How *should* HS2 have been built?

[Austriantrain]

Premium article, and it doesn't seem to be talking about Phase 1 only.

Sorry about the premium, it opened for me.

And the graphs should still be of interest even if only phase 1 (to Handsacre) is built, as the fast services still move to HS2. Most services in the proposals don‘t come close to Colwich junction…

 

[Krokodil]

Premium article, and it doesn't seem to be talking about Phase 1 only.

That's because at the time the article was written Phase 1 was supposed to be a temporary state where the only real changes as far as journey patters were would be the three extra captive services to Birmingham. Everything else would run as before, just some services getting to Euston sooner than they previously did.

The government didn't consider what long term changes would be made to the services without Phase 2, their plan was scribbled on the back of a hotel beer mat.

 

[The Planner]

I'm a bit confused as to what you're proposing here. The long-distance services still need to serve those stations to provide direct services to Watford, Milton Keynes, etc.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Mar 2024 ==


My general impression was that there were not going to be bimodes on HS2.

There won't, it will likely disappear as a path though from Euston and is slowed down.

 

[The Ham]

I'm a bit confused as to what you're proposing here. The long-distance services still need to serve those stations to provide direct services to Watford, Milton Keynes, etc.

As I understand it, most of the long distance services call at one or two places before Nuneaton/Coventry, it's possible for that to rise to three or maybe places and it add only a few minutes.

In doing so it provides for the "need" for fast services from (as an example) Milton Keynes to London (even if they are a little slower than the current fastest services).

West Coast could retain the Euston to Manchester service, few would use it from Euston, so adding a stop at places like Watford Junction and Nuneaton would mean that arguably those services which currently have those as it's "other" stop could be removed from the timetable altogether as this places are served.

The point about the other service was that you could see some unusual services which would currently have no justification but could be introduced if there was more capacity.

The tall was WMCA wanting to divert the Crewe - London to go via Coventry Post HS2 as they were concerned Coventry about Coventry going down from 3tph.

Coventry - Nuneaton is much slower than going via Rugby - Nuneaton.

How much slower?

To a certain extent if there's (say) 4tph Milton Keynes - Crewe it doesn't matter if the 4th train is slower than the other three.

Milton Keynes/Euston (and on to Coventry) would be busy, Coventry to the Trent Valley would likely be quite well loaded. Yes Milton Keynes to Trent Valley wouldn't be that popular, however if you save a 15 minute change at Crewe to (say) Liverpool but the direct train means 20 minutes of going slower via Coventry vs going direct there would still be a fair number who would it for the slower journey time - especially if the train taking an extra 5 minutes still left later than the previous train and got there earlier than the following train.

If course, even if few did it, there would likely be passengers joining at Coventry to go to Nuneaton and beyond, so it's unlikely that the train would actually be very lightly loaded.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There won't, it will likely disappear as a path though from Euston and is slowed down.

Interesting, as most of the Phase 1 example timetables had that as the only fast service - probably not even calling at MKC (whereas all the other services were substantially slowed). Just to placate the Welsh?

Of course if electrification does happen (even if only to Chester) then an HS2 portion becomes viable.

 

[Energy]

How much slower?

Description: A map from OpenRailwayMap showing the speeds between Rugby, Coventry and Nuneaton. The speeds shown are said below.
A lot slower, Rugby to Nuneaton is 100/110mph. Coventry - Rugby is a bit quicker at 125mph (Pendolino) but Coventry to Nuneaton is a slow 45mph throughout.

Milton Keynes/Euston (and on to Coventry) would be busy, Coventry to the Trent Valley would likely be quite well loaded.

Possibly, but planning Leamington Spa - Coventry - Nuneaton to time well with a 2tph LNWR Trent Valley would also serve the market well

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Mar 2024 ==

Yes Milton Keynes to Trent Valley wouldn't be that popular, however if you save a 15 minute change at Crewe to (say) Liverpool but the direct train means 20 minutes of going slower via Coventry vs going direct there would still be a fair number who would it for the slower journey time - especially if the train taking an extra 5 minutes still left later than the previous train and got there earlier than the following train.

Are you proposing a London - Liverpool via Coventry? I'm not really sure what the purpose of this service is. Coventry - Crewe is served by the 1tph Avanti via Birmingham. Coventry - Birmingham wouldn't be that quick going that way compared to a change at New St or Nuneaton.

 

[The Ham]

View attachment 153834
Description: A map from OpenRailwayMap showing the speeds between Rugby, Coventry and Nuneaton. The speeds shown are said below.
A lot slower, Rugby to Nuneaton is 100/110mph. Coventry - Rugby is a bit quicker at 125mph (Pendolino) but Coventry to Nuneaton is a slow 45mph throughout.

If we assume that Rugby to Nuneaton or Coventry it's the same time (even though you've said Coventry is likely to be a little faster) 10 miles (and the road distance is about 9 miles) would be about 14 minutes.

If there's a train at 12:00 from A which arrives at B at 13:00, with the following train being 12:10 arriving 13:25 and the train after being 12:30 and arriving 13:30, people will still use the middle train, as it leaves later but arrives earlier. Especially if the middle train then goes into place C which isn't served by either of the other trains and especially if the fastest journey time to place C is to change from the first train to the second train.

Possibly, but planning Leamington Spa - Coventry - Nuneaton to time well with a 2tph LNWR Trent Valley would also serve the market well

Potentially, but only if it connects well with services people wish to connect to. If they always arrive 5 minutes after the onwards connection, then you've just added 25 minutes to the journey time and few will use it.

Are you proposing a London - Liverpool via Coventry? I'm not really sure what the purpose of this service is. Coventry - Crewe is served by the 1tph Avanti via Birmingham. Coventry - Birmingham wouldn't be that quick going that way compared to a change at New St or Nuneaton.

Served by 1tph doesn't mean that it's well served, if there's no scope for a more frequent service via Birmingham adding a second train (even if it's 15 minutes slower) would make travel easier.

However Coventry to Crewe is 1:30, whilst Nuneaton is 1:00 (not on an Avanti service, so canning at quite a few stops along the way), so even with 15 minutes to get to Nuneaton from Coventry it'll be faster, making it more attractive. Also by having a different pattern of station spa means that it opens up a wider range of travel options.

It could also remove the need to change trains in Birmingham, for example being able to connect to services at Tamworth.

Of course, people will still use the existing service via Birmingham, as it would still likely leave later than the previous train and arrive earlier than the next train.

 

[zwk500]

A lot slower, Rugby to Nuneaton is 100/110mph. Coventry - Rugby is a bit quicker at 125mph (Pendolino) but Coventry to Nuneaton is a slow 45mph throughout.

Fairly sure Rugby to Nuneaton is 125 EPS - Open Railway Map tends only to show the primary linespeed, not any 'enhanced' or differential speeds. Although don't have a Sectional Appendix on hand to double check.