled by a loco for Holyhead)

Leaving pendos to run semi fast journies, from a selection of termini stopping at a couple more stations than previously.

The problem comes when you look for somwehere to terminate these services N of Rugley, at HS2a opening, Manchester will be full (HSCC Stock will run on the current paths) Liverpool will have 2tph anyway, Preston will have 2tph anyway from HS2
(N of rugley the HSCC units will have the same stopping pattern)

When HS2bL opens then it's easyer to send the pendos places, running say 2 or 3tph Birmingham, picking up more stops between Coventry and Euston, and 6tph up the TV, calling at a selection of stations with then 2tph terminating at Manchester Piccadilly via Stoke (Extra calls at say, Stafford and Nuneaton), 2tph at Preston (Crewe, Tamworth, *shurgs*) and 2tph at Liverpool L St. (Or any other combination you like)

I'd suppose that if the paths can be found N of Rugley on Day 1, that you'd want to still retain 6tph through the Trent Valley, but where to send them???

 

[HSTEd]

Who says that services from Kings Cross won't go north of York? Also I wasn't suggesting another stopping service. I was just making the point that the part could be better used by serving two or three stations south of York. For example, an ECML Edinburgh-London Kings Cross service could have a calling pattern of:

Edinburgh, Berwick-upon-tweed, Newcastle, Durham, Darlington, York, Doncaster, Peterborough, London Kings Cross.

That would give an additional service per hour to and from Peterborough, Doncaster and Durham vs the current calling pattern. For passengers at York, Darlington, Newcastle, and Edinburgh (via WCML for faster journey time to London), wanting a faster service they can us the HS2 service instead.

Where will the paths for all these additional trains come from?

North Of York all those paths will have been coopted for the HS2 Classic Compatible services, the line from Northallerton to Newcastle is one big bottleneck as noted in the ECML route plan.

 

[Nym]

HSTed, by then one would hope that ERTMS has been rolled out on the ECML between York and Newcastle, combined with the higher permissable linespeeds between York and Northallerton, this will also mean that services will be able to run closer together and free up paths for 'flighting' services from Northallerton S Jcns.

ie. CCHS Stock leaves York
Cl 91 Electra leaves 3mins behind it
CCHS Is permitted to run at 250km/h, 91 is to run at top whack of 225km/h on the ERTMS signalled sections.

Especially considering the strightness of the line between York and Northallerton, I can see all the way from one end to the other in a helecopter and it was arrow straight!

 

[ainsworth74]

CCHS Is permitted to run at 250km/h, 91 is to run at top whack of 225km/h on the ERTMS signalled sections.

I'm sure it's been mentioned that the 225s would need some serious work to make them capable of 140mph once again, especially considering by the time we're talking they'll be getting on for more than 40 years old! In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the 225s were being retired at this time.

 

[Nym]

I'm sure it's been mentioned that the 225s would need some serious work to make them capable of 140mph once again, especially considering by the time we're talking they'll be getting on for more than 40 years old! In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the 225s were being retired at this time.

Maybe not then, but the CCHS stock should still be able to benifit from ERTMS on the ECML(N).

I'm personally of the opinion that there is more to gain by upgrading signalling on the ECML(N) around 2030 than extending HS2 north of York, provided there is capacity freed up by the introduction of ERTMS III.

225s I'd be aiming to retire around about the time HS2bR opens to Leeds Captive and York/Doncaster Classic Compatable. (2035)

 

[tbtc]

4.5 Mark IVs per hour to Lincoln would be a better service than we normally get to Nottingham, which far more deserves massive service expansion.
And this is before the ECML gets 11 coach EMUs.

Taking the longer distance traffic off the southern end of the ECML would free up paths for potential London - Peterborough - Grantham - Nottingham services...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Most people would simply drive to Newark (if they live in the intervening villages that make up a large part of teh areas population) or they would take the bus, largely the former.

A stop all stations train would cause the same problem as the fast non stop trains currently do and wouldnt generate that many journeys for this reason.

The Number 1 bus has a hard time filling its vehicles these days (Grantham-Lincoln at a ludicrous frequency) and I dont think theres much opportunity there for a modal shift as most of those seats are used to intervening villages. Grantham is far more in the sphere of Nottingham than Lincoln.
Likewise the 602 to Newark half of which don't even get all the way to Newark as the demand drops off drastically after Long Bennington

So there'd be essentially no demand for Lincoln - Newark - Grantham - Peterborough - London services?

 

[Martin222002]

Where will the paths for all these additional trains come from?

North Of York all those paths will have been coopted for the HS2 Classic Compatible services, the line from Northallerton to Newcastle is one big bottleneck as noted in the ECML route plan.

Well as Network Rail has an aspiration of 3 tph out of Kings Cross to Newcastle/Edinburgh up the ECML, and as Nym said, there would thus most likely be some signalling improvements (conversational or ERTMS) on the ECML north of York before the time HS2 reaches that far.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Taking the longer distance traffic off the southern end of the ECML would free up paths for potential London - Peterborough - Grantham - Nottingham services...

I don't understand why there ever would be a Nottingham-London service via the ECML, as it's not like there current fast HST services are very busy during the day, so I doubt there would the demand for such a service.

 

[tbtc]

I don't understand why there ever would be a Nottingham-London service via the ECML, as it's not like there current fast HST services are very busy during the day, so I doubt there would the demand for such a service

Its not just about the "end to end" traffic though. There are places in between Grantham and Nottingham with no link to the capital, there are places on the southern ECML (Stevenage etc) with no service to Nottingham.

Taking the fastest trains off the (southern end of) current main lines will free up space for alternative links like this (I've mentioned additional London - Lincoln services and new Stansted/Cambridge - Leeds services). At the moment there's no scope to introduce such routes, because its all about making way for 125 mph paths between London and "the north". Stations in the middle don't get a fair deal at the moment.

 

[Waverley125]

But none of these trains on the ECML will go North of York.
In addition there is no demand for additional trains stopping all stations on the southern main line ECML (Peterborough to Doncaster). The hourly service to Newark is good enough in combination with the Hull Trains and other services, perhaps with extension to Lincoln should that spur be electrified at some point.

You are just trying to force the solution that is considered acceptable on the WCML onto the ECML and then say its for our own good.

Ed, you're trying to have it two ways. First you're saying that It'll be bad stations south of York lose service, then when we point out connecting services will still run, you say they shouldn't/can't run north of York. These are both wrong.

Firstly, HS2 should (and will) be extended to Newcastle via a Parkway in the Teeside conurbation (probably somewhere near Yarm), leaving the classic line free.

Second, the number of ECML paths given over to HS services will not be significant enough to take away all paths north of York for ECML services.

Thirdly, having 'fasts' stop will give services to places like Newark, Retford & Stevenage they don't currently get. At least an hourly LKX-Edinburgh will remain, as will connections to Hull, Leeds, Lincoln and Newcastle.

 

[Invincibles]

Ed, you're trying to have it two ways. First you're saying that It'll be bad stations south of York lose service, then when we point out connecting services will still run, you say they shouldn't/can't run north of York. These are both wrong.

Firstly, HS2 should (and will) be extended to Newcastle via a Parkway in the Teeside conurbation (probably somewhere near Yarm), leaving the classic line free.

Second, the number of ECML paths given over to HS services will not be significant enough to take away all paths north of York for ECML services.

Thirdly, having 'fasts' stop will give services to places like Newark, Retford & Stevenage they don't currently get. At least an hourly LKX-Edinburgh will remain, as will connections to Hull, Leeds, Lincoln and Newcastle.

I am glad someone else expects it will work like this.

Also for trains north of Rugby or Rugely or wherever it is Rugley is, then I am not sure Manchester is at capacity, especially when the Ordsall Chord moves trains over to 13/14 and frees paths back out of the terminating platforms by not crossing them?

 

[stockport1]

Maybe not then, but the CCHS stock should still be able to benifit from ERTMS on the ECML(N).

I'm personally of the opinion that there is more to gain by upgrading signalling on the ECML(N) around 2030 than extending HS2 north of York, provided there is capacity freed up by the introduction of ERTMS III.

225s I'd be aiming to retire around about the time HS2bR opens to Leeds Captive and York/Doncaster Classic Compatable. (2035)

Ahh the first passenger line in the world manchester - liverpool chat moss.
Quite a straight line. down side being the chat moss soft ground and historic structures/bridges.

ive covered the M62 liverpool to salford in just shy of 15 mins by car. (ahem....)
Surely in 2011,nearly 200 years after railways began ,manchester to liverpool
should offer a similar timing and be a shining example to the world!
5 mins to accelerate and stop from 180mph between the 2 largest cities in the nortwest
and 2 of the 5 largest cities in the UK.

Given ERTMS and some kind of chat moss engineering to sort the soft ground...how do you assess the possibility of a HS transpenine incorporating York-Northallerton?

could this be done?
what 4 tracking could be done without too much hassle (leeds-northallerton)?
how would you fill in the gaps (ie - accross penines manchester-leeds + leeds-York)?

what could the potential line speeds be on these stretches (given ertms etc)?

I just Know you have considered this nym

 

[LE Greys]

Ed, you're trying to have it two ways. First you're saying that It'll be bad stations south of York lose service, then when we point out connecting services will still run, you say they shouldn't/can't run north of York. These are both wrong.

Firstly, HS2 should (and will) be extended to Newcastle via a Parkway in the Teeside conurbation (probably somewhere near Yarm), leaving the classic line free.

Second, the number of ECML paths given over to HS services will not be significant enough to take away all paths north of York for ECML services.

Thirdly, having 'fasts' stop will give services to places like Newark, Retford & Stevenage they don't currently get. At least an hourly LKX-Edinburgh will remain, as will connections to Hull, Leeds, Lincoln and Newcastle.

It would probably make more sense to have an Ashford-style solution at Darlington, with what really ought to be called HS3 using much of the alignment of the Ripon and Leamside lines to access the area, perhaps running alongside the A1 for some sections. Darlington has good connections for the Teesside area, and is certainly better than yet another station in a ploughed field (and we know how successful those have been in France, not to mention East Midlands Parkway).

The biggest problems with capacity down there are the Tyne bridges and the double-track Newcastle-Berwick-Edinburgh section, assuming that HS3 ends somewhere around Tyne Yard (which is the most sensible place to end it). Other than a new bridge, I honsetly cannot see what can be done about Newcastle. The route through Berwick might call for yet another new section, perhaps following the Coldstream route, but more likely parallel to the coast with all the curves straightened out. Still, for as long as we have those problems, we are limited in terms of the number of paths. Assuming we still want roughly the same number as the current EC, XC, TPX and Northern services crossing the bridges, then really only 2 or 3tph each direction can use the new line, two of which will have to leave/join the route at Darlington to serve York - unless the route runs through York anyway, in which case, we will not need to worry.

A new bridge could double the Newcastle service, although leaving or joining the route ar Darlington to cover York, Northallerton and Durham will be necessary. However, that still leaves us 1 or 2 tph for Edinburgh. Assuming it's two, that might be one semi-fast from King's Cross, that would call at Peterborough, Doncaster, York and Darlington at least, possibly a few other places as well, before going on to Newcastle, Morpeth, Alnmouth, Berwick and Dunbar. The HS3 trains (some from the Continent) would run non-stop from Newcastle to Edinburgh, and hopefully some (not the Continental ones) would go on to Aberdeen or Inverness. To get more than that, HS3 has to go all the way to Edinburgh.

On the WCML, I would apply something similar to Glasgow. The HS2 train would stop at Preston, Lancaster and Carlisle, while the WCML train would cover places such as Warrington, Wigan, Carnforth, Oxenholme, Penrith, Lockerbie and anywhere else I've forgotten.

 

[shinkansen1966]

Just listening to the one o'clock news on BBC Radio 4. The headline is that HS2 choice of route is to be delayed. More environmental works to be done.